CLAUSE 26.—(Special provisions as to religious education in controlled schools.) (Hansard, 10 March 1944)

§ Mr. Brooke
I beg to move, in page 21, line 18, to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert: (1) The foundation managers or foundation governors of a controlled school may make arrangements for securing that religious instruction in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed relating to the school, or where provision for that purpose is not made by such 2441 a deed in accordance with the practice observed in the school before it became a controlled school, is given during not more than two periods in each week. Provided that where the parents of pupils in attendance at the school desire them to receive religious instruction during those two periods in accordance with any agreed syllabus adopted by the local education authority, religious instruction in accordance with that syllabus shall be given to those pupils in the school during those two periods. My motive in moving this Amendment is—

§ Mr. A. Bevan
On a point of Order. May I have from the Chair a test example of an Amendment put on the Order Paper by the hon. Member which could not be called?

The Chairman
I do not know what the hon. Member means by that remark. The Chair has no regard to the hon. Member's name or motive in regard to the various Amendments. The question which the Chair decides is the desirability or otherwise of selecting or not selecting a particular Amendment, irrespective of the names which are attached to it.

Viscountess Astor
Withdraw.

§ Mr. A. Bevan
Withdraw what?

Viscountess Astor
That silly remark.

§ Mr. Brooke
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Chair has not seen fit to call a large number of Amendments in my name. My motive in moving the Amendment is to draw attention to the treatment meted out to the Church of England in respect of controlled schools. A large number of people have given great services to religious education in the past, and they do not like the idea of controlled schools at all. They think that they are of negligible value. I am not one of those people. I believe that the controlled school is an interesting development, and I am personally grateful to the Government for bringing it forward and introducing it into the educational system. The controlled school has been built by the denomination and has been, till now, entirely maintained by the denomination. It remains the property of the denomination, but, under the Clause, it will not be possible for religious teaching to be given in the school according to the tenets of that denomination, except by special 2442 request, that is to say by a process of contracting out.
The effect of the Amendment is that we retain the three periods a week of agreed syllabus instruction. In the remaining two periods, instead of agreed syllabus instruction being given generally, unless Church of England, Roman Catholic or other parents wish to contract out on behalf of their children, the teaching in those two periods will be denominational teaching, in accordance with the trust deeds of the school. Those parents who wish to have nothing but agreed syllabus will be asked to indicate that fact, and then agreed syllabus teaching will be given to those children in all the periods of the week.
The flaw in my Amendment, if there is one, is that it maintains this contracting-out principle. I hope I shall get the agreement even of extreme opponents of my own point of view on this—that the whole contracting-out principle, in schools, is a rather objectionable one. What I would much rather see, speaking for myself, is that all parents should be required to state definitely what kind of religious instruction they desire their children to have—not, as the Bill provides, that the instruction should be made available to them, and then, if they do not wish their children to have it, their children should be labelled and withdrawn. I would prefer to see all parents put on an exact quality in this respect. If, therefore, the Minister feels that he cannot go as far as my Amendment would suggest and if he has any proposal to make on the lines I have just suggested about putting all parents on an equality, I shall be satisfied.

§ Mr. Ede
I am afraid that, in happier times, this would have been described as a wrecking Amendment. Quite clearly if this Amendment were to be carried the whole balance so carefully built up by my right hon. Friend would disappear. I recollect that on one occasion when we were discussing this question of balance in the presence of my right hon. Friend, a mutual friend remarked to him, "You have built up such a balance that you make Blondin look like a blundering fool." This Amendment would give such a shove in one direction, that my right hon. Friend would, as the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) hinted just now, 2443 be plunged into Niagara at once. I am bound to say that I do not think it is right of the hon. Member to say that the Church of England in this matter has had a hard deal. May I remind him that the Archbishop of Canterbury said: If it had been suggested to us ten years ago that we should have had these proposals it would have been regarded by us as beyond our wildest dreams. My right hon. Friend has endeavoured in this matter to preserve the tradition of the school, and to give effect to the principle we have always observed in relation to this matter, that where the full cost passes to the local education authority, the measure of public control and the amount of agreement to be secured inside the school on matters of religion, shall be correspondingly increased. Inside the controlled school, every child can get the form of religious instruction he or she requires. In those places where controlled schools are likely to be established, in the village, the Church of England parent can ask for the religious instruction to be given in accordance with his particular tenets on two days a week. On the other three days a week, the child will receive instruction according to the agreed syllabus which, while it does not satisfy the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas), satisfies the bishop, and I am bound to select the bishop and not the hon. Member for Keighley, when I am trying to ascertain Church of England opinion.
With regard to the other parents in the district, they get the agreed syllabus each morning of the week, and they are satisfied. There is in fact in the controlled school no contracting-out. The children of the people who want denominational teaching get it on two mornings a week by contracting-in, and get it by teachers who are, to the satisfaction of the foundation managers, equipped from a religious point of view to give it. I suggest, in view of the fact that the whole cost of that school for the future will be borne by the local education authority, that to describe this as a hard bargain from the point of view of the Church of England is not really paying due justice to the great efforts my right hon. Friend has made to preserve for the Church of England their tradition in these schools. After all, they will only pass to controlled status 2444 because the managers are in future unable to maintain them in a condition of sufficient fitness and sanitation to make it right to compel children to attend them. I hope that my hon. Friend, in the interests of maintaining the balance from which his Church certainly derives some considerable benefit, will not consider it necessary to press this Amendment.

§ Mr. Brooke
I respect what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. I did not use the phrase "a hard bargain," and I submit that the words he quoted of the Archbishop of Canterbury applied rather to the arrangements reached about aided schools than to the plan for controlled schools. But the matter has now been ventilated. I have indicated that not all people are happy about the controlled schools. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members
Agreed.

§ Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South)
It is no use hon. Members saying "Agreed." I am exercising my right of preventing the hon. Member from withdrawing the Amendment. I had no intention of taking part in the proceedings today, very largely because of what I said yesterday. I want to make it perfectly clear that the obstruction to this Bill does not come from those who are a little critical, but from those who support it and who take every opportunity they can of talking when they ought to be quiet. I was disturbed at the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary who said that this Amendment would disturb the balance. What does that mean? It relates to agreements made outside the House. I am, frankly, a little tired of the fact that Amendment after Amendment is resisted because of negotiations with people outside. This is the House of Commons and we make the laws of Britain. We are not just a lot of people sitting around. People are entitled to put their views to Ministers, but a Minister is not entitled to enter into bargains which restrict the freedom of this Committee.

§ Mr. Gallacher
If it was the Federation of British Industries the hon. Member would be quite pleased.

§ Sir H. Williams
If the hon. Member for Moscow would listen for once instead 2445 of talking it might be helpful. It would be as well if he would listen occasionally. The Almighty has provided him with two ears and only one mouth. It is wrong that any Amendment should be resisted on the ground that it will disturb same balance arrived at outside of which the Committee is not cognisant. We had the same experience on the Workmen's Compensation Bill. There were very strong protests from hon. Members behind me that the British Confederation of Employers and the T.U.C. had done a deal and that it was then regarded as the function of the House to ratify that agreement and that no Amendment could be tolerated. That is a situation which the House of Commons must resist. I am concerned only with the argument used by the Parliamentary Secretary, that if we do certain things here, it will upset a balance.

The Chairman
Is the hon. Member saying that he does not give leave to withdraw the Amendment?

§ Sir H. Williams
I am concerned with the Amendment.

The Chairman
If that is so, the hon. Member may continue his remarks.

§ Sir H. Williams
I am concerned with the argument used by the hon. Gentleman on the Amendment that this will disturb the balance. If there is a balance to be disturbed, let that balance be put in writing, because, presumably, there is an agreement.

§ Mr. Ede
It is in the Bill.

§ Sir H. Williams
No, it is not in the Bill. There have been treaties entered into.

§ Mr. Butler
As I have been responsible for this Bill, and as my hon. Friend has not been here earlier, I might acquaint him with the fact that the Government have accepted a great many Amendments, and have done their best to meet the wishes of the Committee throughout. Those who have attended know that perfectly well. It has become clear, from the mood of the Committee, that this sort of balance is the most likely to please the greatest number of people. That has nothing to do with bargains outside. That is what we have discovered from 2446 our discussions to-day, and I believe that if my hon. Friend had been present—I have no doubt that there were good reasons which prevented him from being here—he would have come to the same conclusion as I have. There are no treaties. I have not done anything to bind anybody outside. The great denominations, the great interests, the T.U.C., the National Union of Teachers—none of them will tell you that they have been bound by me on this matter. The sole responsibility is on the Government. I believe that this Bill represents the greatest educational advance we can achieve, and that the sooner we get on with it the better.

