Lords Sitting of 29 June 1944

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Marquess of Linlithgow—Took the Oath.

ANGLESEY COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER, &c.) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
CHESTERFIELD AND BOLSOVER WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Message of yesterday.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in his name.
Moved, That a Committee of five Lords be appointed to join with the Committee of the House of Commons to consider the said Bill as mentioned in the said Message, and that the Lords following be named of the Committee:—

E. Carlisle,

V. Buckmaster,

L. Luke,

L. Southwood,

L. Hemingford.

—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to inform them of the appointment of the said Committee by this House.

EDUCATION BILL.
House again in Committee (for the sixth day):
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 93:
Powers of Minister in default of local education authorities or managers or governors.
(2) 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.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: In moving the deletion of this subsection, may I say that I do it on general grounds and not in the interests of any particular body? This clause has been alluded to in a discussion on another Amendment, and it was there treated as an appeal clause, but I submit it is not an appeal clause at all. It gives no new right of appeal—no formal right of appeal for one thing—and, if there are informal representations, it does not give the slightest security that they will be considered. This clause is a monstrosity. It was my duty for a number of years to scrutinize practically all the clauses in Public Bills in another place, and with the exception of clauses in Defence of the Realm Acts, where it is excusable, I have never seen anything worse.
Just consider, my Lords. This is a balanced Bill. Over and over again in argument we have been told that this is a carefully balanced measure giving various rights and duties to different classes of people—local authorities, minor local authorities, managers and governors of schools, and so on. It has been a difficult Bill for those concerned to grasp the significance of, but after study and following the debates people do know more or less what appear to be their statutory rights. But these rights do not exist at all in practice They may be

541
entirely set aside under this Bill. If the Minister does not approve of the line taken by either local authorities or managers, he may set them aside and do what he pleases about it. I really do not know where to find a parallel unless it be in Herr Hitler's circular to the Judiciary of Germany, wherein he told them that in their findings they were to consider solely the interests of the State and not pay any attention to the words of the existing law. This appears to be on very much the same lines.
I expect that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, or the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, will say, "You must have some security against unreasonable conduct on the part of local authorities or managers." If that be so, surely it could be found. Many Acts of Parliament use expressions like "any unreasonable exercise of this right or power," or "any unreasonable use of this section," shall have a remedy provided for it, and it may be that something of that sort is required. I suggest that if that be really necessary it can be found in Clause 104. Clause 104 gives powers to make orders or give directions, and I think if it be really necessary to have anything of the kind an order might be made under that clause, but subject always to this, that a set order is liable to be rejected—I do not say to be confirmed, but liable to be rejected by Parliament in the same way as the Regulation is. I cannot understand how this came in. I imagine it must have been per incuriam, but anyhow I submit that the words as they stand ought not to appear in any Act of Parliament short of a Defence of the Realm Act. I therefore beg to move it be deleted.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Rankeillour.)
LORD SOULBLTRY: I should like very briefly to reinforce the argument of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour. He said that he was not quite sure how this section had arisen and suggested it was per incuriam. It appears to have been the result of a Government Amendment in another place, a species of afterthought or, in the words once used by Lord Randolph Churchill, "an inspiration but
542
not from above." In moving it, the President of the Board said:
"I think it would be wise to have this power so that the Minister may in fact override an authority or body of managers if his opinion is contrary to theirs."
It was pointed out to him in debate that its terms were very sweeping and he went on to say that he required them in the case of the dismissal of a teacher by a body of managers on grounds that might cause dissatisfaction; that was to say, a disputed case that depended upon the opinions of the managers. He said this might seem a large power but it had to be put in the Bill in order to have an overriding opinion in doubtful cases.
As Lord Rankeillour pointed out, this is an all-embracing power. It is perfectly true that it does include the dismissal of teachers. On that point I think the President of the Board may be asking for trouble, because amongst the duties imposed for the purposes of this is, of course, the dismissal of a teacher. Hitherto the President of the Board of Education has not had the right to dismiss a teacher or indeed to prevent his dismissal. I personally think it is very dangerous and would be very embarrassing for him to obtain that right. In short it seems to me there is very little that has to be done under this Bill that will not fall within the powers of the Minister under this sub-section. It enables him, as it were, to draw up all the fish in the sea at one cast of his net and so secure the particular species he desires without any regard to the fact that the whole genus would be trapped.
The local authorities are old-established and very valued organs of democratic government but, if I understand this section aright, almost every duty of a local education authority under the Bill can be prescribed or reversed by the Minister of Education. There really is not a very great deal of local democracy left. The relationship between the local education authorities and the Board of Education used to be, and still is, a relationship or partnership, with the Board no doubt the senior partner. But the junior partner in this case would be practically a cypher and rather something in the nature of an apprentice. I suggest that the Government should think again in regard to this subsection and do what they can to preserve, as far as it ought

543
to be preserved, a reasonable amount of autonomy to the local education authority. As this clause stands it seems to me the autonomy of the local authority is very gravely impaired.
LORD ROCHE: Unless the noble Earl is going to accept the Amendment, perhaps I had better say what I have to say in respect of this matter from a legal point of view before he replies. I am not going to repeat the arguments that have been so well advanced by noble Lords beside me but I am going to look at the matter from a legal point of view. I think one wants to look first at subsection (1) of Clause 93. That deals with the cases where a local education authority, or managers, or governors have an absolute duty, and goes on to provide that if they do not perform it the remedy is by mandamus. In another place there was a considerable discussion of the matter. The President of the Board said he desired to give a resort to the courts in such a serious matter as overriding the action of a local authority and so he provided for it.
Then comes subsection (2). I cannot help thinking that the legal advisers of the President may have had some other reasons besides those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury. I think they may have said to him: "Well, what about going by mandamus in a case where there is no absolute duty but a duty which is contingent upon the discretion of the local authorities or the governors?" Although I have not had any opportunity to look at books, I think it is correct to say that in such a case the court, with a motion for a writ of mandamus before it, might say: "We cannot enforce this; it is contingent upon the discretion of the authority; let the Minister override." Just see where that brings us to. Where Parliament has laid down an absolute duty you have to go to the courts. Where it has added a discretionary power in governors or local authorities, the Minister, by his mere fiat, may do it.
I do not think the noble Lord beside me used language that was too strong. I doubt whether this has been thought out or if this was really intended. That is why I urge that it should be more seriously looked into again to see whether it meets what is required and what was thought of—namely, that if the discretion has really not been exercised (that is, the
544
test in the courts) or has been perversely, or as we say injudicially exercised, then the President may intervene. He could then use his discretion and leave it to the court. He could turn the contingent duty into an absolute duty and then the local authority or the governors would be in default of an absolute duty. Then it could be left to the court. That would be a fair, and as far as I know, a satisfactory provision, but to treat a discretionary duty as more liable to be roughly overruled by the whim of a dictator than an absolute duty is really something I think that this House should not allow. If it is persisted in I think this clause should be deleted and the Government should be set to make a better clause.
There is another matter already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rankeillour that requires consideration. It is the question whether this clause provides a right of appeal. In the case of Clause 21 certain right reverend Prelates—I think both the Lord Bishop of Truro and the Lord Bishop of Wakefield—had Amendments concerning the use of premises of controlled schools. The schools, of course, are the property of the managers. They were concerned to see that in the division of use between the local authority and the managers there should not be unreasonable action by the local authority and that there should be a right of appeal not to the court but to the Minister. The noble Earl, advised no doubt by somebody, declared with some satisfaction that that right of appeal was to be found in subsection (2) of this clause. The simple answer is that it is not. I speak with diffidence because the Lord Chancellor may have something to say about this, but I do not think any lawyer could say that subsection (2) deals with anything but what lawyers call nonfeasance. It does not deal at all with cases where somebody has done something wrong. We do need some right of appeal where persons are aggrieved by the action of this authority or the other. I submit that these points deserve further consideration.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I only wish to say that I quite agree with the speech which has just been delivered.
LORD AMMON: I would ask the noble Earl to reconsider this. I had already thought it somewhat authoritarian but after hearing the weighty speech of the

545
noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche. I look at it with great alarm. Some of us have been concerned about the gradual whittling down of the authority of local bodies, but it now seems that there may be overriding even of the authority of the courts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Selborne to say a few words about this matter. I most sincerely and whole-heartedly agree that the point raised, and particularly the way in which it has been developed by my noble and learned friend Lord Roche, is really important. His suggestion that it should be considered afresh may very likely be right, but I do not want it to be assumed that the view of this matter is all one way. I think it is possible to illustrate from the Bill instances in which this intervention by the Minster may be justified. The Minister is not an autocrat. He is responsible to Parliament, and it is a question of important policy whether there may not be a point at which he ought in the discharge of his duty defined in the Bill to intervene. It really is not very useful in a Bill so complicated as this to deal with a clause in completely general terms. One has to see the sort of instance in which this matter might arise.
I will take one case in which my noble friend Lord Rankeillour will be interested. If your Lordships turn back and look at Clause 31 (2) you will see that it provides that
"The arrangements made by a local education authority for the special education treatment of pupils of any such category shall, so far as is practicable, provide for the education of pupils in whose case a disability is serious in special schools appropriate for that category …"
There is also provision in another clause where the requirement made is that children for whom special arrangements are made should be put together with other children of similar faith. That I think is in Clause 48. That is the sort of instance I have in mind. As my noble and learned friend Lord Roche said, you cannot get a mandamus to compel a local education authority to do something which it is not the local education authority's absolute obligation to do. You might get a mandamus directing it to consider a matter if it had not considered it, but if instead of being charged with an absolute duty they are left to do something as
546
far as is practicable or as far as in their judgment it is practicable you must face this situation. No doubt there are great local education authorities, such as were probably in the mind of my noble friend Lord Ammon, who are to be completely trusted, but we have also to provide for the case of small authorities all over the country. If a local education authority on quite inadequate grounds said a proposal was impracticable and that as they were not compelled to do a certain thing they were not going to do it, then I think there might be a case in which it was right for the Minister responsible for education to intervene and say: "I have had the whole matter looked into and I must insist that this is a case where you can quite clearly do what you have refused to do." Either you must agree to that or you must say that, whenever a local education authority is not compelled by mandatory words to do a thing but is given authority to do it, the local authority—which I think perhaps it is not improper to suggest might occasionally be composed of people not of the most impartial temperament—must have its will, although it is quite contrary to the needs of the case and the proper promotion of education in that part of the country.
I agree it is an unusual provision and I do not know that I am prepared to challenge my noble friend Lord Rankeillour in his statement that it has never appeared in this form before. But that is no reason why it should not be put in and I have rather more sympathy with it than some who have criticized it to-day. It appears to me that when you have a great Department of State which deals with the education of the children of the country and does it largely through the instrument of local education authorities, which in some cases may be not very skilled, there is nothing unreasonable in saying that there may be cases in which it is right that the Minister should intervene and say: "It is true you have an option but you have exercised it unreasonably, with so little regard to this or that legitimate interest, that I must in these circumstances require you to do it." If there had been a provision that the local authority should have discretion but that when the Minister considered the discretion had been exercised unreasonably he might order it to be done, I do not think anybody would have objected. Whether as drafted here it is

