HL Deb 03 November 1960 vol 226 cc148-50
THE EARL OF CRAVEN

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government to consider bringing in, with consultation from the denominational bodies, a statutory instrument which would interpret section 76 of the Education Act in a more generous manner towards "parental choice" and be in conformity with the spirit of Parliament as expressed in the 1944 Act.]

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

My Lords, aManual of Guidance, first issued in 1950, gives to local education authorities such advice as my right honourable friend can give on the application to their day-to-day administration of the principles laid down in Section 76 of the Education Act, 1944. There is no power to interpret the Statute by statutory instrument, and my right honourable friend does not consider that there are good grounds for revising theManual of Guidance. This was formulated only after prolonged consultation with representatives of the Roman Catholic and Church of England authorities and of the local authorities.

LORD BEVERIDGE

My Lords, in view of the great importance of encouraging the interest of parents in the education of their children, may I express the hope that the Government will consider whether they can do something more to make parents feel responsible for the choice of school at which their children attend?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I am sure that we shall do everything we can, consistent with the provisions of the service. I am sure that we all recognise the need to do so, but I think that that is a slightly wider question than the question on denominations which my noble friend had particularly in mind.

THE EARL OF CRAVEN

My Lords, I see that Mr. Butler advocates a more responsible attitude of parents towards their children. If this is so, why do not the directors of the Ministry allow them to send children to the school of their choice, within the State system, thereby avoiding recourse to monetary expediency as a curtailment of this freedom?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I do not think that there is any question of monetary expediency here. This is a question of the policy laid down by an Act of Parliament, which is fairly clearly expressed. We have debated this question on a number of occasions, and no doubt we shall do so again from time to time. I would not altogether subscribe to the view that the true interpretation of the Act is that every parent can select every time the particular school, whether within or without the State system, to which his child should go. There must be some limitation. The question is, what.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

My Lords, is it not the fact that recently in Parliament there has been a very generous increase in State assistance in connection with denominational schools as such, and therefore already the choice is becoming mutt greater under the existing regulation to which the noble Viscount has referred? If there is any further [extension of choice, would it not lead, particularly in rural areas, to a considerable problem for local authorities?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, what the noble Viscount says is quite right. We did, on rather a different road but in connection with the same matter, pass particular legislation with fairly general approval in the last Parliament.

Of course these matters must rest to some extent with the, local authorities. The policy of Parliament, and, I think, of the nation, is that education is fundamentally a local authority service. That means that in matters of this kind, local authorities must be trusted to give effect to the policy of the Act of Parliament, and I know that my right honourable friend would be reluctant to intervene except where that was not being done. Because unless we do allow local authorities freedom of administration in their services, we get away from the whole conception of local government.