§
Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 24, after "suitable" insert:
in the ordinary case".
§ 11.35 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan)I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment to new Section 1(2) of the 1962 Act as set out in the Clause. It clarifies the wording of the definition of activities in nursery schools and classes, and makes it consistent with the new definitions of primary and secondary education in Clause 1(2).
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 2, line 24, after first "of" insert:
school education in public schools at which fees were being charged on the 25th November 1968 and of".
§ Mr. MillanI beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am not sure as to what is being grouped with this Amendment. We are certainly going to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments No. 15, in Clause 27, page 35, line 14, leave out from beginning to "Part" in line 15 and insert "Paragraph 7(2) of"; No. 16, in Clause 27, page 35, line 24, leave out paragraph (a); No. 17, in Schedule 2, page 38, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 39; and No. 21, in Schedule 3, page 48, column 3, leave out line 10. However, I am in doubt about No. 4, in Clause 1, page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of the principal Act (as set out in subsection (1) above) where—the said education authority may charge fees in respect of any school education provided by them for that pupil in any school under their management at any time after 1st August 1970 when he is an outwith- area pupil:
- (a) an education authority have, at any time in the year ending with 1st August 1970, provided school education in any school under their management for an out-with-area pupil and have charged fees in respect of that education, and
- (b) the said pupil is on 1st October 1970 in attendance at a class in a secondary
1660 school, or in the secondary department of a school, under the management of that education authority, Provided that the education authority shall not have power under this paragraph to charge fees in respect of education provided by them for any pupil if a contribution in respect of such provision is payable to them by another education authority.In this subsection "outwith-area pupil" means, in relation to any education authority, a pupil who is not deemed to belong for the purposes of section 24 of the principal Act to the area of that authority.
§ Mr. MillanI think that it would be more convenient if we discussed No. 4 at the same time, and the Government Amendment to it, in line 2, after 'above)', insert:
Some of these Amendments are consequential on taking the group as a whole.
- (a) the power to charge fees in public schools conferred on education authorities by the proviso to section 1(3) of that Act (as originally enacted) shall continue to be available to, and may be exercised by, education authorities after the commencement of this Act, so, however, that this paragraph shall cease to have effect on 1st August 1970;
- (b).
§ Mr. SpeakerThen, if there is no objection …?
§ Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)We would prefer to take No. 4 separately, Mr. Speaker, but the others grouped with No. 2.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is what I thought in the first place. Then we will leave out Amendment No. 4 and the Amendment to it, and discuss Amendments No. 15, 16, 17 and 21 with Amendment No. 2.
§ Mr. MillanLords Amendment No. 2 deals with the question of fee paying in local education authority schools, a matter which has been discussed at great length on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to cover these matters in any considerable detail.
We on this side have, of course, taken the view that fee paying in local education authority schools is an anachronism. In any case, the payment of fees is not a 1661 major issue, but the fact that the payment of fees is bound up with the continuance of a selective system of secondary education, which it is the Government's pledge to see discontinued in favour of comprehensive secondary education. There is no doubt that the continuance of fee paying is incompatible with the move towards comprehensive education.
Nor does the freedom of choice argument, which has been used in this context, seem to us to have any validity in the situation in which selection at the age of 12—whatever else may be the arguments for it—is inimical to any real freedom of choice for the parents concerned.
The number of schools with which we are dealing here is very small compared with the number of schools providing secondary education, and indeed primary education, in Scotland as a whole. This whole argument about fee paying has been carried on at what I personally regard as a very exaggerated level.
The Amendment is also rather curious because it does not attempt to reestablish the general powers of local education authorities in Scotland to charge fees in local education authority schools but would restrict that power to the schools at which fees were being charged at a particular date, namely, 25th November, 1968. It may be possible to argue in principle that local education authorities in Scotland should have this power, but whatever the arguments in principle, there can be very little justification for an Amendment which would restrict the power to a very small number of schools which happened to charge fees on that date.
