§ On Clause 1.
Amendment proposed—
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from 'be' to the end of line 12, and insert 'a Secretary for Education appointed by Her Majesty, and holding office during Her Majesty's pleasure.'"—(Lord Norton.)
§ *LORD NORTONsaid they must all feel extremely indebted to the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council for this Bill, but he thought the opinion was general that a Secretary for Education would be more efficient than a Board, which would be little better than a sham. It was a notorious fact that the Boards of Trade and Agriculture 1080 never met, and he believed that putting education under a similar Board would be absolutely mischievous. He had been told, but was surprised to hear it, that the Council had sometimes been called together on education. He recollected when he was Vice-President the Council being called together on one occasion, and the anger of Mr. Disraeli at their being summoned so uselessly. The appointment of a Board of Education would relieve the Minister of feeling of responsibility. He had never heard any reason given in favour of a Board in preference to a Minister except it was that by the appointment of a Board there would be someone to take the place of the responsible head if he fell ill. The Secretary for Scotland had no Board, but if he fell ill there would be someone to take his place. This argument was an absurd one to put forward in favour of a Board. He had strong objection to the appointment of deputies in case of illness, because when a deputy was appointed the chief invariably fell ill. For centuries the Speaker of the House of Commons was never away through illness, but when a deputy was appointed to take his place in case of indisposition the Speaker immediately fell ill. This Board was to consist of a President—no doubt meaning, though without any reason, the Lord President of the Council—the five principal Secretaries of State, the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was a large provision for the Education Minister's possible illness. He thought that his Amendment would make the Bill a stronger and better Measure, but another objection to it, he understood, was based on financial reasons. If such a Secretary of State, as he suggested, was appointed, as in the case of the Secretary for Scotland, they would avoid all objection of that kind. If they imitated that Department they would obviate all objections to a new Secretary of State, and get all the advantages of a really responsible Minister. A Board would act most injuriously to the Minister—it would screen him from blame if things went wrong, and deprive him from credit if things went right.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE)Although my noble Friend has several 1081 times in the course of his observations spoken of his Amendment as one for substituting a Secretary of State for the board which is proposed in the Bill, that is not the effect of his Amendment, and I do not think it is what he really proposes. There are very obvious objections which I do not think it is necessary to enter into now to the multiplication of the important office of Secretary of State, and if it were proposed to create an additional Secretary of State in would be very hard indeed to say that the salary of that Secretary of State should be a different salary from that enjoyed by the other Secretaries of State. I think my noble Friend is quite mistaken in supposing that the powers of the Secretary for Scotland are in the least the same as those possessed by the principal Secretaries of State. What I take it the noble Lord really proposes is that the head of the new Educational Department shall be a Secretary for Education, and hold a similar office to that which was created by the appointment of a Secretary for the Administration of the Affairs of Scotland. As I stated on the Second Reading of the Bill, the two alternatives were discussed, and the conclusion arrived at was that there was no very striking reasons for giving the preference to the one organisation rather than to the other. The proposal in the Bill is, it appears to me, both reasonable and convenient, for whereas in the case of the Secretary for Scotland there would be no one to take his place in the event of his falling ill, in the case of the Board to be established by this Measure any of his colleagues on the board might temporarily exercise the duties of the President. As I stated on the Second Reading, there is no intention of the Board acting as a board. The President of the Board will be as responsible for educational policy as the President of the Board of Trade is for commercial policy and the various matters which fall within the scope of his Department. I can assure my noble Friend there is no intention whatever of evolving any sham responsibility. The object of appointing the Board is one of pure convenience, and I must say I do not see any reason from departing from the precedent which has been set in the case of the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Agriculture.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy Lords, I made one or two observations on this not very important point at an earlier stage of the Bill, and I must say I sympathise with the object of the noble Lord's Amendment, though I agree that it is quite out of the question to appoint a new Secretary of State. I quite agree with the noble Duke on that subject, but I do not think that the reason which is given for the creation of this Board is a really sufficient one. I imagine that it will not be difficult, in the case of illness of the Secretary of Education, to request some Member of the Cabinet to undertake for a time the business of the Department. There are precedents for such a course. When I was Lord Privy Seal I was asked to undertake the duties of President of the Board of Trade during the illness of Mr. Bryce, and still more recently, when the Prime Minister was ill and left the country at a time when important business had to be transacted, Mr. Balfour fulfilled the duties of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I never heard that this caused any inconvenience to the Government, or was found to be any embarrassment. I do not conceive that the resources of our legislation are so extremely poor that it is impossible to devise any scheme to meet the circumstances, but the absurd one of placing a number of people on a so-called board whom we are told are not intended to take part in the business of the board in a serious way. Personally, I prefer the arrangement suggested by the noble Lord opposite, though I cannot pretend to say that the matter is of very great importance.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCILI am afraid the instances given by the noble Earl do not bear out his argument. I doubt very much indeed whether, if the noble Earl held the office of Lord Privy Seal and performed any act which is required by Act of Parliament to be performed by the Board of Trade or the President of the Board of Trade, he would be acting legally; and although it is quite true that the duties of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were temporarily taken charge of by the First Lord of the Treasury in the circumstances mentioned, the noble Earl opposite must know that not a single dispatch could be sent by the First Lord of the Treasury which had not to be signed 1083 as well by one of the other principal Secretaries of State. There are some inconveniences and difficulties in the course suggested by my noble Friend which can be obviated by the proposal in the Bill.
