Lords Sitting of 12 July 1944

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

THE EARL OF HALIFAX.
The Right Honourable Edward Frederick. Lindley, Viscount Halifax, K.G., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., having been created Earl of Halifax—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

EDUCATION BILL.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, may I make an appeal to your Lordships that we should economize time as much as possible? We have over 70 clauses of the Bill still to examine and it would be very desirable to get through the Report stage to-day, if possible. I hope therefore that your Lordships will exercise a self-denying ordinance.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK had given Notice that he would move, after Clause 23, to insert as a new clause:
Provision of facilities for pupils to acquire knowledge of British Commonwealth and Empire.
"—It shall be the duty of local education authorities to make arrangements for providing facilities in the schools in their areas for enabling the pupils to acquire a knowledge of the history, geography and modern conditions of the various parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, after the long debate that took place yesterday on the question of including instruction in citizenship in this Bill and what occurred at the end of that debate, I feel that before I actually move the Amendment I Should like to hear a statement from the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill. I should like to ask him to clarify what really are the intentions of the Government in connexion with these matters—matters which we regard as of enormous importance for the good of the youth of our country and for the future
830
of our country and our Empire. In the course of the debate raised by my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe, who unfortunately is unable to be present to-day, the noble Earl, replying to a suggestion which was actually made by myself that a new clause should be included in the Bill, made this statement:
"I will between now and the Report stage consult my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education and will convey to him your Lordships' strong views on this question—"
and indeed they were very strongly expressed—
"and see whether what you desire, if it cannot be provided in the Bill, can be ensured—and that is all your Lordships care about—by regulation so that you should be satisfied on this subject."
I would not like to subscribe entirely to the noble Earl's suggestion that that is all we care about, but we may be forced into some position like that.
In the debate of yesterday the noble Earl, as reported in column 793 of Hansard, replying to representations made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone and other noble Lords, in regard to citizenship, said:
"In the view of the President regulations are appropriate for defining the conditions under which monetary grants shall be paid and matters of that sort, but they are not appropriate for giving instructions in regard to the curriculum. The proper way to do that is by circular and also by general exhortation."
The noble Earl went on to ask your Lordships to recognize that education in this country is largely in the hands of the local education authorities.
Noble Lords then pressed the question still further until our noble Leader, Viscount Cranborne, rose to pacify the situation, if I may say so, in his usual courteous and winning way. Speaking of these various matters, he said this:
"There is the question of citizenship which has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. There is the question of the Empire which was introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. They might easily have asked for the introduction of the subjects of history and geography, both of which are essential to citizenship and also to a knowledge of the British Commonwealth and Empire. But none of these things are in fact ruled out."
The noble Viscount continued:
"On the contrary, nearly all of them, perhaps all of them, will certainly be included in the curricula when the curricula are drawn up."
Further down, at the bottom of the page, he is reported as saying:
"I would have thought that that gives the House all they want because the President of the Board will refer to his Advisory Council not the question of whether the things should be taught but how they should be taught."
With the greatest respect both to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, and to the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, I submit that those two statements do not tally but are at variance with each other. The statement of the noble Viscount is the one which I should like to see prevail. He says that they must be and will be included in the curricula, whereas the noble Earl says they will be included in a circular; he says that the proper way to deal with this is by circular, and also by general exhortation. To put something in a circular and to try to give effect to it by general exhortation is quite different from saying definitely that these subjects shall be included in the curricula and must be taught.
When I was in the Colonial Service I saw a good many circular instructions issued under the signature of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. They were of two kinds; they were either confidential or public, but they were often changed and altered, and there was nothing to prevent one Secretary of State withdrawing a circular and replacing it by another. I shall feel very anxious if the method proposed by the noble Earl is adopted by the Government, because I see no stability in that respect, but only the possibility of instructions being varied. We who feel keenly about this subject are afraid that we may be given something of an evanescent character only. In view of the varying views expressed in the Official Report, before I or any of my noble friends have anything further to say we should like the position clarified. We hope that it will be clarified in such a way that if this proposed new clause of mine is not accepted it will be withdrawn in favour of something which will be permanent and lasting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, as I understand it the noble Viscount wishes to propose the insertion of the new clause standing in his name, but modified to read:
"It shall be the duty of local education authorities to make arrangements for providing
832
facilities in the primary and secondary schools in their areas to enable pupils to acquire …"
and so on.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 23 insert as a new clause:
("Provision of facilities for pupils to acquire knowledge of British Commonwealth and Empire.
—It shall be the duty of local education authorities to make arrangements for providing facilities in the primary and secondary schools in their areas to enable the pupils to acquire a knowledge of the history, geography and modern conditions of the various parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire.")—(Viscount Elibank.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am happy to be able to give my noble friend the assurance for which he has asked, but I should like first to say that I think he is under a misapprehension in seeing any inconsistency between what was said by my noble friend the Leader of the House and by myself yesterday. My noble friend said that these things would be in the curricula. That is so. What I said was that the curricula should be dealt with not by regulation but by circular, and, I added, also by general exhortation, by which I mean memoranda and other documents sent by the Ministry of Education to the local authorities and the teachers. My noble friend is well aware that the administration of education is in the hands of the local authorities, and it is the function of the Ministry of Education to advise the local authorities as to the subjects which should form the curricula.
It is for that reason, as I pointed out to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, that it is inappropriate to put in a Bill which is merely creating a piece of machinery subjects which belong to the administration of the Bill and not to its framework. The administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act will be in the hands of the local authorities, but the Ministry of Education will prompt the local authorities and make suggestions to them. The Ministry can of course exercise considerable influence on the way in which the Act is administered by the various sanctions they can apply under the Bill. But I think I ought to take this opportunity of pointing out to your Lordships the great amount of work that the Board of Education is doing in the direction that my noble friend desires and which we all desire. This was already being done before

833
the present President of the Board of Education took office but he has given a great inspiration and impetus to the work. When he became President he found a "Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers" in which the importance of education in the affairs of the British Empire was stressed, and he has developed this work very much, especially in connexion with the League of Empire. The League, with the full support of the Board and of the Scottish Education Department has arranged an interchange of teachers between this country and Australia New Zealand, Canada and South Africa through the Education Departments of those Dominions, and of course our own local education authorities have taken part in this also.
In 1913–1939 over 1,500 teachers from England were enabled to stay a year or more in one of the Dominions, and our own schools received many hundreds of Dominion teachers who spent a year here teaching in our schools. Immediately before the war there were more than one hundred and fifty exchanges a year; that is one hundred and fifty teachers going from England and an approximately equal number coming from the Dominions every year, and the proportion of secondary school teachers applying for exchanges was increasing. Now, with the encouragement of my right honourable friend and the Board the League of Empire is actively making plans for resuming and expanding their activities directly transport conditions allow. Valuable work is also being done for the schools by the Imperial institute, which provides, on request, films and the services of expert lecturers. This activity has continued during the war, and has been supplemented by the Ministry of Information, who have been able, within the resources available, to provide speakers on various aspects of the Empire to local education authorities, schools, and youth clubs and centres.
During the war, however, the Board have found it advisable to supplement the usual channels of advice to teachers in several ways—for example, by providing more short courses for selected serving teachers, and by making available to all schools a number of maps and a quantity of informative leaflets and booklets. These activities have not, of course, been confined to the study of the British Empire—in particular our great
834
Allies have not been forgotten. In all, since the end of 1942, eight courses, lasting from a week to a fortnight, have been organized by His Majesty's Inspectors in various centres throughout the country, attended by over 900 teachers from all types of school—secondary, elementary and technical, including one special course for adult education tutors—and more courses are being arranged. The speakers have all been distinguished in their own fields of study, and have included the Secretary of State for India, Lord Hailey, and the High Commissioners of three of the Dominions. Then, in addition a bibliography of books on Imperial matters and on the history of the Empire has been issued to all teachers. I would like to hand my noble friend a copy; I am sure he would be impressed by its very comprehensive character. Maps and booklets concerning all parts of the Empire are also frequently distributed. Over 60,000 copies of some of these leaflets have been applied for by teachers throughout the country, although it is generally intended to limit them to one per school. In addition to that, a series of exhibitions has been arranged.
I mention these facts—and I have only given a very cursory outline of these activities—merely to show your Lordships that this work is already actively in hand, and that my right honourable friend has given a great impetus to it, and is as keen on this subject as any of your Lordships. Since my noble friend was about to move the Amendment yesterday I have had the opportunity of conferring with the President of the Board of Education, and I have his authority for saying that it is his full intention, and he will be only too glad, to do what I promised in the case of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that is to say, to lay this matter before the Advisory Council created by this Bill, and to consult them as to the ways in which what is already being done in regard to the teaching of children about the Empire can be improved and extended. If my noble friend will accept that assurance, then I suggest that the best course is that he should withdraw this Amendment—which, as I have tried to explain on previous occasions, is really inappropriate to a piece of machinery—and accept the assurance that I am authorized to give on behalf of the Government. That is that this matter

835
will be most actively pursued and that the machinery created by the Bill in the shape of the Advisory Council, and in other directions, will be used to the full to promote the study of this subject which, we are agreed, is of fundamental importance, and with which my noble friend himself is so closely associated.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, in view of the statement just made I certainly have no intention of pursuing the Amendment. I am very glad that I put it on the Paper, and glad also that I did not accede to the desire of the right reverend Prelate yesterday that I should accept ad referendum what had occurred in connexion with the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I am glad because to-day we have had from the noble Earl a very full account of what the President of the Board of Education is doing and proposes to do in this matter. I, personally, have never had any doubt that he was keenly interested in teaching about the Empire but, knowing the difficulties that there have been in the past with some local authorities in promoting knowledge of the Empire, it seemed very important to press this question in your Lordships' House, and to get an expression of deliberate opinion from the Government that they intended to do all they could to promote the teaching of this subject in our schools. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That applies to the next Amendment also, I take it?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Yes, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, I may say that that will not be moved.
Clause 26:
Special provisions as to religious education in county schools.
Provided that, where a county secondary school, is so situated that arrangements cannot conveniently be made for the withdrawal of pupils from the school in accordance with the provisions of this Act to receive religious instruction elsewhere, then, if the local education authority are satisfied:—

(a) that the parents of pupils in attendance at the school desire them to receive religious instruction in the school in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination; and

(b) that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of such instruct-
836
tion
to those pupils in the school, and for securing that the cost of providing such instruction to those pupils in the school will not fall upon the authority;

the authority shall, unless they are satisfied that owing to any special circumstances it would be unreasonable so to do, provide facilities for the carrying out of those arrangements.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD moved, in that part of the proviso which follows paragraph (b), to leave out "are satisfied" and insert "satisfy the Minister." The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Grey, in whose name this Amendment stands, was afraid he would be late in arriving and asked that some one should move this Amendment on his behalf. The point is that it says in the Bill, as it stands, that the final authority is that of the local education authority. They are to be satisfied; but in other parts of the Bill the provision is "satisfy the Minister." Lord Grey maintains that the same provision should be applied in this case. During the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said that this was not necessary if the clause giving certain powers to the Minister were not removed, but that clause was removed. I imagine that this Amendment is contingent on that. The noble Earl said he would reconsider the point and see whether it was not better to insert the words "satisfy the Minister."
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 1, leave out ("are satisfied") and insert ("satisfy the Minister").—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has anticipated the reply I have to make to the Amendment he has moved on behalf of my noble friend Earl Grey. It is quite true that when what used to be subsection (2) of Clause 93 was removed from the Bill during the Committee stage a gap was left which will have to be filled. Whatever opinion there may be about that particular subsection and about the proposed new clause which I have to move later to take its place, everybody will agree that a clause giving the Minister power to act as a court of appeal against the decisions of local authorities will be necessary. Inasmuch as education is administered by the local authorities, and this Bill lays upon local authorities the necessity of making a great many decisions of varying importance, it is necessary to have some