Apart from being unacceptable to the Government, the Amendment would also stand on its head the argument which the Opposition used on this issue all the way through our debates here and in another place. I therefore see no justification for the Amendment, either in principle or in its practical implications. As I said, we debated this matter at considerable length. I have, of course, read carefully the Reports of the debates in another place, but I read no arguments produced there which had not already been dealt with at great length in our debates here.
1662 The other Amendments, Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 21, are technical, and are completely consequential on Amendment No. 2. If the House disagrees with the Lords on Amendment No. 2, as I am asking it to do, it will also be necessary, to maintain consistency in the Bill, to reject these other four Amendments.
§ Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)I greatly regret that the Government are seeking to reject the Amendment. As the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, this debate revives the argument which raged in the House and in the Scottish Standing Committee earlier this year. The more the argument continues, the more my hon. Friends and I are convinced that our cause is just and that of the Government unjust, and based on narrow political dogma and cheap and contemptible envy.
The purpose of the Government's proposal is to remove the right of local authorities to charge fees in certain schools. There are few of these schools. Only two local authorities resist the Government's will, Edinburgh and Glasgow. But it is not the number of schools or of local authorities which matters. What does matter is that we now confront two important principles—the principle of freedom of choice in education and the right of local authorities to determine the pattern of education provided in their areas.
These are two fundamental principles which the House must not lightly brush aside. The first, freedom of choice, is surely one we should respect in Britain, and it is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which the Government pretend to support. The second, the freedom of local authorities is one to which the Government pay lip service but which they are ready to override and crush if the will of the local authority happens, as in this case, to be in conflict with the educational dogma of the Labour Party.
In all our debates, which have gone on month after month, the Government have not yet advanced a single education argument in support of their intention to crush local democracy. They object to selectivity, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, and yet selectivity in one form or another is present in every kind of education. They maintain that a fee paying system cannot be tolerated side by 1663 side with the developing comprehensive system of education. We do not agree.
On this side, we believe that the strength of Scottish education is the variety it provides. We believe that the quality of Scottish education will be maintained and strengthened if local authority fee paying and comprehensive schools can develop together side by side to form a varied pattern in which parents have choice. The fees at these schools are not high. Indeed, many of the places are free, as the hon. Gentleman learned from us during the Committee stage. If the Government abolish these schools they will remove freedom of choice not from the rich, who can look elsewhere, to the expensive independent schools, but from parents who are less well off and for whom the local authority fee paying schools provide the only alternative form of education available to their children. The self-styled egalitarians opposite are removing freedom not from the rich, who can look elswhere, but from the poor.
During our debates on this part of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has been consistent in one regard. He has consistently ignored the questions which we have asked. He has not yet told us, despite repeated questions, what will happen to these schools. The fees will end in August next year if the Government
§ are successful tonight. But that is not the extent of the Government's intention. We know from what he said that they propose to turn these schools into territorial comprehensive schools, despite the fact, which stares them in the face, that many of them are totally unsuitable for that purpose.
§ Furthermore, the Government must know by now, because we have told them often enough, that, if these schools are turned into territorial comprehensive schools, they will become socially divisive because the children will come from wealthy, well-to-do areas. At present, on the other hand, the children are drawn from every part of Edinburgh and Glasgow. I have shown in earlier debates that they represent a social mix which all of us wish to see in our schools. That will vanish if the Government are successful in their proposal tonight.
§ My hon. Friends and I wish to preserve the freedom of choice which parents in Edinburgh and Glasgow enjoy today. We also wish to preserve the right of local authorities to shape the pattern of education in their areas. We therefore greatly regret that the Government are persisting in their shameful intent, and we shall divide against it.
§ Question put:
§ The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 122.