§ EARL SPENCERI confess I share my noble Friend's sympathy with the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. The Board to be established by the Bill is altogether delusive and misleads the public, who hold the belief that the Board will sit and consult with the Lord President and the Vice-President on important matters of education. I had the honour of being Lord President of the Council on two occasions, and I can only remember on one occasion calling the Board together. I can bear out what Lord Norton said with regard to Lord Beaconsfield, and I remember quite well how the Secretaries of State grumbled exceedingly at being called together to transact practically unimportant business. I do not agree with the noble Duke as to the illegality of appointing a substitute. For nearly two years I was Lord President without taking practically any part in the business of the office, because I was also at the time Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and during that period the then Lord Privy Seal acted for me as Lord President of the Council. I shall follow the noble Lord if he divides the House on his Amendment.
§ THE DUKE OF RUTLAND,while admitting that the arguments of the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment were worthy of consideration, also thought that there was much to be said on both sides, and was not prepared to express a definite opinion on the point. He well remembered the Council on Education being called together on several occasions to advise, and, he supposed, if necessary, to overrule the opinion of the President and the Vice-President.
§ *LORD NORTONsaid he would not press his Amendment after the statement of the noble Duke the Lord President, but he did not consider that any substantial argument had been advanced against the Amendment. If the proposed Board had power to interfere with the 1084 Minister, the result would be most mischievous. The Secretary for Scotland is the right precedent to follow.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ EARL SPENCERI should be glad if the noble Duke would explain the future position of the Lord President in this House. As far as I understand the subsection, there may be a President or a Minister of Education in this House as well as a Lord President of the Council. I understood that when the President of this Board was in this House he was to be actually the Lord President. The words as they now stand do not convey that.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCILI do not think I exactly understand the question of my noble Friend. The Bill certainly does not provide that the Lord President of the Council must necessarily be President of the Board.
§ EARL SPENCERBut when the President is in this House?
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCILNor then. The President of the Board may be a person other than the Lord President of the Council in this House, or in the other House.
§
Question put—
That clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
Motion agreed to.
§
On clause 2, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
Clause 2, subsection 2, page 2, line 7, insert, 'Provided that in dealing with educational endowments of less than £50 a year the procedure shall be subject to clauses 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 42, 43 of the Endowed Schools Act, l869.'"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCILI must address an appeal to the most reverend Prelate to be good enough to postpone this Amendment until the Report stage. The Amendment raises a question of very considerable importance, and of a rather intricate legal character as to the existing 1085 functions of the Charity Commissioners, and as it only appeared on the Paper this morning I have not had an opportunity of consulting my legal advisers as to its effect. I certainly should not be prepared to accept it as it stands without a great deal of further consideration, and in these circumstances I would ask the Most Reverend Prelate to postpone the Amendment until the Report stage.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYI am quite prepared to postpone my Amendment, as suggested by the noble Duke.
§ Amendment, by leave, postponed.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out subsection 2."—(Lord Colchester.)