837
method by which these decisions can be appealed against by any of His Majesty's lieges who are injured. This is one of the cases.
This cause deals with the special provisions in regard to religious education in county schools, and the proviso lays it down that where a county school is so situated that arrangements cannot conveniently be made for the withdrawal of pupils from the school in accordance with the provisions of this Bill, these pupils should receive denominational religious instruction on the school premises if their parents so desire it end if the local authority is satisfied that certain conditions have been fulfilled. It is right that the local education, authority should be the judge in the first instance of these matters, but if your Lordships will turn to the proposed new clause which I intend to move after Clause 66, you will see we are attempting to provide that if a parent is aggrieved by any decision of the local education authority on these numerous points, he will have some right of appeal. I suggest to the right reverend Prelate that that is the proper way to deal with the question.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: I think it would be right on behalf of my noble friend Lord Grey to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27:
Special provisions as to religious education in controlled schools.
(3) The head teacher of a controlled school shall not, while holding that position, be a reserved teacher, but before appointing any person to le the head teacher of such a school the local education authority shall inform the managers or governors of the school as to the person whom they propose to appoint and shall consider any representations made by the managers or governors with respect to the proposed appointment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "inform" and insert "consult" The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I have beer asked to move this Amendment on behalf of the Bishop of Chichester. It is perfectly simple. In the particular subsection it is laid down that when a head teacher of a controlled school is to be appointed, the local authority shall inform the managers or
838
governors as to the person whom they propose to appoint and shall consider any representations made by the managers. It was pointed out in Committee that that appears to imply that, first of all, the local authority shall decide whom they intend to appoint, and then inform the managers and ask if they have any observations. It was asked by the Amendment then moved that the local authority should be required to consult with the managers before they inform them, thus giving them an opportunity of discovering the wishes of the managers before making up their minds. That seems an entirely right and proper thing, to do.
The noble Earl, on the Committee stage, said that the plain English of the words in the Bill was what is generally meant by the word "consult." I beg slightly to differ. I think there is a difference between the local authority informing the managers whom they propose to appoint and consulting with them as to whom they shall appoint. But if the words mean precisely the same thing in the noble Earl's opinion, then there is a strong case for using the word "consult." and not "inform." I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. It makes it quite clear that the local authority—and it is a mere matter of courtesy—should say to the managers first, "Have you any observations to make before we pick our man?" That is a better way of going to work than to say, "We have picked our man—have you anything to say about it?" I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 32, leave out ("inform") and insert ("consult").—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am afraid my right honourable friend is not able to accept this Amendment, though he has viewed the representations made by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, with the very greatest sympathy. The reason he is unable to accept is that he desires to make it quite clear that the appointment of a head teacher in a controlled school does rest with the local education authority. There is a danger that the word "consult" may be interpreted in the country as giving the managers some right of veto, though I would agree with the right reverend Pre-

839
late that it does not really bear that interpretation. I endeavoured to point out during the Committee stage that if you are required by Act of Parliament or any other document, first, to inform somebody as to what you propose to do and, secondly, to listen to their representations, that does in fact amount to consultation. That is the intention of the Bill.
It is very easy to exaggerate the importance of the form of words preferred by the right reverend Prelate and that preferred by the Government. Surely in the administration of this Act the same common sense which distinguishes our countrymen will be employed. The local education authority would place a teacher in a very difficult position if, without any previous word to the managers, it informed them of the name of the teacher it proposed to appoint, and the managers unanimously replied that that particular teacher was wholly unacceptable to them. That would be a most unfortunate commencement for any teacher's career, and I do not think any teacher or any local education authority, or for that matter any manager, would like to be put in that position. Therefore I think we can be sure, whatever the form of words used, that the local education authority will advise itself of what local feelings in this matter are and will not take a step that might put its teachers in a very difficult position. But it is important that it should be made quite clear in the Bill that it is an appointment by the local education authority and that the representations which the managers make are representations and not a veto. Therefore I am afraid I am unable to accept the Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: My Lords, before this Amendment is disposed of I would venture to make two points. First of all the word "consult" is what the Minister himself used in the White Paper, and with all respect to the noble Earl it does seem to me that there is a very material difference. To say that they shall "inform" the managers or governors and then ask, "Have you any objections?" at once creates an extraordinarily difficult situation, whereas if this is an informal consultation without the right of veto you at once smooth the way for the working of this particular provision. The second point I venture to make is this. This
840
question arises in a great number of small country schools. These schools hitherto have been Church schools and they are afraid that what is going to happen is that instead of there being any power in the managers, as before, all power will be in the local education authority. Very well. In that case it is most important that the village community with the local managers should from the first have the opportunity of making this provision work as smoothly as possible.
If it is not improper to say so, when the general terms were discussed in the Church Assembly tremendous emphasis was put on this, "You cannot have the head teacher the reserved teacher, but you are going to be consulted about who the head teacher is to be." I know there is no guarantee in that but that was the understanding which got the more conservative elements in the Church Assembly to say, "Well, we will do what we can to back this scheme." It was part of the understanding and it seems to me very unfortunate that what was given us in the White Paper should be changed and the Bill worded in a form which obviously does suggest a different method in the appointment of a head teacher than was suggested previously. I therefore hope the Government and the President may reconsider the matter. It might be possible to do that if this Amendment is not pressed now. I do not wish to do that but I do ask the Government to consider again whether they cannot do what they said in the White Paper that they would do.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords I am not in the least convinced by the reply I have received. It appears to be the purely legal point whether, if the word used is "consult", that implies that the managers have a veto. I cannot conceive that it does because quite clearly before appointing any person the local authority have to "consult" and the fact that they are required to consult does not, it seems to me, give any veto to the person they consult. I cannot conceive that the legal objection is strong but I should like a lawyer to inform me whether there is real substance in that point. If there is not I understand that the Board of Education and the Government really agree entirely with the point I have made and agree there ought to be consultation. I think it is very hard that that requirement of consultation should

841
be overridden on a rather slender point and a doubtful point as to whether the words themselves might imply a veto, which I cannot think they do.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What I said was that it might be implied by some people that there was a veto, but I carefully said it did not bear that meaning.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: If it is not a legal point, then I am still more disinclined to be persuaded by the noble Earl, because anyone reading this could not conceivably imagine it meant a veto. The appointment is clearly in the hands of the local authority and after what has been sail I feel that the reason for the Amendment which has been moved is stronger than ever.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, as the advice of a lawyer has been appealed for, perhaps I may be allowed to say to the right reverend Prelate that I really do not think it makes any practical difference whether the word is "inform" or "consult". I say that not because the words are not different but because there is in this clause something which follows the phrase about "inform". It is that the local education authority "shall consider any representations made by the managers or governors with respect to the proposed appointment." The result of those words in my opinion is that the local authority have to inform the managers of the names and then, if proper representations are made, they ought not to appoint. Therefore I really do not think it makes any difference in practice.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I am assured on all sides that it does not make any difference which word is used and in that case I do not see why the word "consult" should not be used.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, perhaps Lt would be convenient to the House if we now adjourned for about an hour.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, after Clause 28, to insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to religious instruction in accordance with agreed syllabus.
".—(1) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the
842
preparation, adoption, and reconsideration of an agreed syllabus of religious instruction.
(2) A local education authority shall have power, upon the recommendation of any conference, convened in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule, to constitute a standing advisory council on religious education to advise the authority upon matters connected with the religious instruction to be given in accordance with an agreed syllabus and, in particular, as to methods of teaching, the choice of books, and the provision of lectures for teachers.
(3) The method of appointment of the members of any council constituted under the last foregoing subsection and the term of office and conditions of retirement of the members thereof shall be such as may be determined by the local education authority, but the authority shall have regard to any recommendations with respect to those matters which may be made to them by such a conference as aforesaid."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet points to which' attention was drawn by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield and also, I think, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester during the Committee stage. It is designed to fill what I think was a gap in the Bill and to give effect to the points which the right reverend Prelates stressed. This new clause will do two things. It will enable a local education authority to constitute a standing advisory committee on religious education to advise the authority upon matters connected with religious instruction to be given in accordance with an agreed syllabus and in particular as to methods of teaching, the choice of books and the provision of lectures for teachers. The Seventh Schedule as it used to be, could be interpreted as meaning that the conference convened to draw up an agreed syllabus would disappear immediately after the syllabus had been agreed to and never be heard of again. The right reverend Prelate urged the importance of providing some continuing committee to make suggestions for the improvement of the syllabus and of analogous subjects in the words I have just read. This new clause gives effect to that and it also links up the schedule with the Bill in a way which had not been done before. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will regard this new clause as a valuable improvement in the Bill for which we are indebted to the right reverend Prelate.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 28 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to express my great gratitude to the noble Earl and the Government for introducing this new clause. I believe it is a very real improvement and that it will help to carry out what we have in mind that religious teaching shall be effective. Unless there is some continuing committee whose special business it is to look after that I am afraid that in some cases it might be very much neglected. Therefore, I express my very great gratitude that the situation has been met in this way.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I presume that this new clause only applies to schools in which there is an agreed syllabus.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If the noble Earl looks at subsection (2) of the new clause he will see the words "to advise the authority upon matters connected with the religious instruction to be given in accordance with an agreed syllabus." It is all governed by the words "agreed syllabus."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [School attendance areas]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 46, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38:
Duty of parents to secure regular attendance of registered pupils.
(2) In any proceedings for an offence against this section in respect of a child who is not a boarder at the school at which he is a registered pupil, the child shall not be deemed to have failed to attend regularly at the school by reason of his absence therefrom with leave or—
(c) if the parent proves that the school at which the child is a registered pupil is more than three miles measured by the nearest available route from the child's home, and that no suitable arrangements have been made by the local education authority either for his transport to and from the school or for boarding accommodation for him at or near the school or for enabling him to become a registered pupil at a school nearer to his home.
(5) In this section the expression "leave" in relation to any school means leave granted
844
by any person authorized in that behalf by the managers, governors or proprietor of the school.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), to leave out "more than three miles measured by the nearest available route from" and insert "not within walking distance of." The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gorell has asked me to move the two Amendments standing in his name. If you read the two Amendments together your Lordships will see what is the intention. My noble friend and others of your Lordships thought it was unreasonable to expect little children from five to eight years of age to walk in all weathers three miles to school and three miles back. I hope we are going to have a little more kindness shown to these children than in the past. Many noble Lords spoke in support of a change and gave arguments. My noble friend Lord Gorell spoke about "windy downlands," the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about "swampy ground," the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, about "wintry weather," and I think the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, mentioned "dangerous roads." I thought the most reverend Primate was very happy in suggesting that, even if these young children were able to walk as far as three miles, probably their attention in school would not be very good and that therefore they would not get the best education.
The question of the children's education as well as their health is involved in this matter. Personally, I feel that for a child of five years a walk of one and a half miles would be as much as could reasonably be expected, but it is difficult perhaps to get an Amendment at this time. I hope, however, that children will not have to wait another seventy-four years for another concession in an Education Act. I think the noble Earl was sympathetic to the views expressed by your Lordships on the last occasion. He promised to see his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education, and I hope he will now be able to give a favourable reply to this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 46, leave out ("more than three miles measured by the nearest available route from") and insert ("not within walking distance of").—(Lord Aberdare.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, this matter was raised on the Committee

845
stage by my noble friend Lord Gorell, but curiously enought it was never raised in another place. When my noble friend raised it his suggestion received a great measure of support from all quarters of your Lordships' House. The wording, however, was not very appropriate, and the words now suggested have an expert touch about them which shows that my noble friend has sought expert advice in achieving his point. I am very glad to be able to tell your Lordships that I have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: I thank the noble Earl very much indeed and I would say that I do not think that all along any of your Lordships have wished to do more than to get their intention embodied in the Bill. If the words suggested are not always correct they can of course be amended.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the second Amendment is consequential
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 32, at end insert ("and the expression 'walking distance' means in relation to a child who has not attained the age of eight years two miles, and in the case of any other child three miles, measured by the nearest available route.")—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42:
County Colleges.
(4) The Minister may make regulations as to the maintenance government and conduct of county colleges and as to the further education to be given therein.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (4), after "education," to insert "including religious education." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think I need take up much of your Lordships' time on this Amendment. My point is that there ought to be some direction given to local authorities in respect of county colleges, that they should consider the question of including religion in their curricula. I understand that the noble Earl said that this would be possible as it was, but I think it is desirable that some pointer should be given. Your Lordship; will remember that when this was first moved a great deal of objection was taken to the idea of forcing religion down young people's throats. With that
846
I quite agree, but there would be no forcing in this case. The Minister would be empowered to make regulations, and he would make such regulations as the circumstances demand. My noble friend Lord Roche has said that he would entirely deprecate anything like compulsory religion in town colleges where the amount of time was very small, and where it might be difficult to fit it in—though that ought to be possible if parents wished it. At the same time at residential colleges it would be disastrous to omit it. That is the spirit in which I move this Amendment and I trust that as it really does not do anything in the way of compulsion the noble Earl will be ready to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 38, after ("education") insert ("including religious education").(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, this Amendment is not unlike another Amendment which we had under consideration before lunch when the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, on being appealed to as to the effect of certain words, replied, rather witheringly, that it did not matter either way which word was adopted. That is an argument which both sides can always claim in support of their contention. I said on the last occasion when this matter was discussed that if the local education authority so decided, and if the young people at a county college so wished, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent religious education being given during college hours. That is so. Therefore the Amendment proposed by my noble friend would not have any effect. It would merely be in the nature of a signpost, something, as it were, to put an idea into the heads of the local authorities. But ideas can be put into the heads of local education authorities by other methods than by Acts of Parliament. Therefore it would not even be necessary from that point of view.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I just call my noble friend's attention to the fact that by this same clause he does put the idea of physical, practical and vocational training into the heads of the local authorities?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is perfectly true, and I think there might

