Lords Sitting of 14 March 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of London.

RHODESIA: CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking or persuasion they are applying to Mr. Joshua Nkomo and Mr. Robert Mugabe to encourage them to attend an all-party conference in Rhodesia; and whether, if their refusal continues despite agreement by other parties, this does not amount to the power of veto over further progress in Rhodesia.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, last year the Patriotic Front accepted all-party talks at a time when the Salisbury parties refused to attend. Mr. Cledwyn Hughes's recommendations against an immediate conference were based on his assessment of the position of all the parties now. While no party has a veto, there can be no point in convening talks unless there is a reasonable prospect that they will lead to a cease-fire and to internationally-supervised elections. We are continuing to work for early negotiations, preferably before 20th April, but if not then, immediately thereafter.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask whether he watched last night the television programme with Mr. Smith, Mr. Nkomo, Sir Harold Wilson and others? If he did, will he not have noticed that there was an unequivocal view from Mr. Nkomo that he would
628
have no proposals and that his only aim was the defeat of Mr. Smith; that he had no intention of talking and no intention of having elections? Is it not therefore now true to say that there are only two choices: either for the Government to support Mr. Nkomo and make certain that he goes to Salisbury as leader and trust that, as a good Marxist, he will form an electoral roll and have free and fair elections; or (to take the other choice) to ensure that the elections that are planned are supported? Whichever choice is made, is it not right that this Government should make that choice absolutely clear and should go all out with all diplomatic force to ensure that one or the other is pursued?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords. I think that we should continue to persevere in every attempt with our American friends, with the full support that we have seen from the statement of the French Presidency of the Community, in the search for an early conference of everybody concerned, leading finally to truly free and fair elections, observed and supervised by the international authority, the United Nations.
Lord WADE: My Lords, would it not greatly facilitate the matter if Mr. Smith were to make it quite clear that he wished UDI now to be regarded as at an end, and we then might make some progress?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No doubt, my Lords.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that no one would dissent from the view that the Government must do their best to find a proper formula? But is it not unhappily true that the anti-Smith phobia of his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary seems to blind him to the dangers from other quarters and prevent him from using all the influence that this country ought to have to bring about the solution we all need?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly I would not agree that anything that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has said about anything could be described as an "anti" phobia—any more

629
than some of the remarks about this country emanating from certain quarters in Salisbury could be so described.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is the actions of the internal Government which have destroyed any hopes of early party talks? Is it not the case that the bombing of neighbouring States, a Constitution which gives representation of 28 per cent. to 4 per cent. of the population, the chaotic elections, and the decision of Mr. Smith to stand for membership of a Government after the elections, make peace talks immediately impossible?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would not say that even all that makes peace talks immediately impossible At various times all concerned have expressed their readiness to attend all-party talks. On that basis, there is every reason why we should persevere and catch them all in the same mood at the same time. That is possible if we continue with our policy. As to the responsibility, in conflicts like this all must bear varying degrees of responsibility and I am not today disposed to apportion in any precise way the greater or lesser amounts of responsibility for the position as it now exists.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, would the Minister not agree, if Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe will not come to the conference table, that it is better to have the forthcoming elections which, even though they may be imperfect, would be better than nothing, because if we do not have the forthcoming elections and Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe run Rhodesia there will not be any elections at all?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it may well be that if official recognition is given to these elections, which are clearly not being held under what we describe as free and fair conditions, that would fatally prejudice the real free and fair elections which the United Nations have said must be held and for which we, together with our friends and partners in Europe and other parts of the world, arc pressing.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, would not the
630
Minister agree that Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe have been repeatedly asked to join in the elections and they have refused? Would not the Minister further agree that Mr. Nkomo has said several times that he will find a solution only by force? I understand that Mr. Mugabe too has said that.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have said on previous occasions that in this kind of situation many leaders from many parts of the world, especially the colonial world, have said something similar and then joined enthusiastically in elections. I will instance no examples for the moment. It is fair to say that the objection of a great many people, not confined to the Patriotic Front, to the present elections is that they are being held by an interested part of the Rhodesian Party. I do not think that the Salisbury parties would any more enthusiastically take part in elections entirely managed and contrived by, say, the Patriotic Front.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, does this not bring us back to that part of my noble friend's Question which I do not think the noble Lord has answered: that is, what pressures are Her Majesty's Government applying to get Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo to participate in conversations about the future of their country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, constant representation, persuasion and appeal to them, as to everybody else, to come to the only possible forum of peaceful settlement: namely, an all-party conference.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, whatever Mr. Nkomo may have said on the television yesterday, is it not a fact that no representative of the Patriotic Front—neither he nor Mr. Mugabe—is likely to come to any conference until such time as the interim Government, and notably Mr. Smith, accept in advance something like the Anglo-American plan?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is true. It is equally true that the Patriotic Front have accepted the framework of the Anglo-American proposals. Mr. Smith and his colleagues have not done that yet.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the situation is much the same, if not exactly the same, in South-West Africa? There is the agreement with the United Nations through resolution 435 between the South African Government and the Committee of Five, on which Britain has one representative; and SWAPO, knowing that they would be defeated at the elections, are persistently doing everything to impede the arrangements which have been made, and SWAPO is assisted, as is Mr. Mugabe in Russia.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, much as I highly regard the noble Lord, I think that is an interpretation of recent history rather than a question to me. Others might, for example, say that the fault for the present impasse, after the promising developments of a few months ago, in Namibia lies equally with other countries and organisations as well as SWAPO.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is not the factual position that next month a black majority Government will be elected in Rhodesia? Will not our Government and the noble Lord opposite be prepared to make some relationship with them?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, whatever Government emerges from the procedures of next month, those procedures will have been contrived and managed by the Salisbury parties and not with the co-operation of the vast majority of the Rhodesian people and their leaders. In that sense, it is foredoomed to be rejected by literally a majority of the people for whom it will purport to be the Government.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think we have had a pretty good run on this Question. Inevitably we shall come back to this at some time. It is not because I am answering the next Question.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS: POSTAL DELAYS
2.47 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question
632
which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House whether he considers satisfactory the postal arrangements which frequently result in copies of the Minutes of Proceedings and Order Paper being delivered to Members of the House of Lords 24 hours late.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the postal arrangements for the Minutes of Proceedings and Order Paper provide for delivery by first post to Members of the House of Lords residing in the central areas of London. Unfortunately, these arrangements have on a number of occasions in the recent past been frustrated by production difficulties within Her Majesty's Stationery Office; but every effort is made by the management of the department to obviate these. Should any Members suffer consistent delays in delivery arising from the postal arrangements, I am sure that the Post Office will be very ready to investigate the matter.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply and taking up particularly his point that these delays are due to production difficulties in the Stationery Office, may I ask whether he is aware that, for example, the weekly information bulletin which I have in my hand was posted on 10th March, a Saturday, but not delivered until Tuesday, 13th March? One can give example after example of such instances. May I ask whether he is also aware that, whoever are the gremlins at work obstructing the delivery of these papers, they seem to be entirely impartial because the problem affects Members in all parts of the House?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am aware of it. Let us agree that I shall continue to look into the matter and certainly report on it.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, as one of the sufferers who has made a good many complaints, I have had my problems looked into and I have received a very large measure of satisfaction? The deliveries are now very much better due to the efforts of the Printed Paper Office, and to some extent the Post Office as well.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am glad about that. I am also glad that the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised this question last week. He was worried about Hansard, et cetera. I have arranged for a Xerox copy of Hansard to be placed in the Library every day so that Peers who have not received a copy in the morning delivery can consult it. I shall watch the situation carefully; it applies not only to this House but to another place as well.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION
2.49 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what reactions they have received from local authorities to the proposals for reorganisation now contained in the White Paper Organic Change in Local Government (Cmnd. 7457).
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, the consultation period does not end until 31st March. So far, the Government have received responses from the Association of District Councils and from 78 local authorities.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. She does not say what answers were received and it will be interesting to know. Would she agree that, however dissatisfied one may be with local government arrangements, such a rapid further change is going to be very bothering to the ratepayers and local authority employees? At the present time, nobody knows who to write to or where to go regarding any complaints or anything that they want.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, so far as the latter part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question is concerned, we are hoping that the limited changes we are proposing under Organic Change are
634
ones which will make it easier for people to identify with their councils for the services with which they are being provided. As regards the numbers of authorities who have responded, and the sort of response we have had, that is a little difficult to ascertain before 31st March. We have heard from 68 district councils and have had 10 replies from county councils. As I say, we have had replies from the Association of District Councils, but we have not yet heard officially from the Association of County Councils, the AMA or the GLC. After 31st March we shall have to analyse the replies, and then no doubt have the necessary consultations with the local authority organisations following that, before a Bill is prepared to bring to the House.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that the more often we swap around functions as between one authority and another, the more difficult it will be for people to identify with or relate to which local authority does what job?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, there are always difficulties after local government reorganisation. There have always been difficulties. I was in local government for some thirty years before I came to this House, and it was always extremely difficult for me to persuade my electors that I was a county councillor responsible for certain services and somebody else was responsible for something else on our city council. This is something we have had to learn to live with over the years. We all hope that the very limited changes that we are proposing under Organic Change are changes which will bring the immediate services much closer to the people, and that they will know where to go to make their complaints and suggestions.

