Lords Sitting of 26 January 1967

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES: SIDE-EFFECTS
3.5 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 when it is proposed to follow the example of the Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America which requires some 23 side-effects to be listed in a folder accompanying every package of oral contraceptives of the eight brands on the market.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no proposal of this kind. In this country oral contraceptives are available only if supplied or prescribed by a doctor, whose professional responsibility it is to give any advice or warnings he considers necessary to the patient concerned, including information about any effects that the patient might regard as unexpected.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether that Answer is not a little unrealistic? How many general practitioners, if they send a woman in the first place to a family planning association, have the time or the knowledge to give the 23 side-effects of the eight different brands? Has he forgotten that it was the Food and Drug Administration of the United States which refused to allow thalidomide to be distributed in the United States, despite the protests of the pharmaceutical industry, and thereby saved large numbers of women
672
from having congenitally deformed children? Would it not be wise to follow their example in this case?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we should be wise to study carefully the experience in the United States of America, but, if I may say so to her, and I say so with considerable deference, I think it is wrong to say that there are 23 side-effects of this particular drug. Nor does the document which is inserted into the packets in the United States as a result of the action of the authorities there list 23 side-effects. It does list 23 medical possibilities, some of which it is thought may be the result of this drug, and the complicated reasoning behind this is not something which can be explained in an insertion in a packet. I should have thought it would have been better provided by the doctor to the patient.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the cost of this folder which is inserted in all these packets in the United States is paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, could the noble Lord tell me—I am a little bewildered—why the Ministry of Health refuse to do it? It will not cost them a penny.
LORD BESWICK: The reason is simple. If it is advisable to give patients guidance or further information about this drug it is better done by the doctor than by a leaflet in a packet which may or may not be read.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Oh, really!
LORD BESWICK: I do not know whether my noble friend has read the particular document to which she refers. I have read it. I do not claim to have medical knowledge. My own feeling is that most women, having read this, would be absolutely panic-stricken or would completely ignore it, because it is really un-understandable to the average lay woman.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree with me that it would be better to follow what is the long-established tradition in this country, which is to leave it to the medical profession to decide what to prescribe or not to prescribe for their patients, particularly because, so far as I know, there

673
is virtually no drug to the taking of which some risk is not attached.
LORD BESWICK: I agree with what the noble Lord says. I must say I also accept the point made by my noble friend that within the time at the disposal of general practitioners it is not possible for them to go into all the details they would like to, but ideally that is the best way of giving this kind of information. I would add that the legislation which the Government hope to introduce on drugs and medicine generally will, I am given to understand, include provision to give them power relating to packet-inserts; but, even so, it would not be advisable to use this method of giving information for drugs not on general sale.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, would the Government also follow the excellent practice of the United States in requiring the harmful effects of cigarette-smoking to be given in a warning on every cigarette packet?

CERVICAL CANCER: LASER BEAM TESTS
LORD LEATHERLAND: 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 what information they can give about experiments that are taking place in connection with the diagnosis of cervical cancer by laser beams.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand that the results so far obtained are sufficiently encouraging to warrant further research. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health has agreed to support a statistical proving trial.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply? I should like to ask him one other question. While the tests are going on into this new procedure, which may be cheaper and more speedy than the old procedure, will he take care to see that there is no slackening in the training of the technicians who are so urgently needed to carry on the existing procedure?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend may be interested to know that is precisely the question which I first asked when I was being provided with the background to this Question. I was assured that there will be no slackening of the training of the technicians essential in the present method of testing; that indeed the number of persons tested over the past year has doubled, and that it is expected this process will be further speeded up. I should also emphasise, however, to my noble friend that a great deal of effort is being made in various other fields involving electronic and biochemistry methods of testing, and that the particular method to which he has called our attention is but one of several alternative methods of screening which I hope will be followed up.

THE ROYAL MALTA ARTILLERY
3.12 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their decision to disband the Royal Malta Artillery will now be reconsidered.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, it is for the Government of Malta to decide whether or not they wish to take over responsibility for the Royal Malta Artillery. But having examined the question with great care we have concluded that there is no case for the retention of the Royal Malta Artillery in the British Army. We propose, nevertheless, to retain it for a further twenty months, because we recognise that to relinquish responsibility at shorter notice would entail acute difficulties both for the Regiment and for the Government of Malta.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it would not have been right to reach a substantive decision, an agreement with the Government of Malta, with regard to the future of this Regiment, before deciding that Her Majesty's Government would withdraw

675
financial support from it? Is it not still possible to reconsider this decision, in view of the importance to the people of Malta of the continuance of this Regiment in being?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beswick answered on Tuesday a number of questions on the discussions that took place with the Malta Government. The simple fact was that it was not possible to reach agreement on this matter. In regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question, obviously we all regret the disappearance of a regiment with a fine and long tradition, but I can offer no hope that this will be reconsidered.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether, after the twenty months have elapsed, there will be a possibility of absorbing into other corps of the British Army the officers and N.C.O.s of the Royal Malta Artillery, if they wish to transfer?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, opportunities will, of course, exist for recruitment—they exist now—into the British Army, and I personally hope that some will be absorbed; but I do not wish to hold out extravagant hopes that all those at present in the Royal Malta Artillery could be absorbed, or, indeed, would wish to be absorbed.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I, as a matter of information, ask this question? Presumably, after our forces have departed from the Island the Malta Government will want some troops of their own. Is it not possible that this Regiment may be kept on as an integral part of the Malta defence force, or whatever it may be?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, a proposal to this effect was actually put to the Malta Government, but they decided that they did not wish to take over responsibility for the Royal Malta Artillery.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, if I correctly understood the noble Lord's answer to the question of my noble friend on my left, it is possible that the N.C.O.s and officers might be incorporated: in other corps? Is one to understand that the other ranks would not have that opportunity? What is to happen to them?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord should read too much into my statement. All I said was that there would be opportunities to enlist in the British Army. At the present time the Army is quite close to its recruiting target; therefore the opportunities are bound to be limited. I do not think I can reply further in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has said.

UNIVERSITY FEES OF OVERSEAS STUDENTS
3.16 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the timing of the introduction of increased fees for overseas students so as to avoid hardship to individuals and administrative complications, and whether they will now consult representative bodies affected by the increase.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made clear in his Statement on December 21, Her Majesty's Government regret that it was not possible to give more than eight months' notice of the proposed changes, but I can assure noble Lords that they took these particular points into account before reaching their decision. The Government will, of course, consider any special problems put to them by representative bodies.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, has the noble Lord's attention been drawn to a letter by the Principal of London University in The Times earlier this week, and to the points which he made in that letter? Does that not in any way cause the Government to reconsider the decision that they have made, in view of the fact that it was stated in that letter that no previous consultation had been undertaken with the authorities concerned?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, of course I read the letter in The Times and I have read the other related correspondence in The Times. Some of it supported the action taken, some did not. So far as

677
Consultation is concerned, I should have thought it would be agreed that the body to be consulted is the University Grants Committee. They were in fact consulted, and although it is not the practice to disclose the advice tendered by that Committee I can say that the Government would not have been willing to take this step if the U.G.C. had been against it in principle.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the U.G.C. is the right body for consultations in this matter'? Would not the Committee of Vice-Chancellors be more authoritative?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the University Grants Committee was set up for the purpose of consultation with the Government, and I should have thought that it was more representative than the Vice-Chancellors' Committee.

RELEASE OF MR. KWESI ARMAH
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice. It is in the following terms: To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the reasons that led them to release Kwesi Armah, and whether they are prepared to make a Statement?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be replying to this Question at a convenient moment about half-past three.

LAND COMMISSION BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to t certain other Amendments disagreed to but with Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill and the remaining Amendments disagreed to, with Reasons for such disagreement: the said Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and Reasons to be printed.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
3.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
London borough elections
1.—(1)The ordinary elections and retirements of London borough councillors duo (apart from this Act) to take place in 1967 and each third year after 1967 shall be postponed for one year so as to take place in 1968 and each third year after 1968; and accordingly in section 23(2A) of the Local Government Act 1933, as inserted by paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to the London Government Act 1963, for the reference to 1967 there shall be substituted a reference to 1968.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "1967 and". The noble Lord said: This Amendment and all the other seven Amendments in the Marshalled List deal with the same point and, therefore, if I can persuade your Lordships to accept the first one, I will move the others formally. As I explained on Second Reading, elections were held in May, 1964, in the 32 London boroughs to elect councillors to hold office for the next three years. They happened to be very successful elections for the Labour Party. There were more than 1,100 Labour councillors elected and about 670 Conservatives. The Labour Party, in fact, won a majority in 20 out of the 32 London Boroughs. Under the law on this subject, which is the London Government Act 1963, all these 1,800 councillors go out of office three and a half months from now, and new elections are due to be held on May 11, 1967. The polling in recent by-elections in various London boroughs shows a marked falling off in support for Labour candidates and, to judge by those polls (although I know this cannot be a certain test), there will be pretty substantial changes in the representation of a number of boroughs next May.
This is the moment when the Labour Government come forward with a Bill which seeks to legalise the holding over

679
of these elections until May of next year and to extend to four years the tenure of power of the councillors who were elected in 1964 for three years, and for three years only. This is designed also to extend for a further twelve months the Labour Party's majority control over a number of London boroughs where at elections next May they may well lose that majority and in some cases are almost certain to lose it.
I had always regarded it as the duty of the Home Secretary in discharging his difficult, and indeed delicate, responsibilities for the electoral system, both national and local, to set his face against any twisting of the electoral machinery for the advantage of his own Party. That is why I think that the proposal which is before us now is a dishonourable one. It is the extending of the term of office of sitting members by the use of a Party majority that is so grossly unfair—and it has always been considered grossly unfair.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote from an extraordinarily apt, and indeed prescient, petition 250 years ago against the Septennial Act, which prolonged the duration of the Parliament of that time to seven years. It is a Petition by 31 Peers against that Act, and I will read this extract:
"Because it is agreed, that the House of Commons must be chosen by the people, and when so chosen, they are truly the representatives of the people, which they cannot be so properly said to be, when continued for a longer time than that for which they were chosen: for after that time they arc chosen by the Parliament, and not the people, who are thereby deprived of the only remedy which they have against those, who either do not understand, or through corruption, do wilfully betray the trust deposed in them: which remedy is to choose better men in their places."
Fortunately, among the London boroughs in 1967 there is, so far as I am aware, no suspicion of corruption, but equally certainly there is a strong desire, evidenced by letters I have been receiving as well as by recent by-elections in the boroughs, to have the opportunity to choose new men next May who will pursue new policies. Existing policies which the local electorate would wish to alter are to be prolonged by this Bill and imposed for another twelve months by the will of Parliament against the will
680
of the electors, if this Bill goes through unamended. If in another place the right of the citizen to vote is overridden by a Party majority, surely it becomes the duty of your Lordships' House to uphold that right to vote.
There are only two situations I can think of which would justify prolongation of the term of office of sitting members. One is where that is quite unavoidable, and the other is where the reasons for postponement of elections are accepted as valid by the various political Parties that seek to try their fortunes at those elections. Those who were elected to Parliament in 1935 for a period of not longer than five years had their term of office extended to 1945 by common consent, because a General Election in war time was unthinkable. Those who were elected to metropolitan borough councils in November, 1945, for a period of three years had their term of office extended by six months, by common consent among the Parties, because it was agreed that May was a better month for going to the poll in local elections than November. Those who were elected to the Surrey and Kent and Essex County councils in April, 1961, for a period of three years had their term of office extended until 1965 because, by common consent, it would have been absurd to hold new elections for the whole of these counties in April, 1964, when as from April. 1965, just twelve months later, a considerable part of each of these counties was to be transferred to Greater London and to come instead under the administration of the Greater London Council and the London borough councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, in the Second Reading debate, spoke as if this had been done in the teeth of the opposition of the Labour Party. Everybody knows that the Labour Party at that time opposed the 1963 Bill as a whole, and indeed moved many Amendments to it. The noble Lord sought to quote what happened on that occasion as an excuse for what the Labour Government are doing in this Bill. The facts here are of quite considerable interest. The postponement of the 1964 elections in Surrey and Kent and Essex was enacted by Schedule 3 to the London Government Act 1963, as the noble Lord said on Second Reading. I submit to your Lordships that the place for opposition to be

