EXCEPTION FOR SINGLE-SEX ESTABLISHMENTS (Hansard, 18 June 1975)

§ Miss Richardson
I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 18, line 44, at end insert '(4) This section shall cease to have effect on 1st January 1980.' Half of the argument on the amendment has been pre-empted by the previous debate. I should like to follow on from that.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) accused us of wishing so to change the education system that we would be shaping people's minds. I contend that the whole of the education system, at least up to the recent past, has been shaping people's minds—in a totally different direction, which I do not like. It has been shaping them by class prejudice and sex prejudice. It is because of this that, although I would prefer to see single-sex schools go altogether as soon as possible—I am at the other end of the scale from the hon. and learned Gentleman—that not being possible, I should like the Government to agree to putting a date on the ending of single-sex establishments.
I am not especially wedded to the date of 1st January 1980. If the Government had some other proposal this side of that date, I would be willing to accept it. But at least some stab has to be made at some period in this respect.
The perpetuation of single-sex schools represents the antithesis of what the whole Bill is about. It perpetuates the idea of segregation between the sexes in the different establishments. It also perpetuates the type of teaching that has gone on for centuries and has produced a kind of conditioned mind which very many women and young girls still have today.
From a purely practical point of view, here we are in 1975 finding it very difficult to get women teachers of physics and mathematics. That is because very few women find themselves able to take the courses required to become such teachers. There are not sufficient of them because they are not sufficiently encouraged to do so. Single-sex establishments perpetuate this sort of thing.
I should very much like the Government to agree to our doing what we agreed in Committee. My hon. Friends the Ministers and back benchers who 1563 supported me agreed that it was a good idea that single-sex schools should be seen to be being phased out. I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield because I object to the gradualness of the process of phasing out. I want us to put a date to it.
11.45 p.m.
The majority of single-sex schools provide a choice to a limited number of people. Single-sex schools are not available for children of all classes. It is a class argument. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on that point.
I know that there are difficulties about saying that the Government will do this by this or that year. However, I should be grateful to hear that the Government have the intention of phasing these single-sex schools out of existence within the foreseeable future.

§ Miss Joan Lestor
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) for the sympathetic way in which she moved the amendment and for her acknowledgement of the difficulties involved in the process mentioned. I have also referred to the meaning of the clause in respect of single-sex schools.
Speaking for myself, and probably for the Government, if we were starting from scratch in education—which we are not—many people would want single-sex schools. It would have been much easier if we were not dealing with an established system of education.
This amendment would have the effect of ending within five years the exception for single-sex schools and colleges from the obligation not to discriminate in the admission of pupils and from the duty to secure the provision of facilities without sex discrimination. That would include single-sex schools and colleges for girls and women. The Government said in the White Paper of September 1974 entitled "Equality for Women" that legislation should not make existing or future single-sex schools and other educational establishments unlawful. That will not please my hon. Friend. The White Paper noted and welcomed the growing tendency to move towards co-education.
In many respects, the development of comprehensive education will encourage that. However, there are difficulties in 1564 volved in saying that we shall, by means of legislation, end single-sex schools in January 1980 or indeed give any strong commitment that we shall do so at any one time.
One of the difficulties is the question of resources. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that. There is also the question of the present reorganisation schemes, which must be followed up if this step is insisted on. It would place a considerable burden on the resources of single-sex establishments if they were required to become co-educational and provide the necessary facilities for both sexes within these few years. It would also be at variance with Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, under which the Secretary of State must give his approval to individual proposals to change the character of the school from single sex to mixed. In exercising this duty the Secretary of State must have regard to the wishes of those in the area for single-sex or mixed schooling.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) is right. I have always believed in co-education. I believe that single-sex schools, to a very large extent, create an artificial environment for young people. I know that my view is shared by many others. In dealing with discrimination in education, the opportunities offered to those educated in the school are more important than whether a school is single sex or mixed. Whatever the differences which may continue to exist in them, the curricula should be based upon genuine choice, not upon traditional assumptions about the proper spheres of interest of boys and girls and men and women, but what they want to do irrespective of their sex.
I therefore have to ask the House, because of difficulties over resources, the time limit and other factors, not to support the amendment and to avoid placing any narrow time limit on the exception for single-sex schools which the clause provides. Since we are dealing with the whole question of sex discrimination it is important to watch very carefully what is going on in all our schools, whether single-sex or co-educational. It does not always follow, as evidence has shown, that co-educational schools do not sometimes fall into the trap of assuming different roles for girls and boys. We must watch what goes on in these schools 1565 to ensure that what determines the curricular is based not on the sex of the pupils or on what the backwoods men and women think they should pursue because of their sex, but on what the pupils genuinely want to pursue.

§ Mr. Rees-Davies
It is necessary to get on the record the fact that a Select Committee of this House, supported by the Government, stated We accept the principle of parental choice in education.…. We are, therefore, not opposed in principle to single-sex education and we would not recommend legislation which would make existing or future single-sex schools and other educational establishments illegal. That paragraph was subscribed to by all parties and persons, and I hope that that position will be maintained.
All the single-sex schools have planned their programmes and curricula for some years ahead and have accepted their entrants. It is a matter not of four years but of at least 10 years ahead for which they have already laid out their entire programmes. It would take a great deal of time to phase them out if the House thought that desirable. I am quite sure that there are a very large number of people who will feel that parental choice should be maintained and that those who want to send their girls and boys to single-sex schools and do not want to adopt the principle of co-education should be entitled to continue to do so.
Many of these educational institutions are famous throughout the world. They are very successful, their standards are high, and I hope that we shall maintain them as a principle.

§ Mr. John Page
As an active backwoods person I listened with great care to what the Minister said, but I do not think that she answered my questions. I repeat them. Is there anything in Clause 26 to stop the establishment of new independent single-sex schools? Is there anything to stop existing co-educational schools returning to being single-sex at some stage if that appears appropriate?

§ Miss Joan Lestor
I was not trying to evade the hon. Gentleman's first point, I simply forgot it. There is nothing in the clause to prevent the establishment of such schools. As I understand the clause, there is nothing in it to stop a co-educational school turning into two 1566 single-sex schools, but that is a matter on which I think I should write to the hon. Member. However, the changing of the character of a school is a matter for the Secretary of State, and he must take account of other factors.
Although there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a change of character, the Secretary of State would be brought in on such a question and he would listen to the representations which were made.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
I should like to get something on the record. If a school is, or goes, co-educational, Clause 22 prevents it going back to single sex again, does it not? It is a ratchet effect.
The Minister nodded when I was moving the amendment when I put the point that there was no freedom of choice in the engagement of staff to single-sex schools. Can we have it explicitly that this is the case and that they cannot discriminate between men and women?

§ Miss Joan Lestor
That is right.

§ Miss Richardson
Obviously I would have preferred the Government to accept my amendment, but in view of the sort of assurances the Minister has given—I know she has an enlightened view of education—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I must put the Question, otherwise it is blocked. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the Amendment be withdrawn?