THE HOUSING CORPORATION: ACCOUNTABILITY
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government

635
whether, in view of certain recent disturbing reports, they are satisfied with the accountability of the Housing Corporation.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, my right honourable friend is satisfied that the affairs of the Corporation are carried out with complete probity and proper regard for the public interest. Some changes may be desirable in the financial arrangements under which they operate. These are under discussion with the Corporation.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether she can confirm that there were substantial errors discovered in last year's accounts, which I understand arose out of the computer? Secondly, can she confirm that there was no impropriety on the part of staff of the Housing Corporation?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, there turned out to be nothing wrong with the accounts. The chairman delayed publication of the accounts last December to satisfy himself that they did not contain, as seemed possible at the last moment, a technical error due to incorrect transfers to the computer of accrued interest. Investigations by the Corporation's accountants did not confirm this. The chairman's action reflects a straight-forward approach with which noble Lords will sympathise. There was never any suggestion of impropriety. The accounts, which are about to be published, are in fact exactly the same as those which were withdrawn by the chairman.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether these accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and therefore subject to examination by the Public Accounts Committee in another place?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer the first part of the question, but, as no doubt the noble Lord knows, the Public Accounts Committee have taken a great interest in these accounts. They examined Sir John Garlick in June and Mr. Wardale and Mr. Madge, who is the chief executive of the Housing Corporation, in January 1979.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether it was correct or incorrect that a number of housing associations were in fact behind with interest payments in the last year? If that was so, how many of them were behind, and are the Government satisfied that they will recover all the lost interest? Also, can the noble Baroness say whether the Government have taken account of the Ninth Report of the Public Accounts Committee published last October, which particularly asked for action on the lack of accountability in connection with the Housing Corporation fund?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I can answer part of the noble Earl's question. Out of 2,700 registered associations, the Corporation have found it necessary to mount formal inquiries into the affairs of only 13, and it has normally been through their own vigilance that the cases have been brought under scrutiny. Of the 13 Section 19 inquiries, 11 have been completed. The conduct and management of two have been cleared and four associations have been wound up. In three other cases the Corporation have placed nominees on the association's board, and as regards the remainder the Corporation's board is at present considering what action to take.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Baroness refer to the public accountability point?
Baroness DAVID: Yes, my Lords. The associations should be accountable to the taxpayer, to the local community and to their tenants. This is achieved in several ways. The associations must be registered by the Housing Corporation before they can receive a grant. Their projects are scrutinised to make sure that they represent value for money and their general activities are monitored by the Corporation, which means that they can go in and do spot checks at any moment. Increasingly close relationships are being encouraged between the associations and local authorities, and they are increasingly setting up tenants' groups and welcoming tenants' representatives on to their management boards in accordance with the guidance issued by the Corporation.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL MEETING
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the European Council Meeting held in Paris on 12th and 13th March.

SECONDARY EDUCATION STANDARDS
2.57 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON rose to draw attention to the conditions necessary to secure acceptable standards in secondary education in England and Wales; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper refers to acceptable standards of secondary education. The standards which our educational system must achieve are not only academic. The purpose of education in a free society is to enable its individual members to develop their potential to the fullest possible extent. This involves not only the acquisition of a store of knowledge and not only the perfection of a range of skills but also the development of personalities and the means of expressing them. That is how whole people are produced and, since a society is no more and no less than the sum of its individual members, that is how a State perpetuates itself. In totalitarian States, whether Communist or Fascist, this is well recognised. Their schools are smithies in which citizens are forged into weapons for their dogmatic and repressive crusades. That, oddly enough, is an easier, if less attractive, task than the one which faces our educational system.
Standing, as we do, four-square between the excesses of Left and Right, we have to teach our young people to strike a balanced judgment between them. We do not have to drill them in blind admiration of any system but we have to enable them to be perceptively critical of all. That criticism must also embrace our own system, and it must be constructive. Only by this means can we continue to apply the most valuable lesson this country has ever collectively learned and continue
638
the process of evolution without violence, which has made us rightly the envy of more turbulent nations. Only if we enable our young people to strike another balance will the fabric of our democratic society survive: that is the balance between individual liberty and the public good which, when it is properly struck, creates freedom under the law. These are very demanding aims and will rarely be referred to in the classroom, and certainly not in such general, high-flown and philosophic terms; but interpreted into everyday situations they are the stuff of education and it is upon them that all other standards are grafted.
The first necessity for successful schools —apart, of course, from the necessity to have them open and working, to which I shall not further allude as the matter is sub judice—is a body of teachers whose lives are dedicated to their pupils. Teaching, like medicine, is a skill, a profession and a vocation. Recruitment has to be selective and the courses must be exacting. The final responsibility of colleges and departments of education is not to their students, but to the pupils whom the latter will teach; and if there is doubt as to the competence of a trainee teacher it is the child who should get the benefit of that doubt. In the Department of Education and Science Statistical Bulletin No. 2 of 1979, published last month, I see in Table 2 that of the 33,000 teachers who qualified in 1978 only 49 per cent. had taken up full-time employment in maintained nursery, primary or secondary schools by September. The pressure of demand for newly qualified teachers is therefore no longer such that standards in this sphere need be relaxed.
In that context, I would say that few things do more to render a teacher confident, effective and competent than one or two years spent earning his living in the competitive world. Working holidays are not a substitute for actual dependence upon your own wit and hard work to win your way. The experience, incidentally, introduces the teacher to the world in which he is preparing his pupils to live, and that is one with which he ought to be familiar. I believe that it is best gained before training, but it should certainly be gained, where possible, before teaching.
I referred a moment ago to the falling pressure of demand for newly qualified

639
teachers. This will continue, nationally, as the school population diminishes, as a result of the reduced birth rate. There will be a corresponding relative increase in resources, but it will not be an absolute increase, because the savings will not always correspond to the reduced numbers. Savings will, however, be substantial. One way in which they can properly be employed is in improving both the initial professional training of our teachers, and in establishing a recognised minimum requirement for in-service training as well. Provisions for the induction year are not yet complete. There is much to be said for giving mandatory provision for formal tuition and consultation in the weekly timetable of newly qualified teachers, quite possibly outside the schools. The opportunity to discuss difficult cases over a prolonged period would be of great assistance to teachers who had had only nodding acquaintance, or none, with similar problems during teaching practice in training. The opportunity to do so might well form part of a contract of initial service, which would extend until the satisfactory completion of a period of probation.
Training can no longer be regarded as complete at the end of probation. Technological change is now so rapid and so fundamental that the requirements of pupils may be expected to alter almost beyond recognition in many fields during the working life of any teacher. The changes are not only technological, and by way of one illustration may I refer to the percentage of our population who are, and will be, retired. In 1951, the number of people who were beyond pensionable age was equal to 30 per cent. of the working population. In 1977, the last year for which I have figures, that rose to 36 per cent. We therefore have to generate a very active earning society, or else most of your Lordships will be feeling the draught quite soon, because the money will not be there to support us.
The proper development of in-service training, not as a voluntary activity out of hours, but as a necessary element in a teaching career, will provide opportunity for a healthy increase in the exchange of ideas, experience and people at the chalk-face and in the colleges, and I was glad to see this mentioned in the Green
640
Paper. It could also be considered as a useful means of developing a rational and fair gradation of salaries throughout a normal teaching career. This, in turn, could be used to reverse a very damaging feature of the present system of awarding increases of salary.
What happens at present is that allowances are given for special responsibilities. These special responsibilities are given on promotion to head of department or deputy head, and to those who arrange time-tabling and other responsibilities; and it is, of course, the people who are best at teaching who get the promotion. But in virtually every case the result of promotion is not that they do more teaching, which they are proven to be good at, or exercise wider pastoral care which is their essential function, but that they do less because the responsibilities are almost universally administrative. The allowances, therefore, serve to suck the best teachers away from teaching and, presumably, to leave the less good to take their place.
Indeed, with the growth—in my view, the damaging growth—in the average size of schools, administration is increasingly soaking up valuable men and women whose gift and whose vocation it is to teach, and causing them to spend care and time in occupations for which they have never been trained. It would be interesting to consider, and somebody should consider, the idea of creating a new and very small profession of school administrators and the various roles that such people could play, thus immensely increasing the effectiveness of the trained teaching staff in the classroom, and possibly improving the administration of the schools.
In welcoming the prospective relative increase in available resources, we must be careful to do our sums nationally and not by regions. Migration within the United Kingdom is having a very marked effect upon school populations, such that in some areas there will be a continuing net increase in school rolls reflected by a dramatic fall elsewhere. This is already creating an unfair imbalance in rate support grant provision, particularly between rural and city areas, and my noble friend Lord Belstead will be drawing your Lordships' attention urgently to this later this afternoon. I wish merely to mention that the effects of short-changing an

641
authority are very noticeable in certain specific respects. Any local education authority's budget is, after all, committed in advance as to 90 per cent. of inescapable costs. The only areas for economy are, therefore, equipment, cleaning, maintenance and books.
Enough of your Lordships will have followed the Guardian newspaper for me not to have to go on about the book famine, which I remember was already present when I was teaching in a school, where it appeared that textbooks were expected to last between nine and 12 years in a rough school, which of course they could not do. While I have often said, and still maintain, that you can have an inspiring lesson in a ruin and a disastrous one in a palace, you can go too far in that direction. In many authorities, there are schools where decoration and maintenance are five and even 10 years behind. This produces an environment that is not conducive to good behaviour. How do you persuade children to look after rooms in which the walls are dirty, the paint is peeling, the windows are cracked, and the furniture is rickety? Some authorities are under pressure from both Government and ratepayers to minimise expenditure, and have suffered from thoroughly had architectural advice as well.
I know of one school with 1,500 pupils on the roll which has only five orthodox classrooms, one for every 300 pupils. All the rest of the teaching is done either in social areas that serve also as locker rooms, dining halls or corridors, or in 15 temporary wooden structures of a considerable age which also serve other purposes. In these circumstances, teachers find it impossible to do some of their most valuble work, which is directing, assisting at or joining in their pupils' activities in and out of school hours. I strongly suspect that that authority is in breach of its responsibilities under the 1944 Act, but there has been no general inspection of it for a very long time indeed. My noble friend Lord Belstead will also be speaking about Her Majesty's Inspectorate, and I shall only say at this stage that this kind of circumstance proves the need for their excellent service.
Let us return to considering general principles. Ever since 1965, considera-
642
tion of British education has been overshadowed by the comprehensive battle, in which most of us here have been engaged. I do not wish to reopen it here. I wish to say only three things on the subject. The first is that we ought not, as a result of it, to assume that the two main political Parties must forever be locked in mortal combat over every issue of substantive importance in educational policy.
The second is that the view of my party is that issues of this nature ought to be decided at local authority level and not as a result of Government decree, and it is upon that principle that we shall continue to act. The third is that we have been involved in nearly 14 years of confrontation and uncertainty. In some areas, it continues. Twenty-five local authorities are still in correspondence with the Minister about proposed reorganisation, and the one thing our schools most desperately need now is a period of stability and confidence in which to get on with their job in the newly organised forms in which they find themselves; yet this is precisely what they are to be denied.
The whole system of secondary education is at present under review at the 16-plus, the 18-plus and even the 17-plus levels. At the 16-plus level, the Secretary of State has apparently decided to go ahead with a scheme about which there is still very great uncertainty as to whether it will work. For those of your Lordships who have not had the opportunity to look into it, I ought to explain a little of the scope and complexity of the present system. It results in two kinds of certificate that are at present nationally and, indeed, in some respects internationally, accepted and which consequently are of very great value. This odd situation arose from the bipartite system which was in operation at the time when it was introduced. The most able pupils went to grammar schools, while the less able went to secondary technical and secondary modern schools.
Although there was a variation from region to region, the average level was that 20 per cent. of places were given by grammar schools. Therefore, the General Certificate of Education was aimed at grammar school pupils, amounting to 20 per cent. of the national ability range. The Certificate of Secondary Education

643
was introduced to cater for the next band of ability, from the 80th to the 40th percentile. The two certificates together cater for only 60 per cent. of all pupils. Although the threshold is falling in some subjects, it is none the less generally true to say that 40 per cent.—two out of every five of the entire population of our schools—will never take either examination in most subjects as a result of lack of suitable ability. That important fact is not generally recognised. I wish to return later to a consideration of this lowest band.
The various boards of examination cater for 60 per cent. of our school population. Their task is formidable in both its size and its complexity. To seek to adjust it is no small or light matter. There are 22 CSE boards oriented towards local authorities. Each administers a defined geographical area and caters only for pupils in that area. In 1976, they dealt with over 2,600,000 subject entries, at an average cost each of £2·47 and at a total cost of roughly £6,427,000. The eight GCE boards are university linked and accept candidates from anywhere in the country, and in some cases from abroad as well. In 1976, they dealt with over 3,010,000 subject entries at O-level. The average identifiable cost was £2·34, giving a total turnover of roughly £7,050,000. This, of course, was in addition to nearly 2½ million subject entries at A-level. The grand total of subject entries to all boards at 16-plus was 5,486,571 actual physical examination scripts to be marked and checked. The present set of 16-plus examinations is thus administered by no less than 30 separate bodies which between them control a considerable army of markers, moderators and administrators, and which between them handle an annual turnover of about £13½ million. It is upon that large, complex and sensitive machinery that the Secretary of State is now advancing, with a White Paper in one hand and a spanner in the other.
A desire to do something under the circumstances is understandable. A single certificate graded on a single scale would have a clearer value to all its users—to employers, parents and pupils alike. It would also, on the face of it, spare teachers the sometimes difficult task of
644
advising a pupil upon which syllabus to embark. At first glance, it would do away with a system that results in some schools catering only for CSE, and the system, in many others, where timetabling makes it impossible for a pupil to match a mixture of GCE and CSE courses to his own differing abilities in different subjects. One might also expect some administrative savings from running one system in place of two.
Unfortunately, on closer inspection, most of these advantages prove to be illusory. The actual cash savings to be gained were the subject of part of the report of the Waddell Committee—Cmnd. 7281—commissioned by the Secretary of State to advise her, be it noted, not upon the desirability of this scheme but its feasibility. As regards cost, their answer was very approximate. They said that the change would be somewhere between a saving of £½ million and an increase of £3 million, probably half way between the two. So there is no economic motivation for pressing on with this reform.
Reorganisation of the present apparatus is a formidably difficult task and one which, in a letter from her Department on 9th February, she has delegated to the examination boards themselves. Although it admits, in paragraph 3, that:
"a major issue yet to be resolved is whether there should be three or four examining authorities in England or Wales",
it states, in paragraph 2, that:
"the intention is that territorial proposals should reach the Secretary of State by 30th April",
and the constitutional intentions by 31st July. This, I think, is a profoundly over-optimistic expectation. Very considerable issues are involved.
Because of the pressure of time, I shall not go into the most detailed issues, but not least of the major issues is the question of whether or not universities are to retain a preponderant influence in overseeing the syllabuses and the examinations of the most academically able of our children. GCE boards are university linked. I do not think that they are the proper guardians of the syllabus or the curriculum of nonacademic children. CSE boards have that skill. But these boards are more numerous and they have more customers than the GCE boards. Already they are claiming, in some consortia, to dominate the whole spectrum of ability.
Let me make two things clear. First, we must not allow our educational thinking to be dominated by academic traditions that see no virtue in non-acedamic courses. That way, eventually, our industry perishes. Second, we must not fall into the opposite pit; that is just as deep and dangerous. We must not dilute our academic standards as some sort of genuflection towards the valid principle of the fundamental equality of importance of all individuals. That is at present the greater danger. We have always to steer a course between the two.
If we do not preserve at the centre of our learning the very highest and most exacting standards of logic and objectivity and the ability to arrive with absolute thoroughness at an impartial assessment of the truth in each separate discipline, then we shall have kicked away from beneath us one of the essential props of civilisation. It is the universities that must be the sanctuaries of learning now, as the monasteries were in the dark ages, but I believe that they must have a really effective voice in the matter of the preparation and qualification of their candidates. There has been no central guidance in this matter, and I think that there should have been.
This brings us to the educational implications of the White Paper. To understand them we must look at the Waddell Report. The Waddell Committee was appointed to advise the Secretary of State on the Schools Council's request for a single examination system at 16-plus. It was made necessary as the Secretary of State was not satisfied with the Schools Council's own paper, evidence for which had been furnished by experimental programmes run by various consortia of examination boards in cooperation with the Council for varying periods. I have here a list of the periods, but I shall not read it. I shall merely say that at the one end you have the mathematics candidates who had taken papers for five successive years and that at the other you have the social science and religious studies candidates who had taken papers for two successive years. There are points in between. The committee extended this work for a further year.
A feature of the experiments throughout was a very heavy emphasis upon the
646
search for a viable common examination paper for the whole ability range in each subject. In paragraph 125 of the main report, the committee accepts the fact that many of its working groups had come to the conclusion that it could not be found. They said:
"After considering the report of our educational study group, we judge that in a number of subjects feasibility depends, on present evidence, upon the use, in various forms and in varying degrees, of alternative examination papers and tests. These alternatives require candidates to make a choice before the examination and in certain cases require preparation for the examination to be undertaken by candidates in separate groups for at least a part of the course".
Please note, my Lords, the words "in separate groups". It must therefore be noted at once that neither the Schools Council, nor the Waddell Committee, nor the Secretary of State have managed to wave a magic wand that will eliminate for ever the need for choice by parents, teachers and children of an educational career. Nor have they made mixed ability teaching an effective method of preparation for external examinations.
Another disturbing factor about the whole exercise is the extent to which the enthusiasm of the Secretary of State for introducing the new system is unsupported by the confidence of the Waddell Committee's report on its feasibility and the extent to which even that confidence is unsupported by the reports of its own subject groups to the parent body. I shall take only three short examples because my speech is becoming too long.
"It must remain doubtful,"
said the English Study Group,
"whether a satisfactory common examination can be designed. Only one of the operational joint examinations explored the most likely approach to assessing the response to literature and a common system, that of differentiated papers".
In so far as the other joint examinations included the assessment of literature, they confirm the validity of this approach and offer some useful implications which might be followed up in adopting it. This fact, supported by analogy with other comparable subjects, makes it reasonable to conclude that the techniques of examining English Literature within a common system can be devised. In the case of science, they say:
"while a common system of examining in biology, chemistry and physics is feasible, differentiated

647
papers will probably be required if the most able pupils are to be given an adequate preparation for A-levels and the less able to be stimulated and enabled to achieve their potential. More development work is urgently needed in these two subjects and should follow these lines".
I shall not extend more than one further illustration:
"For the reasons given above",
says the Modern Languages Committee—
"the joint examinations do not of themselves justify a statement that feasibility has been proved, except in oral testing. But they do provide sufficient evidence to support the belief that if certain requirements are met a common examining system in modern languages is feasible, but the overall requirement must be that the system should provide adequately for the most able and the least able as well as the middle of the ability range. The joint examinations have shown that a common examination does not satisfy this requirement and would not provide for candidates at either end of the range to show their abilities".
Therefore we are again brought squarely up against the question of standards. I could quote many more passages but I shall refrain. We recognise that there is a case for a single certificate but the fact is that the preparatory work simply has not been done. The Waddell Committee recognised it; the White Paper recognised it. Yet the Secretary of State shows all the signs of being committed to a date to introduce it. 1985 was the Committee's suggestion. That means teaching the syllabus from 1983, and that in turn means that at the very latest the syllabuses must reach the schools in 1982 so that the teachers can learn the stuff themselves. Many would say that 1981 would be a more appropriate date but it is 1980 next year and we have no organisations to begin even to plan the syllabuses and in many subject areas there has not yet been even an attempt to devise suitable papers. That is why I say that the target date set was so optimistic.
I recognise the anxiety of an ageing Government to place monuments upon the road they are travelling before the chisel is knocked out of their hand. But that is no excuse for rushing up a botched-up job. The place of the Secretary of State in our regard as the initiator of this approach to a common system is assured. She does not have to carve her name upon it yet. Let us for goodness' sake get it right before we rush it into concrete form. If target dates are necessary to secure progress, let us have a target date
648
for establishing a direct and overlapping correspondence between O-level and CSE grades. The committees required to do that work will provide a useful increase in experience of co-operation within consortia of boards. The improvement of the certificates will satisfy many users and neither of the existing certificates will have been scrapped before a valid substitute has been found—and that is what worries me.
I can now refer only briefly to a number of very important matters. The first is the curriculum. Your Lordships know our feelings on the preserving of minimal standards of achievement and it seems to me that some form of a core curriculum must be established, at least in the form of a guideline or yardstick. The second is the whole question of the relationship of work at school to work in employment for our non-academic children. I am aware of the work of BEC and TEC but we are lagging far behind other nations in providing the motivations and effectiveness that relevance procures. A child has become a young adult before he leaves school and he must be treated as such. I commend to your Lordships the pioneering work of the City and Guilds of London Institute in this field as well as the researches of the Schools Council.
There is an increasing number of young people leaving school at 17-plus for whom no appropriate examination exists. Had there been time I should have speculated on the effects upon this figure of the job creation programme and wondered whether, if it is as costly as rumour suggests, that money might not have been better spent on keeping children in school and out of the dole queues as well as jobs. The search for a suitable qualification is important and should be encouraged. Some would have it as the first half of an A-level. To them I would simply say that the A-level examinations are designed for the most academic 15 per cent. of all our pupils and they are not the ones we need specially to encourage.
I said earlier that what we need now in education is a period of stability. Yet not only are the 16-plus examinations under the threat of reorganisation but the same may simultaneously be the case of the A-levels. The N and F proposals are too complex for me to go into now. They have the admirable aim of deferring over-specialisation, which I applaud. but it

649
appears to me that the universities are saying that the introduction would mean an extra year on the BA degree which would price them out of the market.
In conclusion, my Lords, let me say that in designing our educational system we are forming the future of our nation. To survive we must be a people who can practise both the highest academic virtues and the highest technical skills and who accord a proper recognition to all the skills throughout the whole range. We must be a people who can assess their own society and modify it and the institutions that control it, in a reasoned and continuing progress into the future. We must be a people who can communicate fluently with each other and the world, and we must be a people for whom moral standards continue to have a real significance in a materialist age. All this, I believe, will not be achieved by central direction, except in so far as that is necessary to ensure minimum standards in the provision of resources and of teaching. That is why my party, while it recognises the need for a core curriculum, for an Inspectorate and for a reassessment of the function of the school as an approach to employment, will never seek to impose upon children a rigid and uniform system of organisation that their parents do not wish them to undergo. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, the Government welcome this debate and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for introducing it and for being relatively non-political in his approach. We are much looking forward to the two maiden speeches in the debate, that of the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.
The subject of the debate is one of the greatest interest to everyone who cares about education. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not alone in showing his concern. My Government are very deeply concerned and have translated that concern into action—if I may say so, not previously taken by any other Government. Such actions could have been taken between 1970 and 1974 but they were not. I should like to take a few moments to outline what has been done since we took office.
650
The first thing to which I want to call attention is the Government's Green Paper Education in Schools, in which the Secretary of State said she would ask local authorities to report on their curricular policies. This was the first occasion since the 1944 Act that any Government had asked questions about the content of education as opposed to the machinery and structure. But in no way are the Government seeking to impose central control over the school curriculum. My right honourable friend made this clear in her circular to local education authorities.
We shall be publishing a report on this exercise during the next few weeks and following it with consultations. The whole purpose of our questions on authorities' curricular policies has been to concentrate attention on the content and quality of education, particularly as regards literacy, numeracy and preparation for working life. Secondly, we have ensured equality of opportunity for all children by the introduction of reorganisation along comprehensive lines for all our secondary schools. Today 83 per cent. of children in maintained schools are being educated in comprehensive schools, and as a result thousands now get the opportunity to take O- and A-level examinations which was rarely available to them under the selective system, and the consequent increase in the number of candidates successful in these examinations is something I shall return to at a later stage.
We broke new ground in establishing a unit for the assessment of performance in 1975 in order to produce effective national monitoring of the school system. Unlike public examinations, which are not taken by all children, or may be taken in only a few subjects, the APU is testing the attainments of all ability levels on a sample basis and over a wide range of the curriculum. This was a new and ambitious initiative. The Opposition talked about it, but it was this Government which brought it into being.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to the importance of the quality of the teaching force: another major change to our credit is the new requirement that every intending teacher beginning a teacher training course must have at least the equivalent of O-level English and mathematics before entering a course. We saw

651
that some two-fifths of non-graduate primary school teachers under 30 have not got O-level in mathematics and decided that this would not do. We recognised the widespread concern over the teaching of mathematics and so we have set up a committee of inquiry under Dr. Cockcroft. The committee has already begun its work of reviewing the teaching of mathematics in schools in England and Wales and is paying particular attention to the main points of concern raised by the Expenditure Committee in their report on the attainments of the school-leaver.
I have mentioned new requirements for entry to teacher training. There are two other initiatives in this field for which my Government are responsible. We are the first Government to introduce crash teacher training courses in shortage subjects— mathematics, the physical sciences and craft, design and technology. A recent survey of the teacher shortage situation undertaken by the Department of Education and Science indicates (although the results have not yet been fully analysed) that the situation is steadily improving.
On induction and in-service training, we are also the first Government to introduce systematic induction arrangements so that LEAs can begin to reduce a first year teacher's workload by 25 per cent. This has been done by allowing resources for 1,700 extra teachers in the 1978/79 rate support grant. By 1981/82 plans provide for a margin of about 17,500 full-time teachers to cover induction and in-service training. All this, at a time of teacher unemployment and falling rolls, has led to a dramatic improvement in the pupil/teacher ratio, with average class sizes in 1978 down to 24.5. Of course, it is true that we still have some classes over the size of 30, but we are leaning as hard as we can on the responsible local authorities —a large number of which are Torycontrolled—to spend their share of the RSG block grant in accordance with Government priorities. That goes for other areas of educational expenditure too: in 1977–78 local authorities spent some £37 million or 3½ per cent. less on non-teaching costs in primary and secondary schools than had been assumed for that year's RSG settlement.
652
These restrictions particularly affected the provision of books, equipment and other materials, which are of such importance to effective teaching. Here £8 million less than had been assumed was spent. Similarly, expenditure on the salaries of teachers released for in-service training was some £13 million lower than had been assumed, although this shortfall was balanced nationally by the cost to local authorities of employing more than the anticipated number of teachers in the schools. Government efforts to obtain resources for education will not suffice if some local authorities are unwilling to play their part. We can also claim that this Government have presided over a marked decline in teacher wastage, a serious problem when we took office. The annual rate at which teachers have left the profession has declined markedly in recent years, from 10½4 per cent. in 1974–75 to an estimated 6 to 7 per cent. in 1977–78. London figures are even more striking. In Brent in 1973–74 the loss was 32·7 per cent., in 1976–77 14·7 per cent.; in Newham in 1973–74 29·2 per cent., in 1976–77 11·6 per cent.; in ILEA in 1973–74 25·5 per cent., in 1976–77 12·6 per cent. Wastage rates have halved, or even better.
In addition we have paid great attention to the needs of those suffering from educational disadvantage. We have set up within the Department of Education and Science an educational disadvantage unit, and have created a centre for information and advice on educational disadvantage. The Government's policy has been to fight disadvantage wherever it may be, but, through the urban programme and the inner city partnerships, has made increased efforts to strengthen educational provision in inner city areas. We have also improved conditions for the very young by expanding nursery provision, although many local authorities, particularly Tory authorities, have failed to take advantage of the resources we have made available.
My Lords, this is a substantial record. Everything I have quoted is directly related to improving the quality and standard of education. But this is not idle boasting. Noble Lords will be interested to see whether these initiatives have achieved any effects in the short time they have been going. There are certain very encouraging signs, in spite of the

653
rather gloomy comments coming from the other side. In anything as uncertain as education one must not be too positive about anything, but it does appear to be the case that the steps we have been taking are beginning to work. I trust when I have finished speaking the Opposition will agree.
First of all, we have some information about standards in primary schools. As part of their traditional task of monitoring the educational system, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools initiated a national survey of primary education in 1975. This has now secured for us a broad picture of the work of children at primary age. The inspectors' report which has been very widely welcomed was published last September; it is an interesting and detailed document which should be very helpful to teachers and local education authorities. It showed that teachers pay a great deal of attention to teaching children to read, write and do mathematics, despite what is often said about this. The mean score in the reading test given to 11-year-olds was the highest achieved since the test was introduced over 20 years ago.
The inspectors' national secondary survey was launched a little later and has involved visits by Her Majesty's Inspectorate to one in every 10 maintained schools. We shall have to wait for their report until later this year. The survey has concentrated on the fourth and fifth years of secondary education and is concerned mainly with English language, mathematics, science, the pupils' personal and social development and general preparation for adult life. It has examined the contribution to these aspects of education made by all the subjects in the curriculum, as well as the influence of the social, pastoral and academic organisation of the schools. I believe that the outcome of this survey will provide a valuable contribution to our knowledge of seconary education and therefore to consideration of how best to maintain acceptable standards.
Without waiting for the results of the secondary survey, we can look to examination statistics to provide a partial indicator of performance. One must, however, be very careful only to compare like with like. Comparisons are drawn between the achievement of schools in areas with
654
comprehensive schools and others which still have grammar schools. Such information needs to be treated with sensivity, as comparisons almost always offer an over-simplified or distorted picture because they fail to allow for the creaming off of abler pupils from conprehensive schools in some areas, for the often recent date of comprehensive reorganisation and for socio-economic differences between the catchment areas of the schools concerned. The often quoted Manchester/Tameside comparison is an example of over-simplification of the socio-economic factors involved. But in any event the evidence is not all one way, and surveys in some areas show substantial improvement in examination results since comprehensive reorganisation.
Let me quote some examples. An article by the chief education officer of the London Borough of Merton, where the first comprehensive intake entered the school in 1971–it became fully comprehensive in 1976–shows that the rise in the number of O-level grades A to C, the equivalent of a former "pass", is little short of sensational. In 1978 an age group of 2,207 produced 897 such grades in English language. In the days of selection only about 20 per cent. of these pupils would have had the benefit of a grammar school education. Using the same age group as an example, if all 20 per cent. had passed that would have been 441 passes. Even assuming some additional passes by children in the top classes of secondary modern schools and—an even bigger assumption—assuming they had access to an O-level syllabus, this would still fall very far short of the 897 A-C grades in English language at O-level in Merton last year. To take that same example, if 20 per cent. of the 1978 16-plus age group in Merton had been in grammar schools in 1976 and had obtained on average five O-levels at these grades we should expect a total of 2,205; the Merton results were 5,191.
Two other examples are worth quoting. First, a survey by the Hertfordshire education authority last year showed that in Welwyn Garden City, the first area of the county to go fully comprehensive in 1968, O-level passes doubled between that year and 1975, and A-level passes rose by 63 per cent. Secondly, the East Sussex authority last year compared the examina-

655
tion results of their two grammar schools and three secondary modern schools in Hastings against the only four fully-developed comprehensive schools in the county. The comparison favoured the comprehensive schools in almost every respect. For example, over 95 per cent. of the comprehensive school age group took O-level or CSE examinations against 88·5 per cent. from the Hastings schools; 39 per cent. of the comprehensive entrants gained between one and four O-level Grades A, B or C, CSE Grade 1, against 30 per cent. from Hastings. A higher percentage of pupils at the comprehensives stayed on to take A-levels, and a higher proportion of them gained passes than did the candidates from the Hastings schools. I think that these figures speak for themselves. The message they convey is supported by evidence from Leicestershire, which has long had a comprehensive system producing most satisfactory examination results; and from Sheffield, which shows some evidence of improvement in its results since going comprehensive.
My Lords, I have spoken about what the Government have done to find information to help in their future plans, and I have also talked about some of the results which we can already see. As for the public examinations system, my noble friend will deal with that and will answer some of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised in his opening speech.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL MEETING
3.43 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, I will with permission report to the House on the meeting of the European Council in Paris which I attended with my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 12th and 13th March.
"The Council's decisions were focused mainly on European aspects of such issues as economic development, the problem of unemployment,
656
energy, the future of the Common Agriculture Policy and the proper use of the Community's resources.
"As regards unemployment and social policy it is the Council's view that quite apart from the beneficial effects which would result from faster economic growth, specific measures are also needed to reduce unemployment. Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs were asked to work closely with trade unions and employers in further co-ordinated action in such matters as youth employment and training schemes, limitation of overtime, vocational training for women, social measures to assist workers in industries in difficulty, such as iron and steel, earlier retirement and work-sharing. They were asked to report on these matters to the next Council meeting.
"On energy supplies and use, the Council adopted the objective of a reduction in 1979 Community oil consumption of about 25 million tonnes; that is about 5 per cent. below present forecasts, by such methods as encouraging conservation, making the best use of hydro-carbon and coal reserves and strengthening production of electricity from nuclear sources whenever conditions permit.
"Arising from a report by the Commission I asked that Finance Ministers should examine the proposition that economic convergence between member States would be strengthened if their net contributions to the budget were more closely related to some objective criteria. In this connection Heads of Government asked Ministers of Finance to examine in depth how all the policies of the Community, taken as a whole, could be developed so as to make a greater contribution to achieving economic convergence; and to make a report to the next Council.
"These discussions on energy, employment and the social situation in the Community led me to put forward the view that the Community needed to make a reassessment of its own social and economic priorities, and that there was room for considerable improvement in the way the Community allocates its expenditure, especially as this expenditure will, within the next few years,

657
reach the limit of the resources available to the Community. This called for speedy action to reduce wasteful and unnecessary expenditure on accumulating food surpluses through agricultural aid which can then only be disposed of at considerable loss and which disturb our trade relations with other countries.
"I urged the Community in the interest of a healthy development to correct its priorities and, while ensuring a healthy agriculture, to devote more attention and resources to the acute problems which have shown themselves in parts of Europen industry and in the social decline of the centres of some European cities.
"The subsequent discussion on the Common Agricultural Policy was the most realistic that I have taken part in. Heads of Government showed a welcome recognition that the existence of surpluses and the costs involved could not be justified. It was agreed that the existence of these market imbalances in agriculture required, in the wording used at such meetings, a prices policy appropriate to this situation'. I made it clear that for the United Kingdom this wording meant that we should not agree to increases in common prices for products in surplus at forthcoming meetings of Agricultural Ministers.
"In summary, I can report to the House that the validity of the arguments advanced by British Ministers on some of these issues, over a long period, is being increasingly recognised. The next stop will be for all member States to take the necessary action."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.48 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement of the Prime Minister in another place. Certainly we can all agree that the objective is faster economic growth and a reduction in unemployment. However, that said, I hope that the Government are not trying to pretend in the Statement that there has been very much concrete achievement in the past five years. When looking at the list of proposed
658
considerations, has the noble Lord noticed that there seem to be two rather glaring omissions from all the talk about coordinated action in such matters as youth employment, training schemes, limitation of overtime, vocational training for women, et cetera? There is no mention of the unfettering of employers and enhancing the effective working of the profit motive. Should not they have been in the list?
As regards the energy statements, we had a lengthy debate in this House not very long ago. Again, it is fine to find these exhortations, but the problem with all these energy objectives is exactly what one does in a concrete way to achieve a 5 per cent. reduction. I heard a number of noble Lords applauding the reference to "objective criteria", but I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us a little more about exactly what is meant by "objective criteria" in the budgetary connection? Certainly we can agree with the stated aspiration of improving the way in which the Community allocates its expenditure.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister says that the discussions of the Common Agricultural Policy were realistic. I should jolly well hope they were realistic! There is not much point in having them unless they are. However, it was five years ago that the Prime Minister reported that:
"Long and arduous negotiations followed by a meeting of the Heads of all the Governments produced a satisfactory result: Britain will pay less".
So far as I can see, the main satisfactory result appears to have been more well-intentioned verbiage, because the Prime Minister now concludes by saying:
"I can report to the House that the validity of the arguments advanced by British Ministers on some of these issues, over a long period, is being increasingly recognised".
Is that all he has achieved so far?
3.51 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we, on these Benches, naturally welcome what was apparently a constructive exchange of views on unemployment, social policy, energy and convergence. We can only trust—I fear, without too much confidence —that there will shortly be concrete results. I hope that I am also right in believing that the Prime Minister's insistence on some change in the Common

659
Agricultural Policy, whereby immensely and unnecessarily large sums are paid to farmers, resulting in unsaleable surpluses of agricultural goods, will be welcomed by everyone in this country, regardless of party. Surely it also reflects a sentiment which, I believe I am correctly informed, is increasingly shared by consumers in all the Community countries. On the other hand, will not the Government agree that it would be easier, to say the least, to obtain the necessary consent of our partners to some reform of the CAP if the Government were to adopt a rather less intensively nationalistic approach to such problems as fisheries, or even if they were prepared to go into the European Monetary System and not insist—as they do in so many other cases—on being the odd man out?
Finally, referring to what I think the Prime Minister called the "unbearable burden" that has been placed by the CAP on the taxpayer, presumably we must recall that, if the British taxpayer was relieved of that burden, he would still have to fork out at least —1,000 million a year in the form of subsidies to our own farmers. Therefore, we can perhaps exaggerate that factor.
3.53 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that I shall deal with the questions asked by the Liberal spokesman first. As always, from the Liberal Benches there is a much more constructive approach than from the Opposition Front Bench, and I shall deal with it very quickly. I welcome the positive line that has been taken by a very distinguished Liberal who knows Europe so well because of his former professional occupation. I agree with the noble Lord about many of the points he raised.
I should now like to deal with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. I am amazed that he would argue about concrete achievements over a period of five years. For a long period I was an agriculture Minister in Europe and I believe that I achieved much for this country: for instance, the beef premium; access for New Zealand; when the present Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary he negotiated in principle access for 1·4 million tonnes of sugar from the Commonwealth. I and my colleagues achieved access and
660
liberalisation of trade; the Lomé Convention, which is an outstanding achievement, was partly set up through Commissioner Cheysson and the present Minister of Overseas Development, Judith Hart. I am amazed at the negative approach of the noble Lord.
I am not ashamed of what we have achieved in this period. Of course, there are problems with the CAP. When I attended my first Council meeting in Brussels I argued that our price mechanisms must recognise that there are structural surpluses and that we must overcome them. When the noble Lord chides Ministers on matters like that, I am prepared to put my record down, to show that what the Tories are now saying is absolutely out of touch. After all, they were in Office for a period before we came to power, and they did not achieve very much. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will look carefully at this Statement and will appreciate what I say.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we appreciate what has been said to the Council of Ministers this week? We hope that, having gone to the barricades on the CAP, the Prime Minister will now use the power of veto to see where that will take us. If the Prime Minister decides at the forthcoming Election to fight to bring us out of the Common Market and to take us away from the economic madness of this Community, is he aware that he will have the blessing of all the working people of the British Isles?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I have noted the advice given by my noble friend. I cannot really accept it. I believe that whether or not we like it, we are in the Community. Therefore, we must make it work. I shall say no more than that. I greatly respect my noble friend's views —I used to share them once—but the reality which I saw in Europe was that we are there.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House this question: Does he gather from the statement made by the Opposition spokesman that we should now come out of Europe?—because judging by what the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal said, we should.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, will answer for himself and his Party. I do not think that he made even a constructive approach to European matters. In other words, I believe that they are bad Europeans.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that all these problems existed before we joined these economic cowboys in Europe? The omniscience and philosophical ability on the Benches opposite showed no aptitude when we were rushed into joining the Common Market without there being one alteration to the Bill—without the changing of a comma or a dot as regards Europe's economic and monetary system.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I endorse everything which my noble friend has said because, as he knows, I took part in all those discussions.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I have been slightly provoked. This Statement is about a great many other things than the Common Agricultural Policy, which we all agree must be renegotiated. I am at one with the noble Lord about that. The noble Lord says that the Government have made considerable progress. He knows more about this than I do; that I freely accept. The point is that the Government appear to be claiming exactly what they claimed five years ago. They still say that they are making progress; Mr. Callaghan frankly thumped the table the other day and said that he was very dissatisfied. Yet five years ago he said that he had had a successful renegotiation. To begin with, that seems to me to be an inconsistent position. My suspicion is that two of his right honourable friends, both Ministers in the other place—Mr. Benn and Mr. Silkin—have expended a great deal of the goodwill and capital that existed towards this country in Europe, and that we are now paying the price of having made our partners in Europe intransigent as a result of the unco-operative attitudes that we have taken. I believe that this side is much more well disposed towards Europe than is the other side, and I am not even including the noble Lord on the other side in saying so.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I say that I hope the noble Lord will look at what is in the Statement. It is a much bigger Statement. It deals also with world trade, Japan and its impact. This is something much wider. I do not think he does himself any service to single out Ministers the way he does. Our Ministers go to Europe and work very hard. This is a report of what has happened over a long period. It is a positive document which reflects the Community and not just Britain. When he is criticising he is really partly criticising the Community as well, the other countries. I hope we shall have none of that. Could we now proceed?
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I say one word in answer to the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench? Would not the noble Lord agree that by smashing the original Council of Europe, which was done by a Conservative Government, and then refusing to take any part in the negotiations which led to the EEC, we ourselves are primarily responsible for the mess we are in?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Boothby reminds—I hope still—his noble friends—
A Noble Lord: He is not your noble friend.
Lord PEART: Of course he is. He was a very distinguished European on the Council of Europe. I was there and I heard his speeches. He was a great defender of the fishing industry and of Europe. I agree with him that the Council of Europe could have paved the way for the events that should have happened, but his own party let him down.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question that I am sure must worry quite a number of us in this House. Is he aware that the House enormously appreciates the reports that are made as a result of these Council meetings but, at the same time, we are very often left with the impression that it is what one might call an ex parte report? I do not say that in any derogatory sense. It is almost inevitable. Would it not be possible to have if not a neutral report at any rate a consensus report issued by the

663
Council itself alongside the reports which Ministers make, the Prime Minister makes, of the Council proceedings themselves?
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord is an old politician. He knows that a Government must make statements about their attitude in Europe. We have a very fine scrutiny committee, the European Committee of the House, which examines European policy. But a Government must make their position plain and I, as a member of that Government, must defend it. After all, the Tories do it in opposition. I hope they will be in opposition for a long time and get more experience of it, but that is another matter. All I say is that I believe it is right that I should be partisan. I do not apologise for that. I defend my Government.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has entirely missed the point.
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if the noble Lord misrepresents what I said, surely I am entitled to make a point here. I acknowledge fully the value of the reports that are made. What I was asking was that in addition there should be a general statement made by the Council of Ministers after each meeting.
Lord PEART: My Lords, that is another matter. I could agree with that. On the other hand, inevitably if you make a statement on Government policy, as indeed the previous Administration did and I do not complain about that, there is bound to be some partisan byplay. That is why we are here in a democratic community. I do not complain of the noble Lord revealing the soul of the Tory party in its failure to do certain things. I enjoy it.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me just one point?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think we should go on.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, it was only to clarify the question put by my noble friend, because he is making an important point. He understands that
664
the Government will make their points, and this is clear from their attitude, but what he is asking, and rightly, is that the Council as such, when they have had a meeting, should issue a communiqué of the conclusions of that meeting.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the Community does precisely that.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord—
Lord PEART: No, my Lords. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that we are having a major debate. I regret having to intervene in that debate because education is so important. I hope we can proceed

SECONDARY EDUCATION STANDARDS
Debate resumed.
4.6 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for introducing this debate on this extremely important subject, even if some of us are somewhat stunned by the awesome grasp he has of the details of examination syllabuses past, present, and to come. I certainly do not intend to embark on the controversy aroused by the proposals for changes in the examination system. We are also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for what can best be described as an end of term report on the Government's performance in education. Like many end of term reports I think we would all agree that what she really said was that the Government had tried hard and will try harder in the future, and hope to show that they have not done too badly. I thought, however, that the noble Baroness protested too much when it came to the question of the comprehensive system. We on these Benches have long supported the comprehensive system, and continue to do so. But in relation to the comprehensive system, as in so many other things which one supports, we do not support it in a totally uncritical way. Nor do we think it necessary to say that, everywhere and in all respects, the comprehensive system is delivering the goods.

665
I had the good fortune last week—and I cannot pretend that it was anything to do with speaking in this debate, because I had no idea that I was going to speak in it—to visit two comprehensive schools of a very different order in different parts of the country. One was a purpose-built comprehensive school which, even for someone who has never taught and never aspired to teach in the secondary system, made the mouth water in terms of equipment, of environment, of facilities there, and the imagination-stirring environment in which one felt that almost anybody would be able to teach almost anything to anyone. I am sure that that is not true, but that was the feeling one had at the end of the visit.
The other was to a comprehensive school which had taken over a stately home—a rather unlikely start you might have thought. This school had a quite different but an equally stimulating effect on me. I had the good fortune to spend an extremely lively hour with the sixth form explaining to them the virtues of proportional representation. They were taking politics in their A-levels, and I hope the A-level results will be that much the better. I must say that they were much quicker to see the point than many Members of your Lordships' House!
In other words, and seriously, what I am saying is that obviously there are comprehensive schools and comprehensive schools. Some of them are breaking new ground and making achievements of the highest order. That should not prevent us from saying that there are some cases in which expectations have been far from achieved, and in which the results are a matter for real concern. For my own part, where this has happened—and I say this with great hesitation because I do not pretend to know anything about teaching in secondary schools—I suspect that the comprehensive system in public regard has suffered from the very unfortunate fact that it was got under way at precisely the same time (and I do not think it had anything to do with the nature of comprehensive education) that there were introduced into the schools what I shall stick my neck out and call quite dotty teaching methods. If you associate quite dotty teaching methods with large schools where it is difficult to take control and maintain standards, then in some places you are going to get some deplorable
666
results. Although I may be quite wrong about this, I suspect that comprehensiveness has been blamed but that the cause lies somewhere quite different.
We on these Benches are committed to the comprehensive principle, but we are also anxious to see a number of improvements taking place. One of the improvements I should like to suggest turns on being adventurous and experimental, on leaving a maximum amount of control at the level of the school, but not however exclusively in the hands of the headmaster. I believe we must trust the organisation of the committees, with a much better representation of parents and teachers on those committees, to develop schools in ways which seem to be appropriate to them, because by no means can this lie with the bureaucratic administrators, be they in the Department or at local authority level. There should be the opportunity for experiment and variation within the schools; let one do it in one way and another in another way if that seems good to the local committees. No doubt things will sometimes go wrong. That will happen whatever one does, but a greater degree of local experiment is something for which we should strive.
We believe, too, that now is the time when it is desirable to raise teaching standards. We have, we are told, a falling input into the schools because of changes in the birthrate; and we have, as we know, a surplus of trained, though not always experienced, teachers. In-teaching, in-service, training has been promised for a long time and, as Lord Elton said, it is the quality of the teaching that matters, and it is vitally necessary to get that quality up to the highest possible level. Surely we could take advantage of the present opportunity of having more teachers available to see that older teachers, and teachers who perhaps did not get the best training initially and who are not in touch with new ideas, have the advantage of in-service training, and that should be undertaken on the largest possible scale.
Of course it would cost money, but I suspect it would be a very good investment, especially if we are working in the direction of giving schools more opportunity to experiment, having more freedom of action, which is what we should like to see happen. I am sure that if comprehensiveness is to be successful, it will be