847
be—on the ground of strict logic and symmetry—a great deal to be said for my noble friend's Amendment. I think that the reason why my right honourable friend is unwilling to support this Amendment is that he does not feel that it would represent reality. In the first place the county colleges will be in session for a very short period, and so many subjects have to be crowded into that periood that he is loth to believe that any adequate presentation of religion could be given within the period. He therefore does not think that there will be any demand for taking the college hours for religious subjects. Of course there will be nothing to prevent young people banding together for further religious instruction out of college hours. As I have already said, it could be done within college hours if the local education authority agreed. But the Government do not believe that this really would be a feature of the college life, and therefore they are unwilling to insert it into this part of the Bill.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question on this point. Subsection (4) of the clause states that:
"The Minister may make regulations as to the maintenance government and conduct of county colleges and as to the further education to be given therein."
With regard to further education, could the Minister make a regulation in which "further education" would include religious instruction?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should imagine that education consists of instructing people in some subject and a great deal of the Bill is devoted to providing for instructing them in religious subjects. Therefore education comprises religious education just as much as it does technical education.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I will not press this Amendment. I must confess, though, that I do not follow my noble friend's arguments because he did not deal with the case of residential colleges at all. Certainly I will not trouble your Lordships with a Division on the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52:
Provision of facilities for recreation and social and physical training.
52.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that the facilities for primary secondary and further education provided for their area include adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training and for that purpose a local education authority, with the approval of the Minister, may establish maintain and manage, or assist the establishment, maintenance, and management of camps, holiday classes, playing fields, play centres, gymnasiums, swimming baths and other establishments at which facilities for recreation and for such training as aforesaid are available for persons for whom primary secondary or further education is provided by the authority, and may organize games expeditions and other activities for such persons, and may defray or contribute towards the expenses thereof.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "camps, holiday classes, playing fields, play centres, gymnasiums, swimming baths and other establishments" and insert "camps, holiday classes, playing fields, play centres, and other places (including playgrounds, gymnasiums, and swimming baths not appropriated to any school or college)." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and the one at line 33, to insert a new subsection (2), should be read together. The two Amendments are intended to deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Aberdare with regard to the inclusion of playgrounds and a reference to voluntary associations or bodies. The new proposed subsection (2) emphasizes the importance of voluntary associations or bodies even more strongly than I think my noble friend did in his Amendment. I would like to add that in considering how the Government could meet criticisms that were made by your Lordships on this clause, my right honourable friend and I did consider very carefully the plea made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, on behalf of community centres. I am advised, however, that the whole question of community centres is at this moment under consideration by the appropriate Government Committee, and therefore it would be premature to anticipate the Government's policy, which has yet to be submitted to Parliament, on the whole question of community centres. Community centres could be covered by the words "and other places." There is therefore no need for more, but it is thought that it would be a mistake to mention com-

849
munity centres in the Bill, in view of the fact that neither the Government nor Parliament have yet defined their policy in regard to the community centre movement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 26, leave out from ("of") to ("at") in line 28, and insert the said new words—(The Earl of Selborne).
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for including the word "playgrounds" in this Amendment. I am sure that it is a very necessary improvement, for the reasons which I gave during the Committee stage. It will be a great pleasure and encouragement to the Five Million Club, which is the younger brother of the National Playing Fields Association, to have this support, because it is its one aim and object to obtain as many playgrounds as possible for the young people of this country, following the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee of 1936.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if it is desired by the noble Lord to insert the words "community centre," that would have to be done by an Amendment to the Amendment now before the House, which would have to be dealt with before the main Amendment was put. If the noble Lord desires the question raised by Lord Bledisloe's Amendment to be put to the House, he should move it as an Amendment to the Amendment now before the House.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved to amend the Amendment by inserting, "community centres" after "camps" The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment at the wish of the noble Viscount Lord Bledisloe. As the noble Earl in charge of the Bill remarked on the Committee stage, this is not a question of the National Council of Social Service, through Lord Bledisloe, trying to alter the Bill in any way, but it was desired to give due prominence to this special form of social amenity, and I think that many of your Lordships in all parts of the House approve of such a suggestion. I feel that I should perhaps refer to what the noble Earl said when replying on this question on the Committee stage. The gist of his reply was that the community centre movement was comparatively a young one and that these words
850
were not put into the Bill at this point because "community centre" is not a precise term.
I should like to make three remarks on that. The Board of Education in 1938, when the National Fitness Council was in existence, did give grants-in-aid to community centres, and I feel that they understood then what "community centres" meant. The expression "community centre" is used by the Youth Advisory Council set up by the Board of Education, and it appears that the Board approves of this term. We are merely asking for the words "community centres" to be put in after the word "camps." The word "camps" is equally vague, and almost too vague. It seems to me that a community centre is a camp within a town—a place where grown up and young people congregate in their leisure hours. Your Lordships may regard a "community centre" merely as a club which is open to all, who are eligible.
Although a special Committee is considering the desirability or otherwise of community centres, the term is one which is going to be used, and it should be possible on this occasion to include it and to do the best we can so far as a definition is concerned. On the last occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, reported that there was a very strong feeling about the importance of this matter on the part of leading social workers in the country, and I hope that the lack of a precise definition will not stand in the way of the President of the Board of Education accepting the inclusion of this term. If the term is inserted, it is possible for local education authorities to consider in every case whether the centre has any definite educational advantage, and, only if it has, to give financial support to the maintenance of such an institution.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
After ("camps") insert ("community centres")—(Lord Aberdare).
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, it is a matter of great regret to my noble friend Lord Bledisloe that he is detained by duties in his own county and is unable to be here to-day to move this Amendment, to which he attaches importance. I should like to say a few words in its support, as I did on the Committee stage. The community centre movement is an important one. It is probable that in an-

851
other generation it will found that these centres will play a large part in our national life, and will be regarded as part of the necessary equipment not only of our towns but of "neighbourhoods" within our towns. This Bill deals not only with the education of children and young persons but also with adult education, which is included in the term "further education," and much emphasis is now placed by educationists such as Sir Richard Livingstone and many others on the importance of extending adult education. No place is more suited for conducting adult education in its many forms than the community centre.
This provision gives power to the local education authority not only to maintain establishments but also to assist in maintaining establishments for all kinds of education, including, as I have said, adult education, and these community centres might attract the support not only of the local authority as such, as being a centre for local government activities, and not only of the health departments as such, possibly including the health centres, but also of the education authority as such; and they might all combine to supply the necessary provision for the establishment of community centres. The question is whether, if that is sound policy, some reference should be made to it in this Bill. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill tells us that it could be done by his Amendment as it now stands, because community centres could be included among "other places" in the second line of his Amendment. That relieves my mind, because the fact that playgrounds, gymnasiums and swimming baths are included might be held to imply the exclusion of other things, according to the well-known rule of draftsmanship which is so often quoted to us. If the noble Earl says that that is not so in this case, and that the words used do not imply the exclusion of community centres, well and good. However, I think it would be safer to put them in.
The noble Earl says that this matter is now under investigation by a Government Committee. If we could have an assurance from him that if the community centre is to be encouraged by the Government the Minister of Education will not be excluded from participating but will have a free hand, possibly the noble Lord would not press his Amendment, but I
852
think that we should like from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a little further elucidation of this point.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am very glad to respond to my noble friend's invitation and to give that assurance. The Government are keenly alive both to the importance and to the possibilities of the community centre movement. In fact, so important do they regard it that the whole subject is under special consideration, as I have said, by the appropriate Government Committee. When we are building the new and better England let us do it decently and in order, taking each subject by itself and dove-tailing them one into another in the proper way. I suggest that to drag community centres into the subsection of a clause of this Bill would not really be the workmanlike and right method of dealing with the problem. When community centres come to be dealt with the Minister of Education will no doubt play a very important part, and the local authorities also. Whether it would be the local education authority or the local authority is a matter which has not yet been determined.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Or both.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Or both—probably both. Therefore, when the matter comes to be dealt with it may not be merely the Education Department that will deal with community centres; there may be other Departments concerned as well, and the Act of Parliament dealing with the subject might possibly have to make a small Amendment to this Act, though I do not think it would, because these words are very wide. For those reasons, I suggest to my noble friend that it would be inexpedient to mention community centres at this juncture, and I hope he will not press his Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, as you will realize, the National Council of Social Service are very anxious to appear in this very historic Act-to-be, and from what we hear it would be too late to include community centres before this Bill becomes an Act. I do not think they will be too pleased at just being included among "other places." It seems to be a case of several sorts of thing of rather unknown quality. I think your Lordships really know very much what the community centre is going to be, and could have been satisfied that

853
it was a safe risk to take. Under the circumstances, however, and relying on the statement of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to insert after subsection (1):
"(2) A local education authority, in making arrangements for the provision of facilities or the organization of activities under the powers conferred on them by the last foregoing subsection shall, in particular, have regard to the expediency of co-operating with any voluntary societies or bodies whose objects include the provision of facilities or the organization of activities of a similar character."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on what has already been passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 43, line 33, at end, insert the said subsection—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for meeting my suggestion, made on the Second Reading and in Committee. I know it will be a cause of immense satisfaction to the Standing Conference of National Youth Organizations and a great encouragement to all other organizations interested in this branch of work.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53:
Power to ensure cleanliness.
(3) A notice served under the last foregoing subsection shall inform the person upon whom it is served that unless within -the period limited by the notice, not being less than twenty-four hours after the service thereof, the person and clothing of the pupil to whom the notice relates are cleansed to the satisfaction of such person as may be specified in the notice the cleansing thereof will be carried out under arrangements made by the local education authority; and if upon a report being made to him by that person at the expiration of that period a medical officer of the authority is not satisfied that the person and clothing of the pupil have been properly cleansed then, subject as hereafter provided, the medical officer may issue an order directing that the person and clothing of the pupil be cleansed under such arrangements:
Provided that, any such notice shall also inform the person upon whom it is served that he may within the period limited by the notice notify the head teacher of the school or college at which the pupil is in attendance that he objects to the cleansing being carried out under arrangements made by the local educa-
854
tion authority, and if he does so such an order as aforesaid shall not be issued by the medical officer but an order to the like effect may, on the application of any officer of the authority, be made by a court of summary jurisdiction.
(4) It shall be the duty of the local education authority to make arrangements for securing that any person or clothing required under this section to be cleansed may be cleansed (whether at the request of a parent or pupil or in pursuance of an order issued or made under this section) at suitable premises by suitable persons and with suitable appliances; and where the council of any county district in the area of the authority are entitled to the use of any premises or appliances for cleansing the person or clothing of persons infested with vermin, the authority may require the council to permit the authority to use those premises or appliances for such purposes upon such terms as may be determined by agreement between the authority and the council or, in default of such agreement, by the Minister of Health.
(5) Where an order has been issued by a medical officer or made by a court under this section directing that the person and clothing of a pupil be cleansed under arrangements made by a local education authority, the order shall be sufficient to authorize any officer of the authority to cause the person and clothing of the pupil named in the order to be cleansed in accordance with arrangements made under the last foregoing subsection, and for that purpose to convey him to, and detain him at, any premises provided in accordance with such arrangements.
(6) Where an order has been made by a court of, summary jurisdiction for the cleansing of the person or clothing of any pupil, then, if after the cleansing thereof has been carried out under this section his person or clothing is again found upon being examined under this section to be infested with vermin or in a foul condition at any time while he is in attendance at a school maintained by a local education authority or at a county college the parent of the pupil, or in the case of a pupil in attendance at a county college, the pupil shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the next five Amendments should be taken together. They look like small and drafting Amendments, but they are not. They are designed to bow to the opinion of your Lordships when the matter of Clause 53, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, was considered in Committee. The noble Lord raised the question whether the parents of a pupil who is being compulsorily cleansed in order to rid him of vermin should have the opportunity of taking the matter before a court of summary jurisdiction. Your Lordships, who are generally most jealous of the liberty of the subject, refused to extend the same solicitude to the liberty of the louse and my noble friend