547
right or wrong, I do not think it is so unreasonable a thing as it appears at first sight to some people.
On the other hand, I have the authority of my noble friend who is responsible for the Bill to say that whether or not these criticisms are valid he will look into the matter again. I would strongly urge your Lordships that we should not strike out of the Bill an important provision which I am sure was put in for reasons not altogether without weight, but that there should be an examination of the matter further so that it can be dealt with if necessary on the Report stage.
EARL STANHOPE: Surely, as I think my noble and learned friend agrees, this clause is obviously faulty. The right thing to do, I suggest, is to leave the subsection out, and give the Government an opportunity before the next stage of putting in a clause which meets the point raised by my noble and learned friend. I hardly think it is necessary to remind them that although this says "the Minister" of course it is not, in many cases, going to be the Minister, it is going to be some officer at the Board of Education. Many of the officers of the Board of Education are my friends, I hope, and I have a great admiration for them, but not all of them are always wise. Not all the officials of every Ministry are always wise. This is a power which you are going to give in perpetuity, or at any rate until this Bill is changed by some subsequent Act. I suggest that the right thing to do is to leave out the subsection to enable the Government to put in something else at the next stage.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am not sure that that would be a very convenient course to adopt. It is not one that has been pursued hitherto. I should like to put before my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, in addition to the cases which have been cited by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, another case in which I suggest something of this sort will be necessary. If he will turn to Clause 48 (2) he will see that it deals with the provision of board and lodgings otherwise than at boarding schools, and it is there provided that the local education authority may board children out at approved homes in order that they may receive education. It says in subsection (2):
548
"In making any arrangements under this section for any child or young person a local education authority shall, so far as practicable give effect to the wishes of the parents of the child or to the wishes of the young person, as the case may be, with respect to the religious denomination of the person with whom he will reside."
That is a matter to which, I know, the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England attach very great importance because it is very desirable that children who come from a religious home should be boarded out in a religious home. But it is conceivable that you might get a local authority which took a very narrow view, and took the line—which the Bill enables them to take—that, in particular circumstances, this was not practicable. You could not, as the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has shown, proceed by mandamus against the local authority in a case like that. It would surely be reasonable that there should be an appeal to the Minister, because, of course, it is admitted that the exercise of these powers by the Minister would be a very grave step for him to take, and he would have to defend himself in Parliament.
Surely that is a great safeguard in providing that the Minister may override a local authority. Having done so, the Minister has to justify himself before the House of Commons or your Lordships. That, I think, is a point that my noble friend should weigh. The problem arises because you have got a great many authorities, a great many governors and a great many managers in the country, all of whom have numerous decisions of discretion to take under this Bill. Are you sure that they will always be wise, always be reasonable? Are you sure that the Minister never ought to have the power to override? We can be quite certain that if the Minister did override any local authority he would have to justify his conduct in Parliament. Therefore I suggest to my noble friend that there is a strong case for something of this sort. As the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has said, in view of the criticisms that have been made it may well be that these words require modification. But I think it would be a mistake to leave this subsection out of the Bill, because the question of Amendment could be dealt with on the Report stage.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Neither I not any of the speakers who have supported

549
me deny that local authorities or managers or governors may act perversely, and may need to be corrected, but what we do say is that they ought not to be corrected by such an extraordinary omnibus clause as this. My noble and learned friend Lord Roche has suggested one modification. I, personally, with diffidence, have suggested another. But with regard to what the noble Earl has just said I must really suggest to him that the mere remedy of attacking a Minister in Committee of Supply is not enough. What you want is some definite power of Parliament to override his acts, just as he may require some definite power to override the acts of local authorities. The noble Earl has had plenty of experience of another place, and he must know how very difficult it is, unless you have something like procedure by prayer, really to bring a Minister to book. When education estimates come on one particular matter is simply snowed under by others so that you cannot get a definite decision ad hoc. If a Minister is to have such extraordinary powers he ought to be allowed only to exercise them subject the discretion of Parliament or of a court, I do not care which. But I do suggest that these words ought to go out, and I am certain we shall not be unreasonable in meeting the noble Earl on the Report stage if he thinks that some revision is requred.
LORD SOULRURY: There is a point upon which I am not quite clear, and I should be very grateful if the noble Lord can assist me in clearing it up. What will be the position of the Minister under this clause in regard to the appointment and dismissal of teachers? As I understand it, if a local authority, or a body of governors or managers, dismisses a teacher and the President of the Board of Education disagrees he can reinstate the teacher. Similarly, I assume that if a local authority or body appoints a teacher and the President disagrees he can cancel the appointment. I should very much like to know if that is so. If it is so, it is an immense departure from the previous procedure of the Board of Education. The local education authority has been the employer of teachers for years, and that has always been their relationship. I should be somewhat anxious as to the future relations generally of teachers and the President of the Board of Education if my interpretation of this section were correct. Perhaps the noble
550
Earl will let me know precisely how he reads it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think that my noble friend Lord Soulbury is correct, but, if the Minister found it necessary to take such an unprecedented step as my noble friend visualizes, he would have to justify himself before Parliament, and not merely in the fashion Lord Rankeillour suggests. At once there would be questions in Parliament. It is no good saying that questions in Parliament have no effect on Ministers or on Ministries; those of us who have experience inside a Ministry know very well that the limelight of Parliamentary questions is a very powerful instrument. In a free country we have to take account not only of what happens in the Chamber but of the discussion of the matter in the Press up and down the country. As experienced politicians, therefore, we can surely say that no Minister would exercise this power unless he had a really good case, because otherwise he would be getting himself into very severe trouble. I think that my noble friend Lord Rankeillour has not attached nearly enough importance to what I may describe as the searchlight of Parliament and to what can be done by Parliamentary questions or by moving the adjournment of the House, which, as the noble Lord knows better than anyone, can always be done.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: No.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If it is a matter of urgent public importance. The matter can always be raised on the adjournment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: For half an hour.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: And it can be raised every night on the adjournment; I have known matters raised time and again. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that these things do exercise a very great influence on the action of Ministers, and if a Minister had a bad case he would, be in an uncomfortable position. I suggest, therefore, that this power will not be exercised unless the Minister has very good reason to exercise it. I hope that my noble friend will not press for this subsection to be deleted at this stage, but will agree that the Government should consider the criticisms which have been made by noble Lords,

551
and that on the Report stage we should see whether words cannot be inserted which would allay the fears which have been expressed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): I should like to make a small intervention on a technical question before noble Lords decide to go to a Division. I would remind the Committee of the terms of Standing Order XXXIII of this House:
"If, on a Division upon any stage of a Bill it shall appear that thirty Lords are not present in the House, the Lord Speaker shall declare the question not decided, but the debate thereon adjourned to the next sitting of the House; and if such Division takes place when the House is in Committee, the Chairman shall declare the question not decided, whereupon the House shall resume, and shall be again in Committee at the next sitting of the House."
If your Lordships decide to press this matter to a Division—I do not say that on behalf of the Government I wish to dissuade you—all that can happen is that the Committee must adjourn, and further discussion will have to be adjourned until the next sitting next week. Noble Lords will have in mind the great embarrassment under which this would put all of us, and will therefore, I hope, agree with the proposal that this matter should be considered on the Report stage. I do not wish to discourage the Committee from coming to a decision.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: As there is this division of opinion, His Majesty's Government would agree to leave out this subsection at this stage of the Bill, on the understanding that on the Report stage we must have a subsection which really does deal with the problem. My noble friend will recognize that this is not a matter which can be dealt with by mandamus. It is not a question of enforcing an order but of providing that where a local authority or body of managers acts in an unreasonable manner there shall be some effective method of providing that the matter is reviewed. If that is understood, I think that in the circumstances it would be better to leave out this subsection.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I thank the noble Earl very sincerely for meeting us on this point. I am sure that we shall greet his new draft with sympathy, and I hope with approval.
LORD ROCHE: I should like to ask two questions. The noble Earl has met the Committee very generously. Would he consider the point of the appeal which I mentioned, and which he said arose under Clause 21, and the desirability of having a real appeal section? I should like an assurance that that will be considered in conjunction with the matters which will have to be considered under this clause. Secondly, as the noble Earl knows, I made a suggestion some time ago with regard to mandamus, as to whether that was quite the best remedy and whether it would not be better to have a resort to a single Judge appointed by the Lord Chancellor, for which there is ample precedent. I have not put any Amendment down, because the noble Earl communicated with the President of the Board of Education on that point, and the President asked me to see him and discuss the matter; but unfortunately he fell off a ladder, and the discussion has never taken place. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether that matter can be considered. I think he knows the point; if not, I can send him another copy of the letter, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord Chancellor would assist him.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Both those suggestions will be considered. With regard to the last suggestion of my noble friend, I well remember the point about which he spoke and wrote to me, and which I laid before the President of the Board of Education. I was fully expecting my noble friend to move an Amendment at this Committee stage on that point.
LORD ROCHE: I thought that it might be rather lacking in courtesy to do so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 94:
Grants in aid of educational services.
(3) Any regulations made by the Minister or the Minister of Health under this section may make provision whereby the making of payments by him in pursuance thereof is dependent upon the fulfilment of such conditions as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations, and may also make provision for requiring local education authorities and other persons to whom payments have been made in pursuance thereof to comply with such requirements as may be so determined.
(4) Where the Minister is satisfied that the persons responsible for the management of any school or other educational institution are, by reason of the provisions of any trust deed or other instilment relating to the management of the school or institution, unable to fulfil any condition or comply with any requirement imposed by regulations made under this section he may by order make such modifications of the said provisions as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling them to fulfil that condition or comply with that requirement; and any such trust deed or other instrument shall, during such period as may be specified in the order, have effect subject to any modifications so made.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I move the deletion of this subsection in a spirit of inquiry rather than of hostility. I should be glad to know what is contemplated under this clause. Subsection (3) says:
"Any regulations made by the Minister or the Minister of Health under this section.."
What is it expected that the Minister or the Minister of Health would be likely to put out as the conditions? On the face of it I do not quite see the necessity of it. Turning back to Clause 14, it is quite clear that the persons who wish to have one of their schools maintained will have to satisfy the Minister as to the type of premises and so on. That, of course, is well understood, and, though many people are very much afraid of the cost involved, they would try to meet it. But, when that is done, are entirely new conditions to be proclaimed by one Minister or the other, and, if so, why? Of course, a great part of the earlier provisions of the Bill will not come into operation for some considerable time, and the present President may not be there when they do. It is difficult to understand why it is necessary to have such a very general provision when the matter seems to have been pro vided for earlier. In order to elicit some statement on the subject, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 26, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am not quite sure that I appreciate the reasons of my noble friend but perhaps it would help him if I said that this subsection (3) merely reproduces in slightly different words Section 118 of the Act of 1921. That is to say, in making the grants that
554
the Minister makes under our education system to local authorities and to managers he can specify certain conditions that have to be fulfilled. That has always been the law. These conditions will be embodied in regulations and those regulations will have to be laid before Parliament under Clause 105, so that Parliament can be satisfied that the regulations are not unreasonable. No departure from previous practice is intended by these words; they merely embody what has always been the law.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I do not press the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (4), after "may," where that word first occurs, to insert "subject to the consent of such persons." The noble Earl said: Here again is a subsection which seems to me of a very extraordinary character and much of the same character as that of the subsection which we have been discussing earlier. Your Lordships will see, if you look at this clause, that the Minister may make any kind of regulation he likes, and then if he finds that the trust deed blocks his action in the matter, without any consultation with the trustees of that deed or with the managers or anybody concerned he can tear it up and abolish it. Did anybody ever hear of such a provision in a public Act of Parliament? It is the kind of thing you expect in a bureaucracy and the kind of thing we are accustomed to in time of war, but when we have won this war one thing that many of us want to do is to get rid of bureaucracy—certainly I do and I think many of your Lordships do as well. Therefore to put in a provision of this kind seems to me a most extraordinary thing. I suggest that we should put the matter right by saying that before the Minister can alter or tear up a trust deed he should get the consent of those who are responsible for seeing that its provisions are fulfilled. That seems to be logical, fair and right. I hope therefore that my noble friend will at once agree that this is a matter which has been overlooked and should not be put into the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 39, after ("may") insert ("subject to the consent of such persons").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think I can meet the noble Earl but possibly not exactly in the way which he has proposed. Subsection (4) says:
"Where the Minister is satisfied that the persons responsible for the management of any school or other educational institution are, by reason of the provisions of any trust deed or other instrument relating to the management of the school or institution, unable to fulfil any condition or comply with any requirement imposed by regulations made under this section he may by order make such modifications of the said provisions …."
Let us just visualize the circumstances under which this problem would arise. The managers would be applying for a grant. Under the clause we have just been discussing the Minister will have laid down the conditions under which that grant will be receivable. Those conditions will have been approved by Parliament. The managers of this particular school find that their trust deeds prevent them from fulfilling those conditions that Parliament has approved. Therefore the Minister is given power to alter the trust deeds. I agree with my noble friend that the managers certainly ought to be consulted as to the extent to which and the way in which the trust deeds should be modified. Perhaps he would consent to move his Amendment in a different form so that the subsection would read that, where the managers under the trust deeds are unable to
"comply with any requirement imposed by regulations made under this section, he"—
that is, the Minister—
"may after consultation with them"—
that is, the managers—
"by order make such modifications of the said provisions as may be necessary…"
I think that would put it in a better way than that which my noble friend proposes.
My noble friend's words would mean that the Minister would have to accept the exact wording of the alteration that the managers preferred. When the situation is that the Minister is making a grant that the managers wish to receive, I do not think it is quite fair to put the Minister in that position. The Minister should be obliged to consult the managers, and the managers should have the opportunity of making representations and of saying how they think the trust deed ought to be altered; but I think in this case it is only reasonable to let the Minister have the last word, because after all the managers are
556
coming to him and asking for a grant. I would remind your Lordships that similar provisions occur in the Act of 1921—I think in Sections 121 and 35. Both those sections enable trust deeds to be altered where such alteration is necessary in order to qualify for the Government grant.
EARL STANHOPE: I agree with my noble friend to some extent. There must, of course, be a power to alter trust deeds, but I am not quite happy about saying that they shall be altered only after consultation, because that means that the Minister can override the trustees who are responsible for seeing that the trust is carried out. Of course the Minister always has the whip hand in this matter and the last word, because if managers are unreasonable all he has to do is to refuse to pay the grant. Therefore he can always get them into line if they are unreasonable. But what I am thinking about is that some official, perhaps in some quite small school, will override a trust deed and tear it up, and the Minister will hear nothing whatever about it until it has been done. Then it comes before Parliament and the Minister has, of course, to support his Department. Ministers have to do that very often, not always with a very clear conscience in the matter but naturally they have to do it. We want to avoid that. I think it is wrong from the departmental point of view and wrong from the national point of view. Therefore I suggest that the Minister should get the consent of those responsible for the trust deed first and then, if necessary, withhold the grant. It is not the same thing to consult them and then do nothing more.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think there is any danger of the trust deeds being altered without the Minister hearing anything about it because the managers, finding themselves at variance with the Minister on this point, would at once appeal to their Member of Parliament, who would ask a question, and the matter would be brought to the Minister's notice. That is a constant experience of Members of Parliament. When a local authority are at variance with a Government Department the first thing they do is to appeal to their Parliamentary representative, who either introduces a deputation, or asks a question, or writes a letter to the Minister. As my noble friend has admitted, the

557
Minister has the whip hand. It is a question of the terms on which public money should be paid over to the managers, and I think, if we put in the Bill that the Minister is bound to consult the managers, we are going as far as previous Acts have gone. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will consent to move his Amendment in the form I have suggested, and I would then accept it at once.
EARL STANHOPE: If the noble Earl will not accept my words I am afraid I must accept his, but I think that on the whole I am right and he is not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The form in which I propose to put the Amendment therefore is as follows: Page 69, line 39, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with them ").
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 39, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with them").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 95 [Special financial provisions relating to Wales and Monmouthshire]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 6, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part II").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Committee adjourned during pleasure.
Committee resumed.
Clause 96:
Maintenance contributions payable by the Minister in respect of aided schools and special agreement schools.
96. The Minister shall pay to the managers or governors of every aided school and of every special agreement school maintenance contributions equal to one half of any sums expended by them in carrying out their obligations under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of Section fourteen of this Act:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to insert, after this Act," "in respect of alterations to the school buildings and repairs to the school premises." The noble Earl said: Clause 96 provides for
558
the payment by the Minister to the managers or governors of every aided school and of every special agreement school maintenance contributions of the amount therein specified. The contributions are payable towards the expenses of managers or governors in maintaining their schools. It was never intended that the Minister's maintenance contributions should be directed to any expenditure on the establishment of any such school. As the clause is at present drafted it extends to any sums spent by the managers or governors in carrying out their obligations under Clause 14 (3) (a), and this Amendment is really necessitated by an Amendment which was made in another place to Clause 14. In order that there should he no doubt that an authority's maintenance of any such school should not extend to the assistance of expenses of establishing the schools, Clause 14 was amended to exclude such expenses from the responsibility of the authorities. This Amendment, therefore, is in fact mainly drafting and consequential on the previous Amendment made to Clause 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 12, at end insert ("in respect of alterations to the school buildings and repairs to the school premises.")—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 97 [Power of the Minister to make grants in respect of aided schools and special agreement schools transferred to new sites or established in substitution for former schools]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In Clause 15 we made Amendments to increase the elasticity of the Bill so as to enable more than one school to be provided in substitution of a previous school. This Amendment is consequential on that.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 20, leave out from ("school") to ("is") in line 22 and insert ("or schools proposed to be established shall be established in substitution for a school or schools to be discontinued, then, if the school to be transferred or any school to be established in pursuance of the order").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 46, leave out from ("exceeding") to the end of line 30 and insert ("one half thereof").—(The Earl of Selborne).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 41, leave out from ("any") to ("take") in line 42 and insert ("such grant").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 98 [Power of the Minister to make grants in respect of aided schools and special agreement schools established for the accommodation of displaced pupils]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The two Amendments to this clause are of a drafting character which clarify, without altering, the intention of the definition of "displaced pupils". The subsection as amended will read:
"The expression 'displaced pupils' means, in relation to any such proposed school as aforesaid, pupils for whom education would in the opinion of the Minister, have been provided in some other aided school or special agreement school if that school had not ceased to be available for them in consequence of its having ceased to be used for providing both primary and secondary education or in consequence of a substantial reduction in the number of pupils for whom education is to be provided in it."
I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 72, line 26, leave out from ("of") to ("its") in line 28.
Page 72, line 29, after ("education") insert ("or in consequence of a substantial reduction in the number of pupils for whom education is to be provided in it").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 99 [Power of Minister to make loans to aided schools and special agreement schools in respect of initial expenditure]:
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that such terms and conditions shall be not less favourable to the borrowers than those obtaining under any Local Loans Act for the time being in force."
The noble Earl said: My noble friend Lord Rankeillour has asked me to move this Amendment on his behalf. It flows
560
from the statement made by the President of the Board of Education on the Committee stage of this Bill in another place. The President then said:
"The local authorities are permitted to borrow on certain terms, and I do not see why a poor local authority should obtain certain business terms under the Local Loans Act and denominations should be unable to obtain similar terms. I came to the conclusion, and my colleagues agree with me, that the most equitable manner in which to work this scheme would be to place the denominations on the same sort of basis as the local authorities in the matter of raising money."
This Amendment really renders that assimilation proposed by the President of the Board of Education closer than it is at present in the Bill.
There is another and further reason why these words should he inserted. Your Lordships will see that the consent of the Treasury has to be obtained to the terms and conditions of the loan. I have a very great admiration for the Treasury as the watchdogs of national finance, but it is just possible that in their zeal to secure advantages to the national finance they might say, "Well, in this case we propose to charge the managers or governors of a particular school a higher rate of interest than a local authority is charged," and there will be nothing to prohibit them from doing so. It would be wise, in my view, to remove that temptation from the Lords of the Treasury and to insert the words which are suggested. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 43, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Perth.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I can give the noble Earl an unqualified assurance that the pledge given by the President of the Board of Education in another place will be carried out in the spirit as well as the letter. I am advised that this Amendment simply would not work because it is not appropriate to the machinery of local loans. The Treasury operates, as the noble Earl is aware, under the Public Works Loans Act, and under that procedure the Treasury is empowered to fix the rate of interest from time to time having regard not only to monetary conditions but also to the duration of the loans. Each application for a local loan is considered on its merits and the same will be the case, under Clause 99, with loans to the denominations. Every case

561
will have to be considered on its merits, and the terms will be fixed by the Treasury. The Treasury will deal with the matter in exactly the same spirit as a public trustee, without any bias, as it does in the case of local authorities. I hope, therefore, my noble friend will not press his. Amendment because I am advised it would be quite unnecessary and inappropriate.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: This particular Amendment may be inapplicable, but surely you do want some statement in the Bill to carry out the intentions of the present Minister. It was argued the other day that these loans would not be needed for a considerable time ahead, and that it would be a long time before the burden would be felt by those who borrowed and had to repay. Surely something ought to be said to implement that undertaking. After all there may be another Minister and another Chancellor of the Exchequer by the time the loan has to be made and surely it is not good enough merely to be able to refer to statements made in another place in debate or statements made privately when the conditions and persons concerned may be entirely changed. I hope the noble Earl will give attention to this point between now and Report.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will certainly give attention to it, but I do not see how you can get any formula which would fit into the procedure of the Public Works Loans Act. If my noble friend can make a definite suggestion I should be very glad to consider it with him between now and Report bat I am definitely advised that this formula now suggested simply would not work.
THE EARL OF PERTH: In view of the assurance given by the noble Earl that he will consider the matter in conjunction with my noble friend, I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100:
Contributions between local education authorities.
100.—(1) Where a local education authority provide in any school maintained by the authority for the primary or secondary education of any child or young person who belongs to the area of some other local education authority, then if a claim therefor is made within the prescribed period, they
562
shall subject as hereinafter provided be entitled to recover from that authority such contributions as may be determined by agreement between the authorities concerned, or in default of such agreement by the Minister, to be equal to the cost of providing for the education:
Provided that if in the case of any child or young person the Minister is satisfied that there was no sufficient reason why the education provided for him should net have been provided by the authority for the area to which he belongs the Minister may, on the application of that authority, direct that no contribution shall be recoverable in respect thereof under this subsection.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in that part of subsection (1) which precedes the proviso, to leave out all words after "Where" down to the last "authority" and insert "any child or young person belonging to the area of any local education authority is receiving education in any school within the area of and maintained by some other local education authority or in any young people's college established by some other local education authority any such authority shall be entitled to recover from the first-mentioned authority."
The noble Lord said: The point of this is that in many cases the most convenient school, the most acceptable school, is in the area of another local authority. It may be merely a matter of where the boundary is or where some natural obstacle exists and it is easier for children to go outside their own area, but in a case like that, and there are many of them, one local authority is relieved to some degree at the expense of another and surely there ought to be some power of recouping which at present I understand is purely a matter of arrangement, with no obligatory power. I think the question, at any rate, is worth raising and I therefore move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 33, leave out from ("Where") to ("such") in line 38 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rankeillour).
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend is right in saying that the Bill contemplates arrangements between local authorities in respect of young persons living in the area of one authority who find it convenient to attend a college in the area of another authority. That is provided for by the Bill but, as my noble friend has said, on a voluntary or agreed basis. I think in a matter of this sort

563
it will be a question of routine administration. There will be, for instance, so many pupils living in the area of authority A who, for their own reasons, wish to attend school in the area of authority B and vice versa. I do not think there is any reason to contemplate any need in the Bill of coercion by the President of the Board in order to come to agreement. It is contemplated that the authorities will deal with this as a matter of routine. Therefore the Amendment of my noble friend is really not necessary and I hope he will not press it.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I see the difficulty and I do not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved to add to subsection (2):
";and
(b) where immediately before the date of the commencement of Part II of this Act a former authority had been required under the Education (Institution Children) Act, 1923, to make payments to another former authority in respect of any child and was liable to make such payments, then, so long as the first-mentioned former authority would have remained so liable if that Act had not been repealed, the child shall be deemed to belong to the area of the local education authority responsible for the liabilities of the first-mentioned former authority."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with children under the Institutions (Children) Act, 1923, who are the responsibility of a local authority and who, in some circumstances, have to be moved to an area of another authority from the authority to whom they formerly belonged. This provides that the latter authority shall continue to bear the expense. I had an Amendment down at an earlier stage which, on examination, I was advised would refer only to children who were in institutions, but there are some children whom local authorities board out and this Amendment is substituted for the former one. I do not think it needs much arguing. It is simply to make those who are responsible in the first instance continue to bear that responsibility.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 8, insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Ammon.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend is quite right. This Amendment does cover a small gap in the Bill and
564
therefore I have great pleasure in accepting it and should like to thank the noble Lord for moving it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 101 and 102 agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, after Clause 102, to insert the following new clause:
"Power of Minister to authorize local education authorities to provide temporary assistance for auxiliary schools.
. If upon representations made to him by any local education authority the Minister is satisfied that by reason of difficulties arising out of war conditions or out of conditions occasioned by the coming into operation of Part II of this Act temporary accommodation for children who are, or whose parents desire them to be, registered pupils at any auxiliary school is required until permanent accommodation can be provided for them by the managers or governors of the school in accordance with the development plan for the area, the Minister may authorize the local education authority to provide, or assist in providing, such temporary accommodation in accordance with arrangements approved by him, so, however, that any such authorization shall be withdrawn as soon as there has, in the opinion of the Minister, been sufficient opportunity for permanent accommodation for such pupils to be provided by the managers or governors of the school."
The noble Earl said: This clause gives power to the Minister to authorize education authorities to provide temporary assistance for auxiliary schools. This is intended to cover situations that will arise immediately this Bill becomes an Act. As the various stages come into force it may be quite impossible owing to the shortage of building labour and the like for the managers of an auxiliary school to make immediately the alterations they would ultimately be required to make under the Bill. Therefore there will be a period of hiatus and difficulty in which the expenses might well be considerable to any one school, and the Government propose to treat that period as altogether exceptional and to enable the entire cost of providing temporary additional accommodation for auxiliary schools to be met from public funds so long as this temporary period lasts. I hope, therefore, this clause will receive general consent.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 102, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Revocation and variation of orders and directions]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 46, leave out from ("given") to ("shall") in line 97 and insert ("there-under").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: What is the difference between an Order and a Direction and in virtue of what Statute has the President the power to make this? Is it a recent Statute or an old one?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think I am right in saying that these orders are made under the 1921 Statute. If I am in error in that I will correct myself later. It is laid down that certain things are appropriate to orders, certain things appropriate to regulations, and certain things have to be done by direction. That is why Clause 104 provides for them. I think that the orders are provided for in the Act of 1921, and I believe I am right in saying that an order by the Board of Education is a very familiar instrument to all local authorities. But I will make further inquiries.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105 [Regulations to be laid before Parliament]:
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved to insert:
"(2) No regulation in force in pursuance of this section shall be revocable save under the same conditions as those under which it acquired validity."
The noble Lord said: I am sorry to have to return to this matter of regulations, but I am afraid the position is still very obscure. I have had three opinions on this matter as to whether a regulation can or cannot be withdrawn without coming to Parliament to ask for withdrawal. In the first instance I was told that it was not necessary to come to Parliament; in the second instance I was told it was necessary; and in the third case I was told that it was not but not for the same reason as that first given. What exactly would happen if a regulation, say, for the teaching of British history from the patriotic standpoint should be made as proposed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone? Suppose Parliament
566
consented to such a regulation, but the local authority took no notice of the regulation and the Minister took no action but remained quite passive in the matter. Could the court be appealed to? Could my noble friend Lord Mottistone by himself, or by asking some parent to make a test case of it, appeal to the court? If so, could the court issue a mandamus or not? It is by no means a simple matter, and I put the question with no thought of dogmatizing or putting forward my own opinion. I leave that to my legal friends. If a regulation can be allowed to drop without the consent of Parliament then all the assurances that my noble friend has given to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, for example, and to other noble Lords amount to very little. If a regulation can be just withdrawn or allowed to die and there is no remedy at law, the assurances do not come to much and the hopes founded on those assurances may be easily brought to naught.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I make no complaint of my noble friend raising this matter again because it is of great importance. The Amendment lie has put down deals with a most important point, but I think in his speech he dealt with a point equally important but somewhat different. If I understood him correctly he raised the question of what would happen if a local authority ignored a regulation.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: The argument would apply if the Minister withdrew it by order.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There I think I can reassure my noble friend, but if he asks me what would happen if a local authority ignored the regulation made by the Minister then I think the answer is that it depends on the nature of the case and the nature of the regulation. That is a much wider point than the one covered by the Amendment. I think my noble friend put down his Amendment to clear up once and for all the question whether provisions made by the Minister by regulation can be altered by the Minister otherwise than by regulation. That matter is very important, because regulations have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. I told the

567
noble Lord last time he raised this question that a regulation would have to be revoked by another regulation, and that is the correct answer. He then asked me whether that was because of some particular Act or because it was the custom of Parliament. There I confess he stumped me, and I gave him the wrong answer when I said it was the custom of Parliament. It is the Interpretation Act of 1889 which establishes the sanction. Section 32 (3) of the Interpretation Act, 1889, provides that:
"Where an Act passed after the commencement of this Act confers a power to make any rules, regulations, or by-laws, the power shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as including a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like consent and conditions, if any, to rescind, revoke, amend, or vary the rules, regulations, or by-laws."
That means that power to vary or revoke or rescind a regulation must be exercised in the way and subject to the like consent and conditions that brought it into force. In this case the condition is the consent of both Houses of Parliament. That I hope will satisfy my noble friend's fears on the matter.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: That is quite satisfactory, but I still have a doubt how this can be enforced. The regulation will have the force of law, but could a private individual take action in case of default so as to secure that the purpose of the regulation would have to be carried out?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the answer to that question must depend on the circumstances of the case. I would remind my noble friend that he took vigorous action this morning to try to curtail the power that the Government had taken in the Bill in order where necessary to compel a local authority who had decided to act one way to act in another way. That my noble friend strongly objected to, and he received so much support that the subsection was removed and we are going to bring up another. I do not think the problem of relations between the Minister and the local authorities is susceptible to any simple formula. The whole of our education system is based on co-operation between the Minister and local authorities. That system has been in force for some seventy years and I am not aware of any case where a regulation or order issued by
568
the Minister has been defied by a local authority. If the noble Lord has any particular sort of case in mind and would be kind enough to give me notice I would apply my mind to it, but I do not think the question can be answered by a simple formula.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: It is not a question between the Minister and the local authority but whether a regulation has the force of law and could be enforced by any application to a court. That is what is still puzzling me, but perhaps I shall get enlightenment between now and the Report stage.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend must bear in mind that every local education authority is in receipt of grants from the Ministry, very important grants, and the Ministry may attach conditions to those grants. That is the lever that has been applied in the past to induce reasonableness on both sides.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clause 107:
Interpretation.
107.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Agreed syllabus" means an agreed syllabus of religious instruction prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Seventh Schedule to this Act and adopted or deemed to be adopted thereunder;
"Foundation managers" and "foundation governors" mean, in relation to any school, managers and governors appointed otherwise than by a local education authority or a minor authority in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed for the school; and unless the context otherwise re-requires, references in this Act to "managers" or "governors" shall, in relation to any function thereby conferred or imposed exclusively on foundation managers or foundation governors be construed as references to such managers or governors;
"Medical treatment" includes treatment by any duly qualified medical practitioner or by any person registered under the Dentists Act, 1878, but does not, in relation to any pupil other than a pupil receiving primary or secondary education otherwise than at school under arrangements made by a local education authority, include treatment in that pupil's home;
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved, in subsection (1) to leave out the definition of "Agreed syllabus" and insert:
"'Agreed syllabus' means, subject to the provisions of the Seventh Schedule to this Act, an agreed syllabus of religious instruction in accordance with the principles of the Christian faith prepared in accordance with that Schedule and adopted or deemed to be adopted thereunder."
The right reverend Prelate said: The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester asks me to move this Amendment on his behalf. The purpose of it is to introduce into the definition of an agreed syllabus a direct reference to the fact that an agreed syllabus is one of religious instruction in accordance with the principles of the Christian faith. This is a matter which has been discussed at earlier stages. It was discussed on the Second Reading and at an earlier point in Committee, and the most reverend Primate stated very fully the reasons which made it desirable to state explicitly in the Bill—what is in fact the intention—that religious instruction means instruction in the Christian faith. I do not think it is in the least necessary for me to cover that ground again or to try to restate the kind of reasons which make it desirable to have it explicitly in the Bill.
On the earlier occasions to which I have referred complete sympathy was expressed on behalf of the Government with this desire to get an express reference to the Christian faith into the Bill. But it was stated that the Government were aware of certain difficulties, chiefly, I think, of a legal kind, and that they would undertake to consider the matter further. I do not know at all whether the Government are inclined now to accept this Amendment of the right reverend Prelate. I think it is most desirable that it should be in the Bill and that it should have the effect of settling that particular point once and for all. But it may be that the Government, in the interval, has thought of some different place or of some particular form of words which would be more suitable, which would avoid legal difficulties and would satisfy the particular point. If the Government are in that position I should have no desire at all to press this Amendment and I really move it on behalf of the right reverend Prelate in the hope of hearing that the Government have got a solution of the problem.
Amendment proposed—
Page 76, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert the said new definition.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not press this Amendment. When the matter was previously raised I gave an undertaking that I would consult my right honourable friend between the Committee stage and the Report stage, to see if we could not find a form of words which would achieve the object which he and the most reverend Primate and, indeed, I think, all your Lordships very much desire without involving us in certain difficulties. I am advised that the words proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester for insertion in the Seventh Schedule would create some fresh difficulties with which I need not trouble your Lordships but which appear to me certainly to have some substance. But the matter is under consideration. My right honourable friend is still in bed in the country and access to him is not easy. Therefore I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not press this Amendment. I should like to make it clear, however, that I think it should be understood that there is no sort of obligation on the part of the Government to amend the Bill in this particular way. Up to now we have always doubted if it was possible without incurring the difficulties to which I have alluded, and that may still be the case. I hope that the right reverend Prelate has not got the impression that I promised that we would find a form of words. That I was not able to do.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I was very grateful for what the noble Earl said on this matter on an earlier occasion and I have already intimated that I shall not move the Amendment to this same clause standing in my name. Those of us who are concerned in this matter have again reason to be grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said to-day. Obviously neither he nor the Government can be pledged to propose a formula that will be free from serious objection. But there is a promise given that the matter will be further considered, and perhaps we will consider it ourselves to see if we can propose a form of words which looks hopeful. If we succeed no doubt we can propose that form of words later. We