1665| Division No. 344.] | AYES | [11.45 p.m. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) |
| Anderson, Donald | Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) |
| Archer, Peter | Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) |
| Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) | Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Dempsey, James | Hannan, William |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Dewar, Donald | Harper, Joseph |
| Beaney, Alan | Dobson, Ray | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) |
| Bence, Cyril | Doig, Peter | Haseldine, Norman |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Dunnett, Jack | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Bessell, Peter | Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Hilton, W. S. |
| Binns, John | Eadie, Alex | Hooson, Emlyn |
| Bishop, E. S. | Edelman, Maurice | Howell, Denis (Small Heath) |
| Blackburn, F. | Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Howie, W. |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Ellis, John | Hoy, Rt. Hn. James |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Ennals, David | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Booth, Albert | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Hunter, Adam |
| Boston, Terence | Faulds, Andrew | Hynd, John |
| Boyden, James | Fernyhough, E. | Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) |
| Brooks, Edwin | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Janner, Sir Barnett |
| Broughton, Sir Alfred | Fletcher, Raymond (likeston) | Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Jeger, George (Coole) |
| Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) |
| Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) | ||
| Buchan, Norman | Ford, Ben | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) |
| Cant, R. B. | Forrester, John | Judd, Frank |
| Carmichael, Neil | Freeson, Reginald | Kelley, Richard |
| Coleman, Donald | Garrett, W. E. | Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) |
| Concannon, J. D. | Ginsburg, David | Kerr, Russell (Feltham) |
| Conlan, Bernard | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | Lawler, Wallace |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Gregory, Arnold | Lawson, George |
| Dalyell, Tam | Grey, Charles (Durham) | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Molloy, William | Small, William |
| Loughlin, Charles | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Luard, Evan | Morris, John (Aberavon) | Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John |
| Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Murray, Albert | Taverne, Dick |
| McBride, Neil | Neal, Harold | Thomas, Rt. Hn. George |
| McCann, John | Newens, Stan | Thomson, Rt. Hn. George |
| MacColl, James | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip | Tinn, James |
| MacDermot, Niall | Norwood, Christopher | Tuck, Raphael |
| Macdonald, A. H. | Oswald, Thomas | Urwin, T. W. |
| McGuire, Michael | Palmer, Arthur | Varley, Eric G. |
| Mackie, John | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Mackintosh, John P. | Pavitt, Laurence | Wellbeloved, James |
| Maclennan, Robert | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred | Whitaker, Ben |
| McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Pentland, Norman | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| McNamara, J. Kevin | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) | Williams, Afan Lee (Hornchurch) |
| Mahon, Dr. J, Dickson | Price, William (Rugby) | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) | Probert, Arthur | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Mahon, Simon (Bootle) | Rankin, John | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Rhodes, Geoffrey | Willis, Rt. Hn. George |
| Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Manuel, Archie | Robertson, John (Paisley) | Winnick, David |
| Marks, Kenneth | Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Rose, Paul | Woof, Robert |
| Mendelson, John | Ross, Rt. Hn. William | |
| Millan, Bruce | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Miller, Dr. M. S. | Silverman, Julius | Mr. Charles R. Morris and |
| Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Slater, Joseph | Mr. Ioan L. Evans. |
| NOES | ||
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Giover, Sir Douglas | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Goodhart, Philip | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Astor, John | Goodhow, Victor | Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Gower, Raymond | Peel, John |
| Baker, Kenneth (Acton) | Grant, Anthony | Percival, Ian |
| Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) | Gurden, Harold | Pike, Miss Mervyn |
| Balniel, Lord | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Powell, Rt. Hn. J Enoch |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Hastings, Stephen | Pym, Francis |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) | Hawkins, Paul | Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James |
| Biffen, John | Hay, John | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Heseltine, Michael | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Hill, J. E. B. | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Holland, Philip | Royle, Anthony |
| Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward | Hornby, Richard | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Braine, Bernard | Hunt, John | Scott, Nicholas |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Brian, Paul | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Sharples, Richard |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) | Kimball, Marcus | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Burden, F. A. | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Silvester, Frederick |
| Campbell, B. (Oldham, w.) | Kirk, Peter | Stainton, Keith |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Kitson, Timothy | Stodart, Anthony |
| Carlisle, Mark | Lane, David | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Clark, Henry | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Temple, John M. |
| Cooke, Robert | Longden, Gilbert | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Corfield, F. V. | MacArthur, Ian | Waddington, David |
| Dean, Paul | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Wall, Patrick |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | McNair-Wilson, Michael | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Marten, Neil | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Drayson, G. B. | Maude, Angus | Wiggin, A. W. |
| du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| Eden, Sir John | Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Montgomery, Fergus | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Emery, Peter | More, Jasper | Wright, Esmond |
| Farr, John | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) | Wylie, N. R. |
| Fisher, Nigel | Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Younger, Hn. George |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Murton, Oscar | |
| Fortescue, Tim | Neave, Airey | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Galbraith, Hn. T. G. | Nott, John | Mr. Reginald Eyre and |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Mr. Hector Monro. |
§ Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of the principal Act (as set out in subsection (1) above) where—
1666
1667
the said education authority may charge fees in respect of any school education provided by them for that pupil in any school under their management at any time after 1st August 1970 when he is an outwith-area pupil:Provided that the education authority shall not have power under this paragraph to charge fees in respect of education provided by them for any pupil if a contribution in respect of such provision is payable to them by another education authority.
