§ 7.5 p.m.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
§ Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Phillips.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Clause 1 [Government and conduct of colleges of education and other institutions providing further education]:
§
BARONESS PHILLIPS moved to add to the clause:
(4) A local education authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make an arrangement for the constitution of a single governing body for any two or more such institutions maintained by them as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section; and the governing body constituted in pursuance of any such arrangement shall consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as the local authority may determine.
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the question of grouping the governing bodies of certain establishments for further education which I mentioned in the debate at the Committee stage of the Bill on December 5. It confers powers on a local education authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to group together under a single governing body two or more establishments of further education maintained by it. A governing body constituted for this purpose is to consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as the authority may determine. The approval of the Secretary of State is required to every grouping arrangement, and I wish to make it clear that it is his intention to use his power of approval only where the establishments concerned are of a purely local nature 1091 performing similar functions for different parts of the authority's area.
§ The initiative will rest with the authority, and the authority will have to satisfy him that in the particular circumstances the balance of educational advantage lies with grouping. In other cases my right honourable friend will expect, in accordance with the general intention of the Bill, that every institution will have a separate governing body which is fully identified with it and specially constituted to meet its own needs. There will be no question of using the power in the case of polytechnics or other major colleges. As your Lordships will have seen, the Amendment does not extend to colleges of education. Every college of education will have its own separate governing body. It is intended to cover only the limited class of case that I have mentioned in the further education field. A later Amendment deals with the question of grouping special schools. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Phillips.)
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, as the noble Baroness stated, she warned us of this Amendment at the Committee stage. I congratulate her on the speed with which she has produced it. It provides what I think is a sensible arrangement: that where purely local colleges are concerned they may be grouped under one governing body; and the fact that they are purely local colleges will be assured by the necessity for the approval by the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness also assured me at the last stage of the Bill that it did not in any way affect the position of colleges of education or polytechnics, and therefore I am happy to support the Amendment.
§ LORD ILFORDMy Lords, the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness covers almost the same ground as Amendment No. 2 in my name. Both these Amendments are concerned with the constitution of governing bodies of institutions of further education. The difference between the Amendment 1092 moved by the noble Baroness and the Amendment which I shall move in a few moments is that my Amendment goes further. The Amendment moved by the noble Baroness makes it possible to group institutions for further education under a single board of governors. The Amendment is restricted to institutions which give full-time instruction. My Amendment would make it possible for the Minister to group institutions which give part-time instruction under a single board of governors.
There are certain aspects of this matter which are a little more than merely administrative matters. I take the example of the Inner London Education Authority, which has a very large number of institutions that are giving full-time instruction, and therefore they can be grouped together conveniently under a single body of governors. I think that local education authorities would like to go a little further and make provision to group institutions which give only part-time instruction. The importance of that is that while, as I say, in London the institutions for further education are all now giving full-time instruction, they may not always be so doing. It may be that some institutions will decide to alter their curriculum and offer part-time as well as full-time courses. If that happened, the institutions would have no statutory body of governors at all, for there is no power to appoint a body of governors for an institution which gives only part-time instruction.
The effect of that would be that there would be no body to which the local education authority could delegate functions, and the authorities are anxious in suitable cases to delegate certain administrative functions to the bodies of governors of individual schools. I think we all agree that in suitable cases that would be a very desirable arrangement. It would add to the importance and the responsibilities of the bodies of governors. But under the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness that would not be possible, and I had hoped that the noble Baroness would have extended the scope to make it possible to group not only institutions which give full-time instruction but also institutions which give part-time instruction.
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEYMy Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has to some extent dealt with the question I wanted to ask, but perhaps I may be allowed to ask it nevertheless. The question is, what is the purpose of the Amendment? Is it to cover matters of local convenience administratively, or is there a deper and longer term educational objective? I have in mind that a few years ago I was privileged to be a member of a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Lockwood which advised the Government of Northern Ireland on the future development of its higher and further education. This was of the nature of a small Robbins Committee.
One of the recommendations we made, which I feel was perhaps the most important, was that there should be created what we called an Ulster College, which was to be a composite of a number of colleges within the further education field, covering part-time as well as full-time education. The colleges concerned were the colleges of technology, of art, of music, of domestic science and of physical education. The intention was, long-term, to bring these institutions together on a single site and to create a community or corporate body within the field of further education on a multi-college basis corresponding to the multi-faculty campus of a university. This Ulster College, the concept of which has been accepted by the Northern Ireland Government, which has acquired a site of about 120 acres for the purpose, is to be governed by a single governing body embracing the whole of these constituent colleges. So my question is: Is something of this kind in the mind of the Government in making this Amendment?
Since I was unable to attend the Second Reading debate, may I say how much I welcome the Bill and how much I welcome the fact that this—as I am sure will be the case—will help to put further education and the colleges of education in the shop window of our educational effort and achievement. As a university professor I am, of course, in no doubt about the importance of our universities: but I happen to believe that though the country could not run very effectively without university graduates, it could not run at all were it 1094 not for the efforts of a much larger number of men and women educated in different ways and for different purposes; and these are the kind contributed from our colleges of education and further education. I believe that there falls upon the colleges of further education a growing responsibility to penetrate educationally into the careers of individuals; in other words, I think their task of in-career post-experience education is going to be an enormous one, and therefore they deserve all the public recognition which they may be given.
May I say that I think it of the greatest importance to the running of these colleges that there should be identified with them in a responsible way representatives of other types of educational institutions, bit perhaps most important of all of industry and commerce. My experience leads me to feel that industry and commerce have not yet progressed anything like far enough in defining what it is they want of the educational system, and defining their responsibility to help in ensuring that this is done. I therefore think it important not merely that senior representatives of industry should be members of governing bodies, attending periodic meetings of these bodies and also being members of committees, but, what is perhaps an even more important responsibility, that they should harness the interests and efforts of their industrial and commercial colleagues quite widely in support of the work of these colleges. I believe that in this way they can help to relax a handicap which I believe we impose upon ourselves of too often treating our schools, colleges, universities, industry and commerce as if in some way they were separate and distinct, and not intimately interwoven components of continuing educational provision. Therefore, I greatly welcome the Bill and I hope that it will achieve the objectives which I have mentioned.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, for his generous welcome to the Bill. I know that he would have liked to be able to do this on Second Reading, and I am delighted to hear from him. I completely endorse what he has said. I like particularly his phrase that this will put colleges of advanced technology and 1095 further education "in the shop window". I should have liked to be able to follow this up and say that this Amendment covers the point he makes, the creation of a corporate body like the multi-faculty university, but, as my noble friend probably realised from my words, the Amendment is narrowed. It is intended, where there is a number of local colleges of a similar character, to enable them to group together under a widely representative governing body. He would appreciate that there is a difference here. So far as the scope of the governing body is concerned, the Government are at one with the noble Lord. Your Lordships may remember that on Second Reading I said that the constitution of the governing body should include exactly the kind of representative interests the noble Lord has mentioned, and my right honourable friend would fully endorse his recommendations.
Replying to the skilful and persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, suggesting that my Amendment would make the moving of his one unnecessary, I would repeat the words that I used on Second Reading:
The Bill is expressly limited to institutions providing full-time education. It thus excludes evening institutes and small establishments without any full-time courses, of which there are a considerable number and for which it is thought inappropriate to impose a statutory requirement that they shall be conducted in accordance with instruments and articles of government."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 23/11/67, col. 1172.]And perhaps this will help with the noble Lords point about what would happen if an institution were to change from full-time to part-time education:There is nothing in the Bill to prevent local education authorities from making or continuing their own governmental arrangements for such establishments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23/11/67, col. 1172.]Perhaps I can reply a little more fully when the noble Lord moves his Amendment, though I am afraid that I can hold out no hope that I shall be able to accept it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 7.23 p.m.
§
LORD ILFORD moved to add to the clause:
( ) The Secretary of State may at any time after consultation with the local education
1096
authority by order direct that the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to such other establishments or institutions for further education as he may determine.
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the two later Amendments standing on the Marshalled List in my name have been put down to meet certain administrative difficulties which local education authorities have experienced in administering the principal Act, which is of course the Education Act 1944. I move this Amendment in rather depressing circumstances, because the noble Baroness has already told me that she is not going to accept it. The Amendment deals with circumstances in which a body of governors may be appointed. The Bill is limited in its operations to those institutions for further education which offer courses in full-time instruction. I was hoping to persuade the noble Baroness to agree to enlarge that field a little by including also institutions which give part-time instruction.
§ I am not quite clear what the noble Baroness's objections to doing that are likely to be. I thought she said that it will be open to local education authorities to form their own bodies of governors. That will not get over the fundamental difficulty that there will be statutory authority for the formation of such boards. Unless there is statutory authority for the formation of bodies of governors it will not be possible for local education authorities to do what they want to do and delegate to the governors some of the functions in connection with the management of the school. I should have thought it was a good thing that a body of managers, or indeed a group of managers of primary schools, should be delegated some responsibility for certain of the administrative arrangements for running the schools. That will not be possible unless this subsection is amended on the lines I suggest. I hope that on second and wiser thoughts the noble Baroness will agree with what I propose. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ilford.)
§ LORD HEYCOCKMy Lords, may I say that I was disappointed that I was not present at the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their kind 1097 references to me. On reflection, I should like to comment on this Bill. I served on the Weaver Committee, but, to put it clearly, I was by way of being "the odd man out", for though I sat on the Weaver Committee I felt I could not sign the Report because I could not agree on the question of academic freedom as between the colleges of advanced technology and the local education authorities. But I have since reflected on the Bill, and I am now perfectly clear that on that occasion I was mistaken. I would have said so on Second Reading had I been able to do so.
In my own education authority we have proceeded to set up a management body along the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, has indicated. If I may, I would say to him that I hope that the universities will take much more interest in linking with the colleges of advanced technology under this Bill than they have done previously. In many cases the colleges have been completely out on a limb, and I hope that this new conception in this field will yield that greater link between the colleges and the B.A. degree which will link them more closely with universities and help them to work together in that spirit which should be basic in the structure of our educational system.
I wanted to make that short statement. I commend the Bill and as chairman of a large education committee I shall do everything I can to see that it is implemented, in the college of education stage and in the college of further education where we shall have all the interests necessary to make the college a real college for the community.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSI should like to thank my noble friend Lord Heycock for what I think is his maiden contribution, which I am sure all noble Lords were delighted to hear. His reputation in the field of education in South Wales is well known. There is no question that Her Majesty's Government endorse fully the words of my noble friend. The link between the universities and the colleges of education is something that needs to be strengthened, and I am sure that all noble Lords will hope, with me, that this Bill will help to bring about this strengthening.
1098 To the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, I would say that I should have liked to be able to reply in a different way, but I must say that my right honourable friend does not think it desirable to provide in the way that the noble Lord's Amendment would for a potentially very wide extension of the class of institutions to which the Secretary of State could make the Bill apply, and believes that it is best left to the local education authorities to decide what arrangements they wish to make for governing such institutions and what delegated powers they wish to entrust to them.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, will probably say that they need direction, but I would ask him to appreciate that this is a Bill on very narrow lines, and this perhaps is not the best way of dealing with the problem with which he has presented us this evening. I hope, therefore, that he will accept my assurance that I will discuss this matter further, and be willing to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, may I take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Haycock, on his maiden speech, and say that I hope to hear from him again on an occasion that gives greater play to his oratory. He has a great name in the part of the world from which I come for all that he has done for education. As I say. I hope we shall hear from him at greater length on another occasion.