855
Lord Ammon clearly had the sympathy of your Lordships' House. The Government, bowing to that view, have proposed these five alterations to the Bill, and I think it would be most convenient if I examined them together and showed their effect.
The first Amendment is merely to strike out the words "then, subject as hereinafter provided" in subsection (3). Then the whole of the proviso, which is the part to which my noble friend Lord Ammon objects, goes out. The only two other alterations in subsections (4) and (5) are the omission in each case of the words "or made" because, whereas an education authority can issue an order, only a court of summary jurisdiction can make an order. Then subsection (6) is removed. There, I gather, I am not carrying Lord Ammon with me, but your Lordships will see if you examine subsection (6) that it all depends on an order having been made by a court of summary jurisdiction and it provides that the pupil may be fined. I think Lord Ammon has an Amendment suggesting that people should still be fined for being continually lousy although the matter may not have been tried in a court of law. The object of subsection (6) was not so much to deal with the person who is continually lousy but to prevent frivolous appeals to a court of summary jurisdiction under the proviso to subsection (3). Therefore, as the right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction has now been taken away the safeguard against the abuse of that right is no longer necessary and in the view of the Government there is no necessity to keep in subsection (6).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In order to preserve Lord Ammon's right to move his Amendment, I think we can deal with this proposed sequence of changes down to subsection (6). I put the question therefore as regards the first four Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 44, line 33, leave out ("then, subject as hereinafter provided")
Page 44, line 36, leave out lines 36 to 44.
Page 45, line 1, leave out ("or made")
Page 45, line 11, leave out from ("officer") to ("under") in line 12.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD AMMON: My Lords, in Clause 87 of the Education Act, 1921, which this
856
clause seeks to supersede, it is laid down that after a child who has been infested has been cleansed by a public authority, should the persons who are responsible—the guardians of that child—allow it again to become infected, and therefore a danger to the community, it should be possible to take them before a court of summary jurisdiction, where they could be fined a sum of ten shillings. That is the law as it stands at present. The thing that puzzles rue is that the Government make concessions very often, as in this case, in such a way as to rob them of beneficial effect. That is going to happen in this case. I am grateful to the noble Earl for offering to meet me in the way he has, but I should be sorry to see all his gallant efforts and generosity wasted. As my noble friend Lord Maugham said in a previous discussion, this debate is really not on the liberty of the subject but on the liberty of the louse. This is a case where you are limiting the liberty of the subject to some extent, as in most legislation, in order to prevent some people from becoming a menace to the community.
This is what will happen. The children will be compulsorily cleansed, but if they again become infested there is nothing for it but to go through the business all over again. The present law—I speak with knowledge of what happens in London with its large school population—although it is not often put into effect, is a very great deterrent. The people know that if they allow their children to become again infested in this deplorable way, they will be liable to a fine of 10s. and that is in most cases sufficient. I do hope that the noble Earl and the House will insist on the regulation being made complete so that we shall be able to see that there is no danger of reinfestation, especially in times like the present when there is so much overcrowding in shelters and other places. For the sake of the general health and well-being of the children, this matter requires the most constant care.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord's observations are really addressed to his Amendment on subsection (6). With the approval of the House, I shall first put the Amendments moved by the noble Earl (Lord Selborne) to which I do not think any objection has been taken.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 21, leave out from ("Where") to ("has") in line 23 and insert ("after the cleansing of the person or clothing of any pupil")—(Lord Ammon).
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, there is an important point that my noble friend Lord Ammon has not taken fully into account. He has argued that the Act of 1921 makes the parent liable to a fine of 10s. if he allows his children to become reinfested with lice. Therefore he argues that the striking out of this subsection would be a reactionary step. If your Lordships agree to the Amendment moved by my noble friend, subsection (6) would read in a different way from the law of 1921, and it would have a different effect. Where a parent "allows" a child to become infested again implies that it is the parent's fault in some respects—that he has done something, or faired to do something, which has resulted in the child becoming lousy, probably failed to wash the child. Under the words of this subsection, as it would be left if my noble friend's Amendment were carried, if the child were found to be lousy again, the parent would be liable to a much heavier fine although it would not be necessary to prove that the condition of the child was in any way due to the parent. I suggest that that would be an inappropriate method of dealing with the matter. There is a danger of multiplying offences, and it would be a mistake to fix this very heavy fine instead of the fine provided by the Act of 1921. For these reasons it seems to me that the course recommended by the Government is the proper one.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, surely the Government admit that this is the law now. We are not proposing to add anything. Under Section 87 of the Act of 1921 provision is made that if the person or clothing of any pupil has been cleansed by the local education authority, and the parent of the child allows him to get into such condition again, the parent shall be I able to a fine not exceeding 1os. That is the law now. What is proposed is to keep this on the Statute Book. Under the Government's proposal this will no longer stand—it will be superseded.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, that is true. The present law in that respect would be repealed by this Act.
858
I was concerned to show that the proposal of my noble friend goes a good deal further than the present law. It would probably be best if I looked into this matter because there would be a chance on the Third Reading, if it is the wish of your Lordships' House, to re-enact the present law. That could be done. I am not pledging the Government; I am only pledging them to reconsider the matter if your Lordships think that is desirable; but except for my noble friend Lord Ammon, none of your Lordships has expressed an opinion on this point yet.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, one thing that has emerged from what the noble Earl has said is that this fine is much too big in the circumstances of the case. It should be restored to 1os., in which case the law will stand exactly as it is now.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, we attach no importance whatever to the figure of £5. We should just as soon that it remained at 1os., which has proved a sufficient deterrent. All I am asking is that the law be reinstated as now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say, though I have only had an opportunity of studying the subsection and listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, has said, that pit does not appear to me, from what he has quoted from the earlier Statute, that the Amendment he is proposing is the same as the provision in the earlier Act. In the earlier Act the punishment may be inflicted if the parent allows the child to get into this bad condition. I have not, up to tile moment, seen the word "allowed" in subsection (6). Subsection (6) imposes a penalty because it is the fact without raising the question of whether the parent allows it. As my noble friend Lord Selborne has said, the matter can be looked into, and that may satisfy my noble friend.
LORD AMMON: The noble Viscount has led me into waters that are too deep. I shall be satisfied if the matter is looked into again.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: My Lords, I feel quite certain that Lord Ammon's contention with regard to the provisions of the 1921 Act is a sound one and I hope your Lordships will encourage the Government to reconsider this matter.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I understand there is to be an opportunity of considering this matter again and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54:
Provision of transport and other facilities.
54.—(1) A local education authority shall make such arrangements for the provision of transport and otherwise as they consider necessary or as the Minister may direct for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of pupils at schools or county colleges or at any course or class provided in pursuance of a scheme of further education in force for their area, and any transport provided in pursuance of such arrangements shall be provided free of charge.
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH moved, in subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that, if the governors or managers of a school in the area of a local education authority are dissatisfied with the arrangements made by that authority under this subsection otherwise than in accordance with the directions of the Minister, the governors or managers may appeal to the Minister against those arrangements and on such appeal the Minister may give to the local education authority such directions as he may think fit."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rankeillour has asked me to move this Amendment on his behalf. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at the beginning of Clause 54 you will see that it says:
"A local education authority shall make such arrangements for the provision of transport and otherwise as they consider necessary or as the Minister may direct for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of pupils at schools."
There seems to me to be a gap here. Two alternatives are set out, (1) provision which the local authority may consider necessary and (2) or as the Minister may direct. If that is so then surely the local authority could make such arrangements as they consider necessary and the Minister would be precluded from any intervention. There is no appeal. I do not think the new Clause 66, which is to be moved by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, if your Lordships adopt it, will apply in this particular case because of the word "or."
This Amendment is directed to the case where the managers or governors of a school are dissatisfied with the transport arrangements made by the local authorities. The words I move would allow of
860
their being able to appeal to the Minister and if the Minister found that their complaint was based on reasonable grounds he would then issue the necessary instructions to local authorities. This Amendment provides the possibility of appeal and it also would have the effect of stimulating a local authority to provide the necessary transport arrangements. I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept the Amendment which is one to which many governors and managers of schools attach very considerable importance. The whole matter turns on this particular word "or". It is rather a matter of legal interpretation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 12, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Perth.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, Clause 66 of the Bill enables the Minister to act as arbitrator in any dispute between managers and the local education authority. I understand the argument that the noble Earl has put is that that clause would not be applicable in regard to subsection (1) of Clause 54.
THE EARL OF PERTH: No; because there are two things, either the local authority will make what arrangements they consider necessary or the Minister may direct. If a Minister may direct surely he is precluded from intervening if the local authority makes such arrangements as they consider necessary. It is this word "or".
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I confess I had not appreciated the point that the noble Earl has put and I will give an undertaking to look into that aspect of it between now and Third Reading, but I am advised at present that Clause 66 does provide the remedy. Even if it did not it seems to me that the clause down in my name to be inserted after Clause 66, which the learned Lord Chancellor will move, would also cover this point. But I will certainly look into my noble friend's point, which is purely a legal one, between now and Third Reading and will advise him if any alteration in the Bill is in fact necessary.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl and on the understanding that he will look into this purely legal matter I have pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 66, to insert as a new clause:
Power of Minister to prevent unreasonable exercise of functions.
"If the Minister is satisfied, either on complaint by any person or otherwise that any local education authority or the managers or governors of any county or auxiliary school have act 2e1 or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act, he may, notwithstanding any enactment rendering the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty contingent upon the opinion of the authority or of the managers or governors, give such direction: as to the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty as appear to him to be expedient."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, my noble friend in charge of the Bill was good enough to inform your Lordships a few moments ago that he proposed to ask me to take charge of this Amendment and I must do so, though I have not found all the notes I think I should have liked. The intention is to keep the subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) already printed under the head of Clause 66 but to add at the end the new clause which I now move. Your Lordships realize that if a body of managers were to fail in discharging any duty imposed upon them the remedy naturally appropriate would be mandamus, but where mana.ger3 or other persons are given a discretion then, even if they did exercise that discretion in what would appear on further consideration to be a less unreasonable way, mandamus would not be an appropriate remedy because mandamus forces people to discharge their duty. They would reply, "We have to consider this, and we have considered it." On the other hand the educational system of the country which is, in part at least and rightly so concentrated in the Ministry of Education, though it works through these local bodies, ought not to admit of a completely unreasonable exercise of a discretion.
It is hardly necessary to give an illustration, but it is plainly wrong that parents or children themselves should suffer because the discretion which is placed in certain bodies is in fact most monstrously abused. It is thought right, in addition to the provisions in Clause 66, to put in this further provision that if the Minister is satisfied that what was being done was being done quite unreasonably he might give local bodies directions as
862
to the exercise of a power notwithstanding that the power itself was discretionary rather than absolute. I hope your Lordships will think that in the interests of education and the working of the scheme as a whole that is the correct course to take. We speak without qualification or reserve of the valuable duties performed by local authorities and bodies of managers, but there are occasions when the action they propose to take is utterly unreasonable and there must be a means of correcting that.
It has been suggested, and I myself paid close attention to the suggestion because of the source from which it came, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, and also because I have known of the methods of procedure in other cases, that it should not be left to the Minister to decide but that there should be a still further step of taking the matter to the Law Courts and getting, through, it might be, a High Court Judge nominated for the purpose, a judicial pronouncement between the parties. The view taken by the President of the Board of Education, and after consultation with him I must say that I share it, is that that is not a convenient procedure in the circumstances, for we are dealing largely with matters of administration. I do not deny that His Majesty's Judges on occasion have intervened in this sort of case very practically and very usefully under previous Acts of Parliament, but still the Judges primarily have to decide matters of law.
What is involved here is not a matter of law but of applying good sense and preventing bias and local prejudice taking command of the situation. The position will not be that the Minister is deciding his own case. He will merely be trying to get the machine to work, and I think we may have sufficient confidence in the man in charge of this all-important Department of Government. I fully admit that the alternative suggestion of bringing a High Court Judge into it is quite possible, but it is one that I urge your Lordships to reject. I do not think we want so elaborate a procedure in this case. We want correction of folly and prejudice in the real interests of education. For that reason I move this new clause, which I think will be entirely consistent with the general provision that education in this country is function of the Central Government discharged, it is true, through a large number