In this subsection "outwith-area pupil" means, in relation to any education authority, a pupil who is not deemed to belong for the purposes of section 24 of the principal Act to the area of that authority.
§ Read a Second time.
§ Mr. MillanI beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after 'above)', insert:
This Amendment to the Lords Amendment will restore in subsection (3) of Clause 1 the original wording of the subsection which the Lords Amendment removed. It is consequential on the decision, which we have just taken, to abolish fee-paying that we wish to put the date of 1st August, 1970, back into the Bill. Hon. Members opposite will appreciate that if this Amendment is not made, the abolition will take effect within one month of Royal Assent. Therefore, I am sure that they will agree to the Amendment.
- (a) the power to charge fees in public schools conferred on education authorities by the proviso to section 1(3) of that Act (as originally enacted) shall continue to be available to, and may be exercised by, education authorities after the commencement of this Act, so, however, that this paragraph shall cease to have effect on 1st August 1970;
- (b).
§ Question, That the Amendment be made, put and agreed to.
Mr. MilianI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended.
I have already explained the Amendment, and perhaps I might now explain the effect of the Lords Amendment. This is a transitional provision and it enables education authorities to charge fees for outwith area pupils, who are defined in the Amendment, and who are in secondary departments on 1st October, 1970, and for whom fees were being paid in respect of attendance at a school belonging to the authority at any time in the year preceding the abolition of fee-paying generally.
1668 This transitional Amendment is meant to cover a particular situation. In Glasgow there are a fair number of pupils coming from outside the city and paying fees at Glasgow education authority schools. There is a smaller number of such pupils, but still a significant number, in the case of Edinburgh. After the abolition of fee-paying generally, a particular problem would arise with regard to these pupils.
The providing authority—Glasgow or Edinburgh—might naturally be reluctant to continue to educate those children at its own expense as it bears no responsibility for them if fees are not being paid. On the other hand, the pupils concerned will come from authorities which might equally be reluctant to make payments in respect of them—which they would be entitled to do under the existing law—because they already make educational provision for these children in their own areas. If parents choose to send their children to another area, the education authority might take the view that there is no reason why it should be put to extra expense for them. Therefore, there might be a situation in which neither the receiving authority was willing to continue to educate these pupils at its own expense, nor the sending authority was willing to take responsibility for them.
We have made it clear all along that we do not want that situation to arise. The best way to safeguard it is to include a specific transitional provision, which is what the Amendment does. It covers pupils in secondary education from 1970–71 onwards, including those whose last year of primary education was 1969–70. In other words, it covers the pupils who are most concerned and who would most be affected if there were a disruption of their education. Younger pupils are not covered, but these pupils are in almost exactly the same position as pupils from Glasgow and Edinburgh areas who are at present in the primary departments of fee-paying schools.
I hope that, with this explanation, the House will agree to the Lords Amendment, as amended.
§ 12 m.
§ Mr. MacArthurAs the Minister has explained, this is a transitional Amendment and it makes provision to cover the position of those pupils in outwith 1669 areas already at the schools at the time that fees are removed. I will not attempt to abuse your generosity, Mr. Speaker, or that of the House, by going again over the basic arguments. I simply advise my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment to provide for consistency in the Bill and for the transitional provision which I think should be introduced into the Bill.
§ Question,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.