Lords Sitting of 22 June 1944

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

EDUCATION BILL
Order of the Day for the House again to be put into Committee read.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT SANKEY: My Lords, on this Motion, might I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, in the interest of time, to tell us exactly what powers the Minister has under regulations? In the debate yesterday and possibly in the debate to-day he said, or will have to say, "It is better not to put that into the Act itself—it is better to put it into regulations." I am perfectly aware that in the Definition Clause of the Bill, Clause 107, it says that "'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister." Will he point out whether the Minister can make regulations as to the curriculum in schools and what power there is to revoke such regulations? I do not press for an answer to my question today, but if the noble Earl will pay attention to it, it will save a good deal of time and some of us a good deal of trouble.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the form in which he has asked this question. It is quite true, as he says, that Clause 107 states "'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister." That of course implies that the Minister has power to make regulations. The word "prescribed" occurs throughout the Bill. In other clauses it is stated, in so many words, that the Minister shall make regulations. That will be found in the clause
372
dealing with buildings; I forget the exact number of that clause. In Clause 105 it says, "All regulations made under this Act shall be laid before Parliament," etc. I take it, however, that the noble and learned Viscount's point is: Does that really fill the bill? I shall certainly have the matter examined, and if I am advised that some additional words are necessary I shall bring the matter before your Lordships. I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for having raised the point.
May I take this opportunity of correcting a misstatement I made in answer to Lord Rankeillour yesterday? I said that I thought that regulations could not be withdrawn by the Minister without the leave of Parliament. That is not correct. The procedure, as I now understand it, is that the Minister, when making regulations, has to lay them before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House objects then the regulation is invalid. But the regulation, once having been approved by Parliament, can be withdrawn by the Minister without Parliament's consent. It must, of course, be remembered that that withdrawal would leave a gap, and by the nature of things, in order to make the machine work, the Minister would have to draft a new regulation, which of course would have to be laid before Parliament as was done in the case of the original regulation. I will look into all those points and at a later stage if any other words are necessary I will undertake to move them.
VISCOUNT SANKEY: I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I must thank the noble Earl for the attention he has given to my point. As he is considering the matter, may I draw his attention to Clause 104: "Any order made or directions given by the Minister," etc.? Would it not be possible for the Minister to fill the gap that has just been alluded to by an order or direction and, even if there was a gap by the withdrawal of a definite regulation approved by Parliament, would not the Minister have sufficient powers in many cases to get on very well without it, gap and all? I do not ask for an answer now.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 25 [Special provisions as to religious education in county schools]:
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved to insert before the proviso:
"Provided that every pupil shall be taught as part of his religious instruction that such instruction will be incomplete unless he is a member of some religious denomination approved by his parents."
The noble Viscount said: The question I am anxious to raise is one of the most important that can arise in this Bill. I do not know whether my words are sufficient to raise it or whether the Government will be prepared to make any alternative suggestion on the subject. It has been a matter of general agreement in this debate, and indeed before this debate, that religious education is a vital part of the education of the country. Almost every speaker who has dealt with the subject at all, has committed himself at least to that proposition. Some have gone further and have said that it ought to be the basis of all education in the country—that is, religion generally. The spiritual nature of man requires as much assistance by education as the ether part of his nature, and I think one may say with some confidence that in the whole history of the education of this country that principle has been recognized.
Before 1870, as the House is well aware, education, so far as it was general at all, was mainly in the hands of the religious bodies—Nonconformists, Anglicans and Roman Catholics. It was very incomplete, of course, and when 1870 came and the Government decided that the State must take a direct part in the education of the country, not merely by means of the assistance it had given for some time before that, the Education Bill of 1870 was promoted and passed. The religious question, as everybody is aware, was raised with great prominence during the debates which took place on that Bill. There were some who thought it would be much better for State education to be entirely secular. That was rejected and after considerable debate a compromise known as the Cowper-Temple Clause was arrived at—namely, that the education should be religious education but that it should not be distinctive of any denomination. Since then the broad principle
374
of that has been insisted on in every educational change that has been made.
At that time no doubt the voluntary and therefore denominational education had a much larger share of the education of the country than it has at present or than it will have under this Bill. But the general trend has been to increase the State education and to diminish denominational education. I quite appreciate the necessity of some such clause as this. It is quite plain that to use the State machinery in a way that might be regarded as proselytising for any particular sect of Christianity or any other religion would be very much against the general opinion of the country. At the same time I do not think that anyone will doubt that the compromise arrived at was not a very satisfactory one logically, and as I shall show in a minute it does not appear to me to have worked extremely well in practice. It was a difficult thing to defend that in some schools which received large State assistance denominational education should be, subject to the right of withdrawal, an essential part of the education of the country, whereas in the other schools it was not, at any rate in any denominational sense. That was the compromise that was arrived at and which has been perpetuated ever since and is going to be perpetuated under this Bill with modifications that many of us will be glad to see. I do think it is worth while for the country to inquire, and for this House to inquire, whether in point of fact that system has worked well, not whether it is defensible in theory but whether it has in fact produced the result desired, whether religious education has been satisfactorily carried out under that clause. What is to be our answer to that?
I cannot help feeling that we are bound to say it has not been a success. I do not think there is any dispute really that there is much less "expressed" religion, if I may put it that way, in the country than there was seventy-five years ago. We are tired of listening to the complaints from all sides that the churches are empty and getting emptier in all denominations of Christianity. We who belong to any particular denomination know how true that is. It certainly is true of the Anglican Church so far as my knowledge goes. There is no doubt that there are fewer practising Christians. Indeed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London

375
as I understood him—I hope I do not misrepresent him—said that even amongst doctors of divinity and professors of religion, their religion was not very institutional, if I might put it so.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I made no general statement of that kind at all. I said there were some excellent teachers of divinity who did not attend worship every Sunday.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not make any attack on the right reverend Prelate. I need not have taken that as an instance. It is quite common knowledge that there has been a great decrease in attendance at church. I read in the papers a pronouncement by the most reverend Prelate the Archbishop of York that ignorance of the most elementary principles of Christianity was exceedingly widespread. I forget the exact figures he gave, but in his view a very large majority of the people in this country knew nothing whatever about Christianity as far as any precise knowledge went. Therefore if the object of the compromise of 1870 was to teach religion it must be admitted it has not succeeded in doing so. I do not want to be understood as saying it was responsible for the want of religion—there have been many other causes no doubt, which it is unnecessary even to attempt to enumerate, which have fought against the prevalence of religion and even of religious knowledge—but in point of fact this device passed by Parliament with the object of increasing and promoting education in religious subjects has not succeeded in doing it.
It may be that circumstances were very much against it, but at the same time it has been not a success. That seems to me an immensely serious fact which we ought very deeply to consider in any reform of our educational system. If the same thing had appeared with regard to any other great branch of education we should have said immediately that we must have a different system. That is what I think has happened. When you come to the further stage and ask why it has happened, I venture to think there are two main causes. In the first place—I speak in the presence of those who know infinitely more than I do—I should feel disposed to suggest that it is impossible to teach Christianity in any complete form except you add to or make
376
part of your teaching membership of a community or a church, whichever you like to call it. We know as a matter of historical fact that from the very hour at which Christianity began it began as the teaching of a definite body brought together by their agreement on matters which they regarded as of the utmost importance to human nature. Noble Lords will remember very well the description of the very early Church in the Acts of the Apostles and I am sure they will agree that that was one of the elementary facts. It has so continued right through the history of Christianity. Therefore, if you set out to teach Christianity without teaching membership of a church you are teaching essentially an incomplete account of what you are trying to teach. I will not say you cannot teach anything in that way, but you certainly cannot teach Christianity in the way in which it was meant to be understood.
That is one reason, but there is another reason which I think is much more germane to a purely educational discussion, and that is that all you can teach in Christianity under the undenominational clause are certain of the theological aspects of Christianity. That is all you are allowed to teach. You cannot teach duty to a denomination, or the duty of being a member of a denomination, or anything of that kind. What is the result? The child leaves school at fifteen or sixteen or whatever age may be fixed, and he never hears anything more of Christianity as part of his education as a citizen. No assistance is given to him to keep up his knowledge. If he goes to a secondary school as I understand it he is not to have any express teaching on the subject. He is left absolutely without any refresher course, if I may so put it, on these facts. Is not the inevitable result that in the vast majority of cases he forgets all about them? He treats them as evidently of secondary importance in his life, because the State which has undertaken his education has not provided for this particular part of it after he leaves school.
I admit, of course, the extraordinary difficulty of the position. We put aside—and I am not asking you to change that—all idea that you can use the machinery of the State in any way in order to promote teaching of any particular denominational character. The ordinary reply