681
made known on a matter like this is in Parliament. To judge by the noble Lord's speech, one would have expected that the Labour Party would have put down Amendments to Schedule 3 and fought the proposal in the Bill, as they could easily have done if they had felt so strongly about it.
If your Lordships care to look up the debates on Schedule 3 to that Bill, both in Committee and on Report in another place, you will find that Schedule 3 was agreed to practically without debate. There were no Amendments designed to alter the date. Exactly the same thing happened both in Committee and on Report in this House. That Schedule was wide open to amendment, but no Amendment was moved similar to the one I am moving to-day, for the simple reason that the change of date of those county council elections was accepted by everybody as necessary.
Nobody has sought to pretend that the postponement of the 1967 London Borough Council elections is necessary. The chief justification offered by the Government is that if they take place in a different year from the Greater London Council elections there may be a higher poll. There may be, but that is not a compelling reason. It is only a hypothetical reason, which may not in fact be fulfilled. One cannot entirely close one's eyes to the fact that the continued control of 20 out of the 32 London boroughs for an extra 12 months will be highly advantageous to the Labour Party; and conversely, as we all know, will be bitterly resented by the electors who see the chance of a change in local policies being filched away from them.
Imagine a football match where just before the end the home side are a goal down, and they cannot bear to let the other side win. So they persuade the referee that his watch has gone wrong, that his watch is fast, and that really there is another quarter of an hour to play, to give them a chance of winning, or at least equalising. Any football club which stooped to do a thing like that would be disgraced. No other team would agree to fixtures with it another year. Even the loyalty of its most loyal supporters would be shaken.
That is an exact parallel to what this Bill proposes. If it were a game, I know
682
that noble Lords opposite would never dream of defending that sort of behaviour. Before they go into the Lobby against this Amendment, I hope they will bear that in mind and will realise that they will not only be conniving at electoral cheating, but will be approving the use by their Party of methods which in their private lives they would instinctively reject. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("1967 and").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has moved his Amendment with all the skill but not with the moderation that we normally expect from him. I am going to support the Government in their opposition to this Amendment. In future, I may not always find myself in a position to support the Government. Up to now I think the Government have been pretty good—but, of course, also up to now they have had the benefit of the inestimable value of my advice. From now on they are on their own, and they must do the best they can.
I am speaking on this Amendment because, when the London Government Bill was before this House in 1963. I moved an Amendment to Schedule 2, which sought to do two things. The first was to prevent the elections to the Greater London Council and the London boroughs from falling in the same year; and the second was to give the Greater London Council a running-in period of four years, as against the three proposed in the Bill. By far the greater part of my speech on that occasion was devoted to the first of these, because I thought, for the reasons which I then gave, that those elections ought not to be held in the same year.
I based my arguments on, first, the convenience of the political Parties and others interested in the elections, and the fact that to hold them in the same year would place an unnecessarily heavy strain upon everyone concerned; and, secondly, on the fact that the holding of the elections in the same year would lessen rather than heighten interest in local government in the London area. I said then, and I quote myself—something I do not like doing very often, but I think it is right that I should do so on this occasion—
"Those of us who are knowledgeable in these matters know perfectly well that there

683
is nothing more likely to stimulate interest in a body than an election to that body, and this applies equally to Parliament and to local government elections. Running up to the election there is always a heightened interest in the body and in what it has been doing. The Parties brace themselves for the effort; the workers and the prospective councillors consider the faults of the existing administration and begin to understand or become heightened in their judgment".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/5/63, col. 1227.]
I believe that what I said then was absolutely right. I still believe it to be true that, if you hold these elections in the same year, you are going to destroy to some extent the interest of the electors in the election. Those of us who have experience in these matters know the difficulty of sustaining interest over a period in which there are two separate elections running, one shortly after the other. Indeed, the figures of the people voting in recent elections have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that it is a disadvantage to hold elections one very shortly after the other.
Casting my mind back over the lengthy proceedings on that Bill in this House, I can never remember charging the Government of the day with a Party political motive in introducing it. I did not believe then that the Government had—certainly not as their primary motive in producing that Bill—a desire to secure a Party political advantage, although I must admit that there was a widespread thought in my Party that the Bill, and its widening of the area of London government at the higher level, was designed to secure a better chance of Tory control in this great metropolis. That view was expressed here and it was felt. I never subscribed to that point of view myself, because I recognised that something had to be done about local government in London, for it had long since outgrown the structure devised for it so many years before. My motive in moving the Amendment at that time was the simple one of improving all that surrounds the elections to the local authorities of Greater London, and of stimulating and maintaining interest in their work.
I do not believe, despite anything which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said, that this Government have introduced this Bill purely for Party advantage. I am absolutely positive that this Government, any more than the last Government, would not produce a Bill designed purely
684
for this purpose. It would be unworthy of any Government to do anything of that sort. I will not charge the last Government with doing it, and I will not accept that this Government are doing it at this time with this Bill. My motive in supporting the Government to-day is the same as my motive in 1963; namely, to make the job of elections easier for the interests concerned, and to maintain and improve citizens' interests in local government in the Greater London area.
It rather looks as though we are running up to a Division on these Amendments. Perhaps I shall be permitted to make, now that I have joined what I call the "Elder Statesmen's Bench", an observationon the relationship between the two Houses. There was a time when I regarded this House as an "indefensible anachronism", to use Harold Laski's phrase, and would have kicked the whole thing over. After five years of watching this House closely in its work, I have come to appreciate its true value within our system of Government, to say nothing of the fact that I have come to love it! But it seems to me—and I have watched things fairly carefully—that lately we have become a little "Division-happy", if I may coin a phrase; a tendency to go a little too often into the Division Lobbies. This House has powers which, with minor changes, I should wish to preserve. I know that a situation in which the majority Party in the Commons is the minority one here is one which calls for the greatest restraint by the majority Party in this House; a restraint which we did not have to exercise when we were in Opposition. I realise that this necessity for caution throws a great responsibility on the leaders of the Party opposite, and is at times, inevitably and understandably, a very difficult task for them.
In the interests of this House and of the relationship between the two Houses, I would appeal to noble Lords opposite to use their undoubted right to defeat the Government only on matters of vital principle, and not for purposes of Party political expediency, for if they do that they are on the way to destroying this House. I cannot feel that the series of Amendments now before the Committee involves a matter of vital principle, and I sincerely hope that the Opposition Party will not carry these Amendments to a

685
Division. I hope I shall be excused that last part of my speech, but it is something about. which I have thought rather deeply: the relationship between the two Houses, the continued existence of this House and the retention of some of its powers, which I think it ought to hold. I hope that your Lordships' Committee will consider what I have said.
3.42 p.m.
Loin OGMORE: We are all, I am sure, very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Champion, speak to-day. We expressed our appreciation of him only a week or two ago. The views of the House on his Deputy Leadership were then expressed on behalf of us all, and we are quite sure that among his many excellent qualities he is a good House of Lords man. But I am bound to say that I cannot entirely accept his advice to-day. I speak on behalf of a Party which is in a minority in both Houses and, therefore, can have a certain independence of mind. I should also like to remind the noble Lord that although during the discussions on the 1963 Bill, in which I took a small part, it may be that he did not accuse the Conservative Government of gerrymandering, this was not so in the case of other noble Lords. Indeed, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for the Labour Opposition, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, spoke repeatedly and with the utmost venom, in a nice sort of way, about the Conservative Party. So when we fabricate history, let us make sure that no one who was alive then is still alive when we are doing the fabrication.
In this case, I must admit that not all the Liberals in the Liberal Party, in its wider connotation, think the same, but we in this House, having heard the speeches on Second Reading, have made up our minds that on the whole we should like to support the Amendment. We do so because we feel that there has to be a very good reason indeed for postponing an election. The election of members is a right which the subjects of this country have, whether in a Parliamentary or a local government election, and we do not feel that, merely for administrative purposes, merely for the convenience of town clerks and other people, an election should be postponed. One year will be gone, and gone for ever.
686
Although the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has charged the Labour Government with doing this for gerrymandering purposes, I do not myself believe that to be the case. I do not believe that the Labour Party are doing this with an improper motive from a political point of view. I think they are doing what they so often do, and what every Government does—that is, to do it for administrative purposes, for administrative convenience. Time after time, it seems to me, the whole of this country is having its burdens increased because it is thought desirable that some civil servant, local or Government, should not be put to any greater trouble. But that is what civil servants are for—to he given trouble. Time after time, we must, as Parliamentarians, make one thing clear: that when principles are at stake administrative convenience must take second place. I have made this speech many times in your Lordships' House, and I shall make it again, I hope, whenever the need arises. Because that is what is happening: we constantly find that people in office are being considered, to the detriment of the ratepayers or the electors.
I have first-hand knowledge of this subject, because I am an elector in London—in fact, in South Kensington—and take a considerable interest in the local Party. My wife is on the executive of it, so I know something about our problems—and they are very real problems. To fight two elections in the same year is for us, anyway, in South Kensington, no mean problem. But I believe that we should do it if necessary. In my own ward, Earl's Court Ward, no less than one-third of the population changes every year. That is something which does not happen anywhere else in the country. We have Australians and Canadians, and people of every sort of colour and creed in the world living in Earl's Court Ward; and, somehow or other, we have to tackle this problem. Inconvenient and difficult though it is, I think we should tackle it, when the due time comes. I do not care what part of London you take: none has the problems we have in our ward; and if we can face them I do not see why other areas also cannot do so. Many of them have stable populations: ours, as I have said, is constantly changing.

687
That is all I want to say to-day. I hope that your Lordships' Committee will support this Amendment, and I hope that perhaps the Government will give way on it; because, quite frankly, there is no real case for resisting the Amendment, which has been put forward so well, and so clearly, by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
LORD LINDGREN: I should not have intervened in this debate but for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in which he claimed that the purpose of the Bill was administrative convenience without proper regard for the electors and the elected authorities. I lived the early part of my political life in the Borough of St. Pancras, which is now part of the Borough of Camden, which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, took very much to task during our previous discussions. In 1926, on getting married, I moved from London out into Hertfordshire, because in those days I could not find anywhere to live, to rent, in the borough in which I had worked for so many years. What worried me about my work in local government in London—let us be quite honest about it—was the absolute apathy towards local government elections. In the Borough of St. Pancras we won an election in Ward 8 in which 600 electors voted (this is now over forty years ago), out of a total electorate of 7,000 or 8,000. In a local government election, a borough council election, in those days, to get a 30 per cent. poll was really exciting. In most of our elections the percentage was very much less.
Then I moved from London out into Hertfordshire. In Hertfordshire the community interest was then much more alive, of course, and it was a tremendous thrill to me as a youngster—more enthusiastic and even more revolutionary then than I am now—to see a 40, 50 or even a 60 per cent. poll in a local government election. But in Hertfordshire, in the case of the vast majority of the urban and rural authorities, one-third of the council retires each year. That is a good local government theory arising from the Local Government Act 1894, in which it was said that it was wrong for there to be a considerable upheaval in local government, with the possibility of losing a complete council, at three-yearly
688
intervals, and that it was better, from the point of view of continuity, that one-third of the council should retire each year. In Hertfordshire, as is the case with many counties up and down this country, that is now the practice. What has been my experience in Hertford-shire?
I live in Welwyn Garden City, whose civic pride and enthusiasm is as high as that anywhere. While, in a year in which we had only the county council elections—as we shall in April of next year—we managed to maintain a poll of 30 per cent. to 40 per cent., and, in some areas, even 50 per cent., in a year when the borough or rural council elections came within a matter of three or four weeks afterwards the latter were a complete "flop" so far as the turn-out of electors was concerned. Why is it that in a place like Welwyn Garden City, with its civic pride, in such a year the poll for the urban district council elections drops from 50 per cent. or 40 per cent. down to 30 per cent. or 25 per cent?
The reason is twofold. One is that the electorate becomes a little apathetic when elections follow close upon one another. In theory, it ought to be an asset to the political Parties; because if you have done your job properly, on the first election in April for the county council you have canvassed the area and know where your voters are. For the second election all you have to do is pull them out to vote. But in fact it is the other way round. Even your own Party workers, though you have a marked register, are less enthusiastic, having flogged themselves pretty hard; for, let us be honest about it, it is the case that the same few willing horses to do the work all the time. I cannot speak for the Tory Party on this matter but I can speak with some experience of the Labour Party. Furthermore, in the rural areas—I will not say that this applies so much in London—in April people are beginning to get lumbago from digging the garden, and all sorts of other activities occur. You cannot maintain the same facilities. Things change.
I used to argue that the Tory Party preferred middle-of-the-week elections because this made it more difficult for the ordinary worker to place his vote, as he is working during the day and is too tired when he gets home. When I moved into

689
Hertfordshire I ran a campaign to change local government elections from Wednesdays or Thursdays to Saturdays. The campaign was successful and, to give them full credit, the Tories on the Hertfordshire County Council in those days agreed to the changeover throughout the whole county. I am now running a campaign to change it back; because, with the five-day week, even now workers just will not come out on Saturday. You go round to them and they say, "We are going to the Spurs". You ask them to vote before they go. They always reply that they will do so when they come back. But on the way back they call in at the "local", and by the time they arrive back home it is past nine o'clock, and still they have not voted. Circumstances change. I think this Bill is correct. The fact is that you can flog the electorate too much. You can flog, more extensively, your own Party workers too much. To have too many elections close upon each other is, I think, detrimental to the full application of democracy in local government.

