EDUCATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 14 July 1921)

§ LORD GAINFORD
My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on this Bill before it leaves your Lordships' House. It is a Bill which has required a great deal of work from the very able Committee consisting of members of both Houses, and I want to pay my tribute to their painstaking efforts and to congratulate them on the fruits of their labours. Where a Bill of this kind repeals thirty-one Educational Statutes, one cannot but hesitate for one moment in accepting such a consolidation. First of all, I feel that to part with the great Education Act of 1870, and to have it obliterated entirely from the Statute Book, is a theme which causes one to think.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
The great Act of 1902 is also superseded.

§ LORD GAINFORD
The Act of 1870 is. in my judgment, the sound foundation of all educational progress in this country. The Act of 1902, of course, would never have passed into law had it not been for its greater predecessor. What I wanted to say was that this seems to me to be an opportune moment for the passing of a Consolidation Bill into law. This is one of the few years in which an Amending Bill connected with education has not been introduced by the Government, and, therefore, it is an opportunity which ought to be seized. A Bill of this kind is very much wanted by the members of all the educational authorities in the country, and it is right that the public should be able to understand the Education Laws by a simple reference to one Statute, rather than have to wade through the mass of great Education Acts and the various Amending Acts which have been passed.
I wish to enter one caveat in connection with this Bill. It seems to me that it is being pressed through all its stages too rapidly, and that the public have not had an opportunity of examining it carefully. The Congregational Union, the National Union of Teachers and the National Educational Association have all expressed the wish that this Bill should be deferred, in order that adequate time could be given to the consideration of the form in which the Educational Law will now appear upon the Statute Book. If it appears in a new form it will probably last for a very long period, and therefore it is, from their point of view, important that it should be very carefully examined, and they make their protest because, they say they have not had full opportunity of examining its provisions.
I have no legal knowledge and it might be said that I ought at once to accept the certification by such an able Committee as has produced this Bill when they say that the contents embody the existing law. As a matter of fact, there are 173 clauses, 7 schedules, and several appendices in the Report, which shows that there are points of complexity arising out of questions both of phraseology and interpretation. It is alleged by some critics that the powers of the teachers have been interfered with, and have been amended by the provisions of this Bill. It is also asserted that higher education authorities have no longer the same power as they previously possessed to teach elementary 1094 education. I do not feel able to say whether those fears are well founded or otherwise, but it seems to me that the public ought to have had rather more time in order to satisfy themselves with regard to this Bill. A point which occurred to me, and which seemed to be rather extraordinary, was that instead of alluding to education taught in the elementary schools, as it has hitherto been referred to and defined as Part III of the Act of 1902, and the education which is taught in other than elementary schools as Part II, the authorities have inserted new words to allude to higher education. They make no reference to, or definition of, elementary education, but they do define higher education, and say that it is education other than elementary. That is, perhaps, only a small matter.
The chief point on which I would like to offer criticism is in connection with the provisions of the last Bill which was passed through the House of Commons as well as through your Lordships" House, and which was intended to abolish half-timers. When one reads the Bill one appears to feel that that abolition of half-timers is a part of the Statute Law, but the sting of the whole of this Bill, to me, is in the last paragraph of the last clause, in which it says— Provided that the appointed day for the purposes of Part IV of this Act and the repeal of the enactments relating to school attendance shall not be earlier than the termination of the war. To all sensible people it must seem that we are no longer at war, and so many months have elapsed since Peace was signed with Germany and Austria that it is a matter of great regret that this Education (Consolidation) Bill lays down the law with regard to the abolition of half-timers and yet, on technical grounds, will prevent the abolition of these half-timers. Finally, while approving generally of the Bill, I wish to dissociate myself from any responsibility for its details, and to place that responsibility entirely upon the Government.