377
made is that you must leave that to the parents and to the Churches themselves. As far as my Amendment goes that is exactly what I want to do. I do not want to interfere with the course of teaching in the schools and I agree that this matter, important as it is, ought to be left to the parents. I am myself disposed to think that no teaching in school—and I say it with great humility in the presence of many distinguished schoolmasters and former schoolmasters—is really a very satisfactory way of teaching religion. It certainly was not in my case when I was at school. But I do say that something ought to be done to impress upon parents their duty to keep up this education if they want their children to have a complete knowledge of Christianity in any form. As for the churches, churches do their best. I will not attempt to enumerate difficulties, but it is almost impossible for them to deal with this aspect of their duties in anything like complete or adequate form unless they have some kind of assistance. That is all I am asking for.
I am asking that it should be recognized that undenominational teaching of Christianity is essentially incomplete. Whatever section of the Christian Church you belong to, you will belong to some denomination, apart from a few eccentric persons, and broadly speaking you will be a Nonconformist, a Roman Catholic or an Anglican. That is an essential part of your belief and it ought to be art essential part of your life as a Christian citizen of this country. The question is, ought not that to be impressed upon the children before they leave school? Ought they not to be told that we do not want to attract them to this or that denomination but that it is our duty, though we are precluded and rightly precluded from teaching membership of any particular denomination, to tell them and their parents that they ought to consider carefully what denomination they ought to join and that whatever that denomination is they should join it if they desire really effective knowledge of the Christian religion.
That is the proposal I submit to the Government. I will refrain from adding more than a very few bald sentences as to the vast importance of this issue, not only theologically—for of course it is of immense importance from that point of view—but politically and patriotically as well.
378
We had an interesting little debate yesterday on the desirability of teaching patriotism and belief in the British Empire as part of the education of every citizen. I say that unless that is based on religious teaching, it will not only be useless but will, almost certainly, be pernicious. We can see exactly what it may develop into by looking at the Germans at the present day. Among them you have patriotism in the most extreme form, a fanatically exaggerated belief in the glory of the German race, their great achievements, and their great future. During a very long time indeed there has been a concentrated attack on Christianity, as a rational and intellectual belief, which has produced a very great effect in Germany, and I have not the slightest doubt that the horrors we have seen perpetrated by the Germans have been due, mainly, if not entirely, to the attack on anything like rational Christianity in that country.
That is an awful example, and though we may very well say that that sort of thing is not likely to happen to us, I do not know why we should say so with any confidence. At present we are succeeding to character and principles and an attitude of life which may be—and I am afraid is—much too much divorced from religion at the moment. But there is behind us a succession of centuries of religious teaching and religious belief in this country for which we are not always sufficiently grateful but which have been an enormous asset in our history. Putting it merely on this ground I do say that in a matter which is to bring reform into the whole educational system of this country we ought to take some serious step to arrest the decay of religion or, at any rate, to give parents some kind of assistance to help them to resist that, at any rate, in the minds and actions of their children.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 20, at end to insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I need hardly say that I find myself in hearty agreement with very much that fell from the lips of the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment. But I think that there was one thing he said about the Bill which was not quite accurate, and upon which I should like first of all to offer a comment. He seemed to imply that the Bill would not give any facilities for denominational education in secondary

379
schools. That is a complete misunderstanding, if I may say so. And it is a very important consideration, because the noble Viscount will see from the proviso to Clause 25 that even in county secondary schools very novel and, I think, very important provisions are made for facilitating denominational education.
I think there are two things that those of us who believe in denominational education must appreciate about Cowper-Temple teaching. The first is that the original Cowper-Temple compromise of 1870 applied to elementary schools, and one of the great arguments in favour of it was that in dealing with young children there was a common basis of Christianity which you could teach them, and that it was not necessary to go into those matters which, unfortunately, differentiated the various branches of Christendom. That was the argument accepted in 1870 with regard to children up to the age of thirteen. But under the new layout, of course, primary education will stop at about eleven or twelve years of age. The children will then go to the secondary schools, and there, as I would point out to my noble friend, in my view the facilities for denominational education are very much greater than anything that has hitherto been known. Therefore, those who disbelieve in the Cowper-Temple teaching have, at any rate, the satisfaction of knowing that at an earlier age their children will have a better opportunity of receiving denominational instruction, although, of course, the Cowper-Temple teaching will be open to those children whose parents require it for them. I think there is another factor that my noble friend should remember and that is, that the agreed syllabuses really have done, I believe, a very notable work in giving us syllabuses that are really perfectly satisfactory for young children provided that the person who teaches them believes in the Christian faith.
But my noble friend now asks that teachers should be required to teach, and that every pupil shall be taught as part of his religious instruction, that such instruction will be incomplete unless he is a member of some religious denomination approved by his parents. That he proposes to graft on to Clause 25, and Clause 25, I would remind him, is the charter—the first part of it is the charter
380
—of those who believe in Cowper-Temple teaching; in undenominational teaching. The clause lays down that Cowper-Temple teaching is to prevail in any county school. That is the section of the Bill that maintains the 1870 settlement in that respect. I do not think it is possible to graft on to that declaration of the Bill, or indeed to put in any part of this Bill, the words my noble friend proposes, however much some of us believe that they contain a profound truth. As I was obliged to say to my noble friend Lord Rankeillour yesterday the settlement of my right honourable friend has certain foundations, and two of the foundations of this scheme are the maintenance of Cowper-Temple teaching—agreed syllabus teaching, let us call it now—in the county schools, and the freedom of the teachers.
Those are among the foundation stones of this Bill. I am quite certain that if the words my noble friend proposes were added to the Bill there would be very adverse criticism, certainly from the teachers, and possibly also from the Free Churches. I regret that the Free Churches have not felt able to associate themselves very whole-heartedly with this Bill. I am advised that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, whose absence on account of illness we all so much deplore, represented a very large section of Free Church opinion when he spoke here on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think that fact should be recognized. If an attempt to stimulate denominationalism—which is really what my noble friend's Amendment comes to—was inserted into the Bill there would be very adverse reactions from a great many people, whether teachers or Free Churchmen or secularists, who are not persuaded of the desirability of inculcating denominationalism into the minds of children. Therefore my reply to my noble friend must be that his Amendment could not be accepted because it would create further division of opinion and would upset, or at least impair, one of the main principles on which my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Education, has founded this Bill.
May I, in conclusion, say this, that I do not suppose anybody here is enamoured of all the parts of the Bill, and everyone thinks he could improve it in certain respects; but the great merit of

381
this Bill is that it has reached this present stage, and is going, I believe, to pass into law, with an immense measure of general approval. It has been the means of introducing a new atmosphere into our religious discussions. Henceforward we shall be able to discuss these problems as friends and colleagues, instead of with that terrible acrimony and bitterness which used to disfigure our discussions forty years ago. Therefore I do not think that anything that is going to lead to the serious impairment of any of the foundation principles of my right honourable friend's settlement should be supported.
LORD AMMON: I am loth to let pass a remark made by the noble Earl to the effect that the Free Churches have not co-operated as fully as they might have done. I am a member of the same denomination as Lord Rochester, and, as the noble Earl has said, the remarks of the noble Lord have gained general approval and represent to a certain extent all the Free Churches. Apart from that altogether, however, on the practical proposition now before the Committee, with which we may agree in sentiment, I would point out that a difficulty would at once be created because the teacher, if he belonged to a particular denomination, might very likely have a certain bias and direct the minds of the children in that particular way. That in itself would tend to make this inoperative and would arouse tremendous criticism in every denomination. I doubt whether it would pass in another place, and it would certainly open the floodgates of criticism, which I imagine we do not want.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: I am sorry to intervene again but the noble Earl in charge of this Bill has given us reasons for thinking that the Government cannot possibly adopt this Amendment or any similar Amendment, on the ground that it would go back on Cowper-Templeism. But Cowper-Templeism does not object to anything that is common to all the denominations. What it does object to is the use of any particular belief or formulary of any denomination. There is not one of us who would not be heartily in favour of what has been said this afternoon by the noble Viscount, in moving this Amendment. I have never met a Nonconformist minister or other Free Churchmen who did not deplore the fact that young people, when
382
they leave school, while being nominal members of some Free Church tend to fade away from church connexions. I have had it said to me again and again by Nonconformist ministers, friends of mine in my own diocese, how much this tendency is regretted. It is a perfectly well-known fact.
What is involved here is the common belief of all denominations. That is the point. It is not the peculiar belief of Anglicans, or Romans, or Free Churchmen. We are told that this will endanger Cowper-Templeism. I do not believe that it will do anything of the kind. There is a danger, we are told, of inculcating denominationalism into the heads of children. I have had some experience of teaching—or of trying to teach—practically all my life, and to tell me that the children, even the youngest children we are dealing with in our national system of education, are unaware of the divisions in the Christian Church is perfectly ridiculous. You cannot fool children—everybody knows that perfectly well—and if you are dealing with a subject like this in any way except with absolute frankness you will be cutting at the very root of the education you are trying to give. You might just as well imagine that you will be able to teach children that there are no divisions politically in this country, or that we all agree about everything.
It is not my business to say where a statement of this kind ought to come. I will say only that if a statement to this effect were incorporated into this Bill, I believe it would do more for the future of the Christian faith than we realize, and through the Christian faith in this country it would help to produce exactly what your Lordships and all of us want to produce—namely, the establishment of Christian character. Nazi education has been referred to. We know the results of that. We know that our gallant troops are faced by people of fanatical views, people who are fanatical because they have been taught by those who know what Nazism stands for, who believe in it, and who prove their belief by being members of the Nazi Party. I do not want to see Nazism inculcated in this country—very far from it—but the principle of education is perfectly sound. I understand that in no school or university under the Nazi Government is anybody allowed to teach who cannot