863
of local bodies, some elected and some not elected, but none the less imbued with the right spirit from the centre in the interests of the whole community.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 45, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I do not know whether all your Lordships present to-day know the history of this matter. This new clause is really to replace a subsection in Clause 96 which I think the general sense of the House thought ought to be rejected on general grounds. Under that subsection it was said that, notwithstanding that any action was dependent on the consent of the local education authority or the managers or the governors, the Minister might, without giving any reasons, override their consent and dispense with it, at his sole discretion. I am sure the general sense of the House was completely against it. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said he would look into it and bring up a revised version. We are all agreed that some sanction is necessary for the Minister in case of flagrant default or flagrant injustice on the part of either the local authority or the managers. This clause appears to me to make very little difference. All it does is to say that he is to act in cases where the persons concerned are unreasonable, but he is to remain the sole judge of the unreasonableness and he can override them at his entire discretion if he says he considers the local authority or the managers or both are unreasonable. There is no question of appeal.
Certain powers are given to the local authorities and managers and governors by Parliament. I venture to submit that they should not be taken away at the sole discretion of the Minister. I propose later on a new clause to which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, did not refer, providing that the tacit consent of Parliament should be necessary if the powers given to these bodies or persons are to be overridden. I suggest that it should only be done by order made which would have to lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament and would be open to rejection by them. I think this would very seldom happen and I think that the Minister, if he made such an order, would probably justify himself on strong grounds should either House of Parliament raise
864
the matter; but the point would be that Parliament kept the right at any rate if necessary to overrule the action of the Minister in overriding the discretion already given. That is my suggestion, but my noble and learned friend Lord Roche has another suggestion to which the Lord Chancellor alluded. Personally, I am indifferent as to whether Lord Roche's suggestion or mine be taken. But I do suggest that this discretionary power of the Minister ought to be checked and it ought to be checked either in the courts or by Parliament. I feel, bound to say that what is now proposed entirely fails to meet the point on which I think a great body of opinion in your Lordships' House was agreed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to insert before Clause 74:
General Principle to be observed by Minister and Local Education Authorities.
Pupils to be educated in accordance with wishes of parents.
"In the exercise and performance of all powers and duties conferred and imposed on them by this Act the Minister and local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to which I referred yesterday when an Amendment consequential to it had to be taken earlier. Its purpose is to close a gap in the Bill mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, and it states in terms that subject to the conditions mentioned the wishes of the parents as to the education of their children are to be respected by all concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 73 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74:
Inspection of educational establishments.
(4) The duty of a person authorized to make an inspection of any school in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section shall not include the duty of inspecting any religious instruction given in the school other than instruction given in accordance with an agreed syllabus, and no person who is a min-

865
ister of my religious denomination shall be authorized to inspect any religious instruction given in accordance with such a syllabus.
(6) Any religious instruction given in an auxiliary school otherwise than in accordance with an agreed syllabus may be inspected under an arrangements made for that purpose by the managers or governors of the school, or, in the case of a controlled school, by the foundation managers or foundation governors thereof so, however, that such inspections shall not be made on more than two days in any year and not less than fourteen days' notice of the dates fixed therefor shall be given to the local education authority.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and the next two Amendments standing in my name should be read together. Their object is to deal with the point raised by the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, on the Committee stage, when they pointed out the inappropriateness of subsection (4) of Clause 74, which lays down that no person who is a minister of any religious denomination shall be authorized to inspect any religious instruction given in accordance with an agreed syllabus. That subsection did not stand the test of debate in your Lordships' House. Accordingly I move this series of Amendments which have the effect of leaving out subsection (4) and putting in new subsections (5) and (6) in its place. They are, in fact, very much what was suggested by the most reverend Primate and they make it clear that the inspection is only to be carried out by inspectors appointed by the local education authority or the Minister. That entirely covers the point that the Bill was originally drafted to deal with.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 37, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, the most reverend Primate has asked me to apologize for his being unable to be present in his place here to-day. He wishes me to withdraw the Amendment standing in his name, and to say that personally he prefers the form of Amendment which the noble Earl has just outlined. He wishes me also to express his gratitude to the Government for meeting the point which has been raised so fully.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "Any" and insert:
"Subject as hereinafter provided, the religious instruction given in any school maintained by a local education authority shall not be subject to inspection by any person who is not one of His Majesty's Inspectors or a person authorized by the Minister or by the authority:
Provided that the"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. This is another of the series of Amendments to which I referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 6, leave out ("Any") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 7, after ("syllabus") insert ("shall not be subject to such inspection as aforesaid but ").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, this is the last of the Amendments to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 19, after ("under") insert ("the proviso to").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 77:
Registration of pupils at school.
(3) The regulations made under this section shall prescribe the procedure by which a child (not being a child with respect to whom a school attendance order is in force) may be withdrawn from any school at which he is a registered pupil, and shall make provision for the deletion from the register of the name of any pupil so withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (3), after "prescribe," to insert "the procedure by which a child may become a registered pupil and." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a point in the Bill which has escaped the vigilance of nearly everybody, including your Lordships, up till now. Therefore, at this penultimate opportunity I beg to move this Amendment. The object of the Amendment is to enable the Minister to authorize a local education authority not to admit a child immediately he or she reaches the age of five if that event occurs in the middle of a term. In this respect

867
it re-enacts the existing law of the Education Act of 1921. Apparently, as the Bill is now drafted, if a child becomes five years old it at once becomes liable to attend school. Obviously it would be inconvenient for this small infant to arrive at school in the middle of a term. It would be much better that it should not start its academic career until the commencement of the next term. That is what this Amendment provides.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 44, at end insert ("the procedure by which a child may become a registered pupil and").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 78 [Powers of local education authorities to give assistance by means of scholarships and otherwise]:
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to insert after paragraph (c):
"(d) to grant scholarships or special allowances in respect of pupils of exceptional ability and character, whether or not over compulsory school age, with power to continue the payments after the pupil shall have obtained a degree at a university under such conditions as may be prescribed:"
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, on a former occasion I moved an Amendment which was, in some respects, like the present one. It was rejected, however, on the ground, put forward by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, that the powers sought to be conferred by the clause on the Minister as regards regulations already existed and that the Amendment was therefore unnecessary. Since then I have received a good deal of encouragement, both from members of this House and by letters which have been written to me by all sorts of people, to raise the question again in an improved form. The way in which I have rather improved the proposed Amendment is this. Whereas paragraph (c) of Clause 78 is limited to a power in respect of pupils over compulsory school age, my clause—for a reason which I will give in a moment—is not limited to those pupils. It is open to argument whether paragraph (c) can permit any post-graduate assistance to be given to a brilliant school boy or a brilliant member of a university, and accordingly I propose in this Amendment to empower the Minister to make regulations which will deal both with children
868
who are under school age and also with post-graduate assistance.
Your Lordships will remember that the compulsory school age, according to the Bill, will be no less than sixteen, if the anticipations of those in charge of it are fulfilled. Long before, or at any rate—for I do not wish to exaggerate—a year or two before the age of sixteen is attained, it may be found that a particular boy, or a particular girl, (for I include both), is possessed of such remarkable ability, such extraordinary talents in certain directions, that it is most desirable that every possible assistance should be given to that person. Well, then, I want the regulations of the Minister—if this paragraph is made part of the Bill—to provide special arrangements for that selected pupil. It is impossible, in my opinion, in such a county school as we contemplate under this Bill when it becomes an Act, where the whole of the children who come from the elementary schools will be put into forms without any selection being made, to rule out those who are not of very good capacity, or those who do not want to work or those whose minds are incapable of assimilating any real instruction. It is impossible in forms of that kind to give useful instruction to a lad or a girl of really first-rate ability, and it will be necessary if you find what would popularly be called "a flyer" with regard to ability and capacity, to make provision to give the best possible instruction to such a person from the age at which his capacity is discovered until he has obtained the best degree which is obtainable at the selected university.
I have said something about the allowances necessary when the pupil is under age, but I want now to add a few words with reference to post-graduate assistance. The young man of whom I am now thinking, who has obtained a first-rate degree at a university—I disclaim the idea of limiting what I am saying to Oxford and Cambridge—will want to earn a living at once. Everybody accustomed to dealing with such cases knows that such a young man—I am dealing with very poor boys—will desire, if possible, to earn a living for the purpose of helping his parents or of repaying to them the sums which they spent for his benefit when he was undergoing his early training. As things are at present, even if he has been able to go through his university

869
course with flying colours, and without anything more than a generous scholarship from the Government or the university, this will not be sufficient to enable him to help his parents or to support himself, and so there will be an inducement to him to enter the teaching profession—against which, of course, I have not a word to say—or to take on some other work in which he is at once offered a salary which removes him from want. If, however such a person is to enter on a scientific career, he will need post-graduate assistance which will enable him to go on and undertake some form of research in a university or where he will have access to some great chemical laboratory or physical institution, and where he will get no payment in the way of salary for a number of years.
In the United States of America—where, I regret to say, they are much in advance of us in regard to the teaching and encouragement of science—that has been recognized. There are two institutions there, one of them called the Commonwealth Fund Fellowships and the other an institution founded by Mr. Guggenheim and limited to American subjects, where post-graduate assistance of a generous kind is given to people of the calibre which I have in mind. It may be mentioned that in the case of the Fellowships which I have mentioned the conditions are that the applicants should be men and women who are unmarried and under thirty years of age. Those who are considerably younger and who have just obtained a degree at the age of 21 or 22 ought to be able, in my opinion, to obtain assistance from public funds here, because we ought to be able to do as well from public funds as Mr. Harkness and Mr. Guggenheim have been able to do from private funds, and so we ought to be able to encourage these people in the way which I have suggested. They are selected people of remarkable attainments, who may include among their number some of the finest scientific geniuses of the day. It is my strong belief—and I am fortified in it by the advice of people who know what they are talking about—that without some system such as this these people will fail to attain the positions which they might otherwise reach.
I could enlarge on this at great length, but, having regard to the necessity of brevity, I shall abstain from telling your
870
Lordships a good deal that I could tell you about the scientific men of the last fifty years. I will say, however, that the system of picking out boys and girls of great intellectual power is in my opinion a matter of great importance, and it has never yet been done in this country, although our educational system has been going on for over seventy years. Believing as I do that the continued greatness of this country in the very difficult times before us depends very largely upon obtaining from science and from scientific people the very greatest assistance that we can in order to improve our conditions in many ways, I do urge upon the Government the idea that we cannot afford to leave untapped, as a source of people of the eminence I have mentioned, perhaps one-half and perhaps more than one-half of the men and women of the country. I am perfectly convinced that, given equal chances, the poor are just as good a source of greatness of the kind of which I am thinking as are the rich. That has been recognized as a fact in the United States of America, and what has been done by private individuals there can surely be done by public authorities here.
If you accept the system which I am advocating, this will be a sort of pinnacle on the edifice of national education which is represented by this Bill. It can hardly fail to assist some first-rate men, and it may result—one cannot say more than that—in our finding some parsons of supreme scientific ability, whose work will be of enormous assistance to this country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 17, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I share so completely and so warmly the views which my noble and learned friend has just expressed as to the importance of every opportunity being given to a boy or girl of exceptional ability to get the fullest education possible, including post-graduate education, that I do not rise to resist his proposal with any pleasure, but with great respect to my noble friend I doubt whether he has quite sufficiently studied the first few words of the clause. The question is not whether it is desirable that very clever boys should get assistance of this kind, as they do in America, thanks to the Commonwealth

871
Fellowships and so on. The first words of the clause are:
"The Regulations shall be made by the Minister empowering local education authorities, …"
"Local education authorities" there means the rates, and I would point out that the proposal becomes a very serious one if you are going to say, not that the arrangements such as exist in America, and indeed exist to a certain extent in this country too, are very admirable, but that it is a proper part of this Education Bill to contemplate that local education authorities relying entirely on rates, plus a grant, should extend their support to this limit.
It is an entirely different thing to say that in the United States there are funds which have been established by private benevolence for helping the best chosen pupils to pursue post-graduate studies. I have not the slightest doubt that if you went to the University of Harvard or Columbia you would find scholarships intended for that very purpose, but they are not paid for out of the local rates. And it is not necessary to go to America. There is quite a large number of cases in this country in which the City companies and other private benefactors have made provision for the continuing education of pupils whose study may not be complete on the day on which they take their degrees. An obvious example is that of doctors, whose training goes on usually for seven years.
But that is not the question at all. The question is not whether or not this is a most important part of education or whether it would not be a most excellent thing for these facilities to be provided in the proper cases. The question is, is it proper in Clause 78, which deals with the power of local education authorities to give assistance by means of scholarships or otherwise, to put in anything of this sort. I ask the House to observe what Clause 78 does do. First of all, under paragraph (a), it deals with the power of local education authorities:
"to defray such expenses of children attending county schools, auxiliary schools, or special schools, as may be necessary to enable them to take part in any school activities."
I ask your Lordships to appreciate the width of that condition. There are to be no fees in county schools in any case and really this provision is a most admirable
872
one—I hope it will be very widely used—by which the local education authority may help to secure that the poorest child in such a school shall be able, let us say, to join a cricket club without having to pay for it, or to engage in any other service or activity or amenity of the school in order that the child should not be deprived of any conceivable advantage because he comes from a poor home. I think your Lordships will see that that is very right.
Then I take paragraph (b). The local education authority may
"pay the whole or any part of the fees and expenses payable in respect of children attending schools at which fees are payable."
Again there cannot be the slightest doubt that that is a most proper use for the local education authorities to make of the funds which they raise. Then take paragraph (c):
"to grant scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries, and other allowances in respect of pupils over compulsory school age, including pupils undergoing training as teachers."
That again I should have thought was very proper. Many a grammar school has had for hundreds of years some scholarship or scholarships attached to it which enable the best boys to go to the university; and so it is of course with many independent schools. It is a splendid thing that the local education authority under regulations made by the Minister should find it within its power and competence to provide a scholarship in that school.
But my noble friend in his genuine zeal for this most important subject desires that the local education authority should, by regulation, be encouraged to increase the rates paid by the local ratepayer together with such grants as may be available, for the purpose of taking, say, a very brilliant child and securing him support by a scholarship or special allowances, which are to run right up to the period when he gets his degree at the university, and are to be devoted to his post-graduate study. I have taken the closest interest in this subject for years and years, ever since I served on the Commission for Oxford and Cambridge, and I have had the great honour of being connected with Oxford University ever since I was an undergraduate. But I am by no means convinced that it is a good thing to say about an individual child, who may not yet have even reached beyond compul-

873
sory school age—a child of thirteen— "You are a very clever child and therefore we will provide for your education for, it may be, the next twenty years."
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: No, you never would provide for that. I must protest against that as an argument. This is a matter for regulations to be made and if the child turned out not to be working properly at the end of a year the scholarship would come to an end.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend is too ready to be a little querulous about this. That is not what I am referring to. What I am saying is that I do not believe it is a good thing that a child should have that special position as a super-exhibit and, subject, of course, to forfeiting his scholarship if he has not done too well, should be separated from other young learners for so long a period. I think myself, while it is most important to do everything you can to encourage children who come from poor homes to get the best education, it is also very desirable that having got the best education they should be in free competition with other children. But at any rate it would appear to me—I leave it to the good sense of your Lordships to judge—to be a quite intolerable proposition that the local education authority should take this charge upon itself. The way in which these things should be done, and very largely are done, is to be found in the establishment of post-graduate scholarships of different kinds. At Oxford there are hosts of them. Those who have done well—not little children, but those who have done well in the Schools—and wish to continue their education, have the opportunity of support given to them for post-graduate work. That is done from many sources in this country, I am glad to say, without the necessity of putting it in an Act of Parliament.
It is not the view of the Government that the insertion of this proposal would be a wise one. There is really no resemblance whatever between the provision of such things by the Commonwealth Fund Fellowships of the United States and the Guggenheim Trust and this proposal that the local authorities should make themselves responsible—none at all. I humbly submit—while assuring my
874
noble friend Lord Maugham that I have just as much zeal on this subject as anyone else could have—that this proposal is entirely inappropriate.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, as a former headmaster, I should like to say that I entirely concur in what has been said by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. Headmasters as a whole would be highly suspicious of any system by which boys were picked out as of exceptional brilliance, and treated in a class by themselves with special facilities, as dangerous to the able boy himself. All headmasters know that a good deal of their time is spent in seeing that the really brilliant boy does sufficiently rub shoulders with everyone else and is sufficiently kept in his place. A sort of "starred" treatment of this kind that might be given to brilliant boys would cause serious misgivings. Nor can I see any need for this at all. The Amendment deals with pupils under, and those over, compulsory school age. So far as those still of compulsory school age are concerned, there are ample facilities in the Bill for seeing that every pupil really gets the kind of education which is best suited to him.
The purpose of the Amendment is to see that if you really have a brilliant child who is going to be a super-scientist he does not find himself in a secondary school where the science teaching is extremely bad—if there are such schools, as I think there are—and where he does not get any competition to stretch him. There is full provision in the Bill, and it is fully in the minds of the local authorities, that their chief responsibility is to see that every child is rightly placed where he will get the best educational treatment and encouragement. There is no financial difficulty that will stop that being done under this Bill. At every point it can be made perfectly simple for him. I see no reason at this stage for any special Amendment of the Bill. When you come to post-graduate research and the brilliant people there, it is in my view wholly inappropriate that local education authorities should be the people to deal with granting special facilities for post-graduate experts. None of the local authorities can have enough knowledge to adminster such funds properly. There might be scope for a properly thought-

875
out scheme, but that ought to be done centrally in close conjunction with the universities themselves.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the Lord Chancellor and the right reverend Prelate have done full justice to the Amendment proposed by Lord Maugham. So far as I read it, this is really confined to giving help to promising people in the post-graduate stage. That is the object of the Amendment. The Lord Chancellor's objection is that that is not the proper function of local authorities. So far as that is concerned, I largely agree with what the right reverend Prelate has just said. That does not in any way diminish our sincere appreciation of all the provisions (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 78 which the Lord Chancellor explained. At the same time, if it is desirable that this kind of work should be helped more than it is being helped, and if this is not the appropriate place to put in such an Amendment, or the local authority is not the appropriate body to give such help, then I suggest it is up to His Majesty's Government to make some suggestion as to how the matter should be dealt with. My own feeling is it should be dealt with centrally through the Minister of Education. As to the necessity, none of us who have had any experience of university life will question the urgent need for a great extension of this kind of assistance.
Vast numbers of young men and women who have struggled through and got their degrees are handicapped from making a full use of their powers by having to turn to some humble job in order to get a living. In my time I have known quite a number of promising research workers who probably would have done very well but, owing to family or other necessities, they had nothing whatever to rely on except what they could earn after they got their degrees, and so they were lost to research. We certainly need to do a great deal more than we are doing to help promising post-graduate pupils. We all know that it is in the post-graduate stage that we really begin to learn. I speak feelingly. That is when we really begin to get a hold of things. Your graduate training has really equipped you to make use of opportunities when they arise. We really ought to do a lot more for these promising post-graduates and, if this is
876
not the right place for such an Amendment, it is, I repeat, up to the Government to make some alternative suggestion.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I must say I am very disappointed at the reception which the proposal has met with from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and from the right reverend Prelate. I must also frankly, and I hope without heat, say that the arguments which have been presented against the Amendment seem to me of the most flimsy and unsubstantial character. Let me first take this question of the rates. This Amendment is proposed in a clause which enables regulations to be made empowering local authorities to grant scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries, and other allowances in respect of pupils over compulsory school age. If the regulations are made, and when they are made, the cost of these things will, prima facie, fall upon the rates. To my mind it is a flimsy argument to maintain that some post-graduate arrangement in respect of an exceptional pupil imposes a charge upon the rates which is unreasonable when a similar charge upon the rates may be made up to the time he obtains a degree. I am quite unable to see that. It extends the same thing a little further, it is in pari materia.
That is a strange argument to present. If the whole charge should not fall on the local authority, the Government are well able to deal, by means of a simple Amendment, with such a difficulty as that. If the local authorities have these regulations they are only going to be empowering regulations. If it is a local authority with very poor funds the members may say, "We cannot afford it," but some of these authorities will relate to places where millions and millions of pounds are being spent annually on education. The total cost of education in this country is possibly going to run up to £150,000,000 a year, and the notion that two or three post-graduate allowances of this kind are going to make any difference to the budget of a really big concern such as I am envisaging really has nothing in it at all.
I was sorry to hear the right reverend Prelate say that the Amendment suggests that you should pick out special pupils in the sense of telling everybody that such and such a boy, little Tom Smith for in-

877
stance, is a person picked out by the Government for a special arrangement. I do not know whether it was thought that he would have a placard on his back. He is going to be no more picked out than the boy who has been given an exhibition or one in respect of whom the whole or part of his fees and expenses are payable under subsection (b). There can be no picking out whatever. The only effect is that he will be looked after and sent to a school where he would get the education suitable to his abilities and attainments.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: Is that impossible under the Act as it stands?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am just saying it is not impossible, but I am also saying that it would be very difficult to do all the things that I suggest in the Amendment unless the Amendment is passed. Not only would it appear that the Amendment is necessary to do those things but the Lord Chancellor says it is undesirable that the expense should be charged upon the rates. If the House takes that view so be it. I must possess myself in patience. But I cannot believe that either the question of the rates or the question of picking out lads and making them distrusted by their fellow-students or anything of that sort has really anything in the world in it of sufficient weight to lead the House to reject this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 82 [Power of local education authorities to accept gifts for educational purposes]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 8, leave out ("provision") and insert ("establishment").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Compensation of persons prejudicially affected by this Act]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the Amendment in my name to this clause also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 30, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 102 [Power of Minister to make loans to aided schools and special agreement schools in respect of initial expenditure]:
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved at the end of subsection (1) to insert:
"Provided that such terms and conditions shall be not less favourable to the borrowers than those available at the time to any local education authority for the like purposes."
The noble Lord said: This is to provide that the terms and conditions of the loan that has to be offered to managers to bring their schools up to date shall conform to the assurances of the President of the Board of Education that the borrowers in these cases shall be treated in the same way, and no less generously if need be, than local authorities for the same purpose. This Amendment was formerly moved by my noble friend Lord Perth in a different form, it then being suggested that it should be done with reference to the Loans Act, but it was pointed out that would not suit the proposed loans to the managers, so the original Amendment has been revised and put almost into the words I think the President of the Board himself used. It will be said that the assurances at present will be carried out. Of course they will be carried out as long as the present President is there, but I submit these loans may not be forthcoming for some years and it is as well to have the assurance that has been given put into the Bill so that what the President then said will be carried out. I need not labour the point any further but I submit this Amendment is not open to the objections that were made to a similar proposal moved in a former stage. I therefore trust the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 22, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I recognize that my noble friend has put forward this Amendment in a slightly different form to that in which it was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and I can assure him that my right honourable friend and I have examined it with great sympathy and a desire to meet him if possible. I am sure it will be recognized now that we are drawing to the close of the Report stage that we have endeavoured to meet noble Lords on a large

879
number of points, but I am afraid this proposal is still open to the objection that we should be trying to tie the Treasury to a comparison which is not really exact. My noble friend's Amendment says:
"Provided that such terms and conditions shall be not less favourable to the borrowers than those available at the time to any local education authority for the like purposes."
I do not think it would be fair to ask the Treasury—and of course this could not be done without Treasury consent—to agree to be tied by a formula of that sort, for two reasons. In the first place, it is not quite what the President of the Board of Education promised in another place. The phrase that he used in bringing forward this plan of loans to managers was to "place them on the same sort of basis as the local authorities in the matter of raising money." There is a difference between that and what my noble friend here proposes, which is to put the managers and governors on exactly the same basis as the local education authorities. It would not be fair to do so because after all the local authorities can raise a rate and offer a rate as surety whereas the managers as we know will not be able to offer anything of that nature.
But I should like to take this opportunity of telling my noble friend that it is quite a mistake to think the Government contemplate that the terms of these loans should be, roughly speaking, the same terms as those on which the loans could be raised in the ordinary money market. If that interpretation were put upon the Bill it would in fact mean that the whole gesture my right honourable friend made in another place in introducing the procedure of making loans to managers was a false and deceptive one. It would have been an empty concession to the denominational schools. Therefore I wish to take the opportunity of giving the most solemn guarantee that the policy of the Government in making loans will be to lend the money on the most reasonable terms that can be justified to Parliament and to the Public Accounts Committee—because all these things have to be justified in the end to some authority—in view of the circumstances of each case. The length of the loan, the purpose for which the money is lent and the rate of repayment and the like are all factors that have to be taken
880
into account, and I do not think my noble friend's Amendment in tying the Treasury to the exact terms on which local education authorities can borrow would be fair. It is the policy of the Government that these loans should be given substantially cheaper than can be obtained from the money market and in fact at the lowest rate at which a Government loan could be justified.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I very much regret the speech of the noble Earl and I must frankly say that the first part of it filled me with great trepidation. He actually went so far as to suggest that these loans were to be made according to the security offered. If that means anything it means that if the security to be offered by the managers and governors is not very admirable the rate of interest will be higher. To my mind that is contrary to the statement made by the President of the Board of Education in another place. If the noble Earl reads the whole of that statement instead of a small portion of it, I think he will find that the President definitely stated that he wished the denominational school to be treated on the same general basis as the poor local authority. That is the whole point—the poor local authority. It is true that in the latter part of his speech the noble Earl made a statement which was much more satisfactory, and I do not know whether in view of that the noble Lord will press his Amendment, but I do sincerely wish that something could be added to show that the loans which the Treasury make will be analogous at any rate to those made to local authorities in similar conditions.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl who has just spoken was not correct when he anticipated that loans might vary in rate of interest according to the nature of the security, but I felt a little disturbed myself at what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said on the point of security. He suggested that a local education authority which could raise loans on the security of the rates was in a stronger position than a voluntary school. That may be true, but a voluntary school could not be discontinued without causing a good deal of trouble to the arrangements of the local authority.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, by leave of your Lordships, may I clarify this point? I certainly did not intend to

881
convey that the rates of interest would be affected by the security. My point is that the pledge given by the President of the Board of Education in another place will be honoured by the Treasury in letter and in spirit. We had better leave it at that. To try to tie the Treasury down to a formula would be unfortunate and the Government could not accept such a suggestion. I hope therefore the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I have been somewhat perturbed by the course of this debate because it had been universally accepted that the statement made by the President of the Board of Education in the House of Commons meant that managers quite apart from the question of security could raise money at rates equal to those which the local authority would have to pay. Now it is suggested that that is subject to the consent of the Treasury. Under the present Treasury and under rile present President all would be well, but are we to understand that when the time comes for loans—and that may not be for some considerable time—the Treasury may say that the managers must pay one-half per cent. more? If so, it is somewhat perturbing. My endeavour was to interpret the statement of the President in the terms of an Amendment. I quite see that in the present circumstances it would be useless to press my Amendment, but I do suggest that something more is required and I trust that, even at the eleventh hour, before the Third Reading this matter will be further considered because otherwise there will be considerable uncertainty.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 10, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Contributions between local education authorities]:
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved to leave out Clause 103, and insert the following new clause:
Contribution orders in respect of border children.
"(1) Where any children resident in the area of a ay local education authority are
882
receiving education in any school within the area of and maintained by some other local education authority the Minister may if he thinks fit on the application of that other local education authority (in this section referred to as the applicant authority) and after giving the first named local education authority (in this section referred to as the respondent authority) an opportunity of being heard make a contribution order under this section.
(2) For the purpose of this section a contribution order means an order directing the respondent authority to pay to the applicant authority annually such sum as the Minister thinks proper in respect of children resident in the area of the respondent authority who, in the opinion of the Minister, are properly receiving education in a school within the area of and maintained by the applicant authority.
(3) In considering whether children are properly receiving education in a school outside the area in which they reside, the Minister shall have regard to the interests of secular instruction to the wishes of parents as to the education of their children and to economy rates.
(4) Any sum clue to an applicant authority under a contribution order shall be recoverable as a debt due to that authority from the respondent authority and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, without prejudice to any other remedy on the part of the applicant authority, pay any such sum to the applicant authority and deduct any sum so paid from any sums payable to the respondent authority on account of parliamentary grants.
(5) If any question arises between the applicant and respondent authorities as to the amount due in any year under a contribution order, that question shall be referred to the Minister and the decision of the Minister shall be final.
(6) The Minister may revoke or vary a contribution order on the application either of the applicant authority or of the respondent authority after giving the other authority an opportunity of being heard.
(7) A contribution order shall not be made under this section so as to alter without the consent of the parties the effect of any subsisting agreement made between two or more local education authorities with respect to contributions in connexion with the education within the area of one education authority, of children resident within the area of another such authority."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I really wish to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill why it was thought necessary to frame Clause 103 in the way in which it appears in the Bill because there is already in operation in the Act of 1921 a clause, which I have lifted with some very slight technical changes, which gives the Board of Education power to make orders in respect of what are known as border children in case local authorities fail to agree. Why is it necessary to

883
abrogate that? So far as I know there seems no reason for it. It seems a proper thing that the President should come in where two local authorities disagree.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, leave out Clause 103, and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the answer to the question is that Clause 103 is not confined to contributions in respect of border children. It also deals with contributions in respect of children resident in charitable or Poor Law institutions in areas other than that to which they belong. A child resident in such an institution would often be resident in the area of the local authority which provides education for the child, but it is nevertheless provided under the Education (Institution Children) Act, 1923, that the educating authority should be able to receive contributions from the authority to whose area the child belongs. My noble friend's clause would not enable any such contribution to be received. Another defect of his proposed clause is that it is confined to children and does not deal with young persons, while subsection (3) would be a repetition of the provisions of the new clause to be inserted at the beginning of Part IV of the Bill. I am informed that no order has been made under Section 128 of the Act of 1921 for many years, and therefore my right honourable friend believes that the provisions of Clause 103 will be quite adequate to deal with the problem.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause III:
Interpretation.
111.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Agreed syllabus" means an agreed syllabus of religious instruction prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to this Act and adopted or deemed to be adopted thereunder;
"Registered pupil" means in relation to any school a pupil registered as such in the register kept by the managers, governors or proprietor of the school in accordance with the requirements of this Act, but does not include any child who has been withdrawn from the school in the prescribed manner;
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (1), in the definition of "agreed syllabus," after "means," to insert "subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment and, later, a new subsection (4). If I may I will take these two matters together. The two Amendments are designed to provide for the continuance for a limited period of the existing syllabus in cases where local education authorities have already adopted a syllabus. Where they have not it will be for the Conference either to frame their syllabus before April 1 or, as an interim measure, to adopt an existing syllabus. This covers the point that was first raised, I think, by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Wakefield on the Committee stage. I hope that he will agree with me that this meets the point which he advanced. We are very much obliged to him for having drawn the Government's attention to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 29, after ("means") insert ("subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: My Lords, it was not I but the Lord Bishop of Chichester who raised this point. I will convey to him what the noble Earl has said. I am sure that this Amendment does meet the point exactly.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (1), in the definition of "registered pupil," to leave out "by the managers, governors or proprietors of the school." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a different Amendment; it is not connected with the last one or with the new subsection (4). Its object is merely to leave out words which are unnecessary. It is in fact a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 17, leave out from ("kept") to ("in") in line 18.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) Where before the date of the commencement of Part II of this Act a syllabus of religious instruction had been adopted by a former authority for use in any school which after that date is a county school or an auxiliary school or for any class or description

885
of pupils, that syllabus shall be deemed to be the agreed syllabus for that school or for that class or that description of pupils as the case may be, until a syllabus in substitution therefor is prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to this Act and adopted or deemed to be adopted thereunder or until the expiration of twelve months after the said date whichever first occurs."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the new subsection (4) to which I referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 82 line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 117:
Amendment of enactments.
117.—(1) On and after the date of the commencement of Part II of this Act any enactment passed before that date shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as if:—
(a) for references therein to an elementary school or to a public elementary school (whether or not any reference is made therein to the payment of parliamentary grants in respect of the school) there were substituted references to a county school or auxiliary school as the context may require;
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to insert after paragraph (a) in subsection (1):
"(b) for references therein to a school certified by the Board of Education, in accordance with the provisions of Part V of the Education Act, 1921, as suitable for providing education for blind deaf defective or epileptic children, there were substituted references to a special school."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a point that was not raised on the Committee stage and in fact has only just been noticed. I therefore beg to move the Amendment as a necessary Amendment to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 12, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
  LOCAL ADMINISTRATION.

    PART III.
    Delegation of functions of local education authorities to divisional executives.
    7. A local education authority, before submitting to the Minister any scheme of divisional administration (whether made by them or by a council of a borough or district which is an excepted district) shall consult the council of every county district in their area, and
    886
    shall after such consultation serve a copy of the scheme upon each of those councils; and before any scheme of divisional administration is submitted to the Minister the local education authority or council by whom the scheme was made shall publish such notices with respect thereto as may be prescribed.
    8. Every scheme of divisional administration shall—
    (a) provide for the constitution of every body which is to be a divisional executive for the purposes of the scheme, except where the scheme provides for the functions thereby delegated being exercised by the council of a borough or urban district as the divisional executive;
    Provided that no such scheme shall authorize any divisional executive to borrow money or to raise a rate.
    EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in paragraph 7 of Part III, after "A local education authority," to insert "before representing to the Minister that the making of a scheme for divisional administration for its area is unnecessary or." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Bill as drafted compels a local education authority before submitting a scheme of divisional administration to the Minister to notify the Part III authorities as to the details of the scheme and to issue notices about it. But supposing the local education authority decides not to have a scheme at all; they need not then notify the district authorities or anybody else, nor publish any details. So what happens? You get the Part III authorities thinking that the local education authority are still planning a scheme, and therefore they wait to be told of that scheme. Presently they find there is to be no scheme of delegation at all, that the matter has gone up to the Minister, that the Minister has thought that these district authorities have been consulted and has given his approval. The first thing the district authorities know is that it is approved by the Minister and has been decided by the local authority that no scheme is necessary. They suggest that whether there is a scheme or not they should be consulted, and given an opportunity of considering the matter. Therefore I have put down this Amendment, so that if there is no scheme they shall be told equally as in the case where the local education authority does draw up a scheme.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 91, line 1, after ("authority") insert the said words.—(Earl Stanhope.)
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, surely my noble friend has not given quite sufficient attention to the proviso in paragraph 2 of Part III of this Schedule. If he will look at the top of page go he will find that the second sentence reads:
    "Provided that if the Minister is satisfied with respect to the area of any local education authority that the making of a scheme of divisional administration for that area is unnecessary, he may by order direct that this Part of this Schedule shall not apply to that local education authority."
    EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, my point relates to an area where it is deemed unnecessary to have a scheme and where neither the Minister nor the Part III authorities have been told anything about it.
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the noble Earl's experience in matters of educational administration is very much greater than mine, but I would like to put this to him. As I understand the policy of the Board of Education and of my right honourable friend, it is that this scheme of divisional administration will be necessary in nearly every part of the country except in some very sparsely inhabited counties such as, let us say, some Welsh counties, and possibly others. In the vast majority of cases schemes of divisional administration will be necessary, and it is only where the Minister decides that special circumstances render them unnecessary, that the power is given to him to exempt the local authority from the necessity of providing for divisional administration. That being the case it is unnecessary—it is quite wrong in fact—to ask a local education authority to inform the district councils that this is to be done because it is not the local education authority that is going to take the decision, it is the Minister who is to take it.
    EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, if my noble friend will give me an assurance that the Minister will see that these junior authorities are notified if a scheme is not necessary, then I am perfectly satisfied. All I want to ensure is that a local education authority shall not make a decision on a scheme behind the backs of the district authorities without their knowing anything about it. If the Minister will see that what I suggest is done, that will be perfectly satisfactory. All that I want to ensure is that what I foresee shall not happen.
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, if I may speak again with the leave of your Lordships I should like to say that it is not the county authorities with whom the matter will rest. This question is to be settled by the Minister.
    EARL STANHOPE: That satisfies me perfectly.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    EARL STANHOPE: My next Amendment is consequential, and I do not move it.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD moved, in paragraph 8 of Part III, to insert:
    "(i) provide that the divisional executive shall admit representatives of the Press to its meetings unless the said executive by resolution excludes the Press from any particular meeting."
    The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the most reverend Primate, who is not able to be here, has asked me to move this Amendment. I called attention to this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I want briefly to make an appeal once again to the Government on the subject, because I conceive it to be of some importance. The point is this. Under the Admission of the Press Act, 1908, the Press are able to attend local education authority and education committee meetings unless they are expressly excluded. The new divisional executives are to have to a very large extent the functions and work of an education committee, and they are to be very important bodies.
    It seems to me that what applies to an education committee should apply to the divisional executives, and that for two reasons. First of all, we have been saying all the while that we want to interest the public as a whole in this work of education, and, that being so, we ought to have the help of the Press in so doing. Secondly, it is possible that with some authorities hole-and-corner methods will be used and wire-pulling will take place, and the great safeguard against this sort of thing—and this is one of our democratic principles—is publicity. I have read very carefully what the noble Earl said in reply on the previous occasion when the Government resisted this proposal. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education favoured this provision, and said that he would see that it was inserted