RELEASE OF MR. KWESI ARMAH
3.55 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, in reply to the Private Notice Question asked earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, concerning the release of Mr. Armah, I should like to repeat the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to a similar Question in another place. His words were:
"I thought it right, in exercising my discretion under Section 6 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 in this case, to take account of all the relevant circumstances, including the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Bill now before the House; and that, because the offence of which Mr. Armah is accused is alleged to have been committed in this country, it is open to the Government of Ghana to take proceedings against him here."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for repeat-
690
ing that Answer. It is of course rather difficult, without knowing the full facts, to judge whether or not this is the right decision, and I think that very probably we do not know all the facts. There is one matter, however, that rather concerns me. The Answer mentioned the Fugitive Offenders Bill now before Parliament. Of course, this Bill is relevant only if the Home Secretary considers that the charges against Mr. Armah are political. So far as we know, the charges are of a criminal nature. If that is the case—that they are not of a political nature—what concerns me is that the action taken by the Home Secretary would seem rather derogatory to the Ghana courts. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could go a little more fully into this point. It is somewhat disturbing.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said at the beginning is very true: that obviously in this statement I have not laid bare in public all the factors which are exercising the mind of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Other former Home Secretaries present will know that in a case of this kind there are many factors which cannot be stated in public in connection with the exercise of what the Home Secretary regards as a quasi-judicial function. Therefore, it is quite true that I have not attempted to lay all the factors in front of the House. I can only say that if the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, or one of his colleagues wishes to go into this more closely with me—or, for that matter, with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—we shall be very pleased to meet him.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I do not wish to aggravate the position but, in view of what I have said about the Fugitive Offenders Bill, it would seem rather unfortunate that this was mentioned at all if we are not to be given any further details.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am afraid that, for the reasons given, I am not at liberty—and I am sure that the Home Secretary will take the same line elsewhere—to give more details in public. But, as the noble Lord has given a certain interpretation to the Bill I mentioned, I would just say that I do not necessarily accept his interpretation.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, with regard to the explanation or reason that the Home Secretary has given—that the Government of Ghana can take proceedings against Mr. Armah in this country—may I ask whether there has been any case where a Government, foreign or Commonwealth, has taken proceedings in this country against a Minister, a former Minister or a High Commissioner, in matters really affecting that Government itself?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am afraid that I should require notice of that question. But the fact is as I have stated it: that there is no possible objection to their taking this action.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, whether or not the decision the Home Secretary has to take in such a case can properly be described as quasi-judicial, it is a decision which has to be defended to Parliament?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am aware, but no one, of course, knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor (who suffered very heavily in a matter of this kind), that it is often impossible to lay all the facts before the public.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords; but, with respect to the noble Earl, I am not sure that it is really very satisfactory, when questions are asked from this side of the House by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party, for the noble Earl the Leader of the House to say, "Yes, but I cannot tell you all the facts." I am not saving that the decision is wrong, but surely it is up to the Government to justify decisions taken and not shelter behind the statement that they cannot tell us why.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, that may be true in some cases, but if the decision is to be regarded as quasi-judicial I am afraid that the argument submitted by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition would hardly apply.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
4.2 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD CONESFORD: The Committee has so great a respect for the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that I think the argument he put before us deserves a short reply. The noble Lord mentioned his attitude when what is known as the London Government Act 1963 was before your Lordships' House, and he explained his preference, which he then expressed, that elections in the boroughs and the election of the larger body should not take place in the same year. That is a perfectly possible line to take, and one may or may not agree with it; but what we have to consider is what is the law of the land to-day and whether it ought to be changed to the detriment of the rights of electors in the boroughs. May I say, in passing, to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, that whether or not a high proportion of the electors will go to the polls either this year or next year, or whether the proportion next year will be greater than it would have been this year, has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the subject before the Committee. If the electors have a right to elect a body, the proportion in which they go to the polls is their affair and not ours.
I turn to the more serious point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. He said that if we were to amend this Bill we should be endangering our constitutional position. Let us examine that a little further.
LORD CHAMPION: I did not say it exactly in relation to the Bill. I was then talking about the Divisions in this House as a whole in the present circumstances, there being a majority on the other side and a minority on this side.
LORD CONESFORD: That is fair enough. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, knows me well enough to know that I should not willingly misrepresent him in any way, and I think I am going to deal quite fairly with his argument. Let us examine that argument. If your Lordships' House is not entitled to amend a Bill which, when it becomes law, will be known as the London Government Act 1966, then by what right was your Lordships' House entitled to reject the Statute of 1963 on

693
Second Reading? We did not reject it on Second Reading, but the Labour Party moved that we should. When the Bill of 1963, which is now the London Government Act 1963, was before this House the Labour Party did not say, "This Bill has been passed by a great majority in the House of Commons and it would be very improper for us to reject it". On the contrary, they divided against it and invited your Lordships' House to reject it. On this occasion we are not seeking to destroy the Bill. If these Amendments are adopted, most of the Bill—a great deal of it, at any rate—will remain. If noble Lords will examine it, they will find that it is not the whole of the Bill that is challenged by the Amendments.
Is the noble Lord right in saying that there is a tendency in this Committee to indulge in too many Divisions? Every noble Lord is entitled to his own opinion, but I certainly do not think that that represents the attitude of myself and my noble friends. What I am quite certain of is that it is the duty of your Lordships' House to try to improve Bills. I do not know, nor, I respectfully say, does the noble Lord know, what will be the attitude of another place to this Amendment if we carry it. Another place will wish to consider the Bill as it is returned to them. Since I had twenty years' service in the House of Commons, perhaps the noble Lord will accept from me that I have the greatest respect and affection for it, as I know that he has, but I deplore this increasing tendency of Her Majesty's Government to say that any Amendment we seek to make on the merits will necessarily be resented by another place. How do they know? And how insulting that is to another place! I do not deny for one moment that conflicts of opinion may arise between your Lordships' House and another place which, when they arise, must be most carefully considered; but what I do say is that, if your Lordships' House is to perform a useful function at all, it must consider on their merits the Bills that come before it.
I gave on Second Reading my own view on the question of postponement of elections. I think there are occasions when it may be right, or necessary, to deprive the electors of their rights of election. Those cases are—they were quoted again by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor this afternoon—necessity, which cer-
694
tainly does not apply in this case; or agreement of the Parties, which also does not apply. Whatever may be the state of affairs at a later stage, if Her Majesty's Government allege to-day (I do not know whether they will) that we shall be doing something which they know will be resented by another place, they will be making a statement which is not only insulting to your Lordships' House but, I believe, insulting to the other place also.
4.10 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think this is an appropriate moment for a member of the Government to speak to defend the Bill and to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. First of all, may I join with noble Lords who have spoken in welcoming back my noble friend Lord Champion? He issued a warning that perhaps he could not support the Government on every occasion, Now, having independence, he might wish to exercise it. I have had some experience of my noble friend and I should like to say to him that if he is of this mind, will he please stay away; and if he cannot stay away, will he please remain silent, because noble Lords opposite perhaps appreciate as much as I do the power of his silver tongue.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, gave the reasons why he and the Conservative Party have put forward this Amendment. There was not one moment in that speech when he spoke of the need of quality in local government and of how much local government depends upon the manner in which elections are conducted. Indeed, he said that a high poll in itself was not a compelling reason for change. His whole approach was Party political.
I would remind the House that the Government responsible for the London Government Act of 1963 said that it would raise the quality of local government in London. As my noble friend Lord Champion said, we took the view that the provisions for separate elections for the Greater London Council and the London boroughs were not in the interests of London local government. We tried on Committee and again on Report to change them. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, speaking for the Government of the day said that the case

695
was "marginal" and "finely balanced". We did not take that view, nor did those with great experience in local government whom we had consulted. I cannot but believe that if the previous Administration had not been so obstinate, the present Bill would not have been necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in putting the case for his Amendment, now agrees with the argument we put forward on the London Government Act in 1963. He accepts that there should be elections for the Greater London Council in one year and for the borough councils in another year. He believes that this is right in the interests of London local government. Therefore the principle is conceded and the issue is relatively simple: should this matter, which is right in principle for the electorate of London, be implemented as soon as possible, or should it be delayed for Party political reasons? That is the issue on which the Committee must make up their minds.
The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is that on Thursday, May 11, elections for the London boroughs will have to take place under Section 57(4) of the Representation of the People Act 1948, and elections for the Greater London Council will take place on April 13, following the Order that has been made by the Secretary of State for the Home Office. I would remind the Committee that the existing borough councils became separate entities only in 1965, and even with the postponement of the borough elections these councils will have been in effective power for only three years, whereas if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, the councils would be in power for four years.
I believe that there should be only one criterion on which to base our judgment: what is good for the electorate. Some noble Lords may not be aware of the size of the London boroughs. I would remind them that on the average, a Greater London borough comprises some 230,000 voters, and some boroughs have as many as 250,000. As my noble friend Lord Lindgren said, imagine the difficulties of candidates and political Parties, even in one election, in boroughs of that size, let alone attempting to do the job twice within 30 days. Surely the
696
task of making clear to the electorate the issues involved is a vital factor in the holding of elections and in the maintaining of democracy. The functions of the Greater London Council are utterly different from those of the London boroughs. The Greater London Council are responsible for such things as long-term planning, main roads, fire and ambulance services and overspill building, and the boroughs are responsible for such things as health, welfare, child care and, in some cases, education. If the noble Lord's Amendment were carried, conceive the task of candidates and political Parties in canvassing two basically different sets of issues over these large boroughs. Canvassing is vital in an election, and everyone who has had any experience of elections is aware of the difficulty of finding canvassers.
Is the Conservative Party going to issue one election address to cover the Greater London Council election and the borough elections?—and the election address is probably the best way of giving the electors a clear understanding of the issues involved. I do not believe it is possible to describe the proposals of the Conservative Party for both Greater London Council and borough councils in one election address. On the other hand, even where Parties have a strong force of voluntary workers, how is it possible to deliver two election addresses within 30 days? I remember, on Committee stage of the London Government Bill, seeking to persuade the Government of the day that in view of the size of these boroughs a free postal delivery should be made. That was rejected. But we also have to issue a polling card. A polling card is very necessary for the elector when he wishes to vote. A formidable task confronts even the strongest political Party in the event of just one election for a borough. But for two to follow each other so quickly would, I believe, be stretching the machine beyond its capacity.
Just consider what happens on polling day. Efficient organisation is a most important factor for a high poll. You have to get out the sick and the elderly; you have to be able to deal with the postal vote and those voters who have removed from the district. It is bad enough to do it for one election of this size, but to do it twice in 30 days would,

697
I believe, stretch the machines beyond the limit. One of the greatest obstacles to a high poll is the boredom and frustration of electors. I do not think there is anything more infuriating in elections than the "knocker up", the man who comes in the middle of the television programme and says: "Have you voted?" You answer: "No; but I will come along later". But if he is fairly strong and virile, he will no doubt get you out. I do not think "knockers-up" do the political Parties much good; but they are a necessary means of getting the voters out in the last hour of an election. What sort of reputation would the political Parties have if they used "knockers-up" twice in 30 days?
I have been interested in Party political management and fighting elections, and I have talked, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has, with the Party agent. One thing that is desired in an election is that on polling day the machine and the enthusiasm of supporters shall be at flash point; that the campaign shall have reached the point where the maximum result can be achieved. But can anyone conceive of bringing the electorate to flash point twice within 30 days? I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, would agree that that is not likely.
In 1964 we had an unprecedented campaign, when the full resources of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party were thrown into the battle. There were great heights to be captured. The Greater London Council elections were held 30 days before the borough elections. On that occasion, the voting was 44.2 per cent. When we took the borough elections—and this is interesting, because the Government of the day believed that the maximum interest of the electors would be in the borough elections—the vote fell to 35.7 per cent. I hope that this proves the point I have been making.
I believe it is vital in the interests of London government, or of any local government, that the issues shall be clearly understood; that the political machines shall be at their highest and most efficient, and that the electorate shall be enthusiastic in the campaign. I believe that this may be achieved by separate elections, but I am convinced that it would not be achieved by having
698
two elections within 30 days. I thought that the liberal Party agreed with us, but I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that he and his friends will vote with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, before he votes, should consult the records of another place to see how his old leader and his new leader voted, together with their other colleagues.
LORD OGMORE: The noble Lord obviously did not listen to what I said. I said that there was a division of opinion among Liberals on this matter, but that we had listened to the speeches on Second Reading and, as a result, had decided to support the Amendment. We in this House, whatever may be the case with noble Lords opposite, are not slavish adherents to what happens in another place.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am glad that the noble Lord is flexible, and perhaps after listening to my speech, and particularly the piece I am coming to, he will still be flexible, in spite of the commitment that he has made on behalf of himself and his colleagues, and change his mind. I hope he does.
The case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on Second Reading and to-day is that what the Government are doing is against the interests of his Party; and he believes that if these elections were to take place in 1967 there would be a massive change. I want the Committee to bear these dates very much in mind. On December 31, 1965, the Home Office consulted with the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association as to the dates for the respective elections. On January 25, 1966, there was a Question by Mr. Lubbock, the Liberal Chief Whip, in which he asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he had received from local authorities in Greater London about the timing of the Greater London Council and the London borough elections. The Minister of State said that, so far, no representations had taken place. On February 8, 1966, the Greater London Council considered the approach of the Home Secretary, and this is a passage from their minutes:
"We also take the view that a separate year. as well as a separate day, should be provided