383
pass an examination in Nazi principles and who does not believe in them and show belief by being a member of the Nazi Party. Those are methods which certainly produce results, and I submit that the arguments put forward by the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill really do not hold water. What I am putting forward is the common belief of all denominations, and it is ridiculous to suggest that you are inculcating denominationalism when you teach the children that they should be practising members of their own denomination.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: As I said yesterday, I think that we are all in agreement as to the end which we desire. It is a question of the means, and I cannot feel that it is in the least suitable to put into an Act of Parliament a particular part of the religious instruction which is to be given under that Act. I should have thought that the right place for such an instruction is in the agreed syllabus, which has to contain the details of the instruction; if this is to be agreed to by all the denominations, it would rightly find its place there. Moreover, it does in fact find its place in existing agreed syllabuses, which deal not only with the Gospels but with the Acts of the Apostles, and describe the structure of the Church and its fellowship and sacraments. I cannot conceive that any teacher can teach that without saying "You must find in your own circumstances, through your own home, the denomination to which to belong." The right place for this is in the agreed syllabus and not in the Bill.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I cannot help being very sorry that this proposal has not received more support from those who are bound to believe and who do believe in the immense importance of teaching religion as a part of the education of this country. It may be that the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken is right in thinking that something could be done with the agreed syllabus, but it has not been done.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: Yes, it has.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Is there anything in the agreed syllabus which says that a child ought to belong to a denomination?
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: In the West Riding syllabus there is very clear teaching about the need of fellowship in the Church, and there are further lessons in Church history which recognize that the development has been along different lines, so that in effect it does that for which the noble Viscount asks.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I have not before me any agreed syllabus, and I cannot tell how far that is true—I mean, how far it meets my point. No doubt there is teaching about what the Church is; but whether you will find anything in any agreed syllabus which says that everybody should belong to a church, not as a moral duty but merely to know what Christianity is, I am not sure. Unless people belong to a denomination they will not know what Christianity really is. A noble Lord behind me says that this proposal will not have the approval of some of the Nonconformist bodies in this country, but I cannot believe that in substance it would be disapproved by any one of them. They are as strong as any section of the community on the necessity of people belonging to a denomination, and they have been ready to fight bitterly in the past because they insisted on belonging to a denomination of their own. I cannot believe that they would dispute the proposition that to have a complete knowledge of Christianity you must belong to a denomination, because otherwise you have no possibility of learning it. My noble friend added what I ventured to think was a rather unfortunate animadversion on some of the teachers in the schools. He said that a teacher who was a strong Anglican—or a strong Wesleyan, for that matter—might use this provision as a means of furthering the interests of his denomination. I do not believe that there is any truth in that, because if the teacher was that kind of man he would not bother about whether there was or was not a provision of this kind in the Act; he would use his influence on behalf of his church in some way or other, if he thought it fair to do so as a teacher.
With regard to the objection raised by my noble friend who is in charge of this Bill, I think that it is a pity to make Cowper-Templeism a kind of fetish. It is not a very good plan. It is in fact a very bad plan; it is a Parliamentary compro-

385
mise, and I have never yet known truth to come out of a Parliamentary compromise, which is just the way of least resistance at the moment. I have never heard of anyone who thought it was a good plan. My noble friend went on to say that in the secondary schools there would be greate7 facilities for denominational teaching. I am not so familiar with the Bill as he is, and I cannot dispute that if he tells me that that is so, but that seems to me to be quite an inadequate answer.
I think that the whole dispute which has gone on since 1870 has been perverted by the people on one side who want to screw into the teaching a little teaching in favour of some particular denomination and the people on the other side who resist it. That is the wrong way to proceed. The right way to proceed is to say "We leave the question of a denomination outside the whole of cur teaching, but we do recommend that those who wish to be real Christians should become members of some denomination or other." I think that that is legitimate, and, with all respect to the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, it seems to me that this is the place to insert that proposition. It is not a part of the substance of what is to be taught, but only a warning that what is being taught is not the whole story, and to get the whole story one must go to another source.
I still think that that is the right way to deal with it. When I am told that this will stimulate denominationalism, I have some doubt as to what that means. If it means that it will stimulate the division of the Church into denominations, I see no reason whatever for making that charge. If it is that some form of membership of a denomination is essential, then it is true; that is part of Christianity, and you must quarrel with Christianity and not with the Amendment if you object to it. I deeply regret the attitude that the Government have felt bound to take. I feel that with all its merits this Bill will be perfectly valueless unless it meets the crying danger of the advance of infidelity in this country. I do not think that any other part of the Bill does meet that danger, and I can only express my deep regret at the attitude of the Government. I should be very glad to divide the Committee on that point to see who agrees with me; but I feel sure that in the present temper of the Committee so many people
386
would think it desirable to support the Government, however wrong they were.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved in that part of the clause which follows paragraph (b), to leave out "are satisfied" and insert "satisfy the Minister". The noble Earl said: The proviso to this clause states that where arrangements cannot be made for the withdrawal of pupils in order to receive religious instruction, then if the local education authority are satisfied that the parents of pupils at the school desire them to receive religious instruction in the school and satisfactory arrangements have been made for the purpose, the authority shall provide facilities for the carrying out of those arrangements, "unless they are satisfied that owing to any special circumstances it would be unreasonable so to do." My Amendment proposes, instead of saying "unless they are satisfied" to substitute "unless they satisfy the Minister." Over and over again in this Bill, whenever conflict is possible the right of appeal to the Minister is given to the managers. Here you have one of the very few occasions upon which the parents are brought in. Noble Lords have just listened to a most moving speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, about the duty of the parents towards their children in this matter, and I am sure he will support me in asking that parents shall have the same right of appeal to the Minister which has been given on other occasions to the managers.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 35, leave out ("are satisfied") and insert ("satisfy the Minister").— (Earl Grey.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The answer to my noble friend is that the Bill already gives him what he is asking for. As I understand his point it is this. The Bill enjoins that in a county secondary school, if the parents of pupils in attendance at the school desire them to receive denominational religious instruction, and if satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of such instruction to those pupils and for securing that the cost of providing such instruction for them would not fall on the authority, then the local education authority are bound to give those facilities unless they are satisfied that it would be unreasonable to do so. In other words, the parents are given the right to ask for

387
denominational instruction for their children; and although the teacher providing that instruction would have to be found by the denomination, the buildings would be found by the local authority, if it was not practicable to take the children to another building close by. The point of my noble friend however is that the authority might say to the parents that they were not satisfied that it would be unreasonable to refuse this, and the parents do not have an appeal to the Ministry, but there my noble friend is mistaken.
If he will look at Clause 93 (2), he will see that
"Where the performance of any duty imposed by or for the purposes of this Act on a local education authority or on the managers or governors of any county school or auxiliary school is thereby made contingent upon the opinion of the authority or of the managers or governors, the Minister may nevertheless require the authority managers or governors to perform that duty if in his opinion the circumstances are such as to require the performance thereof."
That is to say that, though the local education authority under Clause 25 are made the judges of whether reasonable provision exists or not, the parents under Clause 93 (2) have the right of appealing to the Minister, who can overrule the local authorities.
EARL GREY: While thanking my noble friend for his explanation I do not feel that any apology is needed for having failed to solve the crossword puzzle myself.
LORD ROCHE: I think I ought to remind the Committee that there is an Amendment to leave out Clause 93 (2) as being much too wide. I heartily concur that it is too early to debate it now, but I suggest that the method adopted by Lord Grey is much more orderly as dealing with the matter specifically section by section, because what Clause 93 (2) means is this. You give a discretion, and the Minister may take it away forthwith. He says you wipe out the discretion, and give it to the Minister alone. I much prefer the method of the noble Earl.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Cannot the noble Earl find some words which would give a simple appeal in a matter like this, instead of referring us to a clause which gives unlimited powers to the Department?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No doubt when we come to Clause 93 (2) it can be
388
fully discussed, but the Bill already provides what my noble friend is asking for, and until Clause 93 (2) is altered that answer holds good. If my noble friend succeeds in inducing your Lordships to abolish that subsection or to alter it materially, I agree; but I should then be obliged to move an Amendment on the Report stage to meet the point of Lord Grey. But until that is done the Bill as it stands entirely covers the point that he has raised.
EARL GREY: On that understanding I do not press the Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26:
Special provisions as to religious education in controlled schools.
(3) The head teacher of a controlled school shall not be a reserved teacher, but before appointing any person to be 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 CHICHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER moved, in subsection (3), after "not," to insert "while holding that position." The right reverend Prelate said: This Amendment must be considered with the Amendments in my name to Clause 28. They are intended to make it quite clear that the opportunities for promotion for reserved teachers in controlled schools are fully safeguarded. I realize from what the noble Earl said on the Second Reading that it is not the intention of the Government to place any professional bar to the career of reserved teachers, but the ordinary layman reading subsection (3) of Clause 26, which begins, "The head teacher of a controlled school shall not be a reserved teacher …" might be pardoned for being in doubt on the point. He also might be pardoned for being in doubt in view of the proviso at the end of Clause 28 which seems, at any rate, to leave it ambiguous as to whether a teacher is to be deprived of any promotion or other advantage by reason of the fact that he does give religious instruction, for the position of the reserved teacher is expressly mentioned as one to which this section does not apply. I therefore took it upon myself to raise the point in case the admitted ambiguity—I

