LORDS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 28 July 1936)

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
My Lords, as the noble Earl has intimated, you may perhaps expect me to say a word about the position of the Amendment which, on my motion, your Lordships were pleased to carry. I am well aware of the amount of feeling which has been engendered on this matter, both in another place and in the country generally. I confess I am quite at a loss to understand why this Amendment seems to have aroused this feeling. I cannot but think that it shows a singularly undue sensitiveness and a lack of a sense of proportion. But I admit that it may be due to a misunderstanding and to unguarded language on the part of particular friends of the non-provided schools. At any rate the misunderstanding is very obvious.
285 It has been apparently assumed that this Amendment which your Lordships were pleased to carry meant that public grants were henceforth to be allowed for junior schools generally. I was most careful in the speech which I made in proposing this Amendment to make it clear that any such extension of the building grants for junior schools was not in any sort of way within the scope or intention of this Amendment. To my mind it was a purely administrative matter arising almost consequentially from the provision of public grants for the senior non-provided schools. Your Lordships will remember the cases which were in view—cases where the reorganisation of an existing non-provided school as a senior school involved the displacement from that school of certain junior scholars hitherto accommodated within it. That would involve in its turn structural repairs at some neighbouring junior school that could provide places for the displaced scholars in the senior school.
To me therefore and to a great many other competent persons it seemed to follow almost as a necessary corollary that it was not fair that the whole cost of providing these structural alterations in a neighbouring junior school—a cost arising quite directly out of the reorganisation of the senior school—should fall entirely upon the managers of that junior school. I thought it was a most reasonable Amendment. Others closely concerned with educational administration thought the same. And I may remind your Lordships, as I reminded you then, that even when this was ruled out of order in Committee in the other House the Chairman himself said that he considered that it was almost involved in the original clause of the Bill. Therefore, when I spoke on this matter I could not conceive that any one would regard it as a question of principle, but simply as one of obviously reasonable administrative adjustment.
But I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that this misunderstanding has arisen, that this Amendment has been widely regarded as a breach of the agreement upon which the Bill was based. It is too late to prevent that misunderstanding, and I personally would be very loth to do anything which would menace the good will upon which the success of this Bill 286 depends. Moreover, the Government, I understand, in another place maintained that to accept this Amendment would mean withdrawing the Financial Resolution passed in another place and substituting another and that that would mean very great delay and obvious inconvenience. Lastly, this question of Privilege has been raised, and no proposal was made in another place to waive that question. I cannot think that it would be right at this stage of the Bill to enter into any contest with another place upon an obvious matter of Privilege. I think it would be different if this Amendment entered into a question of substance or principle and was not a question of administrative detail; but having regard to the misunderstanding which has been created, the peril which it might involve in the reception of the Bill, the raising of the question of Privilege in another place and my great desire that this Bill should not be longer delayed, but that it should pass as quickly as possible, so far as I am concerned I cannot take the responsibility of advising your Lordships to insist upon your Amendment.

§ LORD RANKEILLOUR
My Lords, I heard the speech of the most reverend Primate with regretful agreement. As he has said, this was a perfectly reasonable Amendment consequential on the provisions of the Bill, and well within the scope of the agreement, tacit or otherwise, under which the Bill was produced. But I am afraid the technical reasons against it are overwhelming. It is not solely a question of Privilege. We of course often have not hesitated to pass Amendments which were regarded by the Commons as a breach of Privilege. But the matter goes further. It would not be possible—and I speak with some experience on this point—for the Commons to entertain this Amendment. Indeed, it was ruled not to be possible for them without a new Financial Resolution in that House. Therefore we should be asking them to do something which they could not do without a most involved procedure which, for practical reasons, at this time of the Session would be hopeless. Therefore I think we can do nothing but acquiesce in the disagreement of the Commons.
May I now, as we are parting from this Bill, say just a short word? Those with whom I am associated recognise to the 287 full the good will of the President of the Board of Education and of his representative in this House. They have worked hard, and undoubtedly a great good will be done by the provisions of the Bill. I am sure—at least I certainly hope—every one will combine in order to make it a success. But of course it cannot be regarded as a settlement, and to do justice to the President of the Board of Education he never put it forward as a settlement. There cannot be a settlement so long as one particular form of religious teaching is privileged and endowed and other forms, to a greater or lesser extent, are penalised. We have the most anomalous position in England. For example, the Catechism I learned in my youth would be illegal in a council school. That of the Church of England would be illegal in a council school. The Shorter Catechism of the Presbyterians would be illegal. The Free Church Catechism is not illegal because it covers more than one denomination, and although those who believe in that Catechism have not attempted to get it taught, yet in fact they do get the particular kind of teaching that they want in council schools entirely at the public expense. They do these things better in Scotland, and I cannot help thinking that it is on the Scottish lines that a settlement will ultimately be sought and, I hope, found.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, I need only very briefly thank the most reverend Primate and the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, for the most helpful attitude they have taken up. The Reason that was given by another place was that of Privilege, and as the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, has reminded your Lordships, there was the additional reason of the Financial Resolution; but we know also that behind both these reasons lies something very much more than the technicality of Privilege or of the Financial Resolution. Quite apart from the fact that the carrying of this Amendment would kill the Bill, it would kill something, if possible, even more important, and that is the wonderful spirit of good will and compromise that has been shown throughout its passage. We know, of course, that the most reverend Primate did hope, when he was proposing this Amendment, that he might be able to carry his Free Church friends with him, but he has not been able to do so, and 288 he has therefore taken the very wise and, if I may say so, the very generous attitude of not asking your Lordships to proceed further in the matter.