699
for the two elections in order to keep alive a sense of civic awareness in an otherwise long interval without an opportunity to vote. In 1967 elections to the London borough councils will take place in the week ending the 7th May."
They then go on in the minute:
"It is the Council's view that elections of London borough councillors should as soon as possible be held in a different year from the elections of the Greater London Council".
Therefore the public interest, known to all the political Parties, is for a change.
On February 9 the Home Office was informed. On January 28, 1966, the special committee of the London Boroughs Association came to a unanimous decision; and eventually, after consultation, 27 other boroughs endorsed the change, and 20 of them wished the change to take effect from 1967. There were further Questions in the House on April 28, 1966, and May 24, 1966, and on no occasion did the official Opposition raise any comment on it. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—and I hope the Committee will take this into account—that no representations have been made by the Central Office of the Conservative Party on this matter.
The only possible construction that I can put on the suddenly generated hostility to this change is that the Conservative Party decided to start in Parliament the campaign for the Greater London Council and the boroughs. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, used words of dishonour about my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I think he knows him as well as I do. I do not think anybody who knows my right honourable friend would ever believe that he would be dishonourable. I believe that the Conservative Party have started the political campaign and have started it with the smear—I repeat, the smear—that this Government were prepared to alter the borough elections for their own political advantage. As I said on Second Reading, if I had been a Party political manager wishing to ensure that my Party was going to be returned, I certainly should have tried to find a date which to me at least was foreseeable on which my Party could have been returned.
The main boroughs which have made these recommendations were Labour controlled. We had a great victory last year. It is easy to say, therefore, that it would
700
have been far better for us to go to the poll in 1967 than to go into 1968. The Government have recommended that these borough elections should take place in 1968 when clearly they could go against us. I am heartened in my estimate of what could occur in the borough elections in 1967 by the Gallup Poll and the National Opinion Poll of to-day. I think this is of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. In the Greater London Council elections of 1964, Labour polled 44.6 per cent.; the National Opinion Poll now place the figure at 47.4 per cent.; whereas the Conservatives, ever declining, in the Greater London Council elections polled 39.8 per cent., and in the National Opinion Poll the figure is now 38.4 per cent. Therefore, on these figures, if one were a Party politician making a decision for Party political advantage, surely the answer would be to go to the poll in 1967.
I will say this to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. If we were to do what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, wants us to do, to accept the Amendment, it would be we who would be gerrymandering, because we should have changed our minds as to what is right in the interests of the electors, and changed our minds in order to take advantage of the surge of popular support we are now receiving. Noble Lords may laugh, but is it not true? Noble Lords opposite have decided—I would say this to those noble Lords on the Cross Benches, who may not have so much knowledge of the political activities of the Conservative Party—to indulge in the one thing which they do when they get desperate, when they have no policy, and that is, smear. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was a smear on my Party, my Government, and my right honourable friend. I do not worry, because the electorate are getting wiser. They see a smear for what it is. They see what is right, and it is on that that they will judge.
We believe that this Bill should go forward; we believe that it will provide the proper basis for the electors of London to decide what, and who, shall govern the Greater London Council, and what shall be the policies. By delaying this election for one year there will be no confusion, and the electorate will be able to understand the position fully

701
and make their decisions as to who shall be their councillors in 1968. I believe that if the Committee were to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, it would be one of the greatest disservices to London government and local government that this Committee could possibly do.
4.34 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If I may say so with every respect, I have seldom heard a more audacious attempt to make the worse appear the better cause. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for having announced the support of the Liberal Party in this House for my Amendment; and I would wish also to refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. When I first came into this House, I quickly sensed that there were few people in the House from whom I could better learn how to behave in this House, how to speak, and how to carry conviction among noble Lords on all sides of the the House than the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and nobody regrets more than I do that he is no longer sitting on the Front Bench opposite. But I cannot go with him when he suggests that it would be somehow improper for your Lordships' House to amend this Bill in the sense suggested. This was not in any Party programme; it was not announced as one of the issues on which the electorate were asked to cast their votes last March. Nor is it a matter of finance.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, said that there was a matter of vital principle here. I think there is a matter of vital principle, which should lead all well-principled people to support this Amendment. But, surely, the argument that your Lordships' House must seldom divide is a fallacious one, based on the supposition that in some way the final power rests with this House. Surely when an Amendment is carried against the Government in your Lordships' House, whatever Government may be in power, that is really an invitation to another place to think again. It gives time for that to be done. Few of us would ever consider it improper if we were asked to think again by somebody on any subject, and most of us are well aware that we should have lived our lives rather more sensibly if sometimes we had given ourselves time to think again.
702
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, took me to task for not showing sufficient interest in the quality of local government. I am quite prepared to let the record stand over many years as to whether he or I have shown the greater interest in the quality of local government. I was not aware that I used the argument he attributed to me, that a high poll was not a compelling reason for change. I think a high poll is a good thing, but I also think it is perfectly possible to conduct two sets of elections within four or five weeks. His Party and my Party did it in 1949. I remember it well, because I was leader of the Conservative Party on the London County Council at that time. His Party and my Party did it in 1964, and there was no practical difficulty about it.
I am quite prepared to accept the view of the Government now that in the years ahead of us we should not have two sets of elections on the same day, as set out in the 1963 Act, because, as I said on Second Reading, I am greatly influenced by the town clerks' report about the practical difficulties. But the noble Lord was really astray in bringing the town clerks into his argument here, because their report was not related to the problem with which this Amendment is concerned. There is no question of the two sets of local government elections taking place on the same day in 1967. They are going to be at a four weeks' interval in any event, and I am accepting that they should not be on the same day in 1970 or thereafter. What I am not accepting is that it is lawful to change the rules in the middle of the game.
LORD SHEPHERD: You have changed them often.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was making a speech which amounted to saying that if one side is one goal down and persuades the referee, incorrectly, that his watch is fast and therefore he must allow another quarter of an hour's play, the side leading by a goal is in some way smearing if it protests. It seems to me that any moral obliquity is entirely on the other side.
The noble Lord was concerned to argue that people in London would be much more desirous of casting their vote in May, 1967, than in May, 1968. By chance, during this debate, and since I made my earlier speech, a letter has been handed

703
to me from a complete stranger, with a South-East London postmark, and it says this:
"May I, as an elector, ratepayer and parent, urge you to use your considerable influence and authority to persuade your eminent colleagues in the House of Lords to reject the specious and unworthy London Government Bill? Many of my friends feel that the London borough elections are being postponed for one reason among others—that the Labour Party finds it convenient to postpone the electors' wrath over their comprehensive education proposals for London."
However that may be, that is what some people clearly are feeling about this, judging by the letters that I and others of my noble friends have been receiving.
But I am not resting my case on comprehensive education or any policy items of that kind. I am resting my case on the importance of not changing the laws in the middle of the game. It is perfectly legitimate for Parliament to say that those persons who are elected at some future election, whether for Parliament or for a local council, shall serve for a different period of years. That is exactly the same as the M.C.C. were doing yesterday; namely, altering the rules of the County Championship for the coming summer. But what is not legitimate is, in the middle of the game, to alter the rules and say, "Whatever the other side may say, we are going to play to these new rules, which will give us a better chance of winning". That is condemned universally, and that is precisely the objection we have to this particular clause in the Bill.
What gives me most concern is that there are so many members of the Labour Party—I hope not many in this House, but outside—who fail to realise the force of that objection. I have had it quoted that all this is excused by the London Government Act, 1963, when the Conservative Government carried out the reorganisation of London local government. But that reorganisaion was carried out on the unanimous recommendation of a Royal Commission, which included members of all Parties and of none. They came to a unanimous conclusion, and the Conservative Government of that date carried through a reorganisation plan which, so far as the boundaries of Greater London were concerned, was rather less favourable to the Conservative Party than the unani-
704
mous recommendations of the Royal Commission.
LORD PARGITER: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It seems to me that had the Conservative Government of the day followed the unanimous proposals of the Royal Commission, there might have been some force in his argument now. But the fact of the matter is that they departed radically from those recommendations.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I was just pointing out that they did depart in one respect, which was unfavourable to the Conservative Party. And that reinforces what I said; that all of those who carried responsibility in the Conservative Government for matters of the representation of the people always sought to ensure that there would be no Party bias in their decisions or recommendations to Parliament.
LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question, and I put it merely as a question, although perhaps an attacking question. I understand the noble Lord's hostility to this Bill, but may I ask him, recognising that the boroughs of London knew that the Home Secretary was considering their representation, and also the representation of the Greater London Council, and that all political Parties must have been aware of it, why the head office of the Conservative Party did not raise it with the Home Secretary? Why did not Members of this House raise it by Question or debate? Why was there not a greater noise in the House of Commons?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My answer is that when I was Home Secretary I never remember receiving representations from Transport House or from Labour Party headquarters officially on any matter that was highly charged with Party politics. Those matters were dealt with by Members of both Houses of Parliament, and it seems to me that is right.
I cannot speak for all my noble friends, but my own belief, quite frankly, last year was that the Labour Party would not sink to bring forward a measure that would change the rules for the 1967 elections. It seemed to me quite unthinkable that a political Party would do that. I had assumed that in due course we should have a Bill to separate

705
the elections on to different dates in 1970 and thereafter, and that was a matter which could be taken in its turn. The moment I heard of this iniquitous proposal I lost no time in expressing my personal views about it, and I know that they are widely shared in London.
But may I come back for a moment to the point I was making before I was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter? I was seeking to make clear to your Lordships the distinction between the London Government Act 1963, founded principally on the unanimous recommendations of an all-Party Royal Commission, and this Bill, which, so far as the 1967 elections are concerned, touches quite obviously on a matter of sharp Party controversy, in which nearly all the Conservative-controlled boroughs and the Conservative minorities in the Labour-controlled boroughs wished for the elections to take place in 1967 and not to be changed. So far as the 1967 elections are concerned this measure is founded by the Government solely on the argument that if the elections take place in 1968 rather than in 1967 there may be a higher poll. I do not accept that hypothetical argument as a sufficient reason for doing what I have always regarded as the unforgivable thing, and that is changing the rules in the middle of the game for the benefit of one side.
LORD CITRINE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is dealing with this matter entirely from the point of view of an important principle? May I have an answer to that question?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am not absolutely certain whether I heard the noble Lord correctly, but if he asked me whether I was dealing with this matter entirely from the point of view of principle I say, Yes. I am dealing with it on the grounds that when the electors have been led to expect that those whom they elected are going out of office on a certain date and that they will have an opportunity to make their new choices on that date, a Parliamentary majority ought not to deprive members of the public, in their capacity as electors, of that right.
LORD CITRINE: Is it not a fact that this Bill comes to us from the House of Commons, and therefore the House of Commons has accepted this principle to which the noble Lord so much objects, and therefore a Division on this will be a challenge to the House of Commons on a question of principle? Is that not the position?
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86: Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Airedale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Molson, L.

Albemarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monk Bretton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amory, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Moyne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Newton, L.

Auckland, L.

Fleck, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Foley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Forbes, L.

Redmayne, L.

Barrington, V.

Fortescue, E.

Ridley, V.

Blackford, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Boston, L.

Gage, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bourne, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Helens, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Grenfell, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brocket, L.

Hacking, L.

Salter, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Harlech, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Hereford, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Clwyd, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Somers, L.

Coleraine, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Stamp, L.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Strange, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Limerick, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

MacAndrew, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Derwent, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dudley, L.

Meston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, Bs.

Arwyn, L.

Hunt, L.

Popplewell, L.

Beswick, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Rhodes, L.

Bowden, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowles, L.

Inman, L.

Royle, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Burden, L.

Kirkwood, L.

St. Davids, V.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, Bs.

Chalfont, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Silkin, L.

Citrine, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Snow, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Soper, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Maelor, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Merthyr, L.

Strang, L.

Faringdon, L.

Mitchison, L.

Taylor, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Morrison, L.

Williamson, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Moyle, L.

Willis, L.

Granville-West, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Hall, V.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: As the remaining Amendments are linked together, I wonder whether the Committee would agree to their being put en bloc.
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly I would agree.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("1968") and insert ("1971").
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("1968") and insert ("1971").
Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("1963") to end of line 12 and insert ("after the words ' three years ' there shall be inserted the words (except as hereafter provided in this subsection)', and after 1967'there shall be inserted the words in the year 1971'").
Page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("1967").
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("1968").
Page 1, line 24, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

EDUCATION BILL
5.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I am thinking of a small voluntary school in which I taught during war time. By modern standards it was not a good building. It had no hall and, as I recall, it had no staff room either. But what it did have was a wonderful head teacher, a deeply religious woman (who, I am sure noble Lords opposite will be glad to know, was a high Tory) and a wonderful staff. The education was good and the children were happy. I recall asking the head teacher, when I was first interviewed by her, whether she was not a little concerned that, as a Roman Catholic, I might confuse the children in a Church of England school. I can remember now her reply. It was "My dear, it is not what you say; it is what you are. Christianity is a living thing." I shall always have before me the picture of this as the kind of school that we are talking about in the Bill this evening.
The need for the Bill arises out of the increasing financial burdens which face the denominations, in particular the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, in connection with their obligation under the Education Act 1944, to bring their school buildings up to standard and their desire to make further provision to meet present-day needs. As noble Lords will recall, under the 1944

709
Act provision was made for two main types of voluntary school, aided schools and controlled schools. Both are maintained by local education authorities and both form an integral part of the State system of education. The distinguishing mark of the aided school is that the managers or governors are responsible for providing a building that is fully up to current standards, in return for a majority vote on the managing body, and they control the appointment of teachers and the religious worship and instruction given in the school. To help them meet the cost of bringing their schools up to the much higher standards imposed by the 1944 Act—or replacing them, where necessary—provision was made for 50 per cent. of this cost to be met by Exchequer grant. This grant was, however, not payable in respect of new places, the cost of which had to be borne entirely by the denominations.
Since 1944 it has become clear that the terms of the 1944 Act were too limited in scope to meet the demands imposed by post-war conditions. So three changes have been made since 1945. In 1953, the definition of "displaced pupil" was extended to cover movements of population due to housing or town planning policies. In 1959, new secondary schools drawing their pupils from existing primary schools became eligible for grant, and, also in 1959, the rate of grant went up from 50 to 75 per cent.
Last year, the Minister met representatives of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church—and on this occasion they had the full support of the Free Churches—and they pointed out to him that they face still heavier burdens which could not have been foreseen and which they are unable to meet without further financial assistance. These burdens have arisen, they argued, because of the rapid and continuing increase in the birthrate; because people were changing homes more frequently and moving from one district to another, and because building costs and standards of school provision were continually going up. They pointed to the old unsatisfactory school buildings that they were still having to maintain, and they argued, further, that the voluntary schools must play their proper part in the tremendous educational developments going on and in prospect, among them the
710
raising of the school-leaving age and the change in the pattern of secondary education. And, finally, they said that the increasing complexity in the situation has steadily blurred the distinction between new places on the one hand and places for displaced pupils, matching places and so on, on the other, and that this has made it essential to simplify the present administrative arrangements. The Government, after close examination of these arguments, accepted their validity and have introduced this Bill inconsequence.
Clause 1(1) of the Bill increases from 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. the rate of the grant payable in respect of the categories of building work that are eligible for grant under the current law, and subsection (2) extends these categories to include all new places provided in aided or special agreement schools, whether in the form of new schools or enlargements of existing schools. This abolishes the distinction between new and existing places and achieves the administrative simplification which is desirable, and it will make some contribution towards the additional costs which the denominations are facing. Clause 1(3) simply preserves the Secretary of State's present powers by enabling him, in assessing grant on new schools under subsection (2), to take into account the proceeds of sale of the sites of schools which have been closed. This is a continuation of his existing powers in relation to substituted schools and does not introduce any new principle.
Subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 1 deal with consequential changes in the provisions of the earlier Acts. Subsection (6) defines the date of application of these new provisions. On the assumption that the Bill becomes law by the end of March, the provisions of Clause 1 will apply to major building projects approved for inclusion in the 1967–68 and subsequent school-building programmes, and to minor alterations and repairs approved on or after July 4 last year, when the Bill was first introduced. Work for which individual approval is not required will also be eligible for the higher rate of grant if it started on or after July 4. This procedure is the same as that adopted in 1959.
There are two matters arising out of this clause on which I should like to comment. The first is the size of the increase in the rate of grant, which some will