§ Sir H. Williams
I have listened to the observations of the Minister, which are not calculated to expedite the proceedings—

§ Mrs. Tate
Nonsense.

§ Sir H. Williams
Well, they are not. I am in possession, at the moment, and, subject to the Chairman, I am in Order. The Parliamentary Secretary used the word "balance." If he had not said that, I should not have joined in. The word "balance" meant something.

§ Mr. Ede
It did not mean agreements.

§ Sir H. Williams
It either means something, or it means nothing.

§ Mr. Ede
It means what it says.

§ Sir H. Williams
It means that if something is not accepted, something outside will be disturbed.

§ Mr. Ede
If the hon. Member had been here earlier and during nearly the whole of the proceedings yesterday he would have discovered that there are other people in the Committee who are very gravely disturbed at certain other features of this Measure. What my right hon. Friend has done—and I have been associated with him throughout, and do not desire to escape any of the responsibility—has been to ascertain what are the general desires of people in this country, and to produce a Bill which enshrines what we believe to be the general desire; but that is built up on a balance of opinion on both sides. That is the balance to which I have referred. It is truly reflected in this Committee by 2447 Members who, quite clearly, speak as representing the same kind of people outside, whose views they have ascertained. But we have, at no time, said to the Committee that they are obliged to accept this. If they care to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke), it is quite clear that the Committee will desire something that from now onwards would lead to a very considerable measure of opposition from other people in this Committee, on both sides, who have been content up to the moment to support our proposals.

§ Sir H. Williams
That entirely bears out what I have said. Only yesterday, in the discussion on my Motion to report Progress, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said, "What is this Bill? It is constructed by a number of architects outside, and those architects have their representatives inside, and if you pass certain Amendments you will disturb the architects outside and those inside." I am not concerned whether they are disturbed or not. I am concerned with whether we get a Bill which is right, not with pleasing people who have been negotiating for months past.

§ Captain Cobb
If the hon. Member is so anxious for the Bill to be quite right, why does he not sit here when it is being discussed?

§ Sir H. Williams
That is quite an easy one. I happen to spend a good deal of time on the Select Committee on National Expenditure; I attended two meetings yesterday. I happen to be a member of the Speaker's Conference. We all know at the present time—and I am surprised at my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb)—the difficulties under which we are all working. Many of us would like to spend far more time in this House than we do, but there are people here who cheered my hon. and gallant Friend's remark and whom I have not seen here for a fortnight. So do not let us reproach Members because they are not present as much as they would like to be. There is a variety of reasons. I deliberately kept away yesterday and to-day—

Mr. Quintin Hoģģ (Oxford)
Are we discussing the hon. Member's movements 2448 during the past fortnight, or a particular Amendment?

§ Sir H. Williams
If I had not been interrupted several times, I should have finished what I had to say 10 minutes ago. It was not I, but the hon. and gallant Member for Preston who raised the question of my personal position. If the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) wants to know why the hon. and gallant Member for Preston inquired about my personal movements, he had better ask him.

Mr. Hoģģ
On a point of Order. Can I have a Ruling on that matter?

The Chairman
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has hardly addressed himself to the terms of the Amendment.

§ Sir H. Williams
I should be only too delighted to address myself to the terms of the Amendment if hon. Members would let me do so, but if hon. Members push me off with interruptions which are irrelevant it is not my fault. I am not often out of Order, and I should have finished what I had to say many minutes ago.

Mr. Hoģģ
Finish now.

§ Sir H. Williams
I see no reason to obey the hon. Member for Oxford. We are not yet under the Fuehrer principle, even though it comes from the home of lost causes and lost shirts. I will come back to the Amendment, from which I have been diverted, through no fault of my own. I had said nothing that was out of Order until I was interrupted, even if I was then out of Order. I happen to agree with the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke). I happen to belong to the Church of England. Ever since the great trouble of 1902, which, I am old enough to remember very well indeed, I have believed in certain things, and, because it seemed to me that the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Lewisham had a lot of merit and because I disliked the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary that that would disturb the balance, I joined in the Debate. I had not the slightest intention when I came here of joining in. But if hon. Members think that by interruptions and that sort of thing they can prevent other people from speaking, let them remember that the House of Commons is the 2449 House of Commons, and that no hon. Member is to be deprived of his right by that form of intimidation.