I hope also that the noble Baroness will carefully consider what my noble friend Lord Ilford has said. He certainly put his point in a most persuasive fashion. If from an administrative point of view there are advantages to be gained from grouping colleges of further education, which may not be full-time establishments, I hope she will consider whether it would not be an advantage to have it in the Bill.
§ LORD ILFORDMy Lords, I, too, should like to join in offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Haycock, on his maiden speech. I am sure that as his local education committee proceed with the organisation of further education in the place from which he comes, and begin to set up the bodies of governors, they will feel themselves very much handicapped by the fact that they cannot include institutions which 1099 give only part-time and not full-time instruction. I must confess that I am disappointed that the noble Baroness was not able to go a short step further than she has gone, but in the light of the assurance she has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
LORD ILFORD moved to add to the clause:
( ) For the purposes of this section the maintenance by a local education authority of an establishment or institution of further education shall be deemed to include defraying all the expenses of maintaining the establishment or institution.
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a much simpler and more straightforward matter. There is not in the principal Act any definition of the meaning of "maintained" in regard to institutions of further education. That has proved in the administration of the principal Act to be a difficult defect. There are many institutions which derive their funds from a number of different sources. Some receive part of their funds from the local education authority; some have endowments and other forms of income. The schools which are not entirely dependent on the local education authority are inclined to claim that they are maintained schools. The local authorities would welcome a definition which would enable them to give with some authority a decision in those cases where that claim is made by a school which does not derive all its funds from the local education authority. They think that that definition should be restricted to an institution where all the funds of the institution, and not only part of them, are derived from the local education authority. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ilford.)
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has explained the purpose of his Amendment; namely, that it is intended to bring about that where an institution which is not, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944, maintained by a local education authority has the whole of its running expenses met by a grant from the authority, it should be treated for the purposes of this Bill as though it were 1100 so maintained and so brought within its scope. The main effect of that would be to deprive the institution of the most important attribute, its voluntary status, requiring its instrument of government to be made by order of the local education authority, and its articles of government also to be made by the local education authority, subject to the Secretary of State's approval. My right honourable friend does not think it is desirable to make a major change in the status of certain colleges by means of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will consider this point, and perhaps withdraw the Amendment.
§ LORD ILFORDMy Lords, the purpose of the Amendment, of course, is to restrict the definition of "maintained" to those institutions which derive all their funds from the local education authority.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSThat, in fact, is the group already covered by the Bill. As I understand it, the noble Lord wishes to extend it to those which receive grant aid and are not fully maintained.
§ LORD ILFORDNo. The difficulty is that schools which do not derive all their funds from the local education authority claim to be maintained schools. What we should like is to have that definition precluded. Perhaps the noble Baroness will look at this point again.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, I am happy to give that assurance to the noble Lord.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, in my view, the Amendment is not very clear. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, is now driving at, but I do not think it really says that in the Amendment. I wonder whether we could perhaps get together later and draft a better Amendment.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSI think it is the fact that, as the Amendment stands, it would have an effect which the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, would not want in connection with these establishments for which he is so concerned.
§ LORD ILFORDMy Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will consult with her advisers again. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1101§ Clause 2 [Government and conduct of special schools]:
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, this Amendment is simple and straightforward. It confers power on a local education authority to group together under a single governing body two or more special schools maintained by it. A governing body constituted for this purpose is to consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner as the authority may determine. The approval of the Secretary of State is not required to the grouping together of special schools. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("(3A) A local education authority may make an arrangement for the constitution of a single governing body for any two or more special schools maintained by them; and the governing body constituted in pursuance of any such arrangement shall consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as the local authority may determine.")—(Baroness Phillips.)
§ LORD ILFORDHere again the noble Baroness and I are so close to one another that it seems a pity that we cannot join hands. This Amendment deals with special schools, and makes it possible for the local education authority to group two or more special schools under a body of managers. Here again the local education authorities would like to go a little further—they would like to be able to group special schools with primary schools, which could be conveniently carried out. Of course they have to be in convenient situations. It would have the great advantage that the treatment of special children is changing, and the local education authorities are anxious, so far as they can, to get rid of segregation between special children and the normal children who attend the primary schools. If they were able to group the special school with the primary school to which normal children go, I think it would help the special children to get rid of that sense of segregation which they feel when they are attending a special school. At least the local education authorities are experimenting in this direction and they would be glad of the opportunity to see whether the grouping of the special schools with the normal primary schools under the same body of managers might 1102 help to remove that sense of segregation which special children feel to-day.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 7.41 p.m.
§ LORD ILFORDMy Lords, I think I have already explained the purpose of this Amendment, which is not very obvious when one reads it, because it is based upon a reference to two sections of the principal Act. This Amendment proposes to leave out the reference to Section 21 of the principal Act and to substitute for it a reference to Section 20 of that Act. Section 20 provides power for the local education authority to group the managers of primary schools, and if the Amendment were adopted and Section 20 substituted for Section 21, it would make it possible for the local education authorities to group special schools with the normal primary schools, which is what they want to do. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("21 of the Education Act 1944") and insert ("20 of the Education Act 1944 (grouping of schools under one management), of section 21 of").—(Lord Ilford.)
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has said we are so close that he would like us to move a little closer, and I am disappointed to have to say that I cannot accept this invitation, even in relation to this Amendment, with which we have sympathy. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Government Amendment was designed to confer power on a local education authority to group together under a single governing body two or more special schools maintained by it, whereas the noble Lord's Amendment is designed to extend the arrangement so that special schools can also be grouped with county primary or secondary schools.
It is the hope of the Secretary of State that the local education authorities will try to find, as governors of special schools, persons who have a particular knowledge of, and concern for, the needs of handicapped children which could not normally be expected of the governors of ordinary schools. He thinks this is less likely to be achieved if the governors concerned are required to extend their interests over a wider range of schools. Perhaps I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that 1103 in my experience quite often the people who are in fact governors of the one type of school are also the governors of the special school, but I am sure he will appreciate the point made in this connection by my right honourable friend.
§ LORD ILFORDMy Lords, at this stage I have no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 3 [Supplemental]:
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, this Amendment does three things. In the first place, it enables a local education authority which has made an arrangement grouping together two or more establishments of further education or special schools to bring that arrangement to an end at any time. When this is done it will be necessary to establish under either Clause 1 or Clause 2 a governing body for each establishment or special school which was included in the group. Next, the Amendment provides that while a grouping arrangement is in force, and there is a governing body appointed under it, there shall be no separate governing body for each of the establishments or special schools concerned. Thirdly, the Amendment secures that for legal purposes a governing body constituted in accordance with a grouping arrangement shall be the governing body of each of the establishments or special schools included in the group and that a member of such a governing body shall be a governor of each of those establishments or schools. This is significant in particular in relation to the statutory provisions specified in subsection (2) of Clause 3. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) Every arrangement made under subsection (4) of section 1 or subsection (3A) of section 2 of this Act may be terminated at any time by the local education authority by which it was made; and while such an arrangement is in force with respect to any establish-ments—
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4 [Commencement]:
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will move this and the following Amendment together. The Amendments are consequential on those already made and are necessary so as to make the subsection applicable to grouping arrangements as well as to instruments of government and articles of government made under the provisions of the Bill. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 will enable a local education authority to make an instrument of government, articles of government and, as now to be amended, a grouping arrangement before they become subject to a definite duty to do so. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, after ("establishment") insert ("and any arrangement under this Act for the constitution of a single governing body for two or more establishments").—(Baroness Phillips.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ BARONESS PHILLIPSMy Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, after ("instrument") insert ("or arrangement").—(Baroness Phillips.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.