HL Deb 24 March 1893 vol 10 cc1023-5
LORD NORTON

asked the Lord President whether he had been rightly understood to promise that Parliament should not be deprived of an opportunity to discuss the new Education Code before it took effect by the neglect of its issue for most of the prescribed time, which would expire during the holidays; and whether the increased Teachers' Pension Fund was intended only to extend the limit of such Treasury subsidy to salaries, or generally to meet all cases; and whether the new building rules were to be immediately applicable, and to existing schools?

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, this was not only a question for the Lord President, but also for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Leaving aside the question of the delay of the Queen's Printers in printing the Code, the notice spoke of the expiry of the prescribed time during the holidays, and he wished to ask the Lord Chancellor whether, if a Minister brought in either a Code or a scheme or any other measure which required the sanction of the House after having lain on the Table for 40 days, it was allowable for him to bring it in, say, 30 days before the Recess, so that the 10 days which would have otherwise remained available for throwing out the scheme or contesting the Code would be lost? Ought not the remaining days to be added after the Recess was over? As regarded the printing, it was always possible for a Minister to choke up the offices of the Queen's Printers with Blue Books and other Parliamentary Papers so as to make it impossible for them to print the Code for some time.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

My Lords, the answer is very simple, and will, I think, satisfy even the noble Lord who has just spoken. This difficulty has arisen before, and, as has been the case in former years, full time will be given for the consideration of the Code by Parliament and no action will be taken on it by the Department until an ample and reasonable time has elapsed from the date of its issue. In 1890 the same question was asked in the House of Commons; the Code had been laid on the Table on March 10, and was not issued till March 27, the House adjourning on April 1 for the Easter holidays, during which the statutory month expired. With regard to the second question, the increased sum now available for pensions (£5,000 a year, in addition to the former provision of £5,580) will be devoted towards meeting the cases of qualified applicants so far as the money will go. As regards the last question, the building rules in the New Code, as will be seen from Appendix B, are altered only in a few minor details from those of the previous Code. They apply to new schools and enlargements. There is no alteration of the rules previously in force as to existing schools.

VISCOUNT CROSS

My Lords, I have only one remark to make about the preparation of the Education Code. In the last Commission on Education, of which I had the honour of being Chairman, and whose members represented all political and religious views, we were unanimous on one point: that when the Code was ready it ought not only to be presented to Parliament in print, but circulated instantly, so that no time should be allowed to intervene between the laying of the Code on the Table and its being circulated to Members of both Houses. That we were absolutely unanimous upon, and I think not to carry out that recommendation would be taking advantage of those interested in education.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The noble Viscount knows how difficult it is to effect reforms of this kind; but in the principle of it I most sincerely concur, and I shall be glad if it falls to my lot to improve upon what has hitherto been done.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

With reference to the question asked by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley), in some Acts the provision is that the measure should lie on the Table for a certain number of days while Parliament is sitting. There are frequently expressions used of that sort. I believe there are words used in some Acts which pre- scribe that it shall be on days which will exclude Recesses; but where it is stated simply as it is in this Act the Recess counts like any other time.

LORD NORTON

asked Her Majesty's Government whether the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bills, which have been before Parliament three Sessions, are to be introduced again this year?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

My Lords, I deeply regret that I am afraid, from having so many things to attend to, I am not in possession of an answer to this question, and my colleague, who represents the Home Office, appears to have gone away. I hope the noble Lord will pardon me and will accept my expression of regret that I am not able to give him an answer.

LORD NORTON

gave notice that he would repeat the question when the House next met.