HL Deb 23 November 1967 vol 286 cc1170-82

4.38 p.m.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, as I am confident that its provisions will commend themselves to all Members of this House. I should like to say at the outset that the various local authority and teachers' associations were consulted about the objects of the Bill and have expressed agreement with its intentions. The measure is, therefore, one which I hope will secure the support not only of all political Parties but also of all those who are directly concerned with the conduct and development of the establishments of education affected by it.

This Bill is concerned with the governing bodies of certain educational establishments maintained and at present administered by local education authorities. These are colleges of education, certain establishments of further education and special schools. I shall have a word to say shortly in more detail about these institutions. The Bill is not concerned with voluntary institutions of education.

The purpose of the Bill, in brief, is to provide the establishments with substantial responsibility for their academic task and increased freedom in the performance of it. Before I describe the way in which it is proposed to do this, it will be helpful, I think, to outline the developments which led to the decision to introduce this legislation. Members of the House will no doubt recall the statement in December, 1964, in another place by the then Secretary of State for Education and Science on the recommendations of the Robbins Committee on Higher Education in relation to the teacher-training colleges—as the colleges of education were then called. Among other changes, that Committee had recommended that the colleges should be given independent governing bodies and should be federated in schools of education of the universities. My right honourable friend said that the Government welcomed closer academic relationships between the universities and the colleges, but that they had concluded that, for the present, the colleges should continue to be administered by the existing maintaining bodies under the present system of overall supervision. They intended, however, to secure that the present arrangements for the internal government of colleges should be reviewed forthwith, in the light of the Robbins Committee's recommendations on this subject, by all those concerned. To this end the Study Group on the Government of Colleges of Education was established in 1965, and its Report was published in February, 1966.

The membership of this Group was drawn from the bodies representing the local education authorities, the voluntary bodies and the teaching staff of the colleges and universities, and it was under the distinguished chairmanship of Mr. T. R. Weaver, by whose name the Report is often known. The Study Group concluded that if the further measure of freedom desired for the maintained colleges was to be secured for them it was essential that their governing bodies should be constituted otherwise than as sub-committees of the education committee, as almost all of them now are. To enable these governing bodies to become autonomous legislation would be required. The Study Group recommended that such legislation should be introduced. The subsequent consultation, to which I have already referred, established agreement to this recommendation. It was further decided that the same principles were equally applicable to the main body of further education establishments. It was also felt right that the opportunity should be taken in the same Bill to provide for the government of special schools, which are not covered by the provisions of earlier Education Acts relating to the government and management of schools generally.

Now for a word in more detail about the three categories of institution concerned. There are at present 112 maintained colleges of education, of which 94 are general colleges and the rest specialist colleges of one form or another. Currently they contain some 65,000 teachers in training and this number is likely to grow. The colleges vary in size from a small specialist college of 120 students to a large general college of nearly 1,300 students. The average size is now some 550 students—a very marked difference from the position less than a decade ago—so that these colleges are now sizeable institutions. The development of the arrangements for the Bachelor of Education degree enhances their status and it is fitting that institutions of this kind should have greater autonomy in the conduct of their affairs.

The establishments of further education covered by the Bill number over 600 and consist mainly of technical colleges, colleges of art and agricultural colleges. They will include most of the 30 polytechnics to be designated in accordance with last year's White Paper, A Plan for Polytechnics and Other Colleges, the first of which are expected to come into operation in the autumn of 1968; a few of the polytechnics will be voluntary establishments, and thus fall outside the scope of the Bill. These 600 or so institutions differ very widely in size and in the range and nature of the subjects covered, but all provide some full-time education. The Bill is expressly limited to institutions providing full-time education. It thus excludes evening institutes and small establishments without any full-time courses, of which there are a considerable number and for which it is thought inappropriate to impose a statutory requirement that they shall be conducted in accordance with instruments and articles of government. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent local education authorities from making or continuing their own governmental arrangements for such establishments.

The special schools are defined in the Education Act 1944 as schools which are specially organised to provide special educational treatment for pupils suffering from any disability of mind or body. In January, 1966, there were 780 maintained special schools, with 67,000 pupils. The 1944 Act provided for the constitution of managers and governors for county schools, both primary and secondary, but the relevant provisions did not apply to maintained special schools, for which local authorities can only appoint bodies of managers as subcommittees of the education committee. But special schools have particular functions to fulfil. Many of them are boarding schools located at some distance from the centre of local government. Hence it is appropriate that they should be managed by a board of governors devoted to the particular school.

I turn now to the specific provisions in the Bill. These are, first, that for each of the institutions to which I have referred there shall be a body of governors, the constitution of which is to be laid down in an instrument of government to be made by the order of the local education authority concerned; secondly, that every such institution shall be conducted in accordance with articles of government made by order of the local education authority, and that for colleges of education and the establishments of further education involved these articles shall be made with the approval of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

The instrument of government will lay down that each body of governors shall consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as the authority may determine. These instruments will not be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, but it is his hope—and I believe it is the intention of the maintaining authorities concerned—that the governing bodies will be broadly based and fully appropriate for the responsible nature of the institutions concerned. This means that, for the colleges of education, the composition of the governing body, in the spirit of the Study Group's recommendations, should comprise, in addition to representatives of the maintaining authority, representatives of neighbouring authorities, of the university most closely associated with the college and of the staff of the college, together with practising teachers and other persons with a special contribution to make to the work of the college. Similar considerations apply to the establishments of further education which need strong and broadly based governing bodies with substantial representation of industry, commerce and the professions.

The articles of government of colleges of education are already subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Education and Science under the provisions of the Training of Teachers Regulations 1967. The Bill thus introduces no new requirement, but the existing articles of individual colleges will need to be revised if the colleges are to be given sufficient responsibility for their academic task and freedom to perform it. This revision is now in process in the light of general guidance which has been given to the authorities. I should like to assure the Members of this House that it is not the intention of the Secretary of State to insist on a uniform pattern. There are, nevertheless, certain essential features that he will require these articles to contain. These are that the articles should clearly define the respective functions of the local education authority, the governing body, the academic board and the principal; that there should be appropriate arrangements for the establishment of teaching and non-teaching staff and for their appointment, suspension and dismissal; that there should be specified procedures for the preparation and submission of estimates of expenditure, with suitable delegation of financial responsibility; that the responsibilities for premises and equipment should be defined; and that there should be satisfactory arrangements for the admission, suspension and dismissal of students and for student associations.

Similar considerations will be relevant in regard to the articles of establishments of further education generally, but these establishments vary so greatly in character that there can be no question of any kind of standard pattern for all of them. In the case of the polytechnics, guidance was given to the local education authorities concerned last April (in the Department's Administrative Memorandum No. 8/67), and it was made clear that a liberal form of government would be a condition of designation. As regards other establishments of further education, it is the intention to isssue guidance to authorities after consultation with the national representative bodies.

Before I close, there is one consequence of the Bill to which I must refer. Almost all the governing bodies of the colleges and special schools affected by this Bill are constituted as sub-committees of the education committees of the maintaining authorities. Where this is the case the members of the governing bodies may claim allowances in respect of travelling, subsistence and financial loss under the Local Government Act 1948. The intention of the Bill, as I have already said, is to take the governing bodies out of the local authority committee structure. An indirect effect will, therefore, be to remove from the members of those bodies their present statutory rights to allowances. We think that it is right that allowances should continue to be paid, and that the simplest way to enable this to be done would be for the governing bodies to be prescribed by regulation under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1948. I am able to tell the House that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be prepared to make the necessary regulations in due course.

This Bill provides the framework within which these important institutions of education can develop more fully. Some of the changes envisaged are far-reaching in character, and some may take time to be put fully into effect, but I am sure that all Members of this House will join me in hoping that the liberal attitudes which have inspired the proposals will be reflected in the spirit in which the changes are operated. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)

4.50 p.m.

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for explaining the Bill to us concisely and clearly. I say straight away that we welcome the Bill, which is something for which my right honourable friend Sir Edward Boyle has been pressing since early 1965. The noble Baroness reminded us of the history lying behind the Bill—the Robbins Report recommendation that colleges of education should be linked to universities, which was not accepted by the Government; and at the same time as they announced that they were not accepting it they also announced that a review would be undertaken of the internal government of these colleges.

We on these Benches fully agreed with those decisions, but it is essential that they should be taken together. If the colleges of education are not to be accorded the closest association with universities, it is of the utmost importance that they should be given the maximum amount of freedom for their own internal self-government. After all, the colleges of education are institutions of higher education. They are now running four-year degree courses in accordance with the Robbins recommendations, and they are in every sense national colleges. They draw their students from all over the country and their students take posts all over the country when they are qualified. Indeed, they are financed nationally by all local authorities in a pool, and not just by the one in whose area they happen to be. It would be appropriate at this moment to pay a sincere tribute to the colleges of education, which have done a great deal to meet a difficult situation with the shortage of teachers, and have put a tremendous effort into a massive expansion of intake, with a correspondingly very small building programme.