§ LORD COLCHESTERsaid his object in moving this Amendment, although he had little hope of inducing Her Majesty's Government to agree to abandon these powers, was to exclude from the operations of the Education Board any of the powers of the Charity Commissioners in matters relating to education. It was a very great advantage to have these schemes carried on by a body not in any way connected with the Government of the day or any political Party. If the proposal in the clause was carried out there would not be a second check on these schemes. They would be framed by the Education Department and would go direct to Parliament. If they were opposed they would be supported by the supporters of the Government of the day, and opposed by the Members of the Opposition. He contended that this would be an injury to the cause of education and the proper administration of endowed schools, which he did not think would be compensated for by any official or administrative convenience.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCILThe noble Lord, in moving this Amendment, has spoken of the duties of the Charity Commissioners, which it is proposed to take power to transfer to the new Board, as if they exclusively related to the framing of schemes. That is by no means the case. It is quite evident that if we are to have an Education Department at all, that Depart- 1086 ment should be entrusted, at all events, with the power of supervising the administration of schemes which have been framed by the Endowed Schools Commissioners or the Charity Commissioners. I quite admit that the question of the future mode in which new schemes are to be framed may be one involving some considerable difficulty, and it is for that reason that the Bill does not propose to immediately transfer the whole of the powers in regard to the making of such schemes from the Charity Commissioners to the new Board. That can only be done by an Order in Council, which the Bill provides is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, who will thus have an opportunity of expressing their opinion. I am inclined to think that these powers should, so far as they relate exclusively to educational matters, be exercised by the Education Department, rather than by such a body as the Charity Commissioners. The noble Lord will see that the Bill reserves to the Charity Commissioners in all cases the power to decide whether the endowment is educational or not; but when it has been decided that the endowment is an educational endowment, it is for the Education Department to say in what educational direction that endowment shall be applied. We quite admit, however, that there may be some practical difficulties in the way of a transfer, and till the Department is more thoroughly organised than it can be for some time to come we do not propose to effect any transfer, but reserve the power to do so by Order in Council, and both Houses of Parliament will have full opportunity of expressing their views.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI have heard with much satisfaction the statement of the noble Duke, because it seems to me that it is absolutely essential, as he has stated, to any real reform of our educational system that all the powers of the Charity Commissioners in regard to education itself should be transferred to the new Education Board. Last year, when the Bill was brought in, I ventured to remark that in my opinion the provisions were not sufficiently explicit on this subject, and I was extremely glad to see in the present Bill a plain statement as to the intentions of the Government, which, as I under- 1087 stand them, are, that although they will not effect these transfers at once, all the powers of the Charity Commissioners, as regards education proper, will be taken over by the Board as soon as that Board is sufficiently organised. I do not question the necessity of allowing the Charity Commissioners to decide whether a certain school should be treated in a particular manner, and also to decide whether an endowment, or any part of an endowment, is held for, or ought to be applied to, educational purposes. That is a function they can properly perform, but the moment it is decided that any particular endowment is educational, then I understand all the powers in regard to that endowment will be transferred to the Education Board. I fully recognise the difficulty of making the transfer at once, but I trust there will be no unnecessary delay in doing so.
§ *LORD BARNARDwho claimed to have had perhaps a greater experience of the Charity Commission than most of their Lordships, pointed out that the Charity Commissioners worked under two distinct sets of Acts of Parliament—the Charitable Trusts Acts and the Endowed Schools Acts. At the present time, although the Charity Commissioners did frame and prepare schemes under the Endowed Schools Acts, those schemes had to be laid before the Education Department and approved by them before they could become law. Therefore, at the present moment the Education Department had an absolute voice in controlling schemes affecting educational endowments. The Charity Commissioners since 1854 had been entrusted by the Legislature with a certain amount of control and supervision over charitable endowments of all kinds, and he assumed that if this transfer took place the Charity Commissioners would still continue to have the same power and control over educational endowments that they now had. He suggested that the noble Duke, without accepting the Amendment in its entirety, might at a later stage introduce an Amendment by which the present process would be reversed—namely, that the Education Department should have the initiation of schemes relating to educational endowments; but that no scheme should become law until it had been sub- 1088 mitted to, and approved by, the Charity Commissioners, as the protectors of Charitable Endowments and Trusts of every description.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ EARL SPENCERBefore the clause is adopted I should like to ask the noble Duke a question upon it. This clause, I need hardly point out, is one of the most important clauses in the whole Bill. I am very glad the noble Lord has withdrawn his Amendment, because I think that if it had been carried one of the best parts of the Bill would have been struck out. I am very anxious to know what the intention of the Government is with regard to the Science and Art Department. I am one of those who feel very strongly the importance of secondary education in regard to technical education. Technical education in this country will never be successful unless secondary education is promoted to a much greater extent than is the case at present. There is a feeling abroad in certain quarters that the Government may, under the first section of this clause, leave the Science and Art Department exactly as it is now. While I believe that the past efforts of the Science and Art Department have done a great deal, I think great changes in the management of that Department are rendered necessary by the great advance of technical education. I wish to know whether the noble Duke intends to reorganise that Department?
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCILI do not think it will be possible for me to say very much upon the future of the Science and Art Department until the Departmental Inquiry has taken place which I referred to on the Second Reading of the Bill. I quite admit that the Science and Art Department will have to be dealt with in a much larger manner than simply transferring it from South Kensington to Whitehall. Obviously, having established a Department responsible for the whole of the education of the country, secondary as well as elementary, it will be necessary that there should be a secondary education branch of that Department. The question has, I believe, been discussed in educational circles whether the organisation of the Department should be dual, or should contain three divi- 1089 sions—whether there should be a division for elementary education, another for secondary education, and a third for technical education, or whether secondary education should include secondary education proper and technical education. Upon that point I should not like to express any decided opinion until the inquiry which we propose to institute has been concluded. But that there shall be a Secondary Education Department is an absolute necessity, and it must have a very close connection with, if it is not placed absolutely in charge of, technical education also.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONI do not rise to complain that the noble Duke has not been able to give a more definite answer at present, but I take the earliest opportunity of expressing an earnest hope that he will not separate what he calls secondary education proper from technical education.
§
Question put—
That clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
§ Motion agreed to.