§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE
I do not know that it is usual for a member of the House, who happens to have been Chairman of a Committee of this kind, to enter into anything like a defence of what was done by that Committee; and I do not think it would be desirable that I should create a precedent, because the whole position of Joint Committees appointed to deal with 1095 Consolidation Bills is one that I think I may describe as one of confidence. It is admitted by everybody that it is practically impossible to deal with Consolidation Bills on the floor of the House, and for a great many years both Houses have agreed in appointing members of the two Houses whom they think are competent to deal with these matters, without giving up liberty of criticism or even of proposing Amendments. It will be seen, if any one will study the Statute Book, that their conclusions are admitted in both Houses, and I am sure I may say that the result has been of great advantage to the form, and also to the substance, of legislation. Therefore I will not go into any of the points raised by my noble friend which appear to be criticisms of the work done by the Committee. I will only say this— and I must be pardoned if I appear to have forgotten my own modesty, because I am speaking not alone for myself but for all the members of the Committee— that I do not believe that any Committee has taken more pains in dealing with a subject before it than the Committee which has been sitting on this Bill. I have just seen my noble and learned friend, Lord Wrenbury, leave the House. The work which he did on the Committee must have astonished anybody who took an interest in that work.

§ LORD GAINFORD
I had no intention of reflecting in any way upon the Committee, The only criticism which I was attempting to make was that the Government were pressing this Bill through the House rather too rapidly.

§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE
With regard to that it occurs to me that the remarks of the noble Lord were remarks that ought to have been made on the Second Reading. I certainly should have been glad myself if the noble Lord had made his remarks on the Second Reading, and possibly have saved me and others the task that we have gone through. But I think I remember that the noble Viscount (Lord Peel), when he introduced this Bill, stated to the House that it had been considered to more than the usual extent by various authorities interested, who are entitled to speak on these matters. I must say, from what appeared before us, that it seemed as if every consideration had been given to these matters.
I should like to refer to two points, because they arise on the Amendments 1096 which I have put down to the Bill. The first, in Clause 17, is with reference to public elementary schools. By a misfortune for which, perhaps, I must blame the printer, certain words which will be found in my first Amendment did not appear in the Bill as reprinted, and I have reason to think that that caused some misapprehension. I hope that putting in those words, which only restore the Bill to the form in which we settled it, will remove that misapprehension and, to some extent, meet what the noble Lord, Lord Gainford. said on the subject.
The other point dealt with in my Amendments is with regard to the time of the Act coming into operation. It really is a tremendous puzzle. There are some enactments-which, as the noble Lord has said. are actually postponed till the termination of the war, but the war is said not yet to be at an end, and nobody knows when it will be at an end. The Statute to which the noble Lord referred is one of the Statutes that we have to consolidate. and it was extremely difficult to know how to meet the matter, but we think we have met it by the words to which, as I understand, the noble Lord has taken objection. I think it is open to anybody to criticise that clause as it is, and if there is anybody so ingenious as to be able to propose a better clause I should not be sorry to see it in the Bill. I did not mean to suggest that the noble Lord has spoken unkindly about the Committee; on the contrary, I thank him for the words of a kindly nature that he introduced into his speech.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
My Lords, I must condole with the noble Lord opposite that the Act of 1870 is removed from the Statute Book, but I will point out to him that it is better that the achievements of the past should be buried in a Consolidation Act than in entire oblivion, and perhaps that will console him. But he made a criticism of the Government when he said that there was undue hurry in carrying this Bill. I do not think there is very much chance that this Bill, like others, will be removed at an early stage from the Statute Book, but I should like to say how very fully considered the whole matter has been. He suggests that the Bill ought to be hung up in order that the public might have some opportunity of criticising it. But surely this is one of those cases where the opinions of the public are 1097 absolutely valueless, because the whole point is whether this Consolidation Bill does, or does not, actually represent the existing Education Acts. That is a purely technical matter, suitable for the consideration of highly trained persons only. I do not know whether he has got any lawyers up his sleeve who may criticise the action of the distinguished lawyers on this Committee, but if so the only remedy would be to set up another Committee of lawyers to criticise these lawyers, and then, I suppose, another Committee to criticise the other lawyers. I think that would be a waste of time. There need be no anxiety as to any changes made by the Bill when the great care with which this Committee has; worked is known, and the high distinction of the lawyers who sat upon it.

§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE
There are '' five Amendments down in my name. I think, as I have already alluded to the only two that do not raise merely verbal questions, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to move them without going into particulars.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.