571
shall look forward hopefully, if not perhaps very confidently, to a suitable formula being produced by the Government.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: On behalf of the right reverend Prelate I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON had given Notice of two Amendments to the definition of "foundation managers" and "foundation governors," in subsection (1)—namely, to insert "auxiliary" after "any," and to leave out "in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed for the school" in order to insert "for the purpose of securing, so far as is practicable, that the character of the school as an auxiliary school is preserved and developed, and, in particular, that the school is conducted in accordance with the provisions of any trust deed relating thereto." The right reverend Prelate said: The first of my Amendments is purely drafting. No school except an auxiliary school can have foundation managers or foundation governors, therefore in line 43 that ought to be stated.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 43, after ("any") insert ("auxiliary").—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: The next Amendment contains a rather more substantial point. By the words which I propose to omit it is laid down that foundation managers and governors are managers and governors not appointed by a local authority or a minor authority, but, in the words I propose to omit, "in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed for the school." There are two objections to these words. First, they are not wholly accurate since, in fact, in Clause i6 of the Bill managers and governors are appointed by an order of the Minister. But more substantially as the words stand they are perhaps unduly restrictive. It is often the case that the existing composition of managers and governors in accordance with the trust deed is rather out of date and needs adjustment to new conditions. Since the time when the trust deed was drawn up such things as parochial church councils, diocesan, education committees and the like have come into existence, all of which might very well find place or representa-
572
tion on the body of managers or governors. Therefore some departure from the provisions of the trust deed in such directions might be desirable. The words as they stand might be held to impede such a modification.
The essential thing is that the body of managers or governors shall continue in suitable form the original trust and where that is a denominational trust shall represent that denomination. The words I propose do secure the essential thing. The purpose of my Amendment is to secure, so far as is practicable, two things. The first is that the character of the school as an auxiliary school is preserved and developed, the second is that the school is conducted in accordance with the provisions of any trust deed relating thereto. The essential thing is to be preserved and at the same time there will be a sufficient degree of flexibility in the constitution of the board of managers and governors.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 45, leave out from ("authority") to ("and") on page 77, line 1, and insert ("for the purpose of securing, so far as is practicable, that the character of the school as an auxiliary school is preserved and developed, and, in particular, that the school is conducted in accordance with the provisions of any trust deed relating thereto.")—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the Amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate really is necessary. As he pointed out, the words as they are at present are inelastic and do not cater in every case for the changed circumstances of the times in which we live. Therefore I am very much obliged to him for having brought forward this point and I have much pleasure in accepting this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, in subsection (1), to add to the definition of "medical treatment" the words "or at the private surgery of a duly qualified medical practitioner or registered dentist." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to add these words to the definition so that a child can, if necessary, be taken to a local medical practitioner or, should the child be suffering from bad toothache, he can be taken to a nearby dentist, when it is not possible to attend at the place provided by the authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 11, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Ammon.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think that the Amendment would have the effect which my noble friend suggests. In a number of cases arrangements have been made by local education authorities, with the approval of the Minister, for various forms of treatment—dental, X-ray and so on—to be carried out at private surgeries. If these words were inserted I think that that would have to be discontinued. It should be noted that the authority would pay for treatment at private surgeries only where the arrangements have been approved by the Minister under Clause 74; authorities would have no duty or power to pay in cases where the parents took a child to a private surgery outside the scope of the approved arrangements.
LORD AMMON: I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I do not move the Amendment standing in my name.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 agreed to.
Clause 109:
Saving as to person's of unsound wind, inmales of penal establishments, etc.
109. No power or duty conferred or imposed by this Act on the Minister, on local education authorities, or on parents, shall be construed as relating to any person who is the subject of an order or inquisition under the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890 to 1930 … or to any person who is detained in any penal establishment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to leave out "any penal establishment" and insert "pursuance of an order made by any court." The noble Earl said: Clause 109 is designed to exclude from the duty to educate children or young persons imposed by the Bill certain classes of person's who are either ineducable or are otherwise not fit subjects of such a requirement. Among these classes are the children or young persons who are educated in approved schools under the purview of the Home Secretary. It is obvious that persons detained in any approved school by order of any court must remain in that school, and not be subject to the requirements of this Bill. The words "detained in any penal establishment" are not the correct ones to describe persons detained in approved
574
schools, and that is the reason for this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 36, leave out ("any penal establishment") and insert ("pursuance of an order made by any court.")—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Application to London]:
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved to insert after subsection (1):
"(2) Subsection (4) of Section fifty-two of this Act shall, in relation to the County of London, have effect as if for references therein to the council of a county district there were substituted references to a sanitary authority for the purposes of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment harks back to Clause 52 of the Bill. The authorities mentioned in that clause do not operate under the same Act as operates in London. The Bill authorizes the local education authority in cleansing verminous people to use the apparatus of the county district councils in their area. In London there are no county district councils; their place is taken by sanitary authorities, and Section 124 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, requires every sanitary authority to provide facilities for cleansing verminous persons. This Amendment is simply moved to make this provision operative in London. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 43, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Ammon.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What my noble friend says is quite correct, and I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMMON: The Amendments which follow are all consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 82, line 7, after ("eighty-four") insert ("eighty-seven").
Page 82, line 14, after ("sixty-five") insert ("two hundred and ninety").
Page 82, line 17, after ("one hundred and eight") insert ("one hundred and eighty-nine").—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 111 and 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Amendment of enactments]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: These two Amendments are consequential on a previous Amendment, to which the Committee agreed, dealing with the compensation of displaced officers. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 83, line 31, at end insert ("and")
Page 83, line 32, leave out from ("ninety-one") to the end of line 33.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION.
PART I.
Joint Education Boards.
3. An order constituting a joint education board:
(c) may provide for securing that where in consequence of the establishment of the board as the local education authority for the area of any council any person who was an officer of that council suffers direct pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment or the diminution of his emoluments …
PART II.
Education Committees.
5. Every education committee of a local education authority shall include persons of experience in education and persons acquainted with the educational conditions prevailing in the area for which the committee acts.
PART III.
Delegation of functions of local education authorities to divisional executives.
8. Every scheme of divisional administration shall—
(g) make provision for the submission to the local education authority, by every divisional executive thereby authorized to exercise functions, of estimates of expenditure intended to be incurred by the executive on behalf of the authority and of accounts of expenditure so incurred; and for requiring such estimates and accounts to be subject to the approval of the authority.
Provided that no such scheme shall authorize any divisional executive to borrow money or to raise a rate.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3 in Part I, after "council," to insert "immediately before the date on which the board became the local education authority for the area thereof." The noble Earl said: This is also consequential on what has been adopted with regard to the compensation of displaced officers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 38, after ("council") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL moved, in paragraph 5 of Part II, to leave out "persons" and insert "men and women." The noble Lord said: I should not have moved this Amendment, because it really follows on one which I moved to Clause 4 and withdrew, but for the fact that the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor on June 20 did not go quite as far as I understood it at the time to go in saying that the word "persons" includes men and women. The Amendment which I now propose would make the inclusion of women mandatory whenever they have sufficient experience. The point seems to have a certain importance in view of the fact that the Bill does not provide for co-opted women, and under the old Act elected women are in many cases conspicuous for their absence on a number of education authorities.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 43, leave out ("persons") and insert ("men and women").—(Lord Rennell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be very sorry if what I said when Lord Rennell moved an earlier Amendment to the same effect was not clearly expressed or in any way misled him. What I said was that there could be no doubt at all that the word "persons" in an Act of Parliament included both men and women. He seems to have thought that I said that whenever the word "persons" was used there must be some women included in the body referred to. I did not say that and I did not mean it. The question is whether such a mandatory provision (as he rightly calls it) should be put into this Bill. I should advise the Committee not to take that course.

577
He is referring to paragraph 5 at the bottom of page 86, which reads:
"Every education committee of a local authority shall include persons of experience in education and persons acquainted with the educational conditions prevailing in the area for which the committee acts."
It is not a proposal, therefore, that we should alter the general scheme of appointment or election, which rests with the local education authority, and the local education authority in its turn is appointed without the direct intervention of Parliament.
I do not want to imagine a far-fetched case, but it is not difficult to suppose that there might be a case in which there might not be two women on the local education authority who satisfied this condition and, of course, if you say "men and women" there must be at least two women. The practice has been to rely won the judgment and good sense of the local education authority, and I do not think that experience goes to show that in modern days at any rate they have excluded women. It would certainly be remarkable if suitable women who were available were not put on a committee which deals both with girls and boys.
LORD RENNELL: There is a large number of education authorities on which there are no elected women—a considerably larger number than would be covered by the point made by the Lord Chancellor; so that there does appear to be, in present areas at any rate, a need for mandatory powers for electing women to certain committees. Surely it is the intention of the Minister that women should be included, and it was with a view to clearing up that point that the Amendment was moved. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SOULBURY LORD SOULBURY moved, after subparagraph (b) in paragraph 8 of Part III, to insert:
"(c) provide that the selection and admission of pupils to schools maintained by the local education authority shall be in accordance with regulations made by the local education authority."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and those that follow it relate to the schemes of delegation of the county councils to the divisional executives referred to in paragraph 8. This particular Amendment seeks to provide that the
578
selection and admission of pupils to schools maintained by the local education authority shall be in accordance with regulations made by that authority. There seems to be no mention in this paragraph of any such provision in the scheme. I think such a provision is very important, if not essential, on account of the potential existence of what are called in the Bill "excepted districts." The area of these divisional executives will very often not coincide with the normal "catchment area" of the school. In the past the provision of secondary and technical schools in a county has always been on a very wide basis, without any regard to local government boundaries and in most cases all admissions to secondary schools have been arranged centrally. It has been usual to provide for the equitable distribution of school places. But under this Bill it may well be that the excepted district may have in its area less or more than its share of secondary schools. Therefore I should have thought it would be advisable to have some central control, to ensure that the excepted district is on the one hand not deprived of, on the other hand not given an undue share of, the places available in the county secondary schools. It may be that my noble friend will satisfy me that this is unnecessary, but it occurred to me in reading the details of this paragraph that it might be advisable to make such a provision.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 19, at end insert the said subparagraph (c).—(Lord Soulbury.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am obliged to my noble friend for raising this point, and of course when he put the Amendment down it did receive very careful consideration in the Ministry. I am advised that the Amendment is not really necessary, and would in fact lay down too rigid a procedure, and compel local education authorities to make regulations which they might not wish to make. In so far as the authorities think it desirable that conditions of this sort should be imposed, they can either propose to do so under Paragraph 8 (c) in any scheme that they themselves prepare, or, in the case of an excepted district, make representations in that sense to the Minister, who under Paragraph 6 has to approve any scheme of divisional administration. It may well be that in certain cases conditions of this sort will have to

579
be laid down in the scheme. In a great many cases the point would not arise, and I think my noble friend's words would mean that a lot of quite unnecessary regulations would have to be made. Therefore I suggest it is better to leave the Bill as it is in this respect.
LORD SOULBURY: I do not propose to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SOULBURY LORD SOULBURY moved to insert in paragraph 8:
"(c) provide that the regulations and conditions of service prescribed by the local education authority for its employees shall be uniform throughout the area of that authority."
The noble Lord said: The regulations and conditions of service which I have in mind in this Amendment are the duties of the teachers or other officers of the authority, the notices to be given on either side, the provision for hearing of a teacher or a representation of a teacher before his dismissal, sick pay regulations, and so forth. I think it really is desirable that these regulations should be so far as possible similar and uniform all over a county. If there are different ones in the area of a divisional executive to whom the powers have been delegated within the county I can conceive of very embarrassing situations arising. It is perfectly true that under Clause 6 (4) of the Bill this Amendment may be unnecessary as regards existing officers, but that clause does not seem to cover future appointments. When I raised this matter on the Second Reading my noble friend told me that each case would have to be considered separately and on its merits by the scheme. That seemed to be a somewhat vague and unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter, because unless there is some objection which is not apparent to me, I should have thought it would be desirable that in a county area the conditions of the teachers and the details I have mentioned in regard to provision for hearing, representation, sick pay and so forth, should be uniform, so that all should be treated alike.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 19, at end insert the said subparagraph (c).—(Lord Soulbury.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think it is really necessary to provide in an
580
Act of Parliament that the regulations and conditions of service prescribed by a local education authority for its employees shall be uniform throughout the area of that authority. We shall all probably agree that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they will be. The local education authorities, after all, are popularly elected bodies, and I think my noble friend, who has great experience in these matters, will agree with me when I say that it is extremely difficult to justify a disparity of treatment of one's employees even in private affairs, and still more in public employment. Therefore if any local education authority wishes to be on good terms with its employees and to have contented employees, which there is no doubt local education authorities will, it will in most cases have a scheme which is of uniform application throughout its area. But it is rather difficult for us here to be sure that that will always be the case and that there may not be special circumstances in one particular area. Therefore I suggest this is a matter we could well leave to the local education authority.
LORD SOULBURY: I am much obliged to my noble friend and I do not propose to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SOULBURY LORD SOULBURY had given Notice of two Amendments to sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 8 in Part III—namely, before "estimates of expenditure," to insert "estimates of income and," and to leave out "of accounts of expenditure so incurred; and for requiring such estimates and accounts to be subject to the approval of the authority" in order to insert "for requiring such estimates to be subject to the approval of the authority; and may, in the discretion of the authority, authorize the keeping of accounts of income and expenditure on behalf of the authority."
The noble Lord said: It is not very clear to me what paragraph (g) means. It may authorize and compel—because the paragraph starts off with the word "shall"—a divisional officer to set up a staff for the purpose of preparing its estimates and keeping its accounts. This might well involve quite unnecessary multiplication of financial processes, a waste of money, and a decrease of efficiency. All the necessary payments in the accountings

581
could be done by the central fund of the local education authority without imposing on the divisional executive the need to engage additional staff. My Amendment is designed to secure that the local authority shall decide whether the keeping of accounts and the payment of bills shall be carried out locally or centrally. As your Lordships know, it will often be the case that the county offices are in the same town as the meeting place of the divisional executive, with its staff and all the facilities ready to hand. I should have thought it would be generally desirable for the accounts to be kept in a common form, thus avoiding the need for reconciliation if kept separate. The delegating authority, which has the final financial sanction, should have the right to adopt whichever system is more convenient.
Then again the estimates referred to in the scheme should be estimates of income as well as estimates of expenditure. Considerable duties may be delegated by the county conned to the divisional executive, involving receipts of money, and that should be specifically dealt with in the Bill. Generally speaking, my Amendment is designed to secure that the local education authority shall have the final word in the matter of accounting. If that were made clear a great deal of dispute and possible litigation might be avoided. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 33, after the first ("of") insert ("estimates of income and").—(Lord Soulbury.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Paragraph 8 (g) applies only in those cases where the scheme of divisional administration provides for the disbursement of money by the divisional executive as agents on behalf of the local education authority. There is nothing in paragraph 8 or in any other provision of the Bill to prevent a scheme of divisional administration providing that the local education authority themselves shall disburse the money and account for it without the agency of the divisional executive. In cases where the local education authority themselves undertake these functions of disbursing and accounting, paragraph 8 (g) would not apply. The submission of estimates of expenditure and income by divisional executives could be provided for under the scheme of divisional administration, under paragraph 8 (c). In other words,
582
the Bill is very elastic in this respect. My noble friend's Amendment would be more rigid than was wise, and for that reason I cannot support him.
LORD SOULBURY: In view of my noble friend's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SOULBURY LORD SOULBURY had on the Paper an Amendment to insert in paragraph 8:
"provide that the divisional executive shall order its representatives of the Press to its meetings unless the said executive by resolution excludes the Press from any particular meeting."
The noble Lord said: This is a matter to which, your Lordships will remember, the Bishop of Wakefield referred in his speech on the Second Reading. He would have moved it to-day if it had been possible for him to be here.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: May I interrupt my noble friend? Is there not a misprint in the Amendment? I cannot make it read—"the divisional executive shall order its representatives of the Press."
LORD SOULBURY: It should be "the representatives of the Press." I do not propose to recapitulate the argument of the right reverend Prelate, but your Lordships will remember that the President of the Board of Education in another place appeared to agree with the suggestion, or at any rate to have considerable sympathy with the proposal, that meetings of the divisional executives should be open to the Press unless they pass a resolution specifically excluding them. The President's words were:
"I shall undertake between now and the Report stage to see whether that is possible within the terms of the measure as drafted."
Nothing, as far as I am aware, has appeared in the Bill to deal with that, and I hope it is not too late to provide that the Press should have the same right to be present at meetings of the divisional executives as it has to be present at meetings of the local education authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 40, at end insert: ("provide that the divisional executive shall order the representatives of the Press to its meetings unless the said executive by resolution excludes the Press from any particular meeting.").—(Lord Soulbury.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Under the Local Authorities (Admission of the Press) Act, the Press has a right to be admitted to proceedings of education committees where they are dealing with matters upon which the committees have the final decision. If the authority so determines, the Press may be admitted to other proceedings of the education committee, and this is in fact done in many areas—for instance, in London. The provisions of the Act of 1908 are unaffected by the Bill. They do not, however, apply to divisional executives since the latter are neither education authorities nor education committees. I have consulted with my right honourable friend in this matter, and we came to the conclusion that it would be inappropriate to insert in the Bill a provision giving the Press a prescriptive right to attend meetings of these bodies.
There may be general legislation on the subject in the not far distant future, and it is felt it would be inappropriate to make any general alteration of the law simply in regard to education. It would be possible under the Bill as it stands for a provision in regard to the Press to be included in the scheme of divisional administration by agreement between the parties concerned, but the President of the Board of Education could not undertake to require the inclusion of such a provision in a scheme of divisional administration. It would be improper for him to use his administrative powers to impose conditions on the divisional executives in a matter which has, in the past, been governed, in respect of local authorities and their committees, by Parliament. In other words, it is not proposed to alter the general law on this subject in this particular Bill. My right honourable friends think that it the law is to be altered it ought to be altered in a Bill of general application.
LORD SOULBURY: Do I understand my noble friend to say that he anticipates there will be a Bill of general application in the near future and covering the point at issue?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not say that. In the view of the Government, if the matter is to be dealt with, it should be dealt with in a Bill of general application.
LORD SOUTHWOOD: May I ask the noble Earl if he can see any reason why the Press should not be admitted to any of these meetings? Could anything occur to keep the Press out? Why should they not be admitted?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is the general question. At present a local authority has power to admit the Press if it wishes, but sometimes it does not exercise that power. The law at present is that it is within the discretion of the local authority, and that is quite a separate question. If the law is to be altered it ought to be of general application and should not apply merely to education.
LORD SOUTHWOOD: Would it not be wise for these divisional executives to admit the Press to their meetings?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There might be circumstances where it would not be wise. Publication of a debate might, for instance, inflame denominational or sectarian animosity at a moment when it would be very inopportune or injudicious to do so. Speech is silver, but silence is sometimes golden.
LORD SOUTHWOOD: Freedom of the Press!
LORD SOULBURY: I understand that at present the Press has a right to be admitted to the sessions of the local education authority unless specifically excluded by resolution. I do not quite follow why the same condition should not apply to the bodies receiving the delegated powers from the local education authorities. It is difficult to see the distinction.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Perhaps it is the word "order" that is causing the difficulty. I am quite sure what the framer of this Amendment wrote was "admit," not "order its." I do not know if it will make any difference if the word were "admit" but I should be rather glad to have it put in.
LORD SOULBURY: Something appears to have gone wrong. I am quite sure my manuscript was not put into print.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think it natural this point should have been raised. I cannot help thinking the Minister has dealt properly with the point. It is difficult for Parliament to tell local authorities how they should conduct their busi-

585
ness in an affair like this. I hope therefore the Committee will not press the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SOULBURY LORD SOULBURY moved in the proviso in Paragraph 8, after the first "to," to insert—
("(i) appoint or dismiss a teacher without the consent of the local education authority. (ii)"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to the question of the appointing or dismissal of a teacher without the consent of the local education authority. As I understand it, under this scheme, an excepted district would have the power to appoint or dismiss a teacher without referring the matter to the local education authority. When I raised that on the Second Reading my noble friend told me that the answer was that the circumstances varied and added:
"Some of these divisional executives will be very experienced authorities who have been engaging and dismissing teachers for forty years whereas other executives may not have the same experience. Therefore it would be absurd to say that no divisional executive should exercise these functions. Each case will have to be dealt with separately on its merits."
In effect that answer means that some Part III authorities may get the powers to dismiss or appoint teachers and other Part III authorities or other delegated bodies would not get those powers.
I raise this point because I think it would put upon the President the task of making invidious exceptions. Without doubt every excepted district will take this power. That is a certainty. But I do not know if every excepted district will have the necessary experience such as my noble friend laid down in his answer to me. If the President of the Board thinks a district has not got the necessary experience, presumably he will have to strike that power out of the district scheme. There is certain to be very considerable soreness over any such action and the stricken district will immediately complain that such and such a delegated body of such and such a district has got the power while another district has not got it and ask why should it not have it. The' President will be compelled to say: "You have not had enough experience." Very few Part III authorities have had much experience, certainly not as much as the Part II authorities. Then,
586
as the scheme is at present, we get this curious position. The county councils, as I understand it, remain the employers of the teachers but they have no right or may have no right either to appoint or dismiss the teachers they employ.
We have been told, I think in another place, that the local education authority would be responsible for the schools and have the right to inspect them and see if the education is efficient. At the same time the local education authority will not have the right to appoint or dismiss a teacher or consent to the dismissal of a teacher, although that teacher may be responsible for the inefficiency of the school. The divisional executive itself is not the employer but it has the right of dismissal and the right of appointment. I doubt whether the divisional executive will always feel quite the same degree of obligation to the teacher in regard to his professional future as the employer would do. If the teacher is dismissed by the regional executive, where can he look for further employment in the area of the local education authority if the divisional executive in the area has the absolute power of appointment of the teachers in that area. At present a teacher employed by the county council has a wider field for promotion and transfer, and there is a greater opportunity for him if he is unsuitable in a particular school, or is redundant to the staff of a school, of obtaining employment in the same area. He may be absorbed into a school in some other part of the county. The chance of absorption elsewhere in a county is greatly diminished if the county is carved up into divisional executives which have the sole power of appointment. Therefore I suggest that the local education authority should have some control over the dismissal and appointment of teachers. They may have some control by consent in a case of dismissal or some power of confirmation in cases of appointment.
In that connexion I might refer the noble Earl to Clause 92 which provides that compensation for dismissal shall be payable by a local education authority although the local education authority may have no say whatsoever in the dismissal of the teacher they may have to compensate. We get this position. The county council employs, the county council cannot appoint, the county council cannot dismiss, but is liable to pay compensation in case of dismissal. I

587
suggest this is a case which the Government might well consider and see whether it is not possible to provide that in the case of the divisional excepted district the appointment and dismissal of teachers should be subject to the consent of the larger body, in this case the local education authority who employs the teachers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 42, after the first ("to") insert—
("(i) appoint or dismiss a teacher without the consent of the local education authority.
(ii)").—(Lord Soulbury.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think my noble friend is quite right when he says that the terms of the Bill as they are at present will impose a heavy duty on the Minister of Education, not only an onerous duty but one that may be sometimes embarrassing. I think he is also probably right when he says every divisional executive will want to have the power of appointing and dismissing its teachers, but my right honourable friend has come to the conclusion that however much work is involved in this it is a burden that he and his successors will necessarily have to shoulder, for the simple reason that the circumstances in the different parts of the country are so very different and you cannot equitably or wisely lay down a rule that is of universal application. My noble friend raised this matter, as he has reminded your Lordships, in the Second Reading debate. I then had to say to him that this problem would have to be dealt with in every scheme separately and I believe that to be the case. If my noble friend's Amendment is accepted you would have the case of a body which, for forty years, has been engaging, appointing and dismissing teachers and would be putting them under the tutelage of another body. That might cause an enormous amount of friction. I am afraid I cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment. In spite of the arguments there are in favour of it, in practice I am afraid it could not be applied all over the country without very great friction.
LORD SOULBURY: I am sorry that in trying to help my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education and to save him from trouble the answer is really "save me from my
588
friends." I foresee the possibility of a great deal of trouble to the President as a result of this but I shall content myself by saying later on, "I told you so" and shall not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Transfer to a local education authority of an interest in the premises of an auxiliary school.
7. Where any person other than the managers or governors of the school has a right to the occupation or use of the school premises or any part thereof for any particular purpose, no provision of any agreement made under this schedule shall affect that right unless he has consented thereto.
EARL GREY EARL GREY moved, in paragraph (7), after "unless," to insert "after his attention has been called to his right." The noble Earl said: This schedule deals with the transfer to the local education authority of the interest in the premises of auxiliary schools. On page 91, paragraph 7, says:
"Where any person other than the managers or governors of the school has a right to the occupation or use of the school premises, or any part thereof for any particular purpose, no provision of any agreement made under this schedule shall affect that right unless he has consented thereto.
I understand that in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred "any person other than the managers" means the incumbent of the parish. It has been pointed out to us that it is quite possible that an agreement might be made just after a new incumbent has been appointed. He might not know his right and therefore it is only fair that his right should be pointed out to him before he is asked to consent to a change in his right of user. Another point which occurs to me is that there might be a vacancy in the living at the time. For some years to come it is likely to be extremely difficult to find incumbents and six months may elapse between the one who goes out and the one who goes in. If any agreement is made in that time I do not quite know how the right of the incumbent is going to be protected. I hope the noble Lord will give attention to that aspect and that he will be able to agree to the insertion of these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 29, after ("unless") insert ("after his attention has been called to his rights").—(Earl Grey.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am advised that this Amendment is not really necessary. My noble friend is quite right in saying that where the Bill says "person" what is really meant is "parson." His consent is needed. How can you obtain his consent without his knowing that you are asking for something? If the parson's consent is required it must be asked, and if it is asked and he gives consent, presumably in writing, surely he must be aware that it is necessary to obtain his consent. I will look into the matter again, because I confess I had not contemplated the case my noble friend visualizes where there is a vacancy in the living, but even in that case it seems to me consent would have to be given by somebody and therefore I do not think my noble friend's Amendment is necessary.
EARL GREY: I will not press my Amendment but I may say it was suggested to me by a very distinguished Parliamentary draftsman.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
Special Agreements in respect of certain auxiliary schools.
3. No agreement shall be made under this Schedule after the expiration of six months or such extended period as the Minister may in any particular case allow from the date upon which the local education order for the area of the local aducation authority first comes into force.
7. Any agreement made under this schedule may provide for the giving of religious instruction in the school in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed relating to the 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 an auxiliary school, and for the employment in the school, for the purpose of giving such religious instruction, of such number of reserved teachers as may be specified in the agreement.
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH moved in paragraph 3, to substitute "twelve" for "six." The noble Earl said: My noble friend Lord Rankeillour has asked me to move this Amendment on his behalf. Experience of the working of the 1936 Act shows that the agreements referred to in this schedule often took a very long time to conclude. We therefore feel that the period should be extended from six
590
months to twelve months. I realize that the schedule as drafted does give the Minister power to extend the six months in exceptional cases, but we think that if he adheres to the six months the power would not become exceptional but customary, and would give a good deal of extra labour. If the period is twelve months, then the power to extend would remain exceptional.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 22, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").—(The Earl of Perth).
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, the purpose of which is to increase the period within which special agreements in respect of certain auxiliary schools may be made. The purpose of the time limit is to ensure that there shall not be undue delay in the work of reorganization and reconstruction which is one of the main aims of the Bill. Since orders would not be made until eighteen months after April, 1945, the six months' limit from that date would give two years which should be ample for the preparation of agreements. It must be remembered that most of them were put forward by March 1, 1938, or September 1, 1938, at the latest. It should also be noted that in any particular case if there is good reason for extending the period the Bill gives the Minister power to do so. I do not think the Amendment is really necessary. In nearly every case I understand the managers would have something like two and a, half years to make this agreement. Therefore I hope my noble friend will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I only referred to the experience we have had of the working of the 1936 Act, but I do not intend to press the Amendment. I can only adopt the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, and say I am afraid I shall have to say "I told you so" later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to substitute "shall" for "may" in paragraph 7. The noble Lord said: By the present wording of the Bill any agreement made under this schedule "may" provide for the giving of this instruction. I thought one of the main purposes of the Bill was not that religious instruction should be permissive but mandatory. The word "shall" is used in several other para-

591
graphs of the schedule, and it is also used in Clause 27. It seems to me that the use of the word "may" here is inconsistent with that. For instance, the proviso in subsection (1) of Clause 27 says "arrangements shall be made for religious instruction in accordance with that syllabus. …" My Amendment is designed to bring the schedule into accord with the body of the Bill and I think it is necessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 42, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Gorell.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This Amendment is an Amendment to paragraph 7 which reads as follows:
"Any agreement made under this schedule may provide for the giving of religious instruction in the school in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed relating to the 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 an auxiliary school, and for the employment in the school, for the purpose of giving such religious instruction, of such number of reserved teachers as may be specified in the agreement."
There is nothing in the Bill to compel the employment of reserved teachers in special agreement schools. The word "may" is therefore the proper one.
If the noble Lord will look at Clause 27 (1) which deals with special provisions as to the local education in aided schools and in special agreement schools he will see that it reads:
"The religious instruction given to the pupils in attendance at an aided school or at a special agreement school shall be under the control of the managers or governors of the school and shall be in accordance with any provisions of the trust deed relating to the 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 an auxiliary school:"
That is where my noble friend will find the compelling power. This paragraph in the Third Schedule must be read in conjunction with that, and I am advised that, "may" is the proper word to use in the schedule.
LORD GORELL: That was my whole point; that the two are not quite consistent. I have carefully studied Clause 27 subsection (1), and I notice that the word "shall" was used. That was the very reason I put down this Amendment. But if the noble Earl is quite satisfied
592
that they are consistent I have nothing more to say, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Supplemental provisions as to powers of courts for enforcing school attendance]:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to leave out the Fifth Schedule. The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, leave out Schedule 5.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule agreed to.
SEVENTH SCHEDULE.
Procedure for preparing and bringing into operation an agreed syllabus of religious education.
2. For the purpose of constituting such a conference as aforesaid the local education authority shall appoint committees consisting of persons representing respectively—

(a) such religious denominations as, in the opinion of the authority ought, having regard to the circumstances of the area to be represented;

(b) except in the case of an area in Wales or Monmouthshire, the Church of England;

(c) associations representative of teachers in the area; and

(d) the authority:

11. The body of persons so appointed:

(a) shall give to the authority, the conference, and every committee constituting the conference, an opportunity of making representations to it, but, save as aforesaid, may conduct the proceedings in such manner as it thinks fit;

(b) shall, after considering any such representations made to it, prepare a syllabus of religious instruction;

(c) shall transmit a copy of the said syllabus to the authority and to the Minister, and as from such date as the Minister may direct, the syllabus so prepared shall be deemed to be the agreed syllabus of religious instruction adopted for use in the schools for which, or for the class or description of pupils for which, it was prepared until a further syllabus is prepared for use in those schools, or for pupils of that class or description, in accordance with the provisions of this schedule.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved, in paragraph 2, to substitute "panels" for "committees." The right reverend

593
Prelate said: This proposal is to substitute the word "panels" for the word "committees," and I move it entirely in the hope of saving some people from a misunderstanding. The four committees are quite clearly intended by the schedule to constitute one conference. The committees have a separate existence for two reasons. First so that each of the four parties may have proper representation. There is, of course, no need for committees to be the same size as each other. The second reason is that when it comes to voting each committee shall have only one vote so that any disparity of numbers in the committees does not mater. But the whole conference will do the work as one body, and when they appoint a subcommittee they have to see that at least one member of each of the Committees is upon it.
It has been represented to me that some persons have misunderstood the use of the word "committee" and they think that the intention of the schedule is that each committee shall be a body with its own particular responsibility, which will sit separately and draw up its own syllabus, and, when it has drawn up its own syllabus, will sit in conference with the other committees in order to see how far the various syllabuses can be reconciled. I cannot for my part believe that that is the intention of the schedule or that the committees would work like that. I think that, possibly, to call them panels instead of committees makes clear just precisely what their function is. No doubt, if they wished it, each panel or committee could meet separately to discuss some particular point. The panel is merely a device for getting representation of the various interests concerned. I venture to put this forward in order to prevent the misunderstanding which has, I know, taken root in some people's minds. I suggest that to call these bodies panels is to make the thing perfectly clear. Four panels are drawn up; each panel votes as one and has only one vote, but the work is done by the four panels sitting in conference together.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 9, leave out ("committees") and insert ("panels").—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is to a certain extent a linguistic point, though I appreciate what has just been said by the right reverend Prelate that it
594
may also involve something more important. I am looking at it for the moment purely as a drafting matter, as a matter of convenience. Really and truly "panel" does not—with great respect to the right reverend Prelate—represent what is here created. A panel is a list of people out of whom you may draw one or more to serve some purpose or other. The jury panel, for example, is a list of people qualified to act as members of a jury, but they do not in fact all sit in the jury box. That illustrates the proper meaning of the word panel.
Might I remind the Committee that we have just passed the Sixth Schedule and in that schedule the word "panel" is used in its right sense. If we turn to page 93 we there read
"For the purpose of enabling independent schools tribunals to be constituted as occasion may require there shall be appointed two panels, that is to say—

(a) a panel (hereinafter referred to as the 'legal panel') appointed by the Lord Chancellor, of persons who will be available to act when required as chairman of such tribunal; and

(b) a panel (hereinafter referred to as the 'educational panel') appointed by the Lord President of the Council, of persons who will be available to act when required as members of any such tribunal."

That is the proper use of the word, and it strikes one, if I may say so with great respect, that it would be rather unfortunate if one should turn over the page to the Seventh Schedule and find again the word "panel" but this time meaning a whole body of persons, and not simply a source, a well, out of which individuals might be drawn.
I think that deserves a moment's attention. Undoubtedly that is the meaning of "panel" in England. In Scotland, of course, this Bill does not apply, but it happens that in Scotland "panel" means "prisoner at the bar" which is still more unfortunate. But I do understand the point which the right reverend Prelate makes. He is anxious to secure that there should be no doubt on the face of the Bill that the conference should be a single body which is built up of certain elements, and should not be regarded merely as a body on which four different elements meet for the purpose of a round table discussion. I may say, so far as it is for me to express an opinion, that I thoroughly sympathize with much that the right reverend Prelate says, and I

595
suggest that unless the House takes a strong view to the contrary, we had better look at this and, it may be, insert a third word if we hit on one. I do not myself take the view on reading the Schedule that these committees, as they are called, would never meet separately. Take for example the third one composed of people from associations representative of teachers in the area. I can imagine before a conference the members of such a body saying: "We had better have a little meeting among ourselves beforehand to see whether we can agree on this particular matter." That would be a meeting of the committee by itself—quite a legitimate and proper thing.
The substance of this is, I am certain, as the right reverend Prelate has said. The idea is not to create a meeting of four bodies, each of which is pushing its own interest and joining in a confabulation, whether round a circular table or on the four sides of a square table, but that this thing will be created and forged by the good will and the joint efforts of everybody concerned. That is the conception, and I most thoroughly appreciate that fact. If, therefore, the right reverend Prelate will agree to withdraw his Amendment for the moment, we will see whether there is some other and perhaps neutral word which will not give so strong an impression as does "committee" that these are self-contained bodies with a life and soul of their own.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I gladly accept that offer. I am not in the least wedded to the word "panel." The noble and learned Viscount has expressed precisely what is in my mind—the need to get away from the idea of four separate entities, each with its own life. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved, at the beginning of sub-paragraph (c) in paragraph 2, to insert "all." The right reverend Prelate said: This is quite a different point. The Bill says that on this conference there shall be represented "(c) associations representative of teachers in the area." That is obviously right and proper, and it never struck me that the words there could be anything but sufficient and satisfactory; but my attention has been drawn to a matter
596
which I think is of such great importance that I am bound to raise it here, because it shows that these words provide a loophole for very serious abuse. My evidence comes from a completely reliable and unimpeachable source, though I cannot quote it.
A certain local education authority of importance and standing has already acted in anticipation of the Bill and constituted a conference on the lines of the Seventh Schedule to work out an agreed syllabus. That is a very proper thing for it to do. It has appointed to the committee of teachers three persons—two teachers representing primary schools and one teacher representing secondary schools—all of whom are members of the National Union of Teachers. So far there is no harm done, but what follows is notable. The Headmasters' Association, the Headmistresses' Association, the Association of Assistant Masters and the Association of Assistant Mistresses—four bodies who play a greater part in secondary education than any other educational bodies—finding that they were not represented on the conference, made application to the local education authority to have such representation given to them. The reply which they received was that under the Bill they could not claim any representation, and that if they were represented then other associations would have to be given representation also; and therefore they were turned down.
I expect that most of your Lordships know the kind of standing in the educational world which is possessed by the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, the similar body of headmistresses, the Assistant Masters' Association and the Assistant Mistresses' Association. It is quite unthinkable that when an agreed syllabus is to be constructed which applies not only to primary but also to secondary schools those teachers, who have had far more experience of secondary education and of religious education in secondary schools, the teaching of sixth forms and so on, than anybody else, should be refused representation on the committee representing the teachers. Paragraph 3 of this Seventh Schedule requires the local education authority to "take all reasonable steps" to assure themselves that a teacher appointed to represent an association shall really represent it, but that paragraph does not offer any help here. I have no doubt whatever that the three

597
teachers who have been appointed in this way fully represent the National Union of Teachers; the trouble is that other associations of very high standing have been refused representation altogether.
I cannot think that there are very many local education authorities in this country who would dream of doing such a thing; the astonishing thing is that one local education authority has, inadvertently no doubt, revealed its capacity for doing such a thing by doing it in advance of the Bill. If there is even one local authority in the country who can so act it must be made impossible in the Bill, for I think the Committee will agree that this is a state of affairs which cries out for remedy in order that the teachers may be properly represented. I therefore move this Amendment to insert the word "all." I do not know whether that is the right way to do it, but here is a problem which must be met and solved in the Bill, and I move this Amendment to ask the Government whether they know of any better way of solving it than that which I have proposed. I have not the slightest doubt that they will agree with me that a course of action such as I have described ought to be made absolutely impossible under the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 16, at the beginning insert ("all").—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
LORD GORELL: Before the noble Earl replies, I should like to say that it is with extraordinary interest that I have listened to the words which have just fallen from the right reverend Prelate. I wish very much that he had been able to be here yesterday to support my Amendment, because this is an exact exemplification of the difficulty in which the Board of Education are placing themselves by refusing to recognize the Teachers Registration Council, which is the only body which does represent all teachers. That was precisely the point which I made. There will be, I have no doubt whatever, continual difficulty unless some use is made of that one body which does represent them all. I was particularly interested, therefore, in the right reverend Prelate's Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think that the right reverend Prelate has added to the debt which we already owe him for his help on this Bill by drawing attention to what is possible under the Bill as it has been drafted, though this
598
is certainly not what was intended. It is quite clear that paragraph 2 (c) of the Seventh Schedule means a committee which is really representative of the teachers of the area, and not merely of one association of teachers. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that something must be done to meet the point which he has made. He proposes to add the word "all," so that paragraph 2 (c) would read: "All associations representative of teachers in the area." Here we are faced by the fact that there are over fifty associations of teachers. My noble friend Lord Gorell triumphantly said that if the various people concerned would only adopt his plan that difficulty would disappear, but I am afraid that the various people concerned include all the teachers in the country, and the fact that the Teachers Registration Council does not command more support from the teachers is really a matter which is beyond the control of the Board of Education and primarily concerns the teachers themselves.
The situation with which we are faced is that there are over fifty teachers' associations, although some of them are very much bigger and more important than others. I do not think, therefore, that the word "all" quite meets the case. The right reverend Prelate asked me what remedy the Government had—had not the Government thought of such an eventuality, had they made no provision for it in the Bill? Well, we had made provision for precisely this sort of eventuality, but that provision was found in subsection (2) of Clause 93. Now my noble friends Lord Rankeillour, Lord Roche and Lord Stanhope, having destroyed subsection (2) of Clause 93, have gone home and are no longer in their places and we are left here faced with this difficulty without the help of those noble Lords and without the help of subsection (2) of Clause 93. That particular subsection would have met the point of the right reverend Prelate, but in view of those circumstances I must of course give an undertaking to the right reverend Prelate that this matter will be examined before the Report stage, and we will insert words which will prevent the occurrence of the sort of incident to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I am perfectly willing to accept that. I never imagined that the insertion of the word

599
"all" would be a satisfactory solution, but I am more than content if between now and the Report stage the matter is examined and is dealt with on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved, after paragraph 9, to insert:
"10. It shall be competent for the conference to recommend to the local education authority the appointment of a standing religious advisory committee to advise on methods of teaching, the provision of books and lectures for teachers, and generally as to religious instruction in all types of schools."
The most reverend Primate said: On behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield, who is unable to be here to-day, I am glad to move this Amendment because I think it is most desirable that there should in most places be a continuing body capable of watching religious instruction and capable of receiving recommendations from teachers for the revision of the syllabus. These syllabuses have been improving at a great pace since they first began to be introduced some twenty years ago, and a great deal of experience has been gathered. It is extremely important that no syllabus, once it has been drawn up, should be regarded as final. It should be capable of being revised in the light of experience, and it would be useful to have a permanent body which could receive suggestions, debate them, and bring before the authority the results of their consideration. This is of course a purely permissive clause. I dare say we shall be told it is not necessary. I should have thought it would have been an advantage to make a suggestion, but that is improper in an Act of Parliament. I shall not press the point, I merely raise it.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 14, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am advised that statutory authority is not required to enable the conference or anybody else to recommend anything to a local education authority. I quite sympathize with the object that the right reverend Prelate had in putting down this Amendment. The actual form of the Amendment would not do, however, because, as worded, it would entitle the
600
Committee to give advice on instruction in Roman Catholic schools. I do not suppose that any religious advisory committee would wish to do so, as the Roman Catholic Church would not be represented upon it. But this committee would be purely advisory. It would be without any statutory powers, and there is nothing to prevent such committees being set up or the conference created by the Bill being continued if all the parties agree. If all the parties do not agree, then I do not think it would function even though this Amendment were put in the Bill. Therefore the Government are inclined to think that no useful purpose would be served by putting this Amendment into the Bill. But if the matter is pressed by those who are primarily concerned, that is to say the most reverend Primate and others, I would certainly undertake to consider it. But my answer to the most reverend Primate is that no legislative change would be effected by this Amendment. It would not have any effect, and therefore it is not thought that a useful purpose would be served by putting it into the Bill.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am very grateful for the assurance of the noble Earl, to which reference can be made if necessary, that there is nothing that hinders the making of such an advisory body a permanent feature in the administration of a local education authority. I think my best course would be to consult the Bishop of Wakefield as to whether he would wish to press for further consideration. So far as I am concerned I am content but if he sees any reason, from his great experience of these matters in local education authorities, for pursuing it further, I have no doubt that what the noble Earl has said will mean that suggestions put forward will be carefully and sympathetically reviewed. I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: The Bishop of Chichester asked me to move the next Amendment—[in paragraph 10, after "conference" to insert "or if any question arises concerning the character of an agreed syllabus which in the opinion of the Minister ought to be considered"]—but I really do not know precisely what he had in his mind, and therefore I think I had better not move it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved, in paragraph 11, to insert:
"(a) shall consist of persons representing respectively the Church of England and other religious denominations, associations of teachers and local education authorities,"
The right reverend Prelate said: I am prepared to move this Amendment on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester without any particular conviction, but the point is clear. The body of persons appointed is to consist of representatives of the same categories as are represented on the committees. The body having experience which is charged by the Minister to prepare a syllabus when the local authority fails to adopt one is to consist of representatives of the Church of England, other religious denominations and associations of teachers and the local authorities. In this matter I am entirely in the hands of the House and of the Government. If they think it is an advantage to define in this way the body which the Minister is to appoint, and to see that the same categories are represented upon it, well and good, but I cannot myself feel that it is a matter of urgency, and in such a matter the Minister could, I think, exercise his own discretion.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 21, at end insert the said subparagraph (a).—(The Lord Bishop of London).
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am anxious that there should be no doubt on this matter, and therefore I am willing to accept the Amendment on the understanding that if, on reconsideration, the words are found to require modification it would not be regarded as a breach of faith if I moved an Amendment to them on the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GORELL LORD GORELL moved to insert:
"12. Notwithstanding anything in this schedule a local education authority which adopted a syllabus of religious instruction before the passing of this Act may continue to use that syllabus unless and until they have decided to establish an agreed syllabus in accordance with the provisions of this schedule and unless they so decide the syllabus so adopted shall be deemed to be the agreed syllabus."
The noble Lord said: I see that the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chichester, has a similar Amendment on the Paper, not in precisely the same words, but to the same effect. It is a matter
602
of indifference to me which may be found more correct. The only purpose of this Amendment is to facilitate the work where syllabuses have already been prepared. It is in the nature really of an interim measure to allow those syllabuses to be adopted unless hereafter it is found desirable to prepare an agreed syllabus in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule. Until that is so resolved, the syllabus now in use shall be deemed to be an agreed syllabus. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 36, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Gorell.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am advised that this suggestion would not work because it leaves it open to a local education authority which has already adopted an agreed syllabus not to convene a conference in accordance with paragraph 1. This would not do because some of the so-called agreed syllabuses have not in fact been agreed to by the accredited representatives of the teachers. The word "preparing" in paragraph 1 might be held to preclude a conference from adopting an existing agreed syllabus. It has also to be remembered that the present agreed syllabuses were designed for use in public elementary schools and are not necessarily suited to older children in grammar schools, who may stay there up to nineteen and for whom, under the Bill, religious instruction will have to be provided. Therefore the answer to my noble friend is that the President of the Board of Education does not favour the idea that the agreed syllabuses should be automatically continued because it is desirable that they should all be reviewed. We all hope that the tremendous foundation stone of mutual understanding and trust that these agreed syllabuses achieved will be a most important factor in the new settlement. For the reason I have given, it is inadvisable to make the adoption of an agreed syllabus, which has hitherto been used, automatic under the Bill.
LORD GORELL: I thank the noble Earl for the clarity and the courtesy of his answer, which is satisfactory to me, and ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved to insert as a new paragraph:
"12. Notwithstanding anything in this schedule where any local education authority

603
has adopted a syllabus of religious instruction before Part II of this Act came into operation they may continue to use that syllabus until they resolve to prepare an agreed syllabus in accordance with this schedule, and, until they so resolve, that syllabus shall be deemed to be an agreed syllabus."
The right reverend Prelate said: I move this Amendment on behalf of the Bishop of Chichester. It is not exactly the same as the one we have just been discussing to which objection has been expressed by the noble Earl. This Amendment simply says that until the new agreed syllabus has been drawn up the conference may authorize the existing syllabus if it thinks fit. If the conference so recommends, the present syllabus may continue to be used until the agreed syllabus has been prepared. The advantage of this Amendment over that moved by Lord Gorell is that it puts the onus on the conference. There is no question of dodging the task of preparing a new syllabus or merely letting the old one run on. The conference must meet, but it would be perfectly legitimate for it to say, "It will take six months to prepare an agreed syllabus, and during those six months we as a conference accept the syllabus hitherto in use by the local authority." It is merely giving a carryover power. Failing such a power, presumably there would be an interval when possibly there was no agreed syllabus in existence and the Act could not operate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 36, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am advised that the difficulty about this is that there are some local education authorities which have no agreed syllabus. Clause 25 requires that on and after April 1, 1945, religious instruction in county schools shall be in accordance with an agreed syllabus. If by that date an agreed syllabus has not been specially prepared in accordance with the Seventh Schedule, the conference will, as an interim measure, need to recommend the adoption of the existing syllabus. Where there is a syllabus already in operation it will no doubt be continued during the interim period, but, as I have said, there are some local education authorities which have not yet adopted an agreed syllabus. I do not quite see how this Amendment would work in these circumstances.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I agree that it does not meet that situation, but it does meet the situation where there is an authorized syllabus and one which it is desired to continue for the time being. Where no syllabus exists, normally the conference will have at once to adopt some already prepared syllabus as an interim measure. I do not wish to press the point if it is regarded as unnecessary and if it is assumed that the conference can continue the use of an existing syllabus.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I shall gladly look into the matter again, but I am disposed to think that this Amendment is not really necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seventh Schedule agreed to.
Eighth Schedule agreed to.
Ninth Schedule [Amendment of Enactments]:
LORD AMNION LORD AMNION moved, in Part I, in the reference to the London Government Act, 1939, to insert:

"Section sixty-four.

After the words 'mental hospitals committee of the county council' there shall be inserted the words 'or of a subcommittee of any such committee'; and the words 'aided, provided or' shall be omitted."

The noble Lord said: This really follows on an alteration already made in the Bill following an amendment of the Local Government Act, 1933, which not only enables teachers to serve on education committees and committees dealing with mental defectives and so on, but also to serve on sub-committees of those committees. That Act does not apply to London, but there are similar provisions made in the London Government Act, 1939, and this Amendment brings the Bill into line.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 12, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Ammon).
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am much obliged to my noble friend. What he says is perfectly true, and I have great pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

TENTH SCHEDULE.
  ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

    PART I.
    Enactments repealed from date of commencement of Part II of this Act.

    1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6. c. 46.

    The Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937.

    Sections one to three and Section six and in Section eight in subsection (1) thereof the words "including any grants paid or payable under or by virtue of this Act," and subsection (2).

    1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 40.

    The Children and Young Persons Act, 1938.

    Section three; in Section four, in subsection (1) thereof, the words "or under Section forty-five of the Education Act, 1921, as so amended," and in subsection (2) thereof the words "and Section forty-five of the Education Act, 1921."

    LORD GORELL LORD GORELL had given Notice of an Amendment to insert in PART I:

    "7 Edw. 7. c. 43.

    The Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907.

    Section 16."

    The noble Lord said: It is necessary to say one word, but only one word, about this in view of what fell from the noble Earl a few moments ago. He referred to the Teachers Registration Council as though it were my plan. It is necessary for me to emphasize that I am the representative of a movement which began long before I was born and which has had statutory authority for a generation. This particular Section Sixteen of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, is in fact the statutory authority under which Sir Robert Morant acted when he drew up the memorandum on which the Teachers Registration Council came into existence in 1912. I have endeavoured, in the coarse of these debates, to elicit from the noble Earl whether the Government were, or were not, prepared to make any use of the Teachers Registration Council, but, with that singular blend of courtesy, ability and agility he has dis-
    606
    played throughout this debate, he has evaded my question. I gathered that the whole policy of the Government on this matter can be summed up in the lines:
    "Thou must not kill but need'st not strive
    Officiously to keep alive."
    I personally would prefer that something which is not going to be used should be brought to an end, but I have no mandate from the teachers' council to say on their behalf that they wish an end put to their statutory existence. This Amendment was put down in conjunction with one that I hoped would be accepted but as it has not been accepted I have no alternative but to refrain from moving this Amendment.
    LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE had put down an Amendment to omit the reference in Part I to the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937. The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment before your Lordships reached the discussion on subsection (3) of Clause 51. In the light of the answer the noble Earl gave to my suggestion about an Amending Act, it seems to me quite unnecessary now to move this one. Moreover, I see that the noble Earl is moving an Amendment himself which will enable me to achieve the object I have in view.
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved in the reference to the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, to leave out all words after "Sections one," and insert "'and two'; in Section three; in subsection (1) thereof the words from 'recommendations' to 'with' and the words 'after considering a recommendation of the grants committee', and in subsection (3) thereof the words 'after consultation with the National Council for England and Wales' and the words 'on the recommendation of the grants committee and'; Section six; and subsection (2) of Section eight." The noble Earl said: This is consequential on a previous Amendment. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 106, line 33, leave out from ("one") to the end of line 40, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to add to the reference to the Children and Young Persons Act, 1938, "in Section six, in subsection (1) thereof, the words 'or by virtue of subsection (2) of Section

    607
    three of this Act', and in subsection (2) thereof the words 'or under subsection (2) of Section three of this Act'." The noble Earl said: This Amendment corrects an omission. Schedule ten of the Education Bill, among other things, repeals Section three of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1938. Accordingly, any other references in that Act of 1938 to Section three therein should also be repealed. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 106, line 50, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule Ten, as amended, agreed to.
    House resumed.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House to consider the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
House adjourned.