§ Mr. Stokes
I want to make only two brief observations, one arising out of the speech of the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke). The mover of the Amendment coupled Catholic schools in his speech. In case there should be any doubt in the minds of the Members of the Committee—and I am not speaking against the hon. Member for West Lewisham—there is no possibility whatever of any Catholic school accepting the provisions of the controlled school in this Bill. That has been put about the country, and it is as well to clear it up so that no Member of the Committee may be in doubt. On the second issue, I join with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) regarding this term "upset the balance of the Bill." I agree with most of what the hon. Member said about the use of a term that is becoming a code word for getting out of a difficulty—with which I do not agree—but, even more, on technical grounds, I dislike the abuse of the term. I had to explain the other day that this is an Education Bill, and that the use of the words "blue print" should not be allowed. I submit now that the word "balance" is even wrong in this Bill.

Mr. R. Morģan
I beg to move, in page 21, to leave out lines 37 to 42, and to insert: Provided that the reserved teachers employed in any controlled school shall not exceed the following number in relation to the number of the teaching staff of the school, including the head teacher, namely, one where such teaching staff is not less than three nor more than seven; two where such teaching staff is not less than eight nor more than twelve; three where such teaching staff is not less than thirteen nor more than seventeen; four where such teaching staff is not less than eighteen nor more than twenty-three; and so on in like proportion.

§ Mr. Ede
These figures were most carefully worked out at the Board so as to ensure that there should be available in the schools teachers to give the denominational teaching which is secured to the controlled school by the Clause. I do not think that, if we proceed to the less generous allowance of teachers which is provided under the Amendment we should be able to ensure that, in every case, the 2450 managers or governors of the controlled school would find it possible to implement the Bill. We desire that every concession made in the Bill shall be one which can be worked, and I would therefore suggest to the Committee that they should retain the proportion that we have indicated in the Bill and not accept that in the Amendment.

Mr. Morģan
In view of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Brooke
I beg to move, in page 22, line 1, after "governors," to insert: or foundation managers or foundation governors.

§ Mr. A. Bevan
The Amendment of the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) has again been called. May I ask if it is proposed to call the Amendment in my name and in that of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Professor Gruffydd), which really does raise a point of some substance?

The Chairman
No, I am afraid the Amendment has not been selected.

§ Mr. Bevan
Well, then, we shall have to discuss it on the Question that the Clause stand part, and it will be an excellent way of saving time.

§ Mr. Brooke
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and I share a grievance, because another Amendment of mine, as well as one of his, has not been called.

§ Mr. Bevan
But mine is 100 per cent. refusal, and the hon. Member's is 75 per cent. acceptance.

§ Mr. Brooke
I ask the Government to accept this Amendment, which concerns the appointment of head teachers. The provision of the Clause is that local education authorities shall inform the managers or governors of the school of the person whom they propose to appoint and consider any representations made by the managers or governors in respect of the proposed appointment. This is in a controlled school, where the foundation managers will be in the minority. Yet this Sub-section is inserted clearly in order that the foundation managers, in con- 2451 sultation with other managers, shall have the right to make representations to the local education authority if they feel that the person proposed to be the head teacher is a man out of keeping with the spirit of the school, who would not be suitable to enable the school to continue as a controlled school, which is distinct from a county school. Therefore, the foundation managers or governors have a very special duty to fulfil—distinct from that which falls upon the whole body of managers. I want to make sure that in a case where the foundation managers or governors had strong feelings which they wished to express, it would not be possible for them to be completely overruled by the four other managers or governors, who might say "No, we set aside your representations, and we do not allow them to be communicated to the local education authority." It strikes me that the foundation managers or governors ought to have an unfettered right in such cases to communicate their views to the local education authorities.

§ Mr. Messer
I can conceive of nothing better calculated to disturb any attempt at unity in a controlled school than this Amendment. What is being proposed? Hon. Members lay down, in certain proportions, what people are to manage the school. They are not prepared to accept democracy. They are not prepared to accept that representations made by a section of that board of managers might be turned down, and now say that that minority should carry their representations to the local authority. If that should prevail throughout education then education would become what we hoped it would not become—a fight between contending factors over a school. Now we are going to see some progress. I think the Amendment is the most mischievous that could have been moved.

§ Mr. Gallacher
We are in the position of putting in the Bill the case where several members of a Committee working together should be in the position of coming to the Committee and saying, "We want you to discuss this question, but we don't care whether you discuss it or not, because if we do not agree with the decision we shall simply take it to the local authority." Surely the hon. Member is not proposing that we should put things of that kind into an Act of Parliament.

§ Mr. Ede
One of the effects of the coming of the controlled school is that the head teachership is relieved from a religious test and becomes available generally to the teaching profession. That is a consideration which has weighed very much in drafting the controlled school status and in giving to the controlled school the financial advantages which are conferred by this Bill. We are anxious that, when the appointment is made, if there is any other representation—a representation on denominational grounds cannot be made owing to the working of Clause 28—the local managers should be able to express their views to the local education authority. That is, quite clearly, a matter that concerns the whole of the managers and not merely the two foundation managers. I have known cases myself in the past where a man with only town experience has been appointed to a village school with disastrous results to the village school and to his professional career. It is very desirable that the managers of the school, who have to work with the man, should be put into a position, when they know who the man is to be, to make representations with regard to his general educational qualifications or fitness for the particular district. I hope that my hon. Friend will realise, by the way that his Amendment was received on the opposite side of the Committee, that here again, it would be very difficult to maintain the position of the controlled school and the great financial advantages that go with it to the Church of England, if this Amendment was pressed.

§ Mr. Bevan
It is certain that those of us who take a certain point of view are beginning to lose in this tug-o'-war. The middle way is the middle between two ends. If you shift the ends, the middle shifts too. I propose to try to shift our end, so that the middle position occupied by the Minister will be a little nearer to us than it is to our friends opposite. It is time that we took more interest in this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I took an interest in this matter yesterday. Does the hon. Member want me to add to my interest in the Bill? If he wants that, he can have large doses of it.

§ Mr. Ivor Thomas
In interest but not in speeches.

§ Mr. Bevan
How does my hon. Friend know that I am interested if I do not speak? I had an Amendment on the Order Paper which the Chair, unfortunately, in my opinion, did not call. The Chair has called the Amendment of the hon. Member which I consider to be frivolous. He is suggesting that not only has the governing body of the controlled school to make representations to the Minister and to the county authority, but that the denominational members of the governing body, if they disagree, can make separate representations. The Parliamentary Secretary said it was an excellent thing for the governing body to be consulted. Why does he not insist on doing it in all schools? Why is it a good thing for the governing body to be consulted in the case of a controlled school and not in the case of other schools? Why, if the head teacher is a reserved teacher, should the governing body be consulted at all?
The hon. Member, having been given that silly and stupid concession, wants to go further. There is no justification in the terms of the Bill for the governing body to be consulted by the headmaster at all, because he is not a reserved teacher. If he is a reserved teacher, he is to be consulted. Why is the managing body being consulted about the headmaster? We all know the reasons. It is because in many single school areas the headmaster is the Tory stooge. [Interruption.] We know exactly what we are talking about. Will the Minister—and I have been very patient about this—tell me why the headmaster is not a reserved teacher? Will he tell me why it is wiser to consult the governing body about the headmaster in case of the controlled school than in the case of all schools? The reason is, because it is thought to give the local managing body of the school—which in this case is denominationally weighted—an opportunity of expressing opinions on the kind of person who is made headmaster of the school.

§ Captain Cobb
Does the hon. Member really think that there is any departure from the present practice here? As far as I am aware, it is the usual thing for the local education authority, when they are appointing a head teacher, to have a representative of the managers and a representative of the teaching staff.

§ Mr. Bevan
That is not the issue involved. In many instances—and I have 2454 been a member of a managing body for many years—we have the headmaster there and representatives of the staff, and it often happens that the education authority will consult the managers. I think it a very good thing, but why put it in the Bill in this particular instance? Why, in regard to this particular scheme, should the managing body of the controlled school have the right of representation at all? I consider it to be a healthy thing to have consultation between the education authority and the managing body of a school about the appointment of a headmaster. All I am asking is: Why put it into the Bill with regard to controlled schools only? If it is good for controlled schools, it is good for all.
Envisage the circumstances in which such an appointment may be made. The county authority says to the managing body of a controlled school, "We are going to appoint Mr. X." The managing body receives the name of Mr. X. It cannot discuss Mr. X from the point of view of his capacity to teach or to be headmaster, because that is a reserved question for the education authority. He is not a reserved teacher at all. What are they to be consulted about? They are going to say, "We do not like Mr. X," and, therefore, when the county authority make their decision as to who is to be headmaster, they have to take into account the fact that the managing body, having to be consulted about it, may make representations to them about his suitability for the job, and the man is deeply prejudiced from the start. Why have this put in the Bill at all? I seriously suggest, not only that the right hon. Gentleman should resist the Amendment, but that, at a later stage, he should consider eliminating from the Clause all the words after the head teacher of a controlled school shall not be a reserved teacher, because all the other words are unnecessary. Unless this is done, I shall raise objection at a later stage in the Bill. It seems to me to be a wanton concession to a privileged body of persons, who are too privileged in this Bill as it is.

§ Mr. Brooke
I am quite unrepentant about the Amendment, because I think it is a good one, but I happen to be one who wishes to expedite the passage of the Bill and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Bevan
I insist upon having a reply.

Viscountess Astor
When the Amendment is being withdrawn?

§ Mr. Bevan
I am resisting the Amendment being withdrawn. The progress of this Bill is not going to be expedited if people are to come here to be bullied.

Viscountess Astor
Or if people come here and make speeches to which nobody wants to listen.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)
I think we had better get on.

§ Mr. Bevan
I think this is really becoming rather serious. I have been addressing to the Committee an argument which I think the Committee will agree has substance, and I am not going to be restrained by individuals who do not want to examine the Bill but want to rush through the Committee bargains they have made outside. I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is proposed to insist upon the words in the Sub-section, and I warn him there may be trouble later on.

§ Mr. Ede
I thought that when the hon. Member gave notice of his intention to raise the matter on the Report stage, that was an indication that he recognised that no Amendment could be made now, but that between now and then he and we would consider the position. I had no intention of being discourteous to my hon. Friend, neither have I any intention of bullying him. I sometimes go about in fear of the reverse process being started, although I know that, threatening as his attitude may be, he has a kindly heart under a frowning exterior. I did endeavour to give my reason for thinking that this was a reasonable way to do it. With regard to the man being prejudiced, of course if the original appointment is made with one or two representatives present, and then the name is sent down to the local authority, the one or two managers present at the interview would give their views and, in all probability, influence the opinion of the majority of the managers. If, for some reason, the local authority desire to proceed with the appointment, they have the last word, and if the managers then are dissatisfied, they can appeal to the Board and the last word would be 2456 with the Minister. I hope the hon. Member would not feel that the kind of consideration he indicates as being an objection on the part of some rather benighted local managers would weigh with the Board, when they were faced with the fact that the local education authority, on educational merits, had recommended that this man be appointed.

§ Mr. Bevan
Would the Minister consider what would be the situation of the unfortunate headmaster appointed in that way?

§ Mr. Ede
Of course I have known cases where the local education authority have appointed a man when the local managers have objected at the interview. I admit that in the early days the position of such a man is sometimes rather precarious, but generally he manages to live it down.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The next Amendment that I will call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) at page 22, line 12, after "are," to insert "on reasonable grounds." I think that a discussion on that and on the next Amendment to line 14 and the later Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stourbridge to line 15 will cover the point.

Mr. R. Morģan
I beg to move, in page 22, line 12, after "are", to insert "on reasonable grounds."
The intention is to bring this Bill into line with the Act of 1936. I formally move the Amendment and await the Minister's reply.

§ Mr. Butler
I can say that we will accept the spirit of all three Amendments but in the interests of clarification I do not think it would be wise to put in exactly the same words as those contained in previous legislation. I think the matter will become clearer when Clause 64 is discussed, and we also want to look at that Clause in the light of these three proposed Amendments. If the hon. Member will postpone the matter in that way he can be guaranteed that the spirit of the Amendment will be met.

§ Mr. Cove
We are grateful for the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman.