HL Deb 08 July 1926 vol 64 cc929-37

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Balfour.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHHORE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

Power to amend and supplement statutes.

(2) The provisions contained in this Act with respect to the making of statutes by the Commissioners and to the proceedings to be taken with respect to the making and approval thereof in connection with statutes made by the Commissioners, and, subject as may be provided by any statutes made by the Commissioners, to the effect thereof after approval shall, with the necessary substitutions, apply to the making of statutes by the University and to the proceedings to be taken in connection with, and, subject as aforesaid, to the effect of, such statutes

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "with respect to the making and approval" and to insert "after the making", and, near the end of the clause, before "and, subject as aforesaid ", to insert "Statutes made by the University." The noble Earl said: These two Amendments that stand on the Paper in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Balfour are purely drafting Amendments. They in no way affect the substance of the clause or of the Bill. If these Amendments are accepted subsection (2) of Clause 6 will follow as closely as possible the wording of Section 7 (3) of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1923, which dealt with these matters in relation to those Universities. It is thought that these Amendments will make the clause a little clearer.

Amendments moved—

Clause 6, page 4, lines 36 and 37 leave out ("with respect to the making and approval") and insert ("after the making").

Clause 6, page 5, line 1, after ("with") insert (" Statutes made by the University ").—(The Earl of Airlie.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Provisions as to incorporation of colleges and schools in the University.

7.—(1) No statute, made under this Act shall alter the incorporation in the University of the colleges known respectively as University of London, University College, and University of London, King's College, or the vesting, disposition, or management of any emoluments, endowments, trusts, foundations, gifts, offices, or institutions in or connected with either of those colleges so far as those matters are or have been regulated respectively by or under the University College, London (Transfer) Act, 1905, or the King's College, London (Transfer) Act, 1908 and no such statute shall provide for the incorporation in the University of any school of the University or other college, school, or institution; but if at any time it is agreed between the University and the governing body of either of the first mentioned colleges that it is expedient that as respects that college any such alteration as aforesaid should he made, or if at any time it is agreed between the University and the governing body of any school of the University or other college, school or institution that it is expedient that provision should he made for the incorporation thereof in the University, then, in any such case, it shall be lawful for the University and the governing body jointly to make application to His Majesty in Council for a charter in that behalf, and any charter which His Majesty in Council is pleased to grant upon any such application shall have full effect notwithstanding anything in any Act of Parliament or in any previous charter, deed or other instrument whatsoever.

EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection: (2) Provided always that no Statute may be made under this Bill affecting any institution which was existing on 1st January, 1925, except with the consent of its governing body.

The noble Earl said: The noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, was good enough on Second Reading to say he would consider the point which I have raised and I have put down this Amendment with a view to carrying out what I understood to be his wishes as expressed in the debate on the Second Reading. Your Lordships will see that it will exclude existing colleges from the operation of this Bill and it follows as closely as may be the words which were used by the noble Earl himself. In these circumstances I hope His Majesty's Government will accept it.

Amendment moved— Clause 7, page 5, line 31, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD ASKWITH

I desire to associate myself with my noble friend who has moved this Amendment. This Bill is founded upon the Report of the Committee which dealt with the University as a whole and also in certain respects with the incorporated colleges and schools. I happen to be Chairman of the Governors of the Royal Holloway College and we viewed with some apprehension what might happen under this Bill with regard to our privileges and position. Clause 7 deals with certain colleges of the University and says that Statutes affecting them shall not be altered at all. That is perfectly reasonable. If any Statutes are to be altered it should only be by agreement with the particular colleges. In other respects the clause also applies to new colleges and they may only be incorporated by agreement. But what about colleges already existing? There is certainly in Clause 4 a provision with regard to them, but that clause is confined to cases where Statutes were made not being Statutes of the University. There seems to be a gap, for Statutes might be made which would affect the colleges and schools. I am aware that the noble Earl the Lord President, on a previous occasion, said that this Act will not affect existing colleges and I hope he will repeat that assurance.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR)

I am not quite sure that the two noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment have been dealing with the same subject-matter. As I understood the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, he was anxious about the internal status of the theological colleges and in defence of his Amendment, he made an appeal to the Government, based, as I understood him, largely upon some words that I used in reply to the most rev. Primate on the subject of these theological colleges. But I think my statement must have been misunderstood. What I pointed out was that the Committee were dealing in that section of their Report with the future additions to the University. There was nothing in the recommendations to which the noble Earl referred that, so far as I am aware, could possibly be interpreted as involving a threat or the possibility of a threat to the theological colleges that now exist. If noble Lords who have the Report in their hands will look at page 56 they will see that paragraph 10, which was the paragraph relied upon both by the most rev. Primate and by the noble Earl opposite, refers only to the admission or read-mission of an institution as a school of the University. It deliberately excludes, therefore, from its purview any of these subordinate institutions in the University that are already in existence. Their rights, so far as I can see, are in no way touched or threatened by anything in the Report or by anything in the Bill.

I need not remind your Lordships that the whole tradition of the University of London is to leave questions of religious controversy severely on one side. The University, as such, has nothing whatever to do with any theological question. It is not prejudiced against theology, but it does not conceive it to be part of its duty to deal with any particular religious denomination and, through all its history, it has never dons so. The theory and the practice have been in absolute conformity one with the other, and I cannot believe, that there is the slightest danger that the whole of this long tradition, rooted as it is in the history of the University, will suffer any change by any legislation that is likely to be proposed by the Commission. There is nothing either in the constitution of the Commission or in the history of the institution with which the Commission has to deal that suggests that they are suddenly going to take up a hostile attitude towards the religious teaching in the colleges and schools which are part of the University and which are themselves devoted to a particular form of denominational religious teaching.

That is the broad theory. If you look at the actual words of the Report, you will see that the powers given to the University of making conditions with regard to these matters are distinctly excluded with regard to existing schools. Where, then, I ask the noble Earl opposite, is the changer against which he desires to guard? There is no suggestion of any such danger and there is nothing in the constitution of the Commission which would suggest that the danger is a real one. I cannot help thinking that this is a wholly illusory danger to which your Lordships need not pay any anxious attention. If it is really felt that, with regard to the future of the colleges or with regard to any of the present colleges, some safeguard in regard to religion is required, I need hardly say that His Majesty's Government have no objection to it. The words proposed by the noble Earl are, as I think he will see, quite inadmissible. They run as follows:— Provided always that no Statute may be made under this Hill affecting any institution which was existing on 1st January, 1925, except with the consent of its governing body. That would in practice entirely paralyse any recommendation the Commission might make with regard to the reform of the University.

If you deal with the institutions of the University you must inevitably have some effect, direct or indirect, upon the fate of the constituent colleges. The whole object of this Bill is to improve the position of the constituent bodies. They do the teaching work of the University and it is their prosperity which is chiefly necessary if the internal side of the University is to carry out the functions which we all desire to see it exercise. The notion that you are going to reform the University without in any way affecting the constituent colleges is evidently illusory. It means that anything that may be proposed by the Statutory Commission will have to run the gauntlet of every one of the colleges and receive their approval, because everything you do for the University as a whole must have some influence upon the educational elements, of which the University is composed. In those circumstances I am sure that the noble Earl will not press the Amendment in its present form, but if he seriously thinks that there is any possibility of the Statutory Commission, either now or hereafter, dealing in an inimical spirit or, indeed, dealing at all with the internal affairs of the religious colleges, I shall be very glad to consult with him as to the means by which that, as I think, wholly illusory and imaginary danger can be avoided.

That, of course, is quite a different question from the question raised by the noble Lord who spoke last. That question regarded a particular college which fears that its position—not its existing position, but its future position —may be less favourable than they would like to see it under the new Bill. I suggest to the House that you must leave to the Commission the determination of which of these schools of the University are or are not to have direct representation. The schools of the University number thirty-eight. It is quite impossible, of course, that the thirty-eight could all be represented. It may be that the number contemplated by the Report of the Committee is too small and that, without making the representation too large and unwieldy to work in practice, some other college may properly be added to the number already suggested by the Report of the Departmental Committee. On that I offer no opinion. It seems to be emphatically a thing within the discretion of the Statutory Commission, and I think your Lordships would not be well advised if you were to take into consideration Amendments to the Bill dealing with particular institutions, adding here and there some alteration in the general scheme of the Departmental Committee, seeing that the Statutory Commissioners, who have to draw up the constitution of the new University, have ample power to obtain the necessary information, to weigh the necessary information, and to come to a decision, so long as they keep within the general scope of the Departmental Report.

In these circumstances I would suggest to my noble friend who spoke last that the interests of Holloway College are sure of a fair hearing, and that he would not be well advised, in my judgment, if he were to try to decide a question on the floor of this House which is plainly more properly to be left to the Statutory Com- mission which this Bill asks the House to appoint. I think I have dealt adequately with these two distinct lines of, I will not say attack but commentary and criticism, and in these circumstances I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed on your Lordships' attention.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

I rise only for a moment to say that I entirely agree with what the noble Earl has just said. I speak with pretty long experience of London University Statutes, and also as head of one of the existing institutions in question and a-s visitor of another, and I should be very sorry indeed if this clause went forward as it stands. It would paralyse the work of the Commissioners, and make it impossible for them to do a number of things for which we are looking. I think it would be infintely better to take the Bill as it stands, which restricts the powers of the Commissioners to the substance of the plan in the Report, and enables them to survey the whole field and to deal with it in the only way in which it can be dealt with. As to what outside colleges should come in, that is a question only to be decided by the Commissioners after examining the evidence, and it is impossible to decide the question of Holloway College on the floor of this House. It will be difficult enough for the Commissioners to decide it and I should be sorry to take upon myself the task of anticipating what their decision should be.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Those for whom I am speaking will be grateful to the noble Earl, the Lord President, for the sympathetic way in which he has replied. I can see clearly that there has been a misunderstanding in the matter. In the debate on the Second Reading the noble Earl said:— So far as existing interests are concerned, I am quite unable to see how the least peril threatens any of the institutions on whose behalf the most rev. Primate and the noble Earl have spoken. In those circumstances it is quite clear, on the surface at any rate, that the Amendment which I move goes no further than those words, but in view of what has been said by the noble Earl I will not press those words, but will withdraw them, and I shall be very glad if I may have an opportunity of consulting with the noble Earl, the Lord President, as to some other form of words which will completely cover the point. I can assure him that if he will be good enough to consult me he will not find me at all difficult to deal with, but ready to accept any form of words which really meets the point he suggests.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

I am very much obliged to the noble Earl, but I should much regret to leave either him or the House under a misapprehension as to what really did happen on the Second Reading. I think that if he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that the most rev. Primate based his appeal to me entirely, or mainly—I thought entirely on paragraph 10, on page 56 of the Committee's Report. I think if he will look at my speech he will then see that I deliberately based my reply on paragraph 10. I dealt, in other words, only with "the conditions governing the admission or re-admission of an institution as a school of the University." It was a question as to admission or re-admission. It was those conditions which raised the fear of the most rev. Primate and, I thought, raised the fears of Earl Beauchamp. I attempted to allay those fears then and I again do so, by pointing out that paragraph 10 referred only to the conditions governing schools which came into the University in the future.

Therefore it had no reference to the numerous important and very valuable religious institutions which I think the noble Earl on that occasion enumerated to your Lordships, in which the interests of various Christian denominations are dealt with. I think it really is a total misapprehension of what I said. Obviously it is, if he will consult the OFFICIAL REPORT. He will see that I was not touching upon the existing religious institutions, but I was pointing out that paragraph 10 only dealt with the future, and that there was nothing in it which could imperil in the slightest degree, or need cause the faintest tinge of anxiety to, any of those interested in the maintenance of existing institutions. I think there is no room for apprehension on their part, and I beg the noble Earl, though it is a matter of personal inconsistency, which really is of no importance, that before he makes suggestions that there is any change required in my reply to-night as compared with my reply on the Second Reading, he would carefully read what I said on the occasion of the Second Reading.

LORD ERNLE

As I was the first Chairman of the Committee on whose Report this Bill is founded and was actually in the Chair when Holloway College came and gave evidence, I should like to point out that I think the whole of this discussion is founded on a misapprehension. There are two things. There is incorporation in the University and there is admission of a school or college to the University. The whole of Clause 7 refers to incorporation. There are two colleges at present incorporated in the University and it is to the incorporation of any other school or college which wishes to be in closer relation with the University that the whole of Clause 7 applies. To put in there this very much wider Amendment which is proposed by the noble Earl and supported by the noble Lord, is to put it in a place where it has no real connection, and as far as I know there has never been any question of refusing to continue the admission of Holloway College and its inclusion among the constituent bodies of the University. Holloway College has never asked, and is never likely to ask, for incorporation, which is the whole subject-matter of Section 7.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.