389
think it is admitted—of these various phrases night be relied upon to justify the policy of never considering reserved teachers for headships. I do not wish to enlarge on the point because I rather hope the Government may be conscious of the ambiguity, and may be willing to make the matter abundantly clear by accepting this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 15, after ("not") insert ("while holding that position").—(The Lord Bishop of Chichester.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I agree with the sight reverend Prelate that subsection (3) is somewhat ambiguous, and I am grateful to him for having moved this Amendment, which I shall be very pleased to accept on behalf of the Government. It does make it perfectly clear—what I assured him on Second Reading was the fact—that it was not intended to make it impossible for a reserved teacher to become a head teacher. This Amendment makes that abundantly clear and therefore I gladly accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER moved to substitute "consult" for "inform" in subsection (3). The right reverend Prelate said: Before moving this Amendment I should like to thank the noble Earl for accepting my last Amendment. This is a different point. This Amendment is to substitute the word "consult" (the managers) for the word "inform" (the managers). The distinction is a very real one. Your Lordships will remember that in the White Paper when the position with regard to the two alternatives for the controlled schools were set out in paragraph 56, these words were printed:
"The power of appointing and dismissing teachers will also pass to the authority, subject to the right of the managers to be consulted as to the appointment of the head teacher and to the right of the foundation managers to be satisfied as to the appointment of reserved teachers, within limits to be prescribed."
It is a matter of considerable regret that the word "consult" is reduced in the Bill to the smaller word "inform," which has, at any rate, a certain neutrality about it.
I suggest that there is a very real difference between the two words in this con-
390
nexion. The word "inform" implies that the decision as to the person proposed to be appointed has already been provisionally made, and that the only representations which the managers or governors can make are representations by way of protest. "Consult," however, which was the word used in the White Paper and also in the Explanatory Memorandum circulated with the Bill in another place, applies to a much earlier stage. You consult people when you have not already provisionally made up your mind. I feel that in this matter of the controlled schools it is of the utmost importance that there should be a full co-operative spirit between the managers and the local education authority to ensure the smooth working of this new system. I also suggest that if there are difficulties with regard to any particular measures about consultation as to any particular head teachership, there is the Diocesan Education Committee with which the local education authority is encouraged and bound to be in very close communication. It is, of course, entirely understood that the head teacher must not necessarily be a reserved teacher. There were many who wished that the head teachers of these controlled schools should be reserved teachers, but that point was conceded. What was accepted as a move of a favourable kind was the assurance that, in any case, the managers or governors would be consulted as to the appointment. I very much hope that the Government are considering this point, which is not a verbal point, and will accept the word "consult" in place of the word "inform". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 18, leave out ("inform") and insert ("consult").—(The Lord Bishop of Chichester.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am bound to say that when I saw the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate on the Paper it did seem to me to be a verbal point because what he is asking for is, consultation, and the Bill says:
"… before appointing any person to be 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."

391
I should have said that that was a long way of saying "consult." If you inform somebody what you propose to do, and they have the right to say what they think about it, and you have to listen to them before you proceed to action, I should say that was consulting somebody. The word "consult" does not necessarily mean—and I do not think the right reverend Prelate suggested it was ever in this case intended to mean—that the managers should have a veto. That was never intended, and nobody understood that that was intended. Therefore I should have argued that this subsection does give exactly the consultation that was promised in the White Paper. But the right reverend Prelate seems to be afraid that these words might be interpreted in the sense that the local education authority had made up its mind that anything the managers might say would be a mere formality, and that no consideration would be paid to them. That is, as I understand, what he is afraid of. I shall certainly look at the matter again—I had not appreciated his point until I heard his speech—and see whether any improvement of the words is possible. I still think that the plain English of the words in the Bill is what is generally meant by the word "consult."
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: There is no doubt that the words in the Bill are a form of consulting. There is no doubt that what was supposed to be intended was that the managers should have an opportunity of representing their wishes before the local education authority began to consider names for appointment, and that they would make their selection having in mind what the managers put forward. That is the point that makes a difference. If they have already decided to recommend a particular candidate, the plea of the managers would have to be a good deal stronger, to make them modify their decision, than if the first step is to ask the managers the kind of man they would wish to have. We are more familiar with it in vacancies of ecclesiastical benefices. When a benefice is vacant the Parochial Church Council is asked to state what kind of a man they would desire to be appointed to the parish. That is the kind of consultation we hoped for and which we still hope the noble Earl will be able to provide.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I understand that the point will be subsequently considered and on that understanding I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to add to the clause:
"() Where, in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed of a controlled secondary school, or where provision for that purpose is not made by such a deed in accordance with the practice observed in the school before it became a controlled secondary school, the religious instruction is not to include any catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular religious denomination, the arrangements contained in the proviso to the last foregoing section shall apply."
The most reverend Primate said: This deals with a rather small group of schools. I will get information about their number before the time for this matter to be considered at the next stage of the Bill. It is an important point of principle. The Bill as it stands provides that denominational instruction may be given in aided and controlled denominational schools and in special agreement schools and also in council secondary schools, but it is not provided for a certain group—namely, controlled undenominational schools. There is a group of such schools and if the scheme is to be complete it would be desirable that the same facilities should be granted in them. It has been pointed out to me that there may be a difficulty about attaching this provision to the proviso in the clause because that requires that the local education authority should supply the denominational instruction. I think it ought in fact to be the managers, but if the point is appreciated perhaps we could either adopt the Amendment now and do the editorial work later or it can come up in an edited form for consideration with the Government's welcome for it.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—[The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid I could not accept the Amendment of the most reverend Primate because as he has himself intimated it would not fit in with this particular clause. I am, however, anxious to address myself to the problem that the most reverend Primate has proposed. I understand that his anxiety is in respect of those endowed secondary

393
schools whose trust deeds are not associated will any denomination but provide for instruction to be given in the principles of the Christian faith. He asks if it would be possible to give denominational instruction to children attending those schools. I am advised that in such cases if individual parents desired denominational instruction for their children during not more than two periods a week and the foundation governors were prepared to make the necessary arrangements, there would be no legal obstacle to such denominational instruction being given on the school premises. If, however, the most reverend Primate has any particular case in mind where he thinks that would not apply and alternative arrangements cannot be made I would be most happy to confer further with him to see whether any provision on the Report stage is necessary.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am most grateful for that assurance and I will endeavour to obtain information about any particular instance. On that understanding I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Saving as to position of teachers]:
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Amendments on this clause are consequential on an Amendment accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 41, leave out from the second ("school") to ("or") in line 42.
Page 24, line 3, leave out ("this section shall not apply") and insert ("save in so far as they require that a teacher shall not receive any less emolument or be deprived of, or disqualified for, any promotion or other advantage by reason of the fact that he gives religious instruction or by reason of his religious opinions or of his attending religious worship, the provisions of this section shall not apply with respect to a teacher in an aided school or ").—(The Lord Bishop of Chichester.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 3o agreed to.
Clause 31:
Education of pupils requiring special educational treatment.
(2) The arrangements made by a local education authority for the special educational treatment of pupils of any such category shall, so far as is practicable, provide for the education of pupils in whose case the disability is serious in special schools appropriate for that category, but where that is impracticable, or where the disability is not serious, the arrangements may provide for the giving of such education in any school maintained or assisted by the local education authority.
LORD RENNELL: The two Amendments on this clause that stand in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, he cannot now move as he is unable to be here. I think it necessary, with your Lordships' permission, that the two Amendments in the name of Lord Buck-master and the two in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, on this clause should be taken together. It is not so much a matter of the terms as of the wording of the clause as a whole.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If I may interrupt I understand the noble Lord desires to discuss in moving the Amendment on Clause 31, page 25, line 41, to leave out "so far as practicable" the subsequent Amendment in line 43 and also the Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ammon.
LORD RENNELL: That is correct and with your Lordships' permission, Lord Ammon will take over both Amendments and move them together.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 41, leave out ("as far as practicable").—(Lord Rennell.)
LORD AMMON,LORD AMMON, who had given Notice of an Amendment, to leave out "the disability is serious" and insert "a medical officer of the authority certifies that their education in special schools is necessary", said: The object that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and myself have is to have implemented the promise made in the other House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education dealing with this particular clause. He then promised that he would again examine the matter to see whether it was possible in this House to find some form of words that would leave no doubt that he expected these children to be dealt with properly by every education autho-

395
rity in the country. I hope that after that promise my noble friend in charge of the Bill will be able to accept what we now propose. Considerable discussion arose in the other House on the Report stage and on the promise I have already indicated the Bill was allowed to proceed, the understanding being that an Amendment would be made in this House.
This particular clause deals with children who are handicapped physically and require special educational treatment but it is felt by expert medical authorities that to apply the word "serious" to a bodily disability does imply that there is probably some great danger to be apprehended. That being so a medical officer of distinction might well hesitate if those words are retained in the Bill to certify that the children concerned should be educated in special schools. If that were so the purpose of the Bill would be defeated because we would not get the people we want to treat in the special schools. The defects from which they suffer may be serious "but not dangerous" in the medical sense. In order to make this operative there should be means provided whereby any medical officer of distinction would be able to express an opinion. It is a serious matter because it may be a handicap to the future career of the child which desires special treatment. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and myself are very much concerned about the matter, but if the Minister is not able to accept these particular words I hope the Government are now in a position to accept the spirit in which we are now proposing them and will tell your Lordships the words that they are proposing to insert.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If I may make a humble complaint the course which is being taken does not make things very much easier. My noble friend has put down one Amendment and made a speech about another. I understand that all four Amendments are to be taken together. My noble friend's speech really was on whether the disability is serious. If I understood my noble friend rightly he really wishes to be assured that the provision made in the Bill for these unfortunate children is adequate. In the view of the President of the Board of Education it now is. Let me take the four Amendments seriatim. The first is
396
the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. That is one which is really before the Committee. The point which I think the noble Lord had in mind in reference to that Amendment was that a local authority might say that there are not sufficient children of this category in the area to justify a special school and therefore there it would not make provision for these children. That point is met, I am advised, by paragraph 3 of Part II of the First Schedule, which says:
"Where it appears to the Minister to be expedient that two or more local education authorities should combine for the purpose of exercising some but not all of their functions with respect to education and that those authorities should establish a joint committee for that purpose, the Minister may, after consultation with the authorities by order establish a joint education committee of those authorities and provide for the reference to the committee of such question relating to those functions as in the opinion of the Minister should be so referred;…"
In other words it is possible for the Minister to arrange with a local education authority that it should join with another local education authority for the maintenance of a joint service.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think you should read the next words because they make it clearer.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will read them:
"and any such order may provide for authorizing the joint education committee to exercise any of those functions on behalf of the authorities concerned and may include such incidental and consequential provisions, including provisions with respect to the appointment and functions of sub-committees, as the Minister thinks desirable."
That, I think, meets the point made in the two Amendents standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. Then there is the first Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ammon which he mentioned in his speech. I am afraid the Government cannot accept his words because the effect would be to confine special education treatment to those children who, in the opinion of the medical officer, should be sent to special schools. The whole object of the clause is to provide that all children who on account of disability of mind or body require special educational treatment should receive it, some in special schools and some in ordinary I schools. In a great many cases where