    889
    somewhere, but it has not been inserted, and the answer was given that this is all dealt with in the Act of 1908, and that that Act may be amended at some later time. I do not think that that is satisfactory, because if these divisional executives are in the same position as education committees you are in effect not amending the Act of 1908 by what I now propose, but simply saying that that Act shall apply to divisional executives as it does to education committees. On public grounds I think that this is most desirable, and I must confess that I do not feel at all convinced by the answer which has been given.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 91, line 40, at end insert the said new paragraph —(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am glad that the right reverend Prelate has raised this matter again, because it seems to me, from certain reports of our last debate which I have read in the Press, that there is considerable misapprehension abroad as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter. There is no desire on the part of His Majesty's Government that discussions in public bodies should take place in camera; and I agree, and the Government agree, with the right reverend Prelate when he says that publicity is a most valuable safeguard in our public life. The point which moves the Government in this matter is that of piecemeal legislation. It is a little like the point which I had to make to my noble friend Lord Aberdare in connexion with community centres. After all, we are covering a great many subjects in this Education Bill, and when we are passing so much legislation it is important that each subject should be dealt with properly and not piecemeal, and that the subjects should not be mixed up together.
    In the view of His Majesty's Government, the question of the attendance of the Press at meetings of public bodies is dealt with by the Act of 1908, and in their opinion it would be premature to adopt the Amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate, since it would tend to prejudice the future consideration of the position of the Press at public meetings. The divisional executives will be free to admit the Press whenever they so desire. They will also be free to exclude the Press. For the time being, in the view
    890
    of His Majesty's Government, it is best to leave the matter there, and it would be unwise to attempt to make any change in the Act of 1908 when passing an Education Bill. I hope that I have made my point clear to the right reverend Prelate.
    LORD SOUTHWOOD: My Lords, I know from my own experience that the Press feel very strongly on this matter. If there is nothing to conceal at these meetings there is no reason why the Press should not be admitted. This matter has been discussed by the Press generally in this country, and especially by the provincial Press, and they were hoping that the Government could meet them on this small point. If the Press are not admitted, the impression will obviously be that something of a hole-and-corner nature is going on. That cannot fail to have an effect on the new Act, and I think that on a matter of this kind the Government could meet us. I wish that the noble Earl would look at this matter again and see whether it is not possible to make it impossible for the Press to be excluded from these meetings.
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, there need be no confusion or suspicion on this matter if the Press will only try to appreciate the Government's point. The Government have nothing to hide in this matter, and in fact this does not relate to Government business at all, but to what local education authorities will do up and down the country. It is merely a question of dealing with the law relating to Press attendance when passing an Education Bill; and, as I have already said, the opinion of the Government is that this is not the appropriate moment to alter, or the appropriate method of altering, the Act of 1908.
    LORD SOUTHWOOD: My Lords, I hope that the Government will take early steps to try to get the Act of 1908 altered, because there can be no question that in a country such as this, where there is freedom of the Press, the Press should be admitted to all these meetings, apart from most exceptional circumstances, and there cannot possibly be exceptional circumstances in discussing education.
    THE LORD Bishop OF LONDON: My Lords, these divisional executives are entirely new bodies; no such bodies have ever existed before. It is therefore not unnatural in a Bill dealing with them to

    891
    say what shall be their relation to the Press. Since they are exercising important functions, I should have thought it was quite relevant to say that the Press shall be admitted, except where by resolution and for important reasons it is desired to exclude them. The point is that these are new bodies, bodies which have not existed before, and therefore this matter might quite well be dealt with in the Bill.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I do hope the noble Earl will still consider what has been said this afternoon.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Fifth Schedule [Constitution of independent schools tribunals]:
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to leave out the Fifth Schedule and insert the said Schedule after the Sixth Schedule. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary because the Sixth Schedule is referred to in the new clause which is to be inserted after Clause 28. The Fifth Schedule is not mentioned until we come to Clause 70. If this is passed it will be necessary to instruct the officers of the House to make a number of consequential Amendments. The effect of the Amendment is to turn the Fifth Schedule into the Sixth Schedule and the Sixth Schedule into the Fifth Schedule. This is necessary because as the Bill is drafted at present the Sixth Schedule is mentioned before the Fifth Schedule, and that apparently just is not done.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 96, leave out the Fifth Schedule and insert the said Schedule on page 98, line 38, after the Sixth Schedule.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the officers of the House be instructed to make the necessary consequential Amendments.
    Moved, That the officers of the House be instructed to make the necessary consequential Amendments.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    Sixth Schedule:

SIXTH SCHEDULE
Procedure for preparing and bringing into operation an agreed syllabus of religious instruction.
2. For the purpose of constituting such a conference as aforesaid, the local education authority shall appoint committees consisting of persons representing respectively—
(c) associations representative of teachers in the area; and
10. If the authority report to the Minister that the conference are unable to reach unanimous agreement as aforesaid, or if it appears to the Minister that an authority have failed to adopt any syllabus unanimously recommended to them by the conference, the Minister shall appoint a body of persons having experience in religious instruction to prepare a syllabus of religious instruction.
11. The body of persons so appointed:
(a) shall consist of persons representing respectively the Church of England and other religious denominations, associations of teachers and local education authorities;
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in paragraph 2, to leave out "committees" and insert "constituent bodies (hereinafter referred to as 'committees')." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved to meet a point raised in Committee by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who suggested the word "panels" instead of "committees." The word "panels" does not seem happy to His Majesty's Government, and I propose the words "constituent bodies" in order to make it clear that the bodies mentioned in the four sub-paragraphs of paragraph 2 of the Schedule are constituent bodies of one committee. It is proposed, however, subsequently to call both of these committees, as "constituent bodies" is rather an awkward phrase to keep on saving. I hope the right reverend Prelate will feel that we have met him on this point.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 9, leave out ("committees") and insert ("constituent bodies (hereinafter referred to as 'committees')").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I admire the ingenuity with which a solution has been found. I am very well content with it and am grateful for it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in paragraph 2 to leave out sub-paragraph (c) and insert:
"(c) such associations representing teachers as, in the opinion of the authority, ought, having regard to the circumstances of the area, to be represented;"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is intended to deal with another point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. He pointed out that in the Bill as it now stands a certain local authority has apparently interpreted the words in paragraph (c)—"associations representative of teachers in the area"—as being adequately fulfilled by something only representative of one association. In order to make such a mistake impossible I propose that those words be left out and that the following words be put in instead:
"(c) such associations representing teachers as, in the opinion of the authority, ought, having regard to the circumstances of the area, to be represented;"
That, we feel, should make it abundantly clear to every local authority that this is to be a really representative constituent body of teachers, and certainly not drawn merely from one association. Of course, in addition to that, there is the safeguard provided in the clause that the Lord Chancellor moved some time ago.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (c) and insert the said new sub-paragraph (c).—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, the point has, I think, been entirely met by what is now proposed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in paragraph 10, to leave out all words after "appoint" and insert "to prepare a syllabus of religious instruction a body of persons having experience in religious instruction which shall, so far as is practicable, be of the like representative character as is required by paragraph 2 of this Schedule in the case of a conference." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is merely to gild the lily of the Bishop of Chichester's Amendment moved in the Committee stage. When I accepted that Amendment I did stipulate that it was subject to the drafting being looked into, and it is now thought that the language of the right reverend Prelate's Amendment could
894
be improved. For instance, the wording that I accepted at the instigation of the right reverend Prelate in Committee did not allow for the case of Wales, and that is covered by the form of words I now propose. I hope the right reverend Prelate will accept this as a better form of the Amendment moved in Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 19, leave out from ("appoint") to the end of line 20 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to leave out sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 11 The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (a).—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to add to the schedule:
"12. Whenever a local education authority are of opinion (whether upon representations made to them or otherwise) that any agreed syllabus for the time being adopted by them ought to be reconsidered, the authority shall cause to be convened for that purpose a conference constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule. If the conference convened for the reconsideration of any syllabus unanimously recommend that the existing syllabus should continue to be the agreed syllabus or that a new syllabus should be adopted in substitution therefor the authority may give effect to the recommendation of the conference, but if the authority report to the Minister that the conference are unable to reach unanimous agreement, or if it appears to the Minister that the authority have failed to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the conference, the Minister shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 10 of this Schedule, and paragraph 11 thereof shall apply accordingly."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to meet a point made, I think, by the Bishop of Chichester in Committee. It is in order to remove any possibility of doubt that this paragraph is inserted, to make it clear that the conference that draws up the agreed syllabus can be reconvened. The right reverend Prelate pointed out that a local education authority, or the leaders of religion in any locality, might realize that other local education authorities had better agreed syllabuses than they had, and he contended that there was no machinery in the Bill to enable the local education authority to convene a new conference to bring

895
about an improved syllabus. In order to make that point quite clear this Amendment is now moved.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 38, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eighth Schedule [Amendment of Enactments]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, these are purely drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 101, leave out lines 29 to 35.
Page 105, line 22, at end insert:

("Section eighty-seven

In subsection (1), after the words 'this Act,' where those words first occur, there shall be inserted the words 'other than an offence under Section seventy-eight of this Act'; in subsection (3), for the words 'an offence under this Act' there shall be substituted the words 'any such offence as aforesaid'")

("Section one hundred and four

In subsection (1), after the word 'Act,' where that word first occurs there shall be inserted the words 'except under Section seventy-eight thereof'")

Page 105, line 29, leave out ("or in pursuance of").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Ninth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, these are also all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 107, line 21, column 3, at the beginning insert ("In Section ninety-four the words 'aided provided or'")
Page 107, line 49, at end insert:

("1 Ed. 8 & 1 Geo. 6. c. 67.

The Factories Act,1937.

In subsection (1) of section one hundred and fifty-two, in the definition of 'young person' the words from 'but does not include' to the end of the definition.").

Page 108, line 24, at end insert ("in Section sixty-four the words 'aided provided or'").
Page 109, line 24, column 3, after ("(4);") insert ("in").
Page 109, line 25, at end insert ("the words from '1921' to the end of subsection; in Section one hundred and four, in subsection (2), the words 'Section seventy-eight or'; and").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, may I ask when it is proposed to take the Third Reading of the Bill?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, it is proposed to take the Third Reading on Tuesday next, July 18.

LAW OFFICERS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned.