HL Deb 12 November 1975 vol 365 cc1888-915

Debate resumed.

4.1 p.m.

Lord STAMP

My Lords, in intervening in the final stage of this afternoon's debate in support of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I do so with one thought uppermost in my mind; that is, what is the use of it all? With, it would seem, most of the minds of those on the Government Benches firmly made up, and the ultimate decision arrived at in another place, one might just as well save one's breath. Yet how can one keep silent, in view of the vital importance for the future of the country of the issue we are debating, one that has stirred up such deep feeling not confined to those from one political Party, as we have heard from several noble Lords, even if what one says can have no influence in altering the decision of the Government? At least some historian of the future, taking the relevant volume of Hansard with its red lettering from the shelf, and reading the debate, will know that there were many in your Lordships' House who protested to the last about a decision they believe will have the most serious consequences for the future of our country.

Incidentally, reverting to Hansard, one cannot help wondering whether the change from gold to red lettering which occurred eight years ago had any political significance. Whether or not that is so, I feel that red is what the historian will see as he reads of the madness (I think that is not too strong a word) of those who, in the name of egalitarianism, destroyed one of the main foundations of our country's future: the means of educating to the highest possible standard and under the best possible conditions so many of our most gifted children who form one of our country's most priceless assets. They come so often from poor homes, with parents who cannot afford to send their children to an independent school—particularly nowadays—however much they may scrimp, scrape and forego all luxuries to do so, and the grammar school which caters for them has long been, and still is, an essential part of our educational system which the comprehensive school, however good it may be, cannot replace.

My Lords, the advantages of a grammar school really need no emphasis: a high level of teaching standards with academic excellence as the goal; the spur to healthy competition; an emphasis on discipline, the need for which is only too evident in these days of slackening standards. There are also personal relationships that are so much easier to establish when schools and their classes are not unduly large, and which play such an important role in the formation of character, as does also religious education. In my view, it is nothing short of wicked that any school with a basic religious foundation and outlook, the need for which so many parents feel deeply, should be abolished or forced to go independent, with all that means, or even be closed down.

In considering the advantages of the direct grant school, there are few who would maintain that there is no room for improvement. The method of selection for entry referred to by other noble Lords is a case in point. Nor would I wish to minimise the value of a good comprehensive school education. But can anyone maintain that such schools can provide all the advantages of the grammar school? If all the children of the country cannot enjoy these, must none? Even the Soviet Union no longer believes this. The fact of the matter is that on the continued existence of the grammar schools depends to a large extent the full development of the brain power of the country, and the provision of future leaders in all walks of life. This is the measure of the issue before us, as I see it.

My Lords, whatever misgivings some of those on the Government Benches may have with regard to the decision of the Government—and I cannot believe, particularly after what has been said today, that all of them approve of it, although, when it comes to a vote, I suppose while there may be a few exceptions; and I am glad to hear that one of them will be the noble Lord, Lord Segal—Party unity will prevail.

My Lords, one point made in support of the Government is that their decision reflects the will of the people as represented by the vote in another place. What humbug this is, in view of the iniquities of the present electoral system, and also the fallacies inherent in the package deal of policies known as the Party Manifesto. But even if such a "take-the-lot-or-leave-it" attitude has to be accepted by the electorate on grounds of political expediency, must the Manifesto be regarded as sacrosanct, even though the situation facing the country has come to be quite different from when it was drawn up? The financial circumstances that the country now finds itself in are a case in point. This has been referred to by other noble Lords as a reason for second thoughts.

My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships any longer. All the other points I intended to make have been dealt with repeatedly, and far more eloquently than I could hope to do, by other noble Lords. While I take no satisfaction from the Government's decision, I am glad to have this final opportunity of recording my protest against this in the Division Lobby this evening.

4.8 p.m.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, after such a lengthy and impressive list of speakers it is difficult not to impose unduly on your Lordships by a lengthy reprise or by embarking on a new line of argument, and your Lordships will sympathise with me as I try to do neither. I should like to start out by taking up the questions which were asked of the Minister earlier this afternoon and the requests for assurances on a number of matters. He replied briefly to my noble friend Lord Belstead on the question of the continuance of grants during the phasing-out period, but we have had no assurance that the value of the capitation grant will not remain fixed, as it already has done for some time, in the face of galloping inflation; because to continue capitation at a fixed sum—a fixed number of pound notes when every year those pound notes buy less—is not to honour more than the letter of the undertaking which Her Majesty's Government have given on that issue.

I should like also to ask why it should be that the governors are expected to be liable in some cases for paying compensation for dismissal of teachers in their employment, when that dismissal is rendered inevitable by Her Majesty's Government's action. That was a question posed by my noble friend Lord Belstead, and if I did not hear an answer that was given I apologise. Like my noble friend Lord Eccles, I should like to ask what will be the powers of boards of governors as regards the appointment of teachers in schools which go into the maintained system, and, with Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, I have doubts as to the effective impact of catchment areas on the spread of intake and the power of the governors to see that the character of the school, at least in its religious aspects, remains unchanged. He, like many other noble Lords, picked up the point which appears at the beginning of the Liberal Amendment to this Motion and asked—and I ask again and I should like an answer—what is the Government's provision for boarding need, not merely at present, but what is the intention towards those nine or ten thousand places at present provided by the direct grant system of which it appears that more than 50 per cent. will cease to be available to the maintained sector in the near future.

I should like to pass on from there to pick up a point which the noble Lord opposite made, and which was echoed at other times from the Benches behind him, which referred to selective education on the cheap. My Lords, I am a simple man; I may be innumerate, but I do not understand the arithmetic which is applied in this case. As I understand it, Her Majesty's Government have a statutory duty, either in the person of the Government themselves or embodied in the local authority, to provide education for every child of educable age in this country. All of us certainly pay rates and taxes towards that end. Some parents, having paid those rates and taxes which entitle them to a free place send their children none the less to direct grant schools to which again they have to contribute to the tune of £14 million. I do not think that is a subsidy of the State to the parents any more than it is a subsidy by the parents to the State. It seems to me that the argument must fall. In any case, when we consider that the amount expended, we are told, on unemployment benefit is running at £13 million per week, maybe we can look at the thing in closer perspective. But can we? What will it cost Her Majesty's Government for each place to be provided anew in the maintained system as a result of this draconian and unwelcome regulation?

One other speech I should like to refer to, in, as it were, the sequence in which it occurred, is the powerful and interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who seemed to me to rest an important argument upon a rather narrow base, but who was so completely answered by my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden that I merely wish to remind your Lordships of the arguments my noble friend then put forward.

My Lords, we are talking, if we are farmers, of the seed corn of this country; if we are industrialists, we are talking about the productive capital of this country, because it is only in the originality, the independence and the agility of the minds of future generations that their survival can repose. We in the Conservative Party can never consent freely to the destruction of established, beneficial, and effective institutions on the grounds not that they are too bad, but that they are too good at their job. In the words of the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, "Hastings has its head on the block, its only crime being excellence."

We never can consent freely to a programme which will inevitably ensure that while some such schools will, albeit reluctantly, be absorbed wholesale into the maintained sector, a great many more will, with equal reluctance, be forced to go wholly outside it. They will thus effectively, finally, and, as a direct result of Government policy, deny to the very children whose interests Her Majesty's Government profess to have nearest to their heart, precisely those advantages and opportunities of which they declare them to be most sorely in need. Was it not on this very ladder which was provided that many Members of Her Majesty's present Government began their own ascent? Is it not that ladder which they are pulling up behind them? I refer to a most illuminating speech—illuminating in many respects—by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, for which I was sorry to see that neither the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, nor the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, were able to be present, since it bore much on what they had to say. In this respect, it cannot be denied that the direct grant system provides access to benefits to those who would not, under another system, have them. Was it not, incidentally, Harold Wilson who said in 1966 that the grammar schools would be abolished only over his dead body? And where is his body now? A Government who express concern for disadvantaged children by sweeping away the principal means by which, if they are academically gifted, they can be helped to overcome that disadvantage, express the same depth of sympathy as that expressed by the Walrus to the Carpenter about the oysters.

To what are these "oyster" children to be committed—to an established, proven, and successful alternative? Far from it. There is at this present time both a widespread and a justified concern over the standards of both conduct and learning in a large part of the maintained sector. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, referred to this in very apposite terms. Many of your Lordships present in the Chamber will recall our debate on educational standards in October last year, in which great concern was expressed in this field. The system to which the "oyster" children are being transferred is not therefore entirely admirable. It is also subject to an administrative uncertainty among educational theorists and administrators about what exactly is a comprehensive school and how big it should be, even at this late stage in the day.

The Inner London Education Authority's about-face towards mini-comprehensives, as yet not supported by a reliable body of detailed arrangements for putting it into practice, is still working its way through during its assault upon the voluntary-aided grammar schools which surround this House. So what have we in prospect? Some of the "oyster" children will indeed go into excellent schools, and I must emphasise that we on this side are not carrying a torch or a lance against the comprehensive system as such.

Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH

That is a change.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, the noble Lord says that this a change. He must speak of matters as he sees them. I can only say that what we have always been concerned with in our Party is the interests of the child, with excellence of standards, with the preservation of tradition, with independence of outlook, and that these can be established in many different forms. What they cannot be produced in is a system which is the subject of dictatorial dogma. It does not follow that because education takes place in a particular organisation it is good. It has to be seen to be good, and then the organisation in which it is taking place can be given the authority and support which the State can give to it. Your Lordships will forgive me for digressing with some heat, but some of these "oyster" children will not go into—

Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for intervening? Why must he keep on referring to the 10 million children who are not going through the direct grant school system as "oyster" children? Does he not understand that many of the children who do not get there are not cut out because, as I said in my observations, they are sub-standard, but because there are no places for them?

Lord ELTON

My Lords, there are two misconceptions here. The first is that the "oyster" children are the children who arc being swept out of the grammar schools which are proven and excellent, some of them into schools which are thought to be not so proven and not so excellent. May I ask the noble Lord to repeat the second part of his question?

Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, not all the parents who make application for their children to go to direct grant schools on a non-fee paying basis, being looked after by the local education authority, are cut out because they do not pass the examination; they are cut out because there are no places for them.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for explaining again what he said, which is, in effect, that if one cannot have absolute choice for all, one should have no choice for anybody. We on these Benches feel that because choice is good and because good education should be given to children who are able to profit from it, there should be more opportunity for them to do so and not less, and that the direct grant list should not be curtailed but expanded. I shall come to this later in my speech.

Other children will go into schools of a size which, in spite of the introduction of the tutorial and house group system inevitably inflicts anonymity upon them, and I have taught in such schools and I have experience of it. Others will go into split site monstrosities, no more one school than Siamese twins are one person; schools which cause staff or pupils or both to walk long distances after registration in rain and wind and slush, thus promoting both influenza and truancy almost as briskly as they promote learning in socially acceptable behavour.

Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH

Like Eton, my Lords.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, might I refer the noble Lord to the present discursus, going on in the Burton group, or to Croydon, where, in a comprehensive which is made up of a technical school and a secondary modern school half a mile apart, one of the teachers is called upon to start teaching at one end of the complex five minutes after he has finished teaching at the other? That is what we refer to as a botched-up scheme and it seems that administrative botchery and educational butchery are the twin symbols of the programme we have before us.

What of the expense? Her Majesty's Government have, I believe, provided £25 million for carrying out this regrettable piece of reorganisation. It was not conjured up out of a magician's hat or even at first remove out of a sheikhly pocket. Your Lordships will have noted that the Conservative allocation of £30 million for nursery provision has sunk to £9 million, at which figure prudent councils cannot take it up because its very inadequacy poses a further and unacceptable burden on a rating system which, as my noble friend Lord Swinton said, is hideously overloaded. That £25 million will not cover the cost of providing reasonably acceptable accommodation for the new breed of schools. The inevitable result of the combination of penury and haste under which the change is being brought about will he numbers of split sites, two and three-form entry schools with inadequate sixth form provision and other botched-up schemes.

I called this earlier an untimely exercise, and this brings me to the Liberal Amendment. I sympathise with, and indeed congratulate, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for coming late and valiantly to the rescue of his Party. Some of the things he said were understandable and, indeed, a little acceptable to these Benches, but he finished up by saying that what was wanted was a little less ideology and a little more thought in the conversion to a totally comprehensive system. I recognise the difficulty of the Liberal Party, but T do not think that their Amendment altogether solves it. Their difficulty is that in another place they actually voted in favour of the regulations which have given rise to this debate, and in the course of the debate their educational spokesman said: As a Party, we support the principle of the Government's decision to phase out the direct grant from Autumn 1976. That puts reasonable people who share our view that this is a disaster in a very difficult position.

What does the Amendment say? It does not condemn the ending of the direct grant as such, but the ending of it before provision has been made for boarding need and before agreement has been reached on the role of the direct grant schools within the comprehensive system. I shall not dwell too long on this, except to hope that those of your Lordships who may have been thinking of supporting such an Amendment will have paid as careful attention as I have to the debate to which your Lordships' House has been treated this afternoon and in the face of which it will be difficult for your Lordships to vote for the Amendment. This reorganisation, which is being undertaken at a time of acute public financial hardship and of inadequate funds—and those purchased at the expense of other constructive programmes —is something which I do not believe the House can readily accept. It has been undertaken by a Party in search, not of equality of opportunity, but of equality of product. It is not on its own that we should see it, but as part of a broad and ponderously advancing front which is moving across the country and which is gradually being forced on the people, who are numbed by its economic results and by its political insensitivity.

My noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden pointed out that this is an assault on the spirit of the Act and cited Sections 1,36 and 76 as being those in which the regulations are in breach. In particular, he referred to the way in which the wishes of parents are no longer to be catered for. But is this only a beginning? We have had reassuring words, but does the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, really not want to see a single direct grant school closing as a result of the Regulations, as he said? My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was unable yesterday to elicit any assurances from Her Majesty's Government that, when hounding the grant-aided schools of Scotland into the independent sector, they would not later pursue them and seek them out there for extinction. Thirteen months ago, the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, avowed that the end of the direct grant system was but a preliminary to the end of the independent educational sector which he at present supports. He quoted his Party's Manifesto in aid.

The new Regulations break the bridge between the maintained and the independent sectors. Can the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, tell us that the breaking of this bridge does not mean the beginning of a siege or has he changed his mind in the last 13 months? Are the eyes of his Party not fixed on private education with the same calculating glitter with which they look at private medicine, private ship-repairing, private industry and private profit? Is not this iniquitous Regulation part of the great blurring fog which is being breathed out across the land from the doors and windows of Transport House in the spirit of what I would term "monolithism"?

I should like to expand on the subject of monolithism, but I am keeping your Lordships too long. It is merely a philosophy which imposes the belief that everything must be the same for everybody and done by the same machine, whether it be teaching, cure, building, mending ships or running factories. Today, the shadow of the axe swings over the direct grant schools. It is already in motion, with a Socialist hand on the handle and, I hope, not too many Liberal fingers raised in blessing, to put an end to a valued and productive system. But this will not be forever. It will be 1984 before the phasing-out is complete—some of your Lordships may think the date significant—but, before then, we shall have deserved a change of Government. Our Party is committed on its return before that date to re-open and extend the direct grant list, thus extending the chance of advancement to more disadvantaged children. It will admit to it not only those schools which are currently upon the list, though they will clearly have priority, but other suitable schools as well, and it will build into the system a statutory position which cannot be removed by order that is, without the certainty of adequate Parliamentary debate.

The vast volume of correspondence which many noble Lords have received from all parts of the country and all walks of life bears witness to the great public pressure on us to express the widely held and fully justified feeling of alarm mixed with outrage at the Government's policy with regard to this Regulation. My hand is cramped with writing it. Ours is a policy of bringing the maintained and independent sectors together, of rebuilding the bridge. It is our policy to build and to give opportunity. It is up to the noble Lord opposite to prove that it is not his policy to cramp and to destroy.

4.30 p.m.

Lord CROWTHER-HUNT

My Lords, by the leave of the House I should like to try to answer the many points which have been raised in this far-ranging debate which has gone very much wider than the question of direct grant schools. We have ranged from nursery school provision through to the universities, and I think the only thing that we have left out has been adult education. I do not want to weary the House too long in trying to reply to all these points.

I want to start by paying my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and his 1944 Education Act. I had a kind note from him a short time ago explaining why he could not be here at this moment. Nevertheless, I want to pay my own small tribute to that Act which provides so much of the imaginative framework within which the Department of Education and Science still operates. I should be very ready to accept his kind and friendly invitation to a tutorial on these matters—which I think was broadly how he couched his remarks at that stage—in his own Cambridge college, my own Cambridge college, or my Oxford college. No doubt we can arrange that in correspondence subsequently.

So many points have been raised that if I do not manage to take up each one of them (although I shall do my best to take up the most important ones) I shall write to noble Lords more specifically. If I omit to answer particular points either by accident or—I was going to say, "by design", but it is not in fact my design to omit any of the more substantial points —I shall write.

I start with the matter which has been much raised, that by ending the direct grant system we shall be reducing the educational opportunities, particularly for working class children. As I have already made clear, we do not accept that argument. First—as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, emphasised—because in the direct grant schools it is usual to find a very heavy weighting of children of professional and managerial parents and very few children of unskilled workers. Nor do we accept that good educational opportunity exists only in selective schools. We feel—and general educational opinion on all sides agrees with us —that opportunity for all children can be very much better in comprehensive schools, and this is especially true for those children who happen to be late developers.

I now come to the assertion that freedom of choice will be reduced. This was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, and a number of other noble Lords. I wish to stress in this context that the direct grant schools give no freedom of choice to those—the vast majority, that is—who fail the 11-plus. The argument arises from a desire to perpetuate selective education for a few, and subsidised by the State, rather than from a desire for freedom for all parents to choose between one school or another. As I have already emphasised, direct grant schools are by no means evenly spread. Their geography, like the grant system itself, arises from an accident of history. Therefore, whatever choice they may offer is by no means universal. For the great majority of parents, where selection still operates, freedom of choice is an illusion. They have in practice no option but to send their children to a local secondary modern school if they fail the 11-plus.

A fully comprehensive system will, in our view, open up new choices, not only between schools, where this is practicable, but also within schools. This is not—and here I am taking up specifically a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—a totalitarian approach. We are not here adopting a totalitarian principle which will cut out all choice. Not only will there be choice between the different schools in the comprehensive sector, but there will continue to be choice between the maintained sector and the independent sector. Here, I should like to reply specifically to a point which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has just made, when he said that the independent sector was next on our list for abolition, and appeared to quote from something I had said on an earlier occasion in this House. My Lords, I have never stated that at all. I have not got the quotation in my hand (I have not had the opportunity to refresh my memory on this, but this is what I hope I said). I believe I said that this Government had, as an essential part of their policy, the abolition of the charitable status so far as independent schools are concerned. There is a great deal of difference, my Lords, between the abolition of the charitable status of the independent schools and the abolition of the independent schools themselves, and it is no part of our policy to abolish the independent schools.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord of the next sentence? If I may refresh his memory about the paragraph I was referring to, in Hansard of 31st October 1974, at column 268, he said: It is in this context that I want to emphasise that the Government fully intend to carry out the commitment in the Party Manifesto, which said: …the next Labour Government will stop the present system of direct grant schools and withdraw tax relief and charitable status from public schools as a first step towards our long-term aim of phasing out fee paying in schools"". I do not know how the noble Lord interprets that.

Lord CROWTHER-HUNT

My Lords, I reiterate what I said a moment or two ago; our policy is to end the charitable status of the independent schools. The noble Lord may well be accurate in quoting what he has; I may not have put things as precisely as I ought on that occasion.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, is the noble Lord then withdrawing what is said in the quotation from the Manifesto and saying that it is not a step towards their long-term aim of phasing out fee-paying in schools?

Lord CROWTHER-HUNT

My Lords, I refuse to be drawn on the question of the longer-term aims of Party policy. The point about longer-term aims of Party policy is that these are renewed from time to time, as the noble Lord knows, and fortunately—and it is a very good fortune—everything that has been in Conservative Party Manifestos has certainly not been enacted. This country would be in a most terrible mess if it had.

My Lords, I think I made the point that, with the abolition of the direct grant system, there would still continue to be freedom of choice between the maintained system, on the one hand, and the independent system, on the other. I should like to come next to the argument that good schools will be destroyed and lost. This was a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, the noble Lord, Lord James, and a number of others. We are not setting out to destroy any schools. It is the grant which is being phased out; and I hope that many of the schools will join the maintained system as comprehensive schools and will bring with them their traditions and standards, which we hope they will retain in the same way as have hundreds of former grammar schools, county and voluntary alike, which have become com- prehensive over the last 10 years. If they are not prepared to serve the community in this way, they may become independent, but in that case they cannot expect help from taxpayers' money.

It is at this point, my Lords, that I come to this question of a bridge of which so much has been made in this debate; the direct grant schools forming a bridge between the maintained sector, on the one hand, and the independent sector, on the other. This seems to me one of the phoniest and most misleading arguments which have been used in the course of today. A bridge, my Lords, is not something you actually stand on; it is there for you to move across. The whole point of a bridge is that you move from one side to another. When noble Lords say that the direct grant schools are a bridge between the maintained and the independent schools, are they saying that they therefore expect to see people from the independent schools move across the bridge into the maintained school sector, or are they saying that people will move from the maintained sector into the independent sector? That is the essential concept of a bridge, and it makes nonsense to use that concept of a bridge in any other circumstances. Since noble Lords, I am quite sure, were not saying either of those things, then the concept of a bridge is something which it really is not worth dealing with any further.

My Lords, I come to the point that some of the direct grant schools may not find a place in the maintained sector. This was a point which was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Lord, Lord James. We do not yet know whether this will be a sizeable problem. The problems are no greater for the direct grant schools than they have been for the grammar schools which are already in the maintained system. The direct grant schools may, if they become maintained, contribute to a comprehensive system of secondary education in a number of different ways. Because of the specialist facilities which they often provide, for example in their science laboratories—and this might deal with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made about the son of the Polish immigrant—they might most suitably be used for a concentration of sixth form work, either as sixth form colleges or as 11 to 18 schools providing sixth form facilities for a number of 11 to 16 schools which are without their own sixth forms. In other cases, they may function most suitably simply as 11 to 18 schools alongside the existing maintained schools with a similar age range. All this is a matter for discussion with the local authorities.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on, may I ask for a clarification of one matter? The noble Lord said that there is no difference between the problem which a direct grant school may experience in trying to go into the maintained system, and the difficulties that there may be in a maintained grammar school becoming a comprehensive school. Would the noble Lord like to reconsider what he said on that? Am I not right in saying that under Section 13 of the 1944 Act, if a maintained grammar school is to become comprehensive, the proposal for this is from the local education authority itself. The distinction is that here you may get a direct grant school wanting to come in and wishing that the proposal is made by a local authority which may, with the best will in the world, say, "We are sorry but this is not possible."

Lord CROWTHER-HUNT

My Lords, I accept the distinction that the noble Lord is making. But in the discussions that we are having with the local authorities, and in the discussions that they will have with the schools every effort will be made—and this is what we want to achieve—to bring the direct grant schools into the maintained system.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening again. I accept that, and I am certain that the Department will be using their considerable powers to carry out what the noble Lord is saying. But on the last occasion when your Lordships' House discussed this—on a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—the noble Lord said that in the final analysis it may be that the schools in the direct grant sector will not choose to become maintained. Today, the noble Lord has said that it may be that schools in the direct-grant system will not be prepared to become maintained. I would ask the noble Lord to rephrase that, because in some cases I do not think this is an accurate representation of the truth.

Lord CROWTHER-HUNT

My Lords, I will try to rephrase it, but it is not always easy to respond off the cuff to delicate nuances of phraseology. The Government and the Department are hoping that as many of the direct grant schools as possible will find a place within the maintained system. We shall do all in our power to try to bring about a situation to produce that end.

My Lords, what I should like to turn to now are some of the different problems that have been raised about religious schools and the question of religion in this area. The point has been made that the religious schools might suffer. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised a number of points on this question. There were points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead; and the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Wakefield and the Bishop of Worcester also raised points in this regard. We do not expect the religious influence to diminish in any way by the phasing out of the direct grant schools. Those denominational schools which opt to join the maintained sector will do so no doubt as voluntary-aided schools, in which the governors will have no less power than they have at present in determining the part that religion shall play in the schools.

Turning to the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the fact is that there are thousands of denominational schools operating satisfactorily now as voluntary schools. The functions of their governors are prescribed, partly by Statute and partly by the articles of government made by the Secretary of State which are virtually in standard form, a form in which they have been made for the best part of 30 years. They have in common certain of those functions with the governors of county schools. These are at present under review by the Taylor Committee appointed earlier this year by the Secretary of State. Other functions are peculiar to governors of voluntary schools. They derive from the special relationship of the schools-providing body to the LEAs and the Secretary of State, and they will not be reviewed by the Taylor Committee, although it will be open to the Secretary of State to review them in consultation with the bodies concerned in the light of the Taylor Com- mittee's conclusions and recommendations. Pending any such review, the governors of voluntary-aided schools will continue to have the same special functions and powers as they now have.

If I may turn to the particular points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, on the position of Catholic schools, the Catholic Education Council have ample experience of the way voluntary aided schools are conducted within the maintained sector. It is expected that most direct grant schools which opt to become maintained will wish to do so in a voluntary-aided capacity. The 1975 Cessation of Grant Regulations provide for the settlement of capital debts incurred by these former direct grant schools which become maintained, subject to certain conditions. When the schools become maintained, they will benefit from the normal arrangements for aided schools by which improvements are paid for by the proprietors with the help of an 85 per cent. grant from the Government. It would, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will appreciate, be contrary to the law and indeed the essential nature of the dual system, if the Government were, as he suggested, to bear all the costs of improvement.

If I may next turn to the specific points which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, raised—and of which he was kind enough to give me some advance notice—the first point was: what will be the position of a pupil with a free place in a direct grant school who transfers to a different direct grant school? At present a pupil who leaves a direct grant school at which he has a free place has no automatic claim to a free place in another direct grant school. If the governors of the school to which he is transferring, or the LEA, are prepared to give him a free place, he will be no worse off by moving between schools. If neither the governors nor the LEA are prepared to give him a free place, he will have to pay fees to attend the direct grant school. The alternative will be to transfer to a maintained school. The position will be no different so far as the pupil is concerned when the phasing out of direct grants begins, but as the school will not receive capitation grant for him the fee will be higher than it will be under present arrangements. There will be no fee remission at the Government's expense.

The next point the noble Lord raised was whether a fee-paying pupil who transfers from a boarding to a day place within the same school would continue to be eligible for fee remission. Boarding pupils are not now eligible for fee remission under present arrangements. If, during the phasing-out period, a boarder in a year group in which day pupils are eligible for fee remission becomes a day pupil in the same school, he will be eligible for fee remission.

The last two points about which the noble Lord asked referred to whether there will be any assurance that the level of the salary of any member of the staff in a direct grant school which enters the maintained system will be guaranteed, and what does the last sentence of paragraph 19 of Circular 7/75 mean? Will the school governors have to make compensation for the termination of employment where the LEA are unable to find appropriate employment for all members of the staff? I cannot at this moment enlarge on what has been said in Circular 7/75. Discussions are taking place, and my right honourable friend hopes to have some proposals to put to the Direct Grant Joint Committee at about the turn of the year. It is certainly his intention that the position of staff should be safeguarded as far as possible.

I come now to the question of cost, which was raised by a number of speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Butler, Lord Balerno, Lord James, Lord Alexander, Lord Segal, and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. It is still not possible to estimate exactly what the financial consequences of the phasing out of the direct grant will be. There may well be some savings and additional cost to the public purse. The final balance does not seem likely to be big one way or the other. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in answer to a Question on 30th June, no firm estimate of cost is available. If all the direct grant schools were to enter the maintained system as voluntary aided schools, as would be expected in most if not all cases, local education authorities would have no responsibility for capital expenditure on their premises. Any effect on current expenditure under those circumstances would depend mainly on, first, the size and age range of each school in its new role and, secondly, how many of its pupils were children who, if its status had remained unchanged would have attended it or other non-maintained schools at some expense to their parents.

At the moment it is not possible to estimate these factors which involve many thousands of separate decisions by local education authorities schools and individual parents. The latest estimate of the maximum increase in current public expenditure would be about £14 million. At the other end of the range of possibilities, there could be a saving to local educational authorities of £23 million or more, and a total saving to public funds of at least £38 million, when account is taken of Central Government expenditure also. We shall have a better idea when the schools have all made their choices by the end of this year, but the final balance will depend on very many individual decisions made in the years to come.

I accept that local education authorities could be faced with some additional expenditure as a result of this phasing-out in any one of several ways. First, some authorities may well have no practical alternative but to take up new places at these schools for a number of years to come, even where the schools are moving towards independence. They may otherwise be unable to make suitable provision for all the children in their area. The LEA will then have to pay fees representing the full economic cost of such new places in the future in those circumstances. The element represented by the capitation grant which will not be payable for those places will be transferred from Central Government to local government expenditure. I emphasise that although it may be significant in some areas for some time to come, it is a limited problem and one which should disappear fairly soon.

The second way in which additional expenditure may arise is that some children who would otherwise have gone to direct grant schools without any cost to their LEAs may no longer be able to do so, either because the school has closed —that is not likely to happen in many case—or because the parents find themselves unable to pay the necessary fee. The LEAs may well have spare capacity in their maintained schools, so the arrival there of some additional children will cause no embarrassment. Where they do not, some additional provision may be required. Again, I would emphasise that this is a limited problem. We do not know—I say this quite frankly—how many additional places at maintained schools might be required in these circumstances. Everybody is entitled to his own guess. The Government's guess is that it will be very small and nowhere near the massive increase suggested in some quarters. We shall have to wait and see but whatever additional expenditure might be necessary in these limited respects, the Government see no reason for thinking that, taking the operation as a whole, there will be a significant net addition to public expenditure as a whole in the foreseeable future.

I shall now take up the suggestion that some boarding places might be lost —a point which was made by the noble Lords, Lord Wade, Lord Butler and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. It is too early to assume that the number of boarding places will be significantly reduced if direct grant boarding schools enter the maintained sector or become independent. We shall not know the likely position here until the schools and local education authorities have made their decisions. Although there are over 7,000 boarding places in direct grant grammar upper schools, this should be seen in proportion. There are over 10,000 boarding places in maintained secondary schools, and more than 58,000 secondary boarding places in independent schools.

Local education authorities which see a need to provide pupils with boarding education can do so by sending them to any of the types of school I have just mentioned. I have no doubt that local education authorities will consider very sympathetically any proposals by the proprietors of direct grant boarding schools to become maintained. Wherever it is helpful, officers of my Department will be glad to join talks between school proprietors and local education authorities, but the final decision on entry must rest with the local education authorities. If, in the end, the direct grant boarding school cannot find a place in the maintained sector, there is no reason why it should not continue to provide boarding education as an independent school. If it attracts sufficient boarding pupils at the present time, there is no reason why it should not continue to do so if it becomes independent. Boarding provision has never been subsidised by direct grant, and boarding costs at these schools should not rise because of the withdrawal of the direct grant, whether they become maintained or independent.

The Government are anxious to provide ample time for discussions to take place between the proprietors of schools and the local education authorities, and if a school genuinely wishes to enter the maintained sector organised on comprehensive lines the proprietors should sign the declaration of intent and forward it to the Department. This will give the school a further year in which to pursue its negotiations with the local education authority in whose area it is situated, or with a group of local education authorities if that seems to offer better prospects of a desirable outcome.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that part of his speech, may I ask him for a piece of information? In the take-up of places in either independent or direct grant schools, will local education authorities in future be expected to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to do this?

Lord HAWKE

My Lords, will the noble Lord speak a little less fast? Some of us find it rather difficult to follow.

Lord CROWTHER-HUNT

My Lords, the answer to the second question is easier than the answer to the first. The answer to the second question is, Yes; I will certainly go more slowly. I was not wanting to trespass too long on the time of your Lordships' House when I have to cover so many points. I should like to write to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about the first question, because I cannot answer it "off the cuff".

I should like now to deal with the point which has been put forward, that the deadline is too tight; that we are asking people to take their decisions too quickly in this area. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. A good deal has been said about the lack of time given to schools to decide where their future should lie. Although we did not make a formal announcement on the subject until 11th March this year, it has been known for a number of years that the withdrawal of direct grant was "on the cards". Since 11th March we have spoken to the representatives of local authority associations and representatives of schools to ensure that the withdrawal of grant can be carried through smoothly.

At the direct grant schools' own request, we gave them advance notice on 1st May of the provision to be made in the regulations, and we were criticised for this by Opposition spokesmen. We have now asked the schools to let us have a decision by the end of this year, in principle, as to the direction in which their future appears to lie. Those which express a bona-fide wish to enter the maintained system will continue for a short time under the present arrangements until they can be brought into the maintained sector as comprehensive schools. Governors of schools have had since 11th March to focus their minds on this subject, and I understand that many of them will be taking their decisions—indeed, for the most part in governors' meetings to be held this term.

It has been said that some pupils will suffer during the transition—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, made. We are taking very great pains to protect the interests of pupils who are already m these schools. There is no reason why any child who is now in a direct grant upper school should have his education upset because of the withdrawal of grant, except in the very few cases where a school may decide to close in the near future. We intend to continue the capitation and fee remission grants in respect of these pupils, whether they hold free or fee-paying places. Our intention not to change the level of capitation grant does not imply financial "starvation" for the schools. Here I wish specifically to reply to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked me to deal with a short time ago. Their sources of income will remain essentially unchanged. If the costs of the schools increase, their fees, payable by local education authorities or parents, will rise as necessary to meet their needs. Parents who already pay fees will continue to pay according to their means, with the Department's fee remission grant meeting the difference where it exists between the parental contribution and the full economic fee.

These pupils will not be affected by a decision of the Governors to seek independence. Where schools decide to come into the maintained system, and we hope that very many of them will, the Governors and local education authorities can be expected to do everything possible to ensure that the education of the selective pupils remaining in the schools will not be prejudiced. If it is argued that holding capitation grants steady will cause the fees to go up more than otherwise would be the case—this is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made—the answer is that through the fee remission scheme the Department will meet the cost in respect of those parents for whom the increase is too heavy a burden.

In the defence today of the direct grant schools, very many points have been made. We have heard about the virtues of selective education. We have heard about their academic excellence. Many of the arguments have been not so much in defence of the direct grant schools, as in defence of the maintained grammar schools. However, in this defence of the direct grant school system it seems to me that nobody has said why better-off parents should be specially subsidised for a form of education which they prefer, and which they will be able to continue to buy at its true cost in the independent sector in the future.

In the end, it seems to me to come down to this. Like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I believe in equality of opportunity. Like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, I believe in quality and excellence, but we differ on how best these objectives can be attained. But we believe that without real equality of opportunity the possibility of achieving the very highest standards will be reserved for the very few. We further believe that the maintenance of privilege is the enemy of equality of opportunity, and that so long as it exists we shall never get real equality of opportunity.

Therefore, in our view the perpetuation of a privileged system like the direct grant school system in which, for the most part, well-off families are being subsidised by the State to buy at less than economic cost what they regard as a privileged education for their children, is the enemy of equality of opportunity. In the last analysis that, my Lords, is why noble Lords opposite want to maintain it, are pledged to restore and extend it and to extend the subsidies thereby produced for middle-class and better-off parents. We on this side of the House want to provide real equality of opportunity for all children. Our policy of phasing out the direct grant schools is an important part of that programme. This is the policy upon which we are embarked not only with pride, but in the sure conviction and knowledge that what we are seeking to achieve has the support of the great majority of the people of this country.

5.5 p.m.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

My Lords, as we embark on the twelfth hour of debate on this general subject in this Parliamentary Session, I know your Lordships will be pleased to learn that I shall not make a long speech. If there are any noble Lords who are misguided enough to want to know what I think about this subject, I refer them to the rather long speech that I made during the previous debate in March. But it would not be right to end without my first having had the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for standing in for me when I was unable to be here owing to the rearrangement of Business, and I know that noble Lords will be grateful that it was he who spoke and not myself.

In this debate there have been many good speeches and many valid points. There has also been a certain amount of special and tendentious pleading. I listened with great interest and pathos to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, talking about the influenza from which people would suffer when they had to move about between different buildings in schools covering a wide area. I notice that his bronchial tubes do not seem to have suffered by attendance at Eton, where that happens the whole time.

We tabled an Amendment to this Motion to register once again, as we were not able to do in another place, the distinctive attitude that we have to this problem at this time. We were the first Party to put a comprehensive system of education into our Party Manifesto and programme. Unlike some other people, we do not think that you can have a comprehensive system which is not comprehensive, and we do not think that you can refrain from attacking the comprehensive system if you plead for separate and selective schools. Nevertheless, we do not think that the matter should be tackled in this way at this particular time. We thought that the Report of the Public Schools Commission was an extremely good one and should be implemented. I never cease to wonder why we appoint so many experts to report on a matter and spend so much time on it, and then pay absolutely no attention to what they say.

Various very good speeches have been made today, a number of which have supported the Liberal point of view, and although I do not say that he was doing that specifically, I shall certainly want to read the Report of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who, with his great experience, put his own point of view. Noble Lords on these Benches have given consider-

able consideration to what we should do now. In fact, we have no legislation before us; we are not dealing with a Prayer against the order. This has been a general debate, and we have come to the conclusion that it is probably best, and most in the tradition of your Lordships' House, that a debate like this should stand on its own and that people should be able to read the speeches and weigh up the arguments. For that reason, I shall ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment and I shall advise my noble friends to abstain if there is a vote on the main Motion, because I do not think anything more will be shown than has already been shown in the speeches by a mere tramping through the Lobbies this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.9 p.m.

On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Elliot of Harwood, B. Macleod of Borve, B.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Elton, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, L.
Amory, V. Energlyn, L.
Auckland, L. Ferrers, E. Margadale, L.
Balerno, L. Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Merrivale, L.
Barrington, V. Gage, V. Mersey, V.
Belstead, L. Gainford, L. Middleton, L.
Berkeley, B. Garner, L. Monck, V.
Blake, L. Gisborough, L. Monson, L.
Boothby, L. Glenkinglas, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Bourne, L. Gore-Booth, L. Moyne, L.
Bridgeman, V. Goschen, V. Nairne, Ly.
Brooke of Cumnor, L. Greenway, L. Newall, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, B. Grenfell, L. Northchurch, B.
Burton, L. Grimston of Westbury, L. Norwich, Bp.
Caccia, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. O'Neill of the Maine, L.
Carrington, L. Hanworth, V. Orr-Ewing, L.
Chelwood, L. Harding of Petherton, L. Pender, L.
Chesham, L. Hawke, L. Piercy, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Hill of Luton, L. Rankeillour, L.
Coleraine, L. Hood, V. Rathcreedan, L.
Cottesloe, L. Hylton-Foster, B. Redesdale, L.
Cowley, E. Inglewood, L. Robbins, L.
Craigton, L. Ironside, L. Rochdale, V.
Crawshaw, L. James of Rusholme, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Croft, L. Kemsley, V. St. Davids, V.
Davidson, V. Killearn, L. Sandford, L.
de Clifford, L. Kings Norton, L. Sandhurst, L.
de Freyne, L. Lauderdale, E. Sandys, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] London, Bp. Segal, L.
Digby, L. Long, V. Selkirk, E.
Drumalbyn, L. Lothian, M. Sempill, Ly.
Eccles, V. Loudoun, C. Shannon, E.
Effingham, E. Lucas of Chilworth, L. Sherfield, L.
Ellenborough, L. Lyell, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Elles, B. Lytton, E. Somers, L.
Stamp, L. Swinton, E. Vivian, L.
Stanley of Alderley, L. Tenby, V. Wakefield, Bp.
Strathcarron, L. Teviot, L. Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Strathclyde, L. Thorneycroft, L. Wolfenden, L.
Strathspey, L. Tranmire, L. Wolverton, L.
Suffield, L. Verulam, E. Worcester, Bp.
Swansea, L. Vickers, B. Young, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Allen of Fallowfield, L. Goronwy-Roberts, L. MacLeod of Fuinary, L.
Aylestone, L. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Melchett, L.
Balogh, L. Hale, L. Pannell, L.
Beswick, L. Hall, V. Ritchie-Calder, L
Birk, B. Harris of Greenwich, L. Sainsbury, L.
Brockway, L. Hunt, L. Shackleton, L.
Champion, L. Jacques, L. Shepherd, L. (L Privy Seal.)
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Janner, L. Shinwell, L.
Kirkhill, L. Stedman, B.
Crook, L. Leatherland, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Crowther-Hunt, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.] Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Cudlipp, L. Wallace of Coslany, L
Darling of Hillsborough, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Winterbottom, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.) Lovell-Davis, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Gaitskell, B. Lyons of Brighton, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Gardiner, L.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.