397
there is only a slight defect it would be much better that the child should receive special education in an ordinary school and be among ordinary children. It is probable that many children suffering disability would continue to attend ordinary primary or secondary schools and be given special educational treatment in them. Under the noble Lord's Amendment all those children would be ignored unless the medical officer took the unusual view that they should all go to special schools.
Another reason why my right honourable friend objects to the Amendment is that he is very anxious to avoid certification of these children, if possible. The mere fact of certification carries a possible stigma which might cling to the child throughout life. Therefore, my answer must be that I cannot regard either of these Amendments as an improvement on the Bill and my right honourable friend is satisfied that the Bill does what was desired by the House of Commons and what has been his policy.
LORD LATHAM: No one would wish to extend the field of certification but if the medical officer is not to certify, who is to determine whether the disability is serious? Surely it must be the duty of the medical officer or somebody to determine whether the disability is serious, and I think the Committee would like to know where that responsibility is to rest.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The responsibility rests upon the local education authority, but of course the local education authority must be advised in such matters by its medical officer. If the noble Lord will look at subsection (4) of Clause 32 he will see these words:
"If after considering the advice given with respect to any child by a medical officer in consequence of any such medical examination as aforesaid … the authority decide that the child requires special educational treatment.…"
LORD RENNELL: After the explanation which the noble Earl has given I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMMON: I am bound to say I am not quite satisfied, but I will not move my Amendment.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32:
Duty of local education authorities to ascertain what children require special educational treatment.
32.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to ascertain what children in their area require special educational treatment, and for the purpose of fulfilling that duty any officer of a local education authority authorized in that behalf by the authority may by notice in writing served upon the parent of any child who has attained the age of two years require him to submit the child for examination by a medical officer of the authority for advice as to whether the child is suffering from any disability of mind or body and as to the nature and extent of any such disability; and if a parent upon whom such a notice is served fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirements thereof he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
(5) The advice given with respect to any child by a medical officer in consequence of any such medical examination as aforesaid shall be communicated to the parent of the child and to the local education authority, and the medical officer by whom the examination was made shall if required by the parent or by the authority so to do, issue to the authority and to the parent a certificate in the prescribed form showing whether the child is suffering from any such disability as aforesaid and if so the nature and extent thereof:
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and as to the nature and extent of any such disability" and insert "such as to necessitate special educational treatment." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment because if it is necessary to state the nature and extent of any such disabilities the medical officer would be required to have the necessary knowledge to make an accurate diagnosis and be possessed of all the equipment which could only be expected in the case of a surgical or medical specialist or a hospital. The medical officer will be mainly concerned with respiratory, orthopædic and visual troubles and perhaps rheumatism and that sort of thing. It would impose upon the medical officer unnecessary and great difficulty to require him to explain fully all that is included in the words "nature and extent of any such disability."
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 31, leave out ("and as to the nature and extent of any such disability") and insert ("such as to necessitate special educational treatment")—(Lord Ammon.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid I do not fully appreciate the objection of the noble Lord. This Clause 32 states that

399
it shall be the duty of every local education authority to ascertain what children in their area require special educational treatment. Then it goes on to say that they have power to require children as young as two years of age to be submitted to medical examination, and that the doctor has then to advise the authority as to the nature and extent of the child's disability. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request, and I do not think, if I may say so with all respect, that the words suggested by my noble friend Lord Ammon meet the needs of the case. His words merely require a doctor to certify whether, in his opinion, special educational treatment or not is required. I do not think that that is the proper approach. I think the local education authority should be informed by the doctor about the medical condition of the child, and then it is for them to decide, no doubt with expert advice, whether the child ought to be sent to a special school, and if so to what type of special school, or whether he could, in fact, be educated by special instruction at an ordinary school. Therefore I suggest that the words in the Bill are the correct words and do not require alteration.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am not sure that the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill has quite appreciated the effect of this. It is really only a question of drafting, and I do not think that the drafting is quite satisfactory. Clause 32 begins by talking of the duty of every local education authority to ascertain what children in their area require special educational treatment, and goes on to state that—
"for the purpose of fulfilling that duty any officer of a local education authority authorized in that behalf by the authority may by notice in writing served upon the parent of any child who has attained the age of two years require him to submit the child for examination by a medical officer of the authority for advice as to whether the child is suffering from any disability of mind or body …"
Now it seems to me that as the clause stands the local authority may require the medical officer to say whether a child is suffering, we will say, from a bad leg, a club foot or some injury to the arm or something of that sort which does not in the least require special educational treatment. Therefore I rather think—though it is a comparatively small matter—that
400
my noble friend Lord Ammon is right in wanting to add to the words in the appropriate place "such as to necessitate special educational treatment." In other words I am very strongly in favour of the medical authority not being asked to inquire into anything which does not reflect upon the necessity for special educational treatment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will certainly see that the comments of the noble and learned Viscount are considered between now and the Report stage. But I would like to point out to him that special educational treatment may be required for children who are not mentally affected.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I quite agree.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is perfectly possible that some defect of the arm or leg may require some form of special treatment of the child.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I entirely agree, but unless the child does require special treatment the medical authority ought not to go into the matter at all.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is only in this clause that that particular point is dealt with. The noble Viscount knows that ordinary medical treatment is dealt with under other clauses. I will certainly examine the point made by the noble and learned Viscount, and if it is thought that these words do require Amendment I can propose an Amendment on the Report stage, but I do not think I can accept the words proposed by my noble friend Lord Ammon.
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment is not moved with any desire to restrict the rights of the parent or to avoid proper medical examination. What my noble friend Lord Ammon fears is that if the clause stands as at present, it may seriously restrict the opportunities of local education authorities to provide for special education. Quite a number of children are at present educated in open air schools, and it really would be impossible to ask a medical officer to certify the nature and extent of any particular defect which would necessarily justify their being educated in open air schools. Moreover, there is some fear—perhaps not illfounded—that if a precise statement is to be made by the medical officer there will be considerable room for disagree-

401
ment between the medical adviser of the parents and the medical officer of the local education authority. Furthermore, there is another kind of difficulty that may arise which is not without personal embarrassment. For instance, in the case of a child suffering from interstitial keratitis a medical officer certifying may be in some difficulty because, as I am informed, the nature of this disability is syphilitic in origin and a certificate of that kind might lead to all sorts of embarrassments of an unpleasant kind, perhaps among the parents. In these circumstances I hope that the noble Earl will find it possible to urge the President of the Board of Education to look at this matter again from the point of view that as the clause is now drafted it may substantially affect the freedom that local education authorities have at the present time to provide special education in many cases.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I understand that the answer to the last point made by the noble Lord is that the medical officer can advise or certify as to the nature and extent of the disability without revealing its cause. But I do not myself see how you can deny the local education authority full medical advice from its officers on these problems. I do not believe that the words of the clause, as they stand, do limit or confine the local education authority at all. But I have already promised the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, that this matter will be looked into again in the light of what be says, and I will certainly see that the points raised by the noble Lord are also considered. But as at present advised my view is that this subsection is adequate, and really does provide what it required.
LORD AMMON: In view of the promise given under the heavier fire of the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, in subsection (5), to leave out, "and if so the nature and extent thereof." The noble Lord said: I desire to move this second Amendment because I think that, judging by the answer which he has given just now, the noble Earl has not understood it. The proposal is not at all to withhold from the local education authority any in-
402
formation whatever. All that is asked is that the parents should be notified about the disability under which the child is suffering. But there is no need whatever to provide parents with a full history of the nature and extent of the disability. That is the point that my noble friend Lord Latham brought out just now. It can be no advantage to the parent or to the children to point out that this disease may have arisen either through the wrong-doing of one or other of the parents or that of some ancestor. It will make no difference whatever as to the information which the local authorities have in hand concerning the trouble from which the child is suffering. The parents themselves will know what it is but there can be no purpose in causing domestic disharmony.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 16, leave out ("and if so the nature and extent thereof").—(Lord Ammon.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is an entirely different point. My noble friend's new Amendment deals with subsection (5), and there we come to the point where the local education authority decides in the light of the information already received that the child requires special treatment. This subsection obliges the authority to inform the parent. I think that the parent is entitled to know. I do not think that children ought to be taken away from their parents and put into special schools without the parents being fully aware of the facts. Therefore I am afraid I cannot agree with my noble friend that these words ought to be left out.
LORD AMMON: The noble Earl has overlooked the fact that the parent will know in any case that the child is suffering from a certain disease. It seems unnecessary to go into the antecedents and tell the parent what led to that.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If I was a parent and heard about the disease that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, mentioned it would convey nothing to me at all, because I am a layman. A doctor would know that it indicated a syphilitic origin. But certainly the parent in a case like that ought to be told that there was a syphilitic origin to the child's disease.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Compulsory school age]:
LORD SOULBURY LORD SOULBURY moved to insert:
"(2) Until the upper limit of the compulsory school age is raised to sixteen years it shall be lawful for a local education authority, before admitting a pupil to a particular course in a secondary school, to enter into an agreement with the parent of such pupil for the purpose of securing the attendance of the pupil at that course until he has attained the age of sixteen years. Provided that such agreements, shall only be concluded in respect of courses to which prior general or special approval for this purpose has been given by the Minister.
(3) Upon the execution of such an agreement as is mentioned in the preceding subsection, the age of sixteen years shall, in relation to the pupil concerned and for the purpose of the provisions of this Act relating to compulsory attendance, be deemed to be the upper limit of the compulsory school age unless the local education authority otherwise decide in any particular case."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in complete accord with the Government's educational policy and will be of great assistance to local authorities if, as I hope, it is accepted. At present, under existing circumstances, when a parent sends his child to a grammar school where the local education authority has provided educational facilities and a planned programme of education to last until the age of sixteen, the parent signs an agreement with the local authority not to remove his child before he reaches that age. The agreement is signed under a penalty of paying liquidated damages if he breaks the agreement and removes the child from the school before the child has reached sixteen.
But past history has shown that these agreements are very difficult and in many ways disagreeable. Local authorities find it very hard to assess the damage. There is, I understand, considerable doubt whether the sum mentioned in the agreement is a penal sum and recoverable at law, and in a great many cases—I suppose in most cases—the sum is a very small one, and if the parent had received what he thought to be a tempting offer of immediate employment for the child at high wages, there would be a strong inducement very often for the parent to take the child away from the school where he is receiving his planned course of education, at an earlier age than that at which he should be taken away. That is not a very satisfactory state of affairs, and it is one which has for a long time
404
led to a great deal of criticism and comment.
My Amendment proposes to make this alteration. The parent will enter into agreement with the local education authority as at present to undertake to keep his child at school for the course of the education which has been planned, but instead of this unsatisfactory sanction of a penalty or fine should the parent remove his child before the child has had the full advantage of the planned education, my Amendment proposes that the local authority should take advantage of the law of compulsory school attendance, and that for the purpose of this agreement the age of sixteen should be the compulsory school age for that child. No question arises of a penalty or fine or the disagreeable troubles of court proceedings. The parent knows where he stands and that he has obliged himself under this agreement with the local education authority to keep the child at the school until the age of sixteen. If he takes away the child before reaching that age he knows that he will be breaking the law of compulsory school attendance and must suffer the consequence.
I think the Amendment will be a great improvement on the present state of affairs. It will ensure that these children stay in the schools where the education is provided until the age of sixteen, being subjected to a properly planned course, and are not taken away for this or that reason by some very short-sighted parent. There may be particular cases where there is good reason for the child to be taken away, and I have safeguarded those cases in my Amendment by the words, "the age of sixteen years shall … be deemed to be the upper limit of the compulsory school age unless the local education authority otherwise decide in any particular case." It might be reasonable—and most local education authorities are reasonable—if the parent could make out a really good case, to terminate a child's education at an earlier point. It is very unlikely that the local education authority would act unreasonably in such a case. Under my Amendment the local education authority will have power to deal with the particular case, but otherwise in all cases the law of compulsory school attendance will hold good and the present unsatisfactory method of fine or penalty for the breaking of an agreement can be abandoned.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 7, at end, insert the said new subsections —[Lord Soulbury.]
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am aware that my noble friend in making this suggestion has the support of a number of local education authorities. I think we all appreciate the fact that it must be very annoying to an education authority to admit a boy into a secondary school and then to find a year or two later that he has been taken away by his parents before he has been able to reap the full benefit of the education that was designed for him. It is for that reason that local education authorities have entered into agreements with parents in the past, making it a condition of admission to a secondary school that the parents should undertake that the child be kept there until the age of sixteen under penalty of a fine. I am told, as a matter of fact, that the courts have refused to enforce the penalty, because it has been held that the local authority cannot prove that it has been damnified by the child being taken away at, say, fifteen.
My noble friend wishes to get over the difficulty by providing that, until the age is raised compulsorily for everybody to sixteen, it shall be possible to have a form of agreement under which the school-leaving age is raised to sixteen in respect of a particular child, and that therefore the parent would not be allowed to take away his child from the secondary school until that child was sixteen, unless by the consent of the local authority in hard cases. I am afraid that I cannot agree to that Amendment. It seems to me that might work very unjustly. One of the reasons—it is not the only one—why we have a school-leaving age at all is commercial competition; that is, a child might be injured in his professional career by competing children completing their education earlier and taking his place, for example, in an apprenticeship. In the case under consideration that factor would remain in regard to all other children over the school-leaving age, which is at present fourteen, but this particular child would not be allowed to leave school, whatever the circumstances, except with the consent of the local education authority. I think that that might put the child in a most unfair position.
The family circumstances might alter completely. The father might no longer be able to afford to maintain his child at a
406
secondary school. A very good business opening might occur through some change of circumstance, such as the sudden death of an uncle. That sort of consideration does not arise when the same school-leaving age applies to everybody, but in a case such as that dealt with by this Amendment, when other children would not be subject to these agreements, a child who was bound in this way might be put in a very difficult situation, and the father would not be able to get out of the agreement, except with the consent of the local education authority, without incurring the penalty of going to prison. I venture to suggest, therefore, that the present system of voluntary agreements between parents and local authorities, with a monetary penalty, is the best one in the circumstances, and should be maintained until the school-leaving age is raised.
LORD ROCHE: With every sympathy with the motives of the mover of the Amendment, I support strongly what the noble Earl has said. These agreements up to now have been universally regarded as what they are—namely, gentlemen's agreements—and have served a useful purpose, but they have been quite unenforceable, for two reasons: not merely because the courts do not impose penalties, but also because the provisions of the Children's Acts amount to this, that if a parent chooses simply to reassume his child, then the person who wants to keep the child at school would have to apply for habeas corpus, and then the courts are not bound by an agreement of this kind but have by Statute to look at the interests of the child. In a case where the father has died, for instance, and the child is wanted, that would be regarded as an element.
What would be the effect of the penalty which the Amendment seeks to impose? When the school-leaving age is raised to fifteen, all children between twelve and fifteen will go to a secondary school. A local authority which desires to do so might make agreements that all children between twelve and fifteen going to their school should be bound by agreements such as this, and by this Amendment those children would be hound to stay until they were sixteen, so that certain local authorities would be able to establish a school-leaving age of sixteen for all their children in defiance of the in-forests of the rest of the country.
LORD SOULBURY: The noble and learned Lord is under a misapprehension there. The last sentence of my proposed subsection (2) reads:
"Provided that such agreements shall only be concluded in respect of courses to which prior general or special approval for this purpose has been given by the Milnister."
In effect, that was meant to cover the normal courses of the grammar schools.
LORD ROCHE: I did not fully appreciate that this is not intended to be general, but to be limited, so that my last objection falls to the ground; but I think that it is very undesirable that a statutory provision about the school-leaving age should be sought in aid by a particular authority to enforce agreements which are not generally enforceable under the law of the land.
LORD SOULBURY: I am by no means convinced by the reply of my noble friend, and I do not suppose that he thought that I would be. When he says he realizes that it is annoying to an education authority to be confronted with this position, I should like to say that it is, or should be, much more annoying to the child and detrimental to the child's future. As regards the argument that the circumstances of the family may alter, any reasonable authority, if a parent came to it and said: "I have entered into this agreement with you, but my child has had this offer" or "My circumstances have deteriorated," would say "We quite understand, and there is no question of prosecuting you under the law of compulsory school attendance." If the authority was not reasonable and sought to prosecute the parent, I imagine that the court would take a very different view. I do not think that that is a very convincing argument. After all, the parent enters into this agreement with full knowledge. He realizes that a number of children will not be bound to stay at school until sixteen, and may get out into the world before his child, but he knows, if he is sensible, that, if his child takes the full course, that child will stand a very much better chance than children who are pushed out into the labour market at an earlier age. In view of the comparative absence of support which this Amendment has received, I do not propose to press it to a Division.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Go On.
LORD SOULBURY: I should have liked some more vocal support; the reception until a moment ago was not particularly encouraging. What I have said may induce my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill to reinforce the arguments with which I have endeavoured to deal, and during the interval other noble Lords may gather their strength and give me the vocal support which up to the moment has been lacking.
EARL DE LA WARR: Somewhat tardily, and duly reproved by the noble Lord, I would like to add a word to this discussion, though there is very little to add because he has put his case so thoroughly. But we must really face the fact that hitherto the system under which we have been proceeding just has not worked. I would ask the noble Earl to believe that this is a matter of very much greater importance than mere annoyance to certain local authorities. We have only a certain limited amount of secondary education and a limited amount of accommodation for the particular courses which the noble Lord has mentioned in his Amendment. It is the grossest waste of these limited resources that parents should be allowed, quite irresponsibly, to send their children to these courses—taking the place of other children who might be there—and then withdraw them before they have had any opportunity of receiving any benefit. I would appeal to the noble Earl to take this Amendment most seriously, and if he cannot accept it in its present form, then to consider between now and Report whether he can do something to meet Lord Soulbury.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I desire to support this Amendment. I happen to be the chairman of a training establishment which takes poor boys and educates them for the sea, either for the Royal Navy or the Merchant Navy. You have to remember that boys want protection. I understand from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that an arrangement whereby a father pays a forfeit if he takes his son away before his school period is ended, cannot be enforced. But in that case there is nothing to protect the boy. Legally the forfeit cannot be enforced, and also, if the parent is poor, you do not care to enforce it. But it is the boy who suffers. I heard of a boy who went away

409
in tears because his mother had begged him to go home as his father was away, and the boy thus lost his chance of going to sea. That has occurred on several occasions, and therefore some means of protecting children in such cases would be very valuable.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In spite of the pressure of two ex-Presidents of the Board of Education, I am afraid I cannot give way on this Amendment. I do think that until the school-leaving age is raised for everybody it might be very unfair in individual cases to submit a parent who, for reasons of competition or whatever it was, found it necessary to take his child away from school earlier than he originally intended, to the penalties that he would incur under this Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: Perhaps I may give some support to my noble friend. Surely the real argument is this. In old days when only a limited number of children could go to a secondary school, there would have been a good deal of reason for this Amendment. But now, when it is proposed that all children should go to secondary schools; the argument is no longer open to you that a child who is accepted for a place in a secondary school thereby keeps out another child. In future he will not do so, therefore there is no damage done to other children if a child who has been accepted for a secondary school is withdrawn before the end of the course. My noble friend has a good deal of justification, therefore, for saying it is unfair for the parent to be fined, as he would under this Amendment. Had another child suffered as the result of the parent's action I should have supported the Amendment, but under the conditions under which children will be educated when this Bill becomes law, I am afraid I cannot do so.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think my noble friend is under a misapprehension. This Amendment does not concern any course in any secondary school, it concerns particular courses, courses of such a character that "prior general or special approval for this purpose has been given by the Minister." That is to say, it is a special course, a limited course, and therefore it is one which it is very wrong from a national point of view—quite apart from the child's point of view—that we should waste.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: In the case that I spoke about the parent's action does keep another boy out. We have a long waiting list for this particular school. A boy spends six or seven months under training, and then his mother influences him, or his father takes him away, perhaps to earn high wages, and the result is that another boy loses his chance.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Your Lordships must remember that these are all cases of children of parents who are anxious for their children to receive secondary education, who are prepared to do everything they can to give their children this further education. If the parent, during the course of the boy's educational career, finds he is no longer able to afford to do so—perhaps because something serious has happened to the family and there has been an important change of circumstances—then, however much we may deplore it, I do not think you solve the problem by adopting the proposal of my noble friend.
LORD SOULBURY: If that were the case this trouble would never have arisen. It is not true, I am afraid, that no parent withdraws his child from a school except under such serious circumstances. There are a great many other temptations and reasons which operate to induce the parent to take the child away from the school when it ought to be left there. It is precisely for that reason that I have moved this Amendment. If the parent intends to leave the child at the school except under circumstances so obvious that he is obliged to withdraw him, no parent would object to the sanction of compulsory school attendance enforced by a fine. It is the parent who is sometimes only too pleased to get some employment for his child that I am getting at in this Amendment. A predecessor of mine at the Board of Education spoke about the damage to other children on the assumption that my Amendment was all-embracing in regard to secondary schools. Even so, it is not the damage to other children that I am thinking of, it is the damage to this particular child. I remain quite unconvinced, but perhaps this Amendment might be negatived, because I do not think I will take it to a Division.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
Duty of parents to secure regular attendance of registered pupils.
37.—(1) If any child of compulsory school age who is a registered pupil at a school fails to attend regularly thereat the parent of the child shall be guilty of an offence against this section.
(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—

(a) at any time when he was prevented from attending by reason of sickness or any unavoidable cause;

(b) on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs;

(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.

LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), after "miles," to insert "or, in the case of a pupil under eight years of age, two miles." The noble Lord said: We have just listened to an interesting discussion in the course of which a noble Lord said the courts did not enforce penalties, but in regard to the particular clause we have now reached the courts would have to enforce a penalty if the law were not carried out. My Amendment is one that I hope may be accepted. It is very simple. It depends, I think, on common sense and even upon common kindness. As I understand it, at present local authorities have the right to prescribe by local by-law the conditions under which children should walk to school. Under the Bill that is changed and central control, which seems to be one of the governing principles of the Bill, is laid down. The distance applies throughout the country quite irrespective of any local conditions. I am not perfectly clear what is meant by the words "nearest available route" in paragraph (c). In the part of the world I know very well—the
412
Sussex Downs—the nearest available route is sometimes a footpath across the open wind-swept Downs.
My Amendment is really based on the principle that I have a very strong objection to trying to force upon parents of other children what I should very much object to carrying out myself. Under the Bill as it stands, all children may in certain circumstances be compelled to walk as far as three miles to and three miles from school—that is, six miles in a day. That is a very long distance even for a child of nine and upwards, but for children between the ages of five and eight it seems to me quite unreasonable. I should have liked to limit it more than my Amendment does, but one does not wish to overstress. I have put down the Amendment the purport of which is that children between the ages of five and eight would not be penalized, or their parents would not be penalized, if the distance were more than two miles. I hope the Amendment may be accepted. I am sure it commands the assent of all who are in any way familiar with the physical powers of young children, and I hope the noble Earl may be sympathetic to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 30, after ("miles") insert ("or, in the case of a pupil under eight years of age, two miles").—(Lord Gorell).
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I should like very warmly to support this Amendment, and I want to instance, not an open and windy moor, such as my noble friend has mentioned, but an extremely swampy field or fields, upwards of two miles long, between the homes of many country children and their schools. That is the sort of conditions I find in my part of the country. In these cases children between five and eight might suffer, and indeed do suffer, very considerably through sitting with wet feet and damp shoes—very often they are inadequately shod, particularly in times when footwear is expensive, as it has been in recent years—all day long at school, and then coming back by that swampy track by a right of way. Any doctor, at any rate in the countryside where I live, could testify to the large number of infantile ailments which are produced by the very conditions I have described, and where it is quite impossible to provide, as it would be in other areas, transport for these children from their

413
homes—very often a hamlet three or four miles away—to school where these conditions are bound to obtain and children are bound to suffer. It is in the light of experience that I emphatically support my noble friend's Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I, too, should like to ask the noble Earl if he would consider this Amendment and accept it. Children in the country have frequently to go very long distances to school, and there is no question that between the ages of five and eight anything over two miles is a long distance. Noble Lords have spoken about windy clowns and swampy fields. I should like to add the exceedingly dangerous main roads—in-creasingly dangerous—and there is no question that the danger increases as the tiredness of the child increases. It is the tired child who becomes more and more casual as he goes along, wandering from side to side of the road. I hope the noble Earl will accept this Amendment. This House is attending these debates for three, four, and possibly five days. We have not as yet had many concessions from my noble friend, and I ask him to give us something.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I wish to add the consideration of wintry weather and poor, wretched, little children, insufficiently clad, walking along six miles of road in a bitterly cold wind. That is really more than any Minister of the Crown in charge of this Bill ought to wish to support.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think I can ignore the importance of the representations that have been made on this subject, and I personally have always had great sympathy with such considerations as we have heard this afternoon. But there are two facts I should like to impress upon your Lordships. The first is that compulsory school attendance in spite of long distances has been the law since 1870. It is quite true, as the noble Lord said, that up to now the distance has been regulated by by-laws, but I am informed that in a great many cases the by-laws have for a long time prescribed three miles. I have always marvelled at the degree to which that has been accepted by parents in outlying parts of the country. I am bound to say, having fought nine elections before I became a member of your Lordships' House, I
414
never found any complaints on the part of electors at any election on this particular score. It is also the fact that neither this Amendment nor any Amendment like it was moved during the Committee stage or the Report stage in another place. Therefore, however hard these circumstances may seem to your Lordships in cases that could easily be conceived, I do not think it is possible to say there is any public demand for a relaxation of the law as it stands at present and which, generally speaking, is three miles. We must remember that when a child has a cold or is otherwise unwell the parent can keep it away from school, and if there is a reasonable school attendance officer no undue fuss will be made.
On the whole, these things are worked in the villages—because it is in the villages that this problem occurs—with that amount of common sense which is probably the explanation of why there has been no public outcry against the law. I would also draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that under Clause 53 the Government, for the first time, are taking power to direct authorities to provide transport where circumstances render it appropriate. Clause 53 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."
The words "and otherwise" I understand, are intended to cover, for instance, a footbridge across a dyke or the hiring of a pony to take children across Devonshire moors, which may be the cheapest way of getting them there. The words are intentionally made very wide. Therefore I think I must reply that the effect of this Bill is greatly to mitigate a hardship, if there be a hardship, which English people have borne without complaint for seventy years. I am afraid I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment.
LORD GORELL: The noble Earl has given three reasons for refusing the Amendment. None of them, I am afraid, appeal very much to me. The last one, under clause 53, does not seem to me quite to touch my point, because if it is held that a three-mile walk is reasonable then there is no obligation on the local education authorities to provide the transport. My contention is that a three-mile

415
walk is unreasonable. The other two arguments were: First, that this has been the law of the land since 1870. I thought the whole purpose of this Bill was to change that and if we are going back to 1870 we shall have to revise almost every clause in the Bill. And the third reason, that this was not raised in another place, seems to me only to emphasize the need for your Lordships' House. I am afraid if the noble Earl cannot grant this very small concession I must take what I feel to be the general feeling of the Committee.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I think it is probably true that children can walk three miles to school and three miles back without any harm to them. But you cannot teach them anything in the interval between.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In view of the pressure from ex-Presidents of the Board of Education and the most reverend Primate and others I will consult my right honourable friend about this between now and Report stage. Your Lordships have been very generous to me in regard to postponing decisions until the Report stage but I am sure you will appreciate the difficulty I am in owing to the unfortunate absence of my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Education, who is at present confined to bed by an accident. In consequence, I have not been able to consult him personally during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House, but in view of the representations that have been made I will bring this point again to his notice.
LORD LATHAM: I ask the indulgence of the House to make one point. If the President of the Board of Education does consider this point I hope he will consider it from the point of view not only of one obligation that is cast upon local education authorities in respect of children up to the age of eight. If a new obligation is to be cast on the local education authorities it should be in respect of all children who are taking primary education. Otherwise you will put the local education authority under one obligation in respect of one section of those for whom it must provide primary education and under another obligation in respect of those between eight and eleven. The result is in some circumstances you might have to split the unity of primary education. I
416
think that is a point to be borne in mind. If any change is made in the distance between the place where the children live and the school then it ought to embrace one unified section, at all events, of education in the primary school. I hope if such a change is made that when your Lordships are considering the means by which local education authorities can acquire land for this purpose you will give the same enthusiastic support to it.
LORD GORELL: I appreciate the noble Earl's willingness to consult his right honourable friend but I must say, for all my admiration of the President of the Board of Education, I do not quite see why his decision should override what seems to me to be the clearly expressed desire of your Lordships' House. I should have thought that the proper course was to insert the Amendment in the Bill and then, if after full consideration it be found that it is quite unacceptable to the Government, it will be open to the Government to move it out at a later stage. We are repeating so often the reference back of these matters that we are in danger of repeating on the Report stage everything that has taken place in Committee. We are not getting on at all. I would seriously ask the noble Earl if he would not accept the course that I have suggested.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think it would be reasonable to do that, especially in this case. As the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has pointed out, there is an administrative defect in this Amendment and I think I ought to have an opportunity of consulting the President of the Board of Education and his advisers, if your Lordships are to insist on the principle, upon the best form in which it could be embodied. I think the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, is a very important one and requires administrative consideration.
LORD ROCHE: I do not wish to prolong this discussion but I should like to make one or two observations. The first is that my noble friend's Amendment does not seek to alter the law as to school attendance or the age of school attendance. What it does is to ensure that a parent shall not be successfully prosecuted if certain things are proved. That is all. In nine cases out of ten children of five years to eight years will get to school.

417
Someone will give them a lift, or some brother or sister will help them there. This Amendment only means that a person cannot be prosecuted. It is a limitation of criminal proceedings and no such wide scope as Lord Latham indicated is involved in the proposition. The second observation is this. I hope my noble friend will give the noble Earl the time he asks for. I say that because I do not want my noble friend to come in first in any concession. I have been concerned, and so have a right reverend Prelate and other members, in very important clauses in which the view of the House has been most strongly expressed. I am conscious of the difficulties that have attended the conduct this Bill by the noble Earl and I am sure we all appreciate the very able as yell as the very courteous way he has overcome those difficulties. But he has given us certain assurances and we understand those assurances to mean, not mere]y that the matters with which they are concerned shall be mentioned to the President for him to consider them and say "No" to them, but that he will give effect to the manifest will of the House. For that reason I ask my noble friend to wait, along with the rest of us, until we are satisfied or dissatisfied and then if we are dissatisfied I can assure the noble Lord that so far as I am concerned, I will be with him in dividing the House.
LORD GORELL: I am in your Lordships' hands. I do not see why a good cause should necessarily wait. I will be guided entirely by the support your Lordships give and by your Lordships' wishes. Naturally, I do not wish to put your Lordships to a great deal of trouble but I think I must divide the Committee if it is the desire of your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
Enforcement of school attendance.
(3) Any court by which a person is convicted of having committed in respect of a child any such offence as aforesaid may direct that the child be brought before a juvenile court by the authority by whom or on whose behalf the proceedings were instituted, and the juvenile court may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do for the purpose of securing the regular attendance of the child at a school, make any order which such a court has power to make under Section sixty-two of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, in the case of
418
children and young persons in need of care or protection who are brought before it under that section.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON) moved in subsection (3) to leave out "Any court by which a person is convicted of having committed in respect of a child any such offence as aforesaid" and insert:
"(3) Where the court before which a prosecution is brought for an offence against the last foregoing section is satisfied that the child in respect of whom the offence is alleged to have been committed has failed to attend regularly at the school at which he is a registered pupil then, whether or not the parent is convicted the court"
The noble and learned Viscount said: My noble friend the Earl of Selborne has asked me to explain this Amendment which has to do with the proper functions of juvenile courts. The simplest way, I think, would be to state briefly the law on the subject of school attendance. This is enforced in two ways. In the first place there are by-laws, the main purpose of which is to bring parents before the ordinary magistrates' court, and if it is proved that they have failed regularly to send the child to school the magistrates may impose a penalty. In that case the ordinary magistrates' court deals with school attendance from the point of view of the parent who has broken the law. There is a second provision in the law which deals with the situation arising from improper attendance from the point of view of the child. A juvenile court in suitable cases considers the circumstances in which the child is living and whether it is right to send the child to a different school, an approved school, or to deal with the position in some other way. One set of provisions therefore applies to ordinary magistrates' courts in which penalties may be imposed and the other provisions are definitely in the interests of the child. As the Bill has been drafted the effect would be to put the second of these matters in the hands very often of the ordinary magistrates' courts, whereas it has always been regarded as more suitable for juvenile courts.
The Magistrates' Association observed this and called the attention of the Government to it. I entirely sympathize with them in thinking that we ought not to take away this function from the juvenile courts and the Amendment on the Paper which looks so formidable is really to secure that

419
while ordinary magistrates' courts will impose penalties on parents in proper cases—penalties which may be more severe than before—the interests of the child will be looked after as before by the juvenile courts. I hope that will be generally approved. It is entirely in line with the administration approved by all parties since the beneficent day when the Children and Young Persons Act was passed. The work done in those juvenile tribunals has been done on the whole with sympathy and special understanding, and I hope your Lordships without hesitation will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 34, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 35 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: Do the Government really think it necessary to include the words "whether or not the parent is convicted"? I entirely agree with everything said by the noble and learned Viscount as to juvenile courts but the position may arise that the parent when charged may be found not guilty for one of the reasons which he is entitled to rely upon under Clause 37. The child may be innocent, and yet in those circumstances the courts will be given power to take the child away from the parents as if the child was in need of care and protection under the Children and Young Persons Act. I wonder whether it is necessary to provide that rather drastic result even when conviction of the parents has not taken place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. I had noticed the phrase in the Amendment, but I confess that I thought it referred to the case where the parent has been brought before the court and for good reasons the magistrates have decided to deal with the parent by some method short of conviction, which may be under the Probation Act. The question as to the future education of the child would then arise in the juvenile court. It does not, of course, follow that the juvenile court would do anything. They might be strongly moved by the fact that the parent was not convicted. I will, however, look into the matter quite closely and satisfy myself that that is what is meant and consider whether any word
420
should be put in to make the matter quite clear.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: That is quite satisfactory to me.
LORD AMMON: I will not venture to say anything upon the legal point in the presence of two such distinguished luminaries, but as one with some years of experience in education work in London, I want to say that I welcome the Amendment very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 40, leave out ("a").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: May I move that we now resume the sitting of the House? In so doing I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the original provision of three days for the Committee stage of this Bill has now been exhausted, and we are not through Clause 38 vet. Your Lordships have agreed already to sit next Tuesday, but I fear that it would be over-optimistic to think that we shall finish the Committee stage then. So my noble friend the Leader of the House, who is now unavoidably absent as he is detained elsewhere, has asked me to suggest to your Lordships that you should agree to sit on Wednesday and take the Committee stage of this Bill then. It is also suggested that Thursday should be kept in reserve for the same purpose in case we do not finish the Committee stage on Wednesday. In those circumstances the Government business will have to have precedence by a decision of the House. I am afraid that that would be of considerable inconvenience to noble Lords who have Motions down for those days but I do not really see what other alternative is possible.
LORD SOUTHWOOD: So far as the noble Lords who sit on these Benches are concerned, I can assure your Lordships that it would meet their convenience for the Committee stage of this Bill to be continued as suggested by the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: On behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I beg to concur.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed accordingly.

ACCOMMODATION IN THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
Message from the Commons, That they have appointed a Committee of seven Members to join with a Committee of this House to inquire into the accommodation in the Palace of Westminster, and to report thereon with such recommendations as appear to them desirable; that they
422
have made the following orders: that three shall be a quorum; that the Committee shall have power to send for persons papers and records and to report from time to time; that the Committee may sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and to request this House to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the members of their House.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WORKINGTON) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed.
House adjourned.