The noble Baroness reminded us of the Report of the Weaver Committee which resulted in this Bill. I think this is a model Report. It is short and concise, its recommendations are sound and sensible, and I was delighted to see that one of its members was the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, whom as a fellow Welshman I can recommend to your Lordships as being well respected in the field of education throughout Wales. This Bill puts into effect the recommendations of the Weaver Report, but it goes a long way further and covers the provision of governing bodies also for institutions of further education which provide full-time instruction, and also for special schools.

While we welcome the Bill and have no quarrel with what is in it, we on these Benches are rather worried about what is not in it. Consider, first, the colleges of education. If it is important to allow colleges of education maximum freedom for their own internal self-government, then two recommendations of the Weaver Report are of vital importance. The first was mentioned by the noble Baroness, namely, the constitution of the board of governors. As she rightly said, this should include not only the representatives of the L.E.A., who naturally would be strongly represented on the board, but also university representatives, the principal and representatives of the teaching staff, as well as practising teachers and others with a special concern for teacher training. In the case of voluntary colleges there should also be strong representation from the providing body.

The second recommendation, which the noble Baroness did not mention, is that the senior administrative officer of the college should act as clerk to the governing body. This is a clear recommendation of the Weaver Report and one which we should certainly like to see put into practice. We consider both these requirements to be vital if there is to be any real independence for the colleges—yet there is nothing in the Bill to require them. The noble Baroness expressed the hope that local education authorities would act correctly in this matter, but we feel there should be some provision in the Bill to ensure that this is so. There is no doubt, as the noble Baroness said, that the Secretary of State clearly accepts their desirability. The circular (No. 2) which was sent round during this year on the government of colleges of education clearly states, in paragraph 8, that the instrument of government shall specify the arrangements to be made for the participation of the principal and representatives of the academic staff in the government of the college". However, under Clause 1(2) of the Bill the L.E.A. alone is responsible for the instrument and the Secretary of State has no power to insist on a properly constituted governing body. In fact, as the Bill stands I can see no power to prevent an L.E.A. from nominating as the governing body the individuals who at present constitute its education committee—or the sub-committee that is at present running the college. The same would apply to the governing bodies of technical colleges, although I am sure that in many cases it is highly desirable that there should, for example, be representatives of industry on those governing bodies. The trouble is that the instrument under the Bill is the concern of the L.E.A. alone and no approval by the Secretary of State is required.

The noble Baroness mentioned that when it came to the polytechnics this point was covered, because in the recommendations for the polytechnics the governing body clearly has to include the director and other members of the academic staff, representatives of industry, commerce and the professions, and representatives of universities and the teaching profession. Why should the colleges of education be treated any worse than the polytechnics? I believe I am also right in saying that in certain cases the universities, in recognising courses for the degree of Bachelor of Education, assumed that there would be proper representation of the academic board on the governing body of the college of education. I should like to know what is to happen if a particular L.E.A. does not appoint academic representatives to the Board, or, as I have heard suggested, if they were to grant academic representation without voting rights.

In the same circular on the subject of the constitution of polytechnics, the Secretary of State lays it down that the governing body of polytechnics shall appoint its own chief administrative officer who shall act as its clerk. But again there is nothing in the Bill to ensure this for colleges of education or technical colleges. Of course, if the clerkship is included in the articles then the Secretary of State has power to approve them. But what is to stop a local education authority from putting in the instrument that the clerk shall be the authority's chief education officer? It would be against the Weaver Committee's recommendations, and in my view it would severely restrict the independence of the colleges. These are all serious worries and I hope the Government will consider them seriously. If the Bill is to be effective in giving a measure of internal self-government to institutions of higher education, it must ensure proper representation on the governing bodies and an independent clerk.

In my view, the simplest way to achieve this would be to make the instrument of government subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and I should be interested to know whether the Government would consider an Amendment to that effect. For the rest, we shall have to depend on the Secretary of State's wisdom in approving the articles. I was happy to hear that they would not be standard articles; that there would be a certain amount of scope for different articles of government in different cases, but that the Secretary of State was going to insist on certain general principles, one of which in particular I was pleased to hear, namely, that clear financial responsibility should be given to the governing bodies, because no internal self-government is possible unless there is some degree of financial discretion. The other recommendation in the articles which I should hope would be insisted upon, in the case of colleges of education, at any rate, would be that there should be an academic board. I hope that would be included in the articles. Again, it was one of the recommendations of the Weaver Report. With the feeling that we should like to see these extra provisions put into this Bill, we welcome it warmly.

5.0 p.m.

