LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 18 November 1976)

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 23, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 24. The Commons do not consider it appropriate that statutory provision he made for the appointment of a committee of inquiry. Successive Secretaries of State have always been prepared to establish committees of 1559 inquiry, with outside chairmen and members, into various aspects of the education service, without statutory compulsion. Noble Lords on all sides will acknowledge, I am sure, the valuable contribution their reports and recommendations have made in formulating educational policy. Provision in this Bill for a statutory committee of inquiry into secondary education is therefore unnecessary: if the Secretary of State considers one is appropriate, she is free to establish one. I hope your Lordships will not insist on this Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Viscount ECCLES
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord that I was out of the House when this Amendment was called on, but I was caught by the speed at which the previous Amendment was disposed of by your Lordships. I want to say just a word on this. I suppose it is partly because we have had this Bill dragging through both Houses for so long that the public's view about our educational system and the possible fall in standards has, I think, been inflated to a very considerable extent. It is not good for the schools that there should be so many particular instances quoted—whether they are all true in every case we do not know, but there they are—about defects in the system. I am the first to say that what has gone wrong—and quite a lot has gone wrong—is also balanced by a very considerable amount which has gone very well; but I think that the state of public opinion which has now been reached is such that it needs some calming process; that it needs some independent inquiry that would, as it were, take the heat out of this.
The reasons why we are in this difficulty, as we have said on previous occasions on this Bill, are by no means all connected with the principle of non-selection, though some are. Probably the major factor has been the curious forms of teaching that have been introduced and practised by, particularly, the younger teachers, who have not had the skill to make a success of these methods. I think we ought to know what has hap- 1560 pened more accurately than we do now. In my time, there were fewer than half the teachers in post who are in post in the maintained schools now. It is impossible to increase a force of teachers at that rate without getting it out of balance between the older and experienced teachers and the new ones coming in at the bottom. One is bound to add that the competition for sixth-form leavers who opt for teaching and go, in the old days, to a teacher training college has grown more severe all the time; so the increased numbers and the lower quality have really produced a very serious situation.
I do not think the public will give up what I would call the evening newspaper scandal sheet business, which does not do the schools much good, unless the Government take some much more definite step towards reviewing the present situation. Could there be a better moment to do it than now, when there is to be a considerable reorganisation of secondary education? This seems to me to be exactly the time when this inquiry ought to be made. I am of course not going to press this to a Division, but, again, it is one of those failures in public relations which seems to be characteristic of the Department and of the education system today. So I would hope that the noble Lord would be able to say that the Secretary of State is not content with these internal inquiries and that she really will do something on a scale which will set at rest this great volume of anxiety. Much of it, I would agree, is being stoked up on very flimsy evidence, but that does not destroy the fact that it is there, and it ought to be dealt with if this Bill is to have a fair chance.

§ Lord HAMPTON
My Lords, nothing that I have heard in this House this evening makes me think other than that this is an important Amendment. It is, I believe, relevant still to recall briefly, and repeat, the circumstances in which this Amendment was in due course accepted by your Lordships and subsequently rejected by the Commons. First, in Committee of the House it was proposed that the committee of inquiry should investigate only non-selective schools. The Conservatives wished this to be linked with another Amendment, delaying the implementation of the Bill until the required report had been received 1561 and found satisfactory. In some confusion, both Amendments were withdrawn, but not until after the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, had said, at col. 1614 [Official Report, 7th October 1976]: I would have absolutely no objection, and would certainly recommend to my Secretary of State that we bring in something in the form of your first Amendment. I see no objection to it at all". It should be added, in fairness, that the noble Lord covered himself by adding: There may be difficulties; I do not know what they are". So far, so good.
Then, secondly, on Report the original Amendment was reintroduced, but with an important change in that the committee was to be asked to investigate secondary education as a whole, and not just comprehensive schools. It was in no way an attack on the comprehensive system but a request for information so that our system of education could be made the best possible and help all dedicated teachers to give of their best. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said of the inquiry into aspects of the education service (in col. 835): We welcome it provided that it is not based on blind prejudice or on a nostalgic or often mistaken view of past practices. I think that the implication that his Party alone is free from blind prejudice is totally unacceptable. I think he made an excellent case for an independent committee of inquiry. In the same column, the noble Lord continued: May I add also that we understand teachers' resentment at uninformed attacks on the professional interests and judgment of educational needs. I should say that I have spoken since then to teachers in the independant sector who say that they would welcome such an inquiry. They are quite prepared to stand up and be counted. I have also spoken to teachers in comprehensive schools and I have found none who would oppose the setting up of such a committee. The dedicated head of a comprehensive school told me that she would wholeheartedly welcome it. She has the humility to admit that she is learning all the time and considers that such an independent inquiry would help her and her staff to give of their best.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, went on to give a number of reasons why this inquiry was unecessary. Conservatives, 1562 Liberals and Cross-Benchers were unconvinced by his case. He clearly had been instructed to resist and resist he did; but the Government were defeated. At Third Reading an attempt from these Benches to offer a further practical alteration to the Amendment was barely considered. We suggested, first, that three years rather than two should be allowed for the committee to prepare the report; secondly, that careful consideration should be paid to the experience of comprehensive schools gained in other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, seemed to think that if you had to have such a committee of inquiry, the longer the report was delayed the better. The Commons, it was stated, would be throwing out the whole Amendment anyway and that, under the guillotine, without further consideration, is what happened.
The other day I heard the right honourable lady the Secretary of State speaking in an educational debate in the other place. I was moved by her obvious dedication to her task and by her sense of idealism. One cannot but respect her for it. It is therefore all the more disappointing that she has not seen fit to accept an Amendment such as this. Her idealism does not seem to go further than along strictly Party lines. There seems, alas! little point in asking the Government to think again on this Amendment; but we feel that the Record must be put straight. We do not question the value of what Her Majesty's Inspectorate are doing. We are sceptical about proposals for a massive conference. We remain unconvinced that this committee of inquiry would not be the most practical answer, at what has been called a time of crisis in secondary education.
This Amendment cannot be considered an attack on the comprehenisve system any more than it is an attack on the independent sector which would also have been under review. It is a search for facts and for the truth. It is an attempt to ensure that in the long run we are giving our children and their children the best education possible. The Government remain adamant in their resistance. So be it. But let the public know that we have tried and let them know how negative we on these Benches think is the Government's response. Let the public judge for themselves.

§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE
My Lords, if I may make a final remark on this, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is deeply concerned with the monitoring of what is going on. I gave on three occasions a good many instances of what is being done. It may be that in due course she will think it a good plan to have a major inquiry of the kind noble Lords are talking about; but if she does she will do it in her own good time and in her own good way and, in my opinion, it should not be part of an Act of Parliament.

§ Lord BELSTEAD
My Lords, if the right honourable lady does so, the Liberal and Conservative Parties will undoubtedly claim all the credit for it.