711
perhaps regard as too small to give assistance on the scale that is needed. Ii will certainly not solve all the financial problems which face the denominations, but, taken with the extension of eligibility to cover all new places, it does represent a real advance during a period of national economic difficulty when so many other forms of public spending are being curtailed. There is, too, the feeling, in some quarters, that a bigger increase might undermine the whole idea of the voluntary school and in this way bring the dual system itself into question. There is no evidence of any general desire to raise these difficult and complicated issues at the present time and to do so would certainly not help the voluntary schools or the children in them. In the Government's view, the Bill represents a reasonable compromise, offering a fair contribution to the financial difficulties of the denominations without running the risk of disrupting the existing framework of the 1944 Act.
The other comment I want to make relates to fears that have been expressed, by humanists and others who do not believe that public money should be spent on denominational schools, that the increased grant, and especially its extension to new places, will lead to an inappropriate increase in denominational school provision. They are particularly concerned, I believe, with the position of aided schools in single-school areas. I appreciate their difficulties, although I believe that the proposals in this Bill for a modest increase in grant are not an appropriate target for their criticisms, which might more properly be aimed at the provisions of the 1944 Act dealing with religious worship and instruction. The fear of a vast growth in aided school provision is quite unfounded. There will, of course, be some increase where a need for additional places is shown, but all proposals for new or enlarged aided and special agreement schools must show both that there is an overall need in the area for additional places as well as a denominational need, and that the proposed school will fit into the local system of school provision. All such proposals will require notices under Section 13 of the 1944 Act and a decision by the Secretary of State under that Section—as well as a decision to include the project in a building programme.
712
I have some sympathy with the concern over single-school areas. This arises only in relation to aided schools and usually in connection with village schools where there is no alternative county or controlled school to which the pupils have access. But it does not seem at all likely that this Bill will lead to an increase in the number of single-school areas. It is worth remembering that the number of children in aided Church of England schools is now only 5½ per cent. of the total school population, and by no means all of these will be in rural schools; considerable numbers of village schools have in fact been closed in recent years and this seems likely to continue. Nor are all voluntary rural schools aided; many of them adopted controlled status after the 1944 Act so that the question of denominational provision arises only if parents of particular children request that it should be provided for their children. So long as these schools remain in existence—and as I have said, we are not dealing to-day with fundamental changes in the dual system—it would be quite wrong to discourage the managers from fulfilling their duty to bring the premises up to modern standards. Particular care will be taken to ensure that building designed to increase to any significant extent the number of children accommodated in such schools is treated as a statutory enlargement and made the subject of notices under Section 13. This is a delicate matter which I believe the Church of England has handled with great responsibility and in consultation with the Free Churches. Perhaps the spokesmen for the Church in this debate would wish to make their position clear.
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the enlargement of controlled schools. It has long since been found necessary, in the interests of sensible school organisation, to alter the 1944 Act which, probably by an oversight or perhaps simply because of the failure to anticipate the post-war rise in the birth-rate, failed to make any provision for the enlargement of controlled schools. Since 1946 it has been possible to enlarge them if the purpose of the enlargement was to provide accommodation for pupils from other voluntary schools which had closed or were no longer available, and in 1953 it was made possible to enlarge a secondary school if this was in the interests of school organisation in an area, on condition that

713
it did not amount to the establishment of a school of a new character. This condition is now an obstacle to the adoption in a number of areas of a scheme of comprehensive reorganisation, and is holding up negotiations between local education authorities and the Church authorities. If it were removed, it would be much easier to fit the smaller controlled secondary schools into a comprehensive scheme.
It is also desirable that primary controlled schools should be capable of enlargement in certain conditions. As I have said, they can be enlarged at the moment only if they are to provide for children coming from some other voluntary school, but this causes considerable difficulty in rural areas where extra school accommodation may be needed because of small housing developments, but where the number of additional children expected does not justify the establishment of a separate county school. In such circumstances a small addition to the existing controlled school is often the only reasonable and economical answer, but a t present this cannot legally be done.
Clause 2 of this Bill therefore proposes to extend the Secretary of State's powers to cover these two cases. It does this by enabling him, where a proposal of this type is put forward with the agreement of all concerned, to direct the local education authority to pay the cost of the enlargement. I should like to say here, in order to remove any possible misapprehension, that this direction is needed only to determine by whom the cost of the school will be met, and it cannot be used for any other purpose. It can certainly not be directed against the managers or governors of a school to persuade them to do something that they are unwilling to undertake.
Clause 3 of the Bill is concerned with the establishment of new controlled schools in one particular set of circumstances. A number of authorities are considering the adoption of three-tier school systems with a middle school having an age range of 8 to 12 or 9 to 13. It may happen that a major part of the primary school provision in such an area is in voluntary schools which would lose two or three age groups of children to the middle schools, and it has therefore seemed reasonable and equitable that controlled schools should
714
be enabled to play a part in the middle school provision in the area if all the parties concerned agreed that this is desirable. This is a new power, limited to middle schools, and notices will require to be published of the establishment of such a school even if no new building is involved. It will be necessary to show that a substantial portion—but not all, as at present—of pupils will come from voluntary schools. The changes in the amount of controlled school provision as a result of these two clauses are likely to be only marginal, but necessary in the interests of sensible school organisation. It is not intended that they should lead to a substantial increase in controlled school provision.
Clause 4 would enable my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to make available Exchequer loans to the governing bodies of voluntary colleges of education to help them to meet their share of the capital costs of the continuing expansion of our teacher training facilities. In this expansion the voluntary bodies have played a full and very important part, and this has been done in spite of the considerable strain which the capital expenditure incurred has placed on their resources. The new facilities would be similar to those which have been available since 1945 to the governing bodies of voluntary schools. The voluntary bodies have agreed that the use of the facilities should be reserved for cases of genuine difficulty where the governing bodies could not otherwise raise the funds on reasonable terms. I am confident that all Members of this House will welcome the provisions in this clause.
I will not fall into the trap of saying that this is a simple or non-contentious Bill, as I have seen on several occasions that this invites noble Lords to prove the contrary. What I will say is that this is a modest Bill, which does not seek to make any fundamental changes in the present system of education; but it goes as far as possible in the present economic circumstances to ensure that children in voluntary schools are not penalised, but able to enjoy opportunities equivalent to those open to children in county schools. While we must always bear in mind the words which open the Plowden Report:
"The heart of the educational process lies with the child. No advances in policy and no

715
acquisitions of new equipment have their desired effect unless they are in harmony with the nature of the child",
nevertheless, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that those children in voluntary schools should have the same opportunities as other children. There has been a marked degree of goodwill and co-operation among all concerned with this Bill, and as I believe there is a wide measure of agreement and that it represents a necessary development at the present time, I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
5.18 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she was not going to fall into the trap of saying that this was a simple and non-contentious Bill. Well, I suppose we shall discover whether or not it is contentious and, if so, to what extent. I certainly agree with her that it is not a simple Bill but a rather complicated, although short, one. That makes the House all the more grateful to her for her very clear and lucid exposition of its terms.
As the noble Baroness explained, this is in fact the third Bill since the Education Act 1944 to increase in one way or another the financial assistance which the State gives to church schools. Unlike the 1959 Act, which raised the rate of relevant grant from 50 to 75 per cent., this Bill, I think, is supported by all the denominations. Like the other Acts—the Acts of 1944, 1953 and 1959—this Bill, so far as I can make out, certainly arises from a broad basis of all-Party agreement. It happens to fall to me this afternoon, and I greatly welcome the opportunity, to say that my Party supports the Bill. There is no particular Party line, so far as I am aware, on these matters, so I must ask your Lordships to regard my opinions, such as they are, as being my own and nobody else's.
Everyone who knows anything about education knows that we have in this country what is known as the dual system. I am not going to fall into the trap of trying to define exactly what that means, but we all know broadly what it means. I think we still have this dual system for the simple historical reason that the churches were first in the field in pro-
716
viding schooling. Indeed, they were the pioneers of education long before the State got round to it. However, in the great Education Act 1944 the State required the aided and special agreement schools to provide educational facilities which were equal in quality to those provided by the county schools, and to that end there was instituted, as the noble Baroness told us, a grant at the rate of 50 per cent. By 1959 that rate of grant had become unrealistic, and that is why it was raised to 75 per cent. In its turn that rate of 75 per cent. has now become unrealistic, too, for the reasons which the noble Baroness explained to us and which I do not think I need repeat. So we have the rate raised by this Bill to 80 per cent.
I imagine that the churches would have liked the rate of grant to be raised even higher. It is a fairly open secret that Roman Catholics, at any rate, would have liked it to be put up to 85 per cent., and I know some individual church people who felt that the grant ought to be at the rate of 100 per cent. I used to get that request when I was a Member of another place, particularly during General Elections, but I did not think then and I do not think now that 100 per cent. should be granted. If people want something special, in education as in anything else, I feel that they should pay at least something towards it. Perhaps I may now be permitted to offer respectful congratulations to the Roman Catholic churches on what seems to be the successful manner in which they have faced their problems in recent years—problems which probably exceed those of the other denominations.
The noble Baroness said something about the fears which have been expressed—outside your Lordships' House, of course—concerning the general philosophy of the Bill and of those Acts which preceded it. I think it is a very good thing that the noble Baroness pointed out that this Bill most certainly will not open the door to the creation of new aided schools. As she explained to us, all the existing hoops will still have to be gone through before that can happen. No doubt one of the right reverend Prelates will correct me if I am wrong about this, but I have understood that the Church of England does not want to establish new aided schools.

717
In addition, this Bill is not, so far as I can see, going to add to or detract from the problem of the single-school area. Occasions will continue to arise when, for economic reasons, it will be necessary to enlarge an existing school, whether it be an aided school or a county school, rather than build a new one of the opposite character. I should have thought that when this happened, provided the arrangements of the local education authorities were flexible enough, they ought to be able to cope with objections which individual parents might have.
Even so, I personally fear that there will always be some parents who will not be able to send their children to an aided school, just as, unless we put an end to the dual system once and for all, for a long time to come some children will have to go to an aided school when their parents would wish them to go to a county school. In so far as that wish is due to the belief that facilities are generally better in county schools than they are in aided church schools, that seems to me to be at least a powerful argument in support of the Bill.
I am sure we are all in agreement that we—and by "we" I mean the country—must do all we reasonably can to try to achieve equal standards as between aided schools and county schools. But, standards apart, what about those people who feel strongly, as a matter of principle, either that there should be more denominational schools than there are or that there should be no denominational schools at all? For the former—that is to say, those who think there should be more—I cannot see very much comfort. For the latter, it seems to me that the statistics are interesting.
As I understand it, more than 84 per cent. of children in maintained schools—that is to say, schools which are not independent schools—are in county schools or in controlled church schools. As the noble Baroness told us, a controlled school is one in which the religious instruction is exactly similar to that in a county school, unless the parents expressly request that their child should be given denominational instruction, in which case he may have it for no more than two periods a week. So less than 16 per cent. of children in the maintained system are in aided or special agreement schools, the prevailing charac-
718
ter of which is denominationally religious. Of those 15 to 16 per cent. a considerable number will be Roman Catholic children, whose parents would not have it otherwise, and they would wish them to be in denominational schools; and presumably the same could be said of at least some of the remainder of this 15 to 16 per cent. So it seems to me that the number of disgruntled parents cannot, mercifully, be very large.
I have a great deal of sympathy with those people who would prefer their children to go to a county school and then find that they cannot, but I have even more sympathy with those parents who cannot get their children into a denominational school when they want to, and to explain why I feel this I must declare my interest. I am a humanist; that is to say, I am a student of human affairs and a former student of the classics. I am also a practising member of the Church of England, but was not always. For the middle third of my life I was a rather militant non-believer, and as such I had to make up my mind what I should do if I married and had children. I decided that if possible—and I thought at that time it would be difficult—their education should ensure that they had the fullest knowledge from which they could accept or reject, as I had done, the serenity which religious faith can give to those who possess it.
Everything that I have said so far has been in the context of the provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill, and before I leave this clause I would give a special welcome to the Secretary of State's decision to end the distinction between completely new places on the one hand, and existing places and matching places, on the other. When I was the Minister of State in charge of the schools in the Department, this particular distinction seemed to me to be pretty futile in practice; and, moreover, one which would put an unnecessarily heavy burden sometimes on the officials who had to give Ministers the right technical advice.
My Lords, as to the rest of the Bill I welcome Clause 3, not least because I had the pleasure of introducing the Education Act 1964, which was the one which provided for the establishment of these middle schools. Clause 4 gets rid of something that I think is an anomaly. It seems to me absolutely right that loans

719
should be available to help the denominational colleges of education meet their capital costs. I think that is all I need say. I believe that this Bill will make a significant contribution towards improving the standards of the church schools. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading and that, in general, it will have a speedy passage through all its stages.
5.31 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, it is my privilege, on behalf of the Churches, to welcome the Bill which the noble Lady has moved so lucidly and, if I may say so, so convincingly; and, in so doing, I should like to express our thanks to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and his colleagues for the understanding way in which they considered the problems of the Churches when they were presented to them. It should be emphasised, as has already been said, that at all stages in these discussions the Churches acted together. We did not, as had happened on previous occasions, see the Secretary of State in three separate delegations or in two, but in one; and in the discussions with the Secretary of State, as well as in a very large number of private discussions between the representatives of the Churches, there has emerged, through a very frank expression of opinion, a common line and an identity of purpose on all important questions of principle so far as religious education is concerned. This, I believe, is a gain both to our contribution to education and, perhaps because we have done it in the context of education, to our understanding of each other.
We welcome this Bill above all because it will enable the Churches which have voluntary schools to maintain them and to develop them in ways which are educationally sound. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, said he was not going to fall into the trap of defining the dual system. It is rather a lengthy thing to define, as I find when I am entertaining educationists from other parts of the world, who simply cannot understand how we ever make such a system work without constant friction and trouble. We do make it work because, I believe, the essence of the dual system is one of partnership. The partnership between
720
Church and State, historic in origin but maintained now because we believe it to be valuable, plays a valuable part also in our whole educational system—a system in which I believe, as a nation, we can take pride, and which I know is the envy of educationists from some other countries.
But if we are to maintain the dual system, in which the Churches believe so strongly—and perhaps some Free Churchmen who thirty years ago would have opposed it violently are now beginning to see that it is not without its value and its advantages—and if we are to make it effective, we know that there must be an ever-increasing and sacrificial effort in order to make our schools what they should be in comparison, as to their buildings and their equipment, with those of any other school.
We have welcomed everything that has been done since the war to improve our national system of education, though every change has imposed fresh burdens, financially, upon the voluntary bodies. The 1959 Act, for instance, increased the Churches' net expenditure on church schools by a very considerable amount; and the net cost of maintaining and developing Church of England schools at the present time is running in the neighborhood of £1 million a year. I have not the up-to-date figures for the Roman Catholic Church, but I know that they are certainly not lower, and are possibly greater, than our own. Though it is much too early to comment in detail on the recommendations of the Plowden Committee, I think this should be said: that if the Churches welcome the Committee's desire for increased facilities for primary education, they do so in the full knowledge that its effect will be further expenditure by the voluntary bodies to comply with those recommendations.
We see this Bill, then, as an enabling piece of legislation and one which will give to the Churches perhaps a greater measure of administrative justice. It is a great encouragement to all of us on the Churches' side that this is, as has been declared by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, essentially a non-Party Bill. It is also a Bill which is in principle accepted and agreed by all on the Churches' side. An increase in the rate of grant to 80 per cent. will not—most

721
emphatically not—remove the financial problems of the voluntary bodies. It may possibly enable us to keep pace with rising costs and increased demands. I doubt very much if it will do more than that. But the Church leaders have accepted 80 per cent. as a fair balance. It is true, as has been said, that there are those who would have liked to see 85 per cent. Indeed, there were some who worked out a most elaborate calculation which arrived at 83⅘ per cent. as being that which was administratively and socially just. There were others, of course, who would have liked 100 per cent.
I myself am not included in the number who would have liked 100 per cent. I believe very firmly—though I speak here for myself—that the dual system, as a partnership, depends upon both partners being active, and if one partner in this dual system, the Churches, were a sleeping partner to the extent that it made no financial contribution at all, its slumbers, I fear, would very soon lead to a termination of life. As official leaders of the Churches, we have accepted 80 per cent. as a reasonable compromise and a fair balance.
Perhaps the most valuable part of the Bill will prove to be Clause 1(2)(a) and (b), which make grant at the full rate available for all school places—new schools as well as transferred schools and enlarged ones. It is obviously a great simplification of the existing situation, which at times can be described only as a jungle of legislation and of regulations through which it is very difficult even for the experienced officers of the Department of Education and Science to cut their way. This gives us a clear, simple procedure, and I believe it will make for the flexibility which is needed because it recognises, as was suggested by the noble Lady, that we cannot operate any longer as if we were in a static demographic situation. In our judgment, the increase in population and the movement in population since the war fully justify the addition of grants for new schools as being within the spirit of the 1944 Act.
I would not perhaps go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in saying that the Church of England did not intend to provide any more new
722
schools. What we want to do is to get our schools in the right places, and this Bill will enable us to do so. We do not anticipate, however, that there will be any great overall increase in the percentage of Church of England aided-school places, and I think that is probably what the noble Lord really had in mind.
Reference has been made to this question of single-school areas. It is a difficult question; but I want to say with all the emphasis that I can—and since this refers more particularly to the Church of England I can say it on behalf of the Church of England—that we have no intention whatsoever of creating any single-school areas as such; indeed, we are making every possible effort to remove any hurdle of conscience to existing single-school area situations. As has been suggested, the number of those is, in fact, not large, and in the last two or three years the number of instances in which there has been friction, or expressions of dissatisfaction, has been very small. The Joint Educational Policy Committee of The Anglican Church and The Free Church Federal Council was set up very largely to deal with single-school area questions of dissatisfaction. We have not had on our agenda for two and a half years a single instance of this kind. In fact, if we had not other more important things with which to concern ourselves, we should have gone out of business. We are not concerned merely to provide schools for our own children to be separated from the rest of the nation's children. We are, above all, anxious to make a worthy contribution to the whole national system.
Clauses 2 and 3 are, of course, of special importance to the Church of England because they deal with controlled schools. The Roman Catholic Church, I believe, as a matter of policy, has not thought it right to have any controlled schools. The removal of restrictions on enlargement and change of character of controlled schools will be very useful. It is only an enabling clause; it does not in any way weaken the power of the governors of schools to make their own proper decisions about the character and nature of their schools. But it does make it possible for them in certain cases, as has been pointed out, to take part where they wish to do so, in reorgainsation schemes, which would

723
otherwise have been impossible because of the limitation in the 1953 Act. Clause 4 will also be very helpful. The colleges of education, the voluntary colleges, are straining every nerve to respond adequately to the pressing need for more teachers; and expansion in that particular field of education is very costly indeed.
My Lords, it is our hope that this Bill will receive an unopposed Second Reading and that we shall soon see it on the Statute Book. With its help, and with the encouragement it will bring, those responsible for church schools will be able to make a fuller contribution to the national education and, therefore, to the helping of the nation's children. We believe that contribution to be essential in itself and also because it enables us, in co-operation, as partners again, to assist those responsible in the field of religious education in county schools. But we are all well aware how necessary it is that religious education, the most vital part, and possibly the most difficult part, of all education, should be constantly developed and improved. We do not believe that it is anything like as effective as it should be, or as it could be, in our own church schools. We are giving much thought to its improvement.
The Church of England Board of Education is in process of setting up a very strong professional group to advise it on the improvement of religious education. I understand that a number of Roman Catholic teachers are considering a similar process of investigation, and the British Council of Churches will shortly be issuing the Report of a Group which has for the last two years been working on the significance of some of the latest educational thought in the field of religious education. With this information and this constant thought, the Churches will be more than willing to co-operate with the Government if and when the Government feel that a thorough-going review of religious education is timely and appropriate. Then we will do everything we can to cooperate. In the meantime, we will do all in our power to make church schools good schools, in every sense of the word. We shall continue to make sacrificial efforts on their behalf for the sake of the children who will be taught in them;
724
in order that they may grow up to be good citizens and, in their turn, we hope, good parents. Because we are convinced that this Bill will enable the church schools to play their part more effectively in the nation's life we trust that your Lordships will support it to the full.
5.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, it seems appropriate that a Roman Catholic, other than the noble Baroness who introduced the Bill, should speak on this occasion. But the very statesmanlike speeches to which we have listened leave me with nothing very new to say. I am grateful to all the preceding speakers, to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for his kind words about the efforts that Roman Catholics are making to improve the standard of education in their schools, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for a thoroughly statesmanlike discourse on the problems of the dual system. The right reverend Prelate is quite right in saying that the Catholic Teachers' Federation are to institute an inquiry into the meaning of the words "Catholic school", what that school should be, how its Catholic character can be fully expressed. I am quite sure that other bodies of Christians are equally concerned with these fundamental matters. Until these investigations have been made we have to adapt ourselves to the present position, and we consider that the present Bill offers us a very reasonable and proper compromise in the matter of payments.
My Lords, in planning a new town, an overspill town, or a large housing estate, the planners consider first, I suppose, those amenities which everybody requires: a shopping centre, a community centre. They then consider the needs of the minorities and try to satisfy those needs so far as they properly can. There is a minority that cares about the game of bowls, and the planners provide them with a bowling green. There is a large minority—but still, I suppose, a minority—that is keen on reading; and the planners consider a branch library. Then they realise that there will be a minority of Roman Catholics coming to the new estate or town, and that perhaps it will be a rather large minority. The aim of these new estates is to relieve congestion in those overcrowded districts where Roman Catholics tend to abound.

725
They face, therefore, the problem of satisfying this minority also, and they know that what this minority wants is its own schools.
Here I would say a word about the emotive force of the words "our schools" in the mouth of a Roman Catholic, and I would take your Lordships back for a moment to Victorian times, when parish schools were provided by nobody outside the parish, but by the parishioners themselves, by the people whose children would go to those schools when they were built. I would pay a tribute to the astonishing efforts by which the lowest-paid class of manual workers, immigrants and children of immigrants. raised funds to provide their parish school as could be done in those days of cheap building. It is those of whom we are thinking when we express our determination to have "our schools".
My Lords, the newcomer to the housing estate wants, quite reasonably, the same kind of school for his children in his new surroundings, and the planners are willing enough to meet him. They get in touch with the Roman Catholic Bishop and discuss their problems with him. The Roman Catholic Bishop hears this suggestion with somewhat mixed feelings—glad, of course, to provide for the needs of his flock, but increasingly worried about finance. He knows that he has to face certain expenditure in connection with comprehensive schools. He knows that many of his existing schools are overcrowded, and one factor that leads to overcrowding in those schools is that a sizeable proportion of West Indian immigrants profess the Roman Catholic faith. He knows that many of these old schools, proud though we are of them, ought to be rebuilt; and he knows that, though our credit is good and he can borrow money, interest rates are very high indeed.
The right reverend Prelate gave some figures regarding expenditure that faces the Church of England, and here I would quote from a brief which I have been given. it is impossible to give precise figures, but it can safely be said that the gross cost on building work completed or in progress is in excess of £100 million and that the share falling on Catholic shoulders is in excess of £40 million. Since much of this has to be paid for
726
through loans, the eventual cost including interest will be substantially higher. Current indebtedness for loans of one kind or another is probably approaching £20 million. As regards future commitments it is not possible to make very precise estimates, but if the school building programmes of the next few years arc taken as a basis, Catholic liabilities could, even under the new arrangements, be between £20 million and £30 million per decade at to-day's prices.
My Lords, I almost hesitate to mention such minute sums to a House that is used to the magnitude of Government expenditure. But these millions of pounds frighten my community very much indeed, and we are most grateful for the relief that is given in the Bill. We are not a wealthy Church. The gorgeous vestments which your Lordships see at our services cover many a badly frayed, and very shiny, pair of clerical trousers. Faced with these financial circumstances, the Bishops were becoming increasingly alarmed, and some very glum faces were seen round the big table at Archbishop's House when the Bishops met.
Finally, as the right reverend Prelate has explained to us, we felt it wise, after the friendliest possible consultations with our brother Christians, to go to the Ministry; and they have given us this Bill which will enable us to carry on. In matters that depend so much on factors beyond our control no one can ever speak of complete and final settlement. I can only say that it is our sincere hope that this settlement will last for a long time, and that we shall be able to continue to play our part in the national system with ever-increasing effectiveness.
5.57 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, this short Education Bill before your Lordships' House to-day may well be described by some as a mini-Bill. It may be "mini", but it manages to cover up quite a lot. It has been welcomed both by those who have spoken in this Second Reading debate to-day, and by those who took part in the Second Reading debate in another place on November 4; and so far as it makes more money available to voluntary schools I, too, welcome it. I am venturing to speak to-day in order to give voice to the feelings of some of those who are

727
governors of aided schools; of those who teach in aided schools and of those whose children are being educated in aided schools.
My Lords, it is often thought that the aided schools are all of them church schools, Church of England or Roman Catholic. That is not so. There are about a hundred aided schools throughout the country which are not church schools with a religious foundation. They mostly date back to generous benefactors in days long gone by, when the State had not yet recognised the importance of wider education, but individual citizens had. I have the privilege of being Chairman of the Governors of one of these schools, the Godolphin and Latymer Girls' School in Hammersmith, a wholly non-denominational aided school about which Her Majesty's Inspectors, when they had finished their report about this school, said last year:
"By any computation this is a very good school."
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote from a letter in The Times of December 5. It was written by the Chairman of the National Association of Governing Bodies of Aided Grammar Schools, and said:
"It will not be easy to find places for these schools in plans for reorganisation if the comprehensive principle is applied too rigidly by the local authorities and the Department of Education and Science. Many aided grammar schools are ancient endowed foundations which have served their localities well in the past and are anxious to adapt themselves to changing circumstances. There are, however, limits beyond which governors could not go in contemplating changes. If negotiations between local authorities and governing bodies reach a point of complete breakdown, aided grammar schools may be forced out of the national system of education or completely submerged so as to lose their essential natures. The country could ill afford at this time to lose any of its good schools, or to see them become independent fee-charging institutions, open only to those who could pay for the education they have to offer".
At the moment there are no fees charged in any voluntary aided school. The running expenses are provided by the local education authority. Each school has its own governing body. Two-thirds of the governors are foundation governors, and under Section 114 of the Education Act 1944 they are appointed
"for the purpose of securing so far as practicable that the character of the school as a
728
voluntary 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 remaining one-third of the governors are representative governors appointed by the local education authority.
The governors collectively are responsible in respect of the capital and income of the school endowments. The local education authority have a statutory duty to finance the running costs. The governors are responsible broadly for the structure of the school premises. A 75 per cent. grant towards that expenditure comes from the Department, a grant which this Bill seeks to raise to 80 per cent. The rest must be met by the governors from endowments or by raising funds by appeal. If I may take one moment of your Lordships' time to tell you of the nature of an appeal which took place in my own school to provide extremely good laboratories, two small girls from the Upper Forth form arrived at the headmistress's study one morning with 25s. 6d. towards the appeal fund and she said, "Do tell me where this has come from?" They replied, "We made toffee and we made our form buy it".
Voluntary aided schools are shining examples of a workable fusion of liberty and control. The independence of the greater part of the governing body gives the school autonomy over its own affairs. This has a subtle effect on the character of the school. It produces an atmosphere of liberty without bureaucracy, coupled with a sense of responsibility for the school as a unit, and it affects staff, parents and pupils. There is free choice in admission of pupils. They are selected by the school as being likely to profit by the kind of education which the school gives; and there is a strong feeling of co-operation as the parents have exercised their right of choice of school. There is an extraordinarily wide range of social backgrounds from which pupils come, and also a wide area which the school serves. In that sense the school is comprehensive in a way in which a purely local school generally cannot be comprehensive.
Voluntary aided schools have used their endowments of land, buildings and trust for the benefit of the country's educational provision, and since the 1944 Act they have raised and spent millions

729
of pounds on buildings and improvements which would otherwise have had to be paid by the taxpayer.
Judging from what was said in another place, those representing religious denominations appear to be prepared to accept the 80 per cent. grant, with all that it may imply of obedient acceptance of the local education authority's plans for secondary education. In Mr. Driberg's speech in another place on November 4, 1966 (col. 866 of Hansard), he quoted from a letter—
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, if the noble Baroness is thinking of quoting from Mr. Driberg, I would remind her that, as she knows, on the whole we try not to quote from another place.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I can help my noble friend? I understood that she was about to quote from a letter received by Mr. Driberg, and not from his speech.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, I quote from a letter which Mr. Driberg received from the Secretary of the Schools Council of the Church of England Board of Education, Canon Eric Wild. He wrote:
"Although the Bill is not directly related to comprehensive secondary education it will in fact enable us to co-operate with the local authority in the plans that would not otherwise have been possible. As you will appreciate, it has not always been easy to find ways in which church secondary schools, and particularly smaller ones, can co-operate in schemes of comprehensive organisation.
"I am sure you will be glad to know that negotiations with local authorities and with the Department officers are proceeding in a most friendly and co-operative way, and have little doubt that all our schools will be integrated in local authority plans in due course. Without the legal easement offered by this Bill, it would have been very difficult to see how this could have been achieved in a number of situations."
If I may say so, it would appear that the Church of England has sold its birthright of independence for a 5 per cent. mess of comprehensive pottage. But even though the Church seems to have surrendered, and seems to be prepared to take its educational thinking from the State, non-denominational aided schools would rather be without this additional 5 per cent. grant if it is going to take
730
from us the independence we have always treasured. To increase the amount of the grant from 75 to 80 per cent. may well be a sop that is going to secure for the Department of Education some more control over some of the voluntary aided schools.
Originally, in 1944, the grant was 50 per cent. It was put up to 75 per cent. in 1959, to help meet the increased cost of all building work. But away back at the time of the passing of the 1944 Act many of the aided schools which could not satisfy the Ministry of Education that they could meet out of their endowments the cost of the new buildings which would he required of them had to accept controlled instead of aided status, by which they preserved a measure of their religious freedom but gave up their general educational independence.
Now, just over 22 years later, the voluntary aided schools are being offered 80 per cent. towards the cost of alterations and external repairs, and towards the cost of buildings transferred to new sites. Whatever the motive, one cannot help seeing that this is going to make it easier to force governors to move to a new site in order to amalgamate with some other school to form a comprehensive unit. It will be that much less easy for governors to resist such a move on the financial ground that they cannot afford to move. I ask those who believe that the future of this country is bound up with the universal establishment of comprehensive education to accept that those of us who believe that the future greatness of our country will suffer damage if aided grammar schools of outstanding quality are brought to an end are equally sincere. To achieve theoretical equality one can pay too high a practical price.
In the face of so much gratitude expressed by noble Lords who have spoken before me, I may seem ungrateful for what has been offered. If this Bill were designed solely to help efforts of the aided schools to continue their unique contribution to education in this country, with no ulterior motive hidden away in the golden handshake, I should he as grateful as any. As it is, I should not be honest if I were not to voice my doubts, because it would be unworthy of all the teaching of a really good school to jettison its liberty for money.
6.20 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I should like to endorse the welcome that has been given from these Benches by my right reverend friend the Bishop of London, as well as by other speakers, to this Bill, which does not attempt to define, still less to debate, the dual system, and which has been welcomed as a measure which will enable that system as it stands to be carried out more effectively in future, with the additional provisions that are being made. Recognition lies in this Bill and has already been voiced, for it recognises the fact that the voluntary bodies—the Churches in particular, although I do not exclude other voluntary bodies engaged in education—have taken their part in education not merely by pious exhortation but by making sacrifices of their own. The example cited by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, of "our" school in earlier days being erected for newcomers at local voluntary cost certainly would be balanced by a tremendous number of such schools, equally "our" schools, which sprang up in the last century before full-scale national education was introduced.
This contribution has gone on steadily, and the figures cited of what the present bill will be for the Church of England as for the Roman Catholic Church do not take into account how much has already been spent over the course of the last twenty years since the 1949 Act. The measure of Christian agreement about this figure which the Minister and all parties have acknowledged is certainly something to be thankful for. Not all agree to this figure. We have already been reminded that many Roman Catholics would like to see more. Equally there would be some Christian opinion which would resist more. But we would all say that this proportion of 80 per cent. does still preserve, and might make possible, a reasonable share by voluntary bodies in the partnership of education which now exists and which this Bill seeks to continue.
No question has been raised that rising costs and improving standards within that system lay an increasing burden on the voluntary bodies. It is perhaps difficult, except from within the system, to estimate quite what demands are made by a steadily developing pattern of education. There has been the transition
732
from all-age schools to the pattern which was first introduced in full and based on the Hadow Report in 1944. There has been embarking on and developing of comprehensive education. There is the emergence already—and no doubt the Plowden Committee, which commends it, will persuade us further in this direction—of the middle school. There is, in the future, the raising of the school age. In all these there has been an increasing demand upon voluntary bodies, and they have sought—certainly I can speak for the Church of England—loyally to cooperate with local authorities in the plans they make to carry out national policy.
I noticed with some amusement and delight that the noble Baroness who has just spoken casts us here—I do not know whether the Roman Catholics and other bodies vie with us in this—for the role of Esau, selling our birthright in that way, and the Minister, or it may be the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for the role of Jacob, exacting from us our birthright for a modest 5 per cent. increase of the total. I would, however, say that it is a poor exchange for our birthright if we thought that was being involved. It would certainly not constitute what the noble Baroness quoted—I do not think she used the words herself—obedient acceptance of proposals. In all there has been a genuine and loyal co-operation with local authorities which does not exclude negotiation and discussion to find the right way of working out local patterns. But I should certainly deplore the idea that this means a subservience to a particular educational view. We do not see it as such. We would see our duty always to take our own part as best we may within a national system of education. We have done so in the past, as we do in the present.
But when all this is added up, and on top of that is put the increasing costs and higher standards, the movement of population, and all the dislocation that this implies, then the intricacy and the cost of the whole operation of modern education, not only for the local authorities, which, after all, have the public purse behind them, but for the Churches, which must find their own share by private and voluntary giving, this is something that should surely command the sympathy and support of the country. It is therefore a

733
matter of justice that the first grant has been asked for and has been conceded.
There is a further aspect of this—and I suppose I should declare a personal interest, as chairman of a schools council of the Church of England which is charged with taking counsel and advising the statutory diocesan education committees in 43 Anglican dioceses in this country and six in the principality of Wales. They have the burden and heat of working out the proper rights for the boards of managers, the proposals that can be carried out, and the ways in which they can find the resources for doing it. They would say unanimously that in all this they have constantly received immense help from the Ministry, and, for the most part, from local authorities. They would like me, I know, to acknowledge the degree of co-operation which lies behind this.
But I think that both local authorities and we ourselves would say that the present arrangements involve in terms of grants a tangle of negotiation, intensely complicated by these movements of population. These produce a most extraordinary, intricate process of negotiation and discussion, which we long to see cut through. Indeed, that is what this Bill does: it cuts through some of the old distinctions of grant, and makes possible assistance for new schools which are to find their statutory acceptance within the development plan. In this respect I would endorse what the Bishop of London said to the noble Lord, Lord Newton. There is common sense in this, and there is also common sense in the clause which recognises that existing controlled schools must be enabled to conform to new needs, whether this be in terms of enlargement or in terms of some change of character which educational policy might involve.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, speaking from the Government Front Bench, referred to the question of controlled schools which may arise in the creation of the middle schools of a new system. Educationally, these middle schools may well have a great advantage, but there is no doubt that their creation may often, through the loss of several age groups, bring great hardship, and involve ultimate elimination of some primary schools. And these schools, remember, have been maintained or have been
734
reconstructed in all good faith within existing development plans. Therefore, I think the provisions in this Bill for these controlled schools, middle schools for the most part, so that they can enable us to continue our proper share, are something which we welcome both on terms of justice and in terms of encouragement.
I do not think I need refer further to the single-school areas. Again, they are difficult to define, and, I think, so easily safeguarded from, both by the responsibility of the local authority and, indeed, by public opinion. Certainly we do not regard this Bill, any more than the Minister does, as one that is intended to increase or encourage the promotion of these areas. But this Bill is, indeed, largely a bricks-and-mortar Bill, which enables the Churches and other voluntary bodies to provide their share within the existing framework. However, in the few moments that I hope to detain your Lordships further, I should not like it to be thought that our concern in education, any more than that of the Ministry, is really with buildings.
I recall a small school in the County of Sussex recently inspected by Her Majesty's inspectors. Next door to this little school is a very ancient and lovely church, going back to Norman and Saxon times. Although most of the housing round about it is quite modern, the school itself is, I will not say as antique as the church itself, but certainly of that old period which makes it clamour quite rightfully for inclusion soon in rebuilding. But, none the less, the inspector has given the most glowing report of the school and would place it in terms of quality as high as any school in the country. Its success has been due to a number of human factors primarily: to the interest of parents, the support and co-operation of the community around, and to the local church; but especially, of course, to the kind of leadership the teachers themselves have exercised within that little school.
Teachers have an exceedingly difficult task to-day. They are confronted with changes in educational method, with new knowledge and techniques; they very often have great pressures of numbers to face, and, above all, they must he sustained by their own high sense of vocation as teachers. And the Churches, I think, would always say that our greatest contribution to the whole national system

735
of education, not just our part of it, must be in the provision of teachers who have been equipped both with the right technical skill or knowledge and also with a strong sense of the importance of their task and the value of the boys and girls who will be entrusted to them. Therefore, we greatly welcome that clause in the Bill, so little noticed, which gives some further encouragement and help to the very considerable part which the Churches are playing in their colleges of education in this immense expansion of teachers at the present time.
These teachers would be the first to recognise that the obligation of the Churches in this respect is not discharged when we have helped to put up school buildings for them. All the great reports on education which we have had in the past few years—not least the Plowden Committee's Report—have dealt not only with structure and buildings and ages, but with new approaches to all the different subjects of study contained within a modern curriculum. There is a ferment of new ideas in teaching which applies just as much to religious subjects as to any others: new ways of handling the knowledge we have, new psychological approaches to pupils and, above all, perhaps, an emphasis on the pupil-centred education, which starts where they are rather than from a body of knowledge we wish to impart to them. Within the field of religious education, we are very conscious of this new ferment. As we see it, the issue before us is not how much or how little religious education there may be—some people may put that question—but rather, by what means children can be brought to understand what their Christian heritage is, and be able to grasp sufficient materials and knowledge in this respect, so that they can later make some mature judgments for themselves and form their own religious and moral convictions.
All this involves—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has already referred to this—a reappraisal both of the material that has to be presented to them and of the ways in which it should be done. It means, of course, more in the later age groups, some understanding of how other religions make their answer to the issues of life. It will certainly mean providing some kind of basis, whatever their own religious
736
convictions become, on which they can accept the moral responsibilities for their conduct as mature people. These are wider questions, of course, in this Bill which will be increasingly under discussion throughout our whole community.
But if we are to make wise answers to these questions, surely it is imperative that the Churches should be encouraged to make their own contribution to these questions as effectively, and from as wide an experience, as they can. As the right reverend Prelate has already indicated, there is much study going on in this field about the ways in which religious and moral truth should be presented to the younger generation to-day. But, if the Churches are to play their part properly, they must be encouraged in the two specific fields in which they are already operating: in the equipment of their schools to meet the "new looks" in education, and in the training, sometimes the further training, of their teachers, not only in new techniques, but in a new and sympathetic understanding of their relationship with the generation of children growing up. I believe that this Bill, modest though it may seem, will be of great and valuable help to us in this respect, and, therefore, my Lords, I welcome it.
6.26 p.m.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than two or three minutes, but in listening to the various speeches this afternoon I have been quite amazed to find how the Churches to-day, of different denominations, are able to deal with their school problems on a friendly basis and meet and discuss the problems together. As I heard these speeches made—and I know they are absolutely true—my mind went back to 1953, when I was Minister of Education, and we were bringing in the Bill which made things better in many ways, although we had the terrible difficulties of the displaced pupil, the difference between the new schools and the others, and other such difficulties. But at that time there was complete division between the various denominations. They were not disagreeable. They were perfectly willing to come and see me separately, but it seemed at that time that it was absolutely necessary for there to be a great ditch between each. To-day,