LORD HENLEY

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, raised an extremely interesting point which I am bound to say had not struck me before, and which I think goes to the root of what I want to say about the Bill. He suggested that there may be a weakness in the fact that the constitution of these boards, that is, the people on them, will be chosen by the local education authorities alone, and that what they do will be decided by the L.E.A.s together with the Secretary of State. This may point to a weakness in the Bill which should be put right. I think he may well be right. I do not know how far this is in line with what the Weaver Report said.

What one feels very much about this Bill is that one welcomes it to the extent that it will implement what the Weaver Report suggested. The Bill says very little, but what the noble Baroness said in explaining it went a long way towards answering the various points I had in mind. In general I welcome this Bill very much so far as I can see what it does. The noble Baroness covered this point, and in commenting upon it afterwards the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, completed the picture, and I feel very happy about the Bill as a whole. But I am interested in the point the noble Lord raised, and I am wondering what the noble Baroness will say about it.

The Bill stands or falls on what the local education authorities do in regard to choosing their governors and deciding what they shall do. Weaver points out that in the past there have been extraordinary divergencies over the whole country as to what is done by the different local authorities; some have had governors, some not. I think Weaver would like uniformity, and would like the governors to have a good deal more status or, at any rate, a different status from what they have had. In a way, under the old system the governors had powers far greater than I imagine they may be given under the new Bill, because their powers ranged from overseeing finance from top to bottom to virtually choosing the curriculum.

These very wide powers they had made it appear so attractive to politicians that they in fact got themselves elected to these governorships when it should have been other people, people concerned in social and educational affairs. The wrong people got on to the boards. I can say this perfectly well, because I have been one myself. My experience as a governor of a college was that the board of governors were completely useless. They were no use to the staff whatever. When the staff wanted help the governors were unable to give it. At best they were useless, at worst mischievous. After I had been on the board for two or three years, I felt, "I am no use to the staff; I am wasting my time". I am sure a great many other noble Lords who have been governors will have felt the same thing.

That being so, two things obviously emerge: first, that the governors should be the right people, not just politicians appointed because the power seems to be so attractive that the only people who should wield it are politicians; and, secondly, that the powers should be very much more closely defined. I do not know what those powers should be. They are laid down already to some extent in existing articles, and the noble Baroness has told us that these articles will be revised. Nevertheless, there is immense scope for making the wrong choice, and the best one can say about this Bill, which follows the Weaver Report, is that local education authorities will now be aware how easy it is to make the wrong choice. The same applies to the wrong choice in choosing not only the governors, but what the governors shall do. The noble Baroness pointed out that of course they will vary from place to place, and that is perfectly all right. This is not the same thing as Weaver was complaining about, that there was no uniformity over the country. This is a variation within uniformity, which I am sure is exactly right. I know, as the noble Baroness recognised, that it will take some time to get this going and, having got it going, for it to be effective. This is only too true. The noble Baroness said that it is a step in the right direction, and I warmly welcome the Bill.

5.5 p.m.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, I should like first of all to express my appreciation for the welcome given to the Bill by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Henley. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, paid tribute to the work of the colleges of education. I was in one quite recently where they were undoubtedly working under extraordinarily difficult conditions and making no complaints but really pulling their weight in the national effort. I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was a little hard on himself. I cannot feel that he would be a useless member of any body to which he was appointed. But I take his point, and indeed governors should always be the right people for the task. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned Lord Heycock. We had hoped the noble Lord might speak to-day but unfortunately he has been unable to do so. I believe, however, that he will be giving us the benefit of his very great knowledge of education a little later when we have another debate on this subject.

I should like to assure both noble Lords that my right honourable friend has considered the points they have made in relation to the instruments of government. My right honourable friend does not think it would be appropriate for him to require his formal approval to the instruments of government, but in examining the articles of government which do require his approval, he will naturally have to take into account how they are likely to be affected by the composition of the governing body the authority has in mind, and by their proposals for servicing the governing body. I hope noble Lords will accept that this will be sufficient protection for the point they have both made so strongly.

The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to Circular 2/67 which asked local education authorities to report to the Secretary of State at the end of June the action they have taken to reconstitute the governing bodies in the light of the recommendations. Examination of the articles is showing that they follow closely the model outlined in the Report, and the governing bodies will include representatives of the universities, staffs of the colleges, practising teachers and other persons with special contributions to make. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to properly constituted academic boards and these are the objective of the articles of government suggested by the Secretary of State. They do not seek to impose a uniform pattern, but will, of course, be subject to his approval.

I hope therefore that both noble Lords will accept that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is well aware of the points they have made and that the full explanation I have given in the introduction will enable them to see that these points are being very well watched.

On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.