737
we know that is all different. To my mind it seemed amiracle—the difference between 1953 and 1967. The whole outlook has changed.
Because of that, as I listened to these speeches I felt somewhat worried about what was said by my noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, because it had been said to mea little time ago, and I had then taken the trouble to read the debate in another place on the Second Reading of this Bill. There is a feeling at the present moment that, after this Bill becomes an Act, there will be a great deal of discord on the subject of comprehensive schools. I have never been one who thinks there must be no comprehensive schools or that all schools must be comprehensive, which I think would be going too quickly. I hope it will be made perfectly clear that it will not be necessary, even that it will not be urged, that the denominational schools, the aided schools, should go forward with comprehensive education simply because it is wanted by the particular local authority and, as has been pointed out, because they are getting up to 80 per cent. grant.
The reason why I mentioned at the beginning of my speech my astonishment at the good will between the various denominations to-day is that, if possible, I want to see good will in the areas of the different local authorities between those who want everything comprehensive and those who do not. It has taken this very long time to get the various denominations to work together as happily as they are doing now, and I believe so firmly that, above all, patience is wanted in dealing with this problem, which is a very real problem, and that we shall succeed if we go very slowly before we finally decide between one type of secondary schooling and another. It may be there should be different types always. Personally, I think we could get an organisation that took in various types of school, but I hope and pray that we shall not, as a result of denominational difficulties and lack of friendship, get into further controversies between comprehensive and non-comprehensive schools. It appears that we now have the friendship and the co-operation of the various Churches. It has taken us a good many years to achieve that, so I would appeal to the
738
Government not to precipitate a further difficulty in the divisions in the outlook with regard to the various schemes for education.
6.30 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, church schools are not really my part of ship, either as a member of this Front Bench or as an ordained servant of the Church of England, but I have a special reason for being glad to be winding up the debate, which so far has been a welcome for this Bill, from this side. That special reason is that I am a member of the staff of the Bishop of St. Albans, with particular responsibility to him for fostering better relations between the denominations in his diocese, and if my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh had not already just done it I should not have wanted to miss this opportunity of drawing your Lordships' attention to the quite splendid progress we are now able to make because the denominations are able to act in concert together in this and many other matters.
The advantages deriving to all concerned from subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 are cases in point. The previous Secretary of State in 1959 and in 1953 was not able to do all that he or she would have liked to do, just because the denominations were not able to agree about it. We are now in a happier condition and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has explained in introducing this Bill, grants are available for new schools so that they can be applied where they are needed, instead of only where they were being applied before and where, in many cases, they are no longer needed.
My own diocese is a case in point. Under the inducements and incentives provided by this legislation we are now able to look at all our four secondary modern schools and to expand, or at any rate embark on negotiations with a view to expanding, all of them. We are also able—and this is a new feature—to look at the diocese, consisting of the two counties of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, as a whole, and, in negotiation with the local authority, to decide where it would be helpful for the Church to make a contribution in the form of new schools, something which hitherto we have not been able to contemplate.
I should like now to turn to the contribution of the Churches to the national

739
system of education through the dual system, and in particular to refer a little further (if it is not improper for a member of the Church of England to do so) to the particular contribution made by the Roman Catholics in the past ten years. May I preface what I have to say by pointing out what I think is quite obvious: that when churchmen are providing, maintaining and building new schools they are doing something over and above what they are already doing as citizens. The contributions made by church people to their denominational schools are not things which they are doing instead of their contribution to the State system; they are doing it over and above.
And when we look at the Roman Catholics and consider what a relatively small proportion of the population they represent—certainly a fraction in strength of numbers, compared with the Church of England, by whatever criterion one judges the strength of the Church of England—and remembering that, compared to us Anglicans, they have virtually no endowments, and therefore have the cost of their own clergy and their own church buildings also upon their shoulders, I think it is very creditable that over the past ten years they have added another 150 primary schools—an increase of 8 per cent.—and, more remarkable still, 240 secondary schools. This represents a doubling of their schools in ten years, and a trebling of the number of pupils under secondary education in their care. It seems to me these are achievements which we ought not to pass over when an opportunity like this presents itself. I do not think it does anything to detract from the continuing and historic contribution of the Church of England to mention this remarkable achievement and to hope that it will be sustained.
I should like now, if I may, to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester a little along the line that he left us with at the end of his speech. This debate in your Lordships' House, the debate on this Bill in another place, and the negotiations which gave birth to this Bill in the first place have, I am sure, all shown (and my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh has confirmed this from her much wider experience) that the fire
740
has at last gone out of these dreadful debates and controversies that we have had around the dual system in the past. Not that the system is perfect now. I hope that as the years go by it will continue to develop and change, though the moment is not ripe for making any drastic changes. One hopes that any further developments and changes will go on outside the framework of Party political controversy and ecclesiastical politics.
I would suggest that the controversy is now shifting. It is a welcome shift to the central issue for all churches: that is, how to teach the Christian faith to our children in all schools, State and church, in the second half of the 20th century. This is a welcome change, and in this context the help offered to the voluntary colleges of education under Clause 4 is particularly relevant. The more discussion we can have, and the more we can have it together—and I stress the word "together"—between the demoninations on this cardinal issue of how actually to teach the Christian faith, the better for us. It will involve, and I am sure it should now involve, changes and modifications in the agreed syllabuses. It needs much more attention to the needs of the children at their particular stages of development, and particularly to the needs of the older children who are present now in our secondary schools in far greater numbers than was envisaged when the original Act of 1944 was drafted, and who will be present in ever greater numbers when the school leaving age is raised.
Any modern catechism, or series of catechisms, must depend far less on handing out dollops of ecclesiastical dogma to our children, because the older children quite properly simply will not take it. I will not go into detail, but, broadly speaking, in my view (and I have had a little experience, as all clergy have, of teaching both in State and church schools) the way to teach the Christian belief and the Christian code of behaviour, particularly to older children, is to explain, together with their active co-operation, just exactly what life is about. They are intensely interested in this and also in how they are supposed to fit in with it. As the most reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester has just said, it is not a question of deciding that you want to impart this, that and the other bit of religious

741
knowledge to children and hand it out to them; you have to start where they are, make things real and interesting to them, and go on from there.
I will say no more about this, because I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Aberdare who, unfortunately, is not with us this afternoon, has a Motion down for a debate in your Lordships' House on the teaching of religious knowledge. I look forward very much to the day when we have that debate. All I will do now is to conclude my few remarks by stressing, as I am sure all noble Lords would agree, that no society must ever tire of trying to improve the systems by which it educates its children. I welcome the Bill on behalf of these Benches as a prudent, well advised, step to secure such an improvement. This Bill will go a considerable way to ensure that the Churches and all the other voluntary bodies responsible for running schools will not cease to make their full contribution to such an improvement.
6.42 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I confess that I have found this an extremely interesting and, indeed, extremely satisfactory debate. Although this is a subject with which all those of your Lordships who took part in the debate are very familiar, the fact remains that it has provided a vehicle for the expression of a number of interesting views. I am personally grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Newton and Lord Sandford, for the welcome they have given to the Bill. I think it would be quite proper on this occasion to congratulate those leaders in the main political Parties, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Sir Edward Boyle, on the harmonious and close understanding and wisdom which they have jointly brought to bear on this subject.
I warmly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, about the really splendid nature of the change that has come about in relation to these matters, which have been previously the subject of controversy. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the history of your Lordships' House will remember the violence of feeling that arose in relation, for instance, to the
742
Liberal Education Bill in 1906 or 1907, when this was one of the bones of contention between another place and this House. Since we are giving credit where credit is due—and I do this in no spirit of flattery—I think we should recognise specifically the wisdom of the Church leaders. I have particularly in mind the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and Archbishop Beck; and those of us who knew both the Bishop of London and the Archbishop will not in the least have been surprised to see this evolution into a common position. A special measure of congratulation or acknowledgment is due to the leaders of the Free Churches, especially when one remembers the strength of the feeling of their predecessors and those who actually went to prison rather than pay the rate. To-day it has been possible for the Free Church leaders, Dr. Payne and Dr. Vine, to come along with their Roman Catholic and Anglican colleagues.
It seems to me that there is very little in this debate for me to answer. All the aspects of the Bill were fully and lucidly explained by my noble friend Lady Phillips, and in those areas which might need even fuller explanation for those Who, like myself, are laymen in the field of education, this information has been supplied with great clarity, and in a very ample form, by the noble Lords and the right reverend Prelates. I greatly enjoyed listening to the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Chichester, and it was interesting to hear of the new look, the new thinking that is going on, and the detailed views of men who are carrying special responsibility for these schools. Once again I must, like the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, express my admiration for the way the Roman Catholic community are carrying a burden which the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said might seem small to us, in view of the vast sums we normally talk about, though, frankly, it seemed to me enormous.
Having known the devotion that has gone into the support of Church education and its fundamental importance to the community, those of us who might prefer a tidier system of education—and from an organisational point of view there are powerful arguments against the dual

743
system—must remember that it is absolutely essential in a democracy, where the influence of the State can be so great, that we should not regard the State as the special property of the secularist, and to that extent it is gratifying to see that this sensitivity is so clearly recognised.
There are one or two small points that I would mention. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has already corrected one small point on which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, fell slightly into error. The Church of England, as I understand it, have only given an undertaking with regard to opening new aided schools in single-school areas. I think this point was particularly clarified. There was one—I hesitate to say jarring note in the debate: the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, is so charming and expresses herself so beautifully that the underlying violence of her language is somewhat concealed. I was glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester answered her.
I must say, frankly, that I should not have thought this an appropriate occasion to debate comprehensive education, and I do not propose to do so, because this is a non-contentious Bill. I am amazed at the capacity, I might say of the Brooke family, to bring contentiousness. Indeed, I am a little worried about this sort of paranoic tendency that we have seen displayed twice to-day. There is the vision of a Machiavellian and wicked Secretary of State waiting with his trap ready for the innocent Church leaders—and let me say that the Church leaders may be innocent in certain respects, but they are not innocent in terms of politics and wordly wisdom—to be lured into this trap and all is going to be lost.
My Lords, I do not propose to say any more, beyond acknowledging—and we must acknowledge—that the schools of the kind of which the noble Baroness was speaking are ones of which the governors are very rightly proud; and there is no suggestion that this is not so. I must say that because our natural loyalties are such that we always believe that that which we work for and work with has a peculiar excellence. I would not go quite as far as the converse of what she said and assume that other schools, county schools with their governors and their
744
devotion to education, do not also have a special excellence. I may perhaps say that there is a variety of excellence, and I can see the attractions of this view. But I do not propose to widen the debate any further. There will be other occasions, no doubt, when we shall hear either from the noble Baroness, or indeed from the noble Lord, on this subject.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRAD-FELLTE: My Lords, may I say that it was far from my intention to suggest that there were not other extremely good systems of education and extremely good schools. I think that the noble Lord is perhaps slightly twisting what I was trying to say.
LORD SHACKLETON: Well, my Lords, save me from trying to twist what the noble Baroness was trying to say! She seems to have twisted quite a lot of her own thinking or she would not have produced her particular speech on this occasion. Again I say, in the friendliest way, that I do not want to spoil the atmosphere. I am most grateful to noble Lords on the other side, and to other noble Lords and right reverend Prelates who have spoken, for the way in which we have been able to establish a real measure of agreement. I am quite convinced that there is a real measure of agreement. There is also a great measure of understanding about the nature of the difficulties. There is such good will and determination in regard to this matter that I think it augurs extremely well for the future of the aided schools and of the communities who make such sacrifices to carry them on. Of course the noble Baroness was quite right to point out that aided schools do not all belong to particular communities. There are a number of independent (if that is the right word) aided schools of great excellence.
My Lords, I do not propose to spend any further time discussing the purposes of the Bill. I think we are all agreed that it represents an important easement, and that it introduces—this may be of even greater importance—a greater flexibility into dealing with the problems which the movement and development of our community impose on those who wish to have a special stake and a special interest in education. I do not think I need commend the Bill any further to this

745
House. I believe that it is clear that it will have a satisfactory and swift progress through the House. I would only express my appreciation of the wise speeches that I have heard to-day.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at six minutes before seven o'clock.