667
successful because we will be able to have more generous teaching ratios than we have had in the past, and will be able to deal with small groups of people who can have real personal contact with teachers. This is what teaching is all about, and it can be done only by being more generous in teaching ratios and in the quality of staff who undertake teaching.
So much for the need to develop and improve, rather than criticise, the comprehensive system. Another area in which people are greatly concerned is the whole relationship between school and work and the preparation of school children for the world of work afterwards. In no circumstances would we move from the position that what education is all about is the development of the child; but it must be the development of the child for himself or herself as a person, a person who is able satisfactorily to earn a decent livelihood and hold down a job.
I underline again what I have said often in your Lordships' House, that all the forecasts show that the future of the youngster, boy or girl, who lacks skills to sell in the market place is a very bleak future indeed. While I do not take the rather hysterical view that some people are taking about the results of the introduction of micro-processers, it seems to be a fact that for the first time in human history there will not be a career except for a very small number of people who are only hewers of wood and drawers of water. That is new, and it is of the greatest possible importance and relevance for the education system. This means that the connection between school and work—the importance of seeing that youngsters are prepared while at school in a way which will enable them to get into the world of work and hold their own in that world—is of the greatest possible importance.
I should like to see—we have discussed this before but this seems to be the place to return it to—the development in schools of departments of work education. I am not talking about job training; I am talking about having departments concerned with work and the relationship between education and work. Just as we have departments of art, religious education, physical education and so on, we should have departments of work education in the hands of highly qualified and respected
668
teachers, who can hold their own in the academic field, but who have the additional knowledge and ability to cope with the whole area of work and the relationship between school and work.
This needs the real training of very able teachers, and I do not mean just a week seconded to a factory to have a look round. I have read with interest and some despair the paeans of praise because teachers in various places have been spending a week in industry. The world of work is far more complex and demanding than that. What we need are properly planned training programmes for teachers of high quality, so they really can understand what the work process is about. Even Lord Elton, unless I misunderstood him, spoke rather as if the world of work was for the less able children. I do not know what the more able were supposed to do. The more able would be academics, and he seemed to be supporting the eternal round of the bright A-level, scholarship level, university candidate, unversity First, who then goes back and repeats the process.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the distinction was that the person who takes the A-level goes on to academic pursuits before going to work, but the person who does not goes straight to work. That is why the preparation has to take place in the secondary school.
Baroness SEEAR: I accept that, my Lords, but I also believe that knowledge of the world of work is highly desirable for the academically bright as well as for the academically less bright, and this is a matter which could be included in the syllabus. We have liberal studies—I do not quite understand why they are called that—but why should we not have work studies? They would be liberalising for a great many of the more academic people. I believe this whole matter must be taken very seriously indeed.
I am talking about the planned release of youngsters in the last year or two at school, with that planned release dovetailed into academic studies—in the way sandwich courses are provided for people at a later level—used as an educational instrument by people who understand what they are doing. That would of course be combined with careers advice

669
work, which should start much earlier and as a much more integral part of the educational process, not in the penultimate term when most people have made all the decisions and committed themselves in the school programme and when it is too late for them to adjust their educational programme. Other countries have done it and, if we were really taking the work education system seriously, we would see that information about careers and the relevance between careers and studies done in schools were available to, and known by, both youngsters and parents at the time they are making the decisions which really matter.
When one looks closely at what the world of work will ask from the schools, one sees that the world of work knows clearly that it cannot forecast what the demands will be over the next 50 years, over the working lives of the youngsters now leaving school. The one certain fact is that they need youngsters who have the capacity to be flexible, to change, because that is all we know. No forecast, no manpower forecast, makes sense beyond five years, and even at five years it is quite murky. We need people who can find it easy o change, and for that reason they must have a good academic base, because unless they have the capacity, which is an academic capacity, to acquire new knowledge and use it, they cannot be flexible.
To build flexibility into the academic system they need, from the point of view of the world of work, good reading, mathematical and linguistic abilities of various kinds; so in reality the academic and world of work demands are not so far apart. We do not have to think of them as people who are in two separate groups with some mysterious dividing line between those who are capable of doing the academic work and those who are not; obviously there are points along a line. But can we not look very seriously and anew at the very fundamental demands in providing acceptable standards that this whole area of the relationship of school and work creates.
This will be a long debate, my Lords, and I have spoken for too long. There is only one other point that I want to make. It seems to me that in the discussion about education we have become bogged down with a false idea of equality
670
and, in some quarters, almost a fear of excellence. No educational system dare deny the importance of the achievement of excellence wherever it can be found, and it is a totally false idea of equality which encourages people to deny the pre-eminent importance of excellence. We are all equal in the eyes of God and of the law, but we are most emphatically not all equal when it comes to choosing the first violin. If we can get that clear in our heads—and I say it as one who does not know one end of the violin from the other—surely we can proceed to make a better job of emphasising the importance of excellence while maintaining our belief in equality.
4.21 p.m.
Lord CHARTERIS of AMISFIELD: My Lords, I am honoured and privileged to take part in this debate as there can be few more importance subjects than the standard of secondary education in our schools, but I must first declare my interest. For a little over a year I have been Provost of Eton, and as such am the chairman of the governors and resident of that school which will be familiar to many noble Lords, and which has from time to time, in my view with very little regard for the truth, been described as that "large comprehensive school on the outskirts of Slough". I have therefore a personal stake in the secondary sector of education. I was given what was I am sure an excellent piece of advice by a noble Lord. "When you are making your maiden speech", he said, "make sure that you pick a subject of which you know a great deal, but for which you do not feel much passion". I cannot pretend that a year at Eton has made me an expert on education, but it has given me a passionate conviction that Eton, and indeed the independent sector of secondary education as a whole, has in the national interest a positive obligation to survive. I am therefore doing exactly what I was advised not to do. I hope, none the less, that I may have the indulgence of your Lordships' House if what I say must inevitably by its nature be somewhat controversial. I certainly have neither wish nor intention to be provocative.
I have no doubt that public schools today are more civilised, more professional, in the laudatory sense in which the word is rightly used, and far more ready to

671
include practical and technical subjects in their approach to education than some noble Lords will remember as they look back with nostalgia, or repugnance, on their school days. Unfortunately, however, this is not our public image. The media are inclined to cast us in a stereotype role, which is very far from reality. We are presented as bastions of privilege, picturesque and rather brutal neo-Gothic survivals, bracketed with Morris dancing and Beefeaters, as they will miscall the Yeomen of the Guard. For instance, I should be surprised if a journalist, except the most perceptive, seeking information about Eton would fail during the course of his inquiry to ask pointedly about flogging and fagging—matters which have about as much relevance to life at Eton today as the Yeomen of the Guard have to the Defence Review. We have certainly come a long way from the day when Dr. Keate, headmaster of Eton at the beginning of the 19th century, on being confronted with a number of boys, automatically flogged them, assuming them to be defaulters, only to discover that they were in fact confirmation candidates attending on him for edification. And of course we have come a long way from times much nearer our own than those of Dr. Keate.
Schools in the independent sector today not only aim to achieve academic excellence over a wide and varied field, but also to develop in the fullest possible way each child's potential. They also seek to instil into him or her a proper regard for ethical and moral values. I am sure that comprehensive schools share this aim, and I have no doubt that the best of them achieve it. But because many independent schools are boarding schools, because they have a long tradition of worship, because their size is limited, and because there is a particularly close relationship in them between teachers and pupils, they inevitably have better opportunities than do comprehensive schools to teach children to take their part in the community, to accept responsibility for others, and to learn both to accept authority and the difficult art of exercising it.
That schools in the independent sector are generally successful in their aim is, I believe, demonstrated by the pressure for places in them. Most of them are
672
full and most of them have full order books. Why is it that parents, many of whom never went to independent schools themselves, appear ready to mobilise whatever financial resources they have in order to pay the formidable fees which schools in the independent sector are forced to charge? Why is it that they are often prepared to sacrifice so much to this end? I am quite sure that it is not primarily or largely for reasons of class or snobbery. To take that view would be an insult to the great majority of them. No, my Lords; they do it because they want to do what they believe is the best possible for their children.
If I am justified in my belief that independent schools do indeed provide a broad, fulfilling education of a high order, I find it difficult to believe that that is not in itself beneficial for our country. The only pity that I can see is that more of our children are not able to enjoy the educational advantages provided by public schools. That is indeed a great pity. Of course it is unfair on many children who have the ability and the character to get the best out of a public school education that they do not have the opportunity to do so. But it seems to me that only a single-minded belief, which I certainly cannot share, in the dogma that what all cannot attain, none must, could make anyone rejoice at the extinction of public schools.
Public schools are of course restricted in social range and because of this are criticised as a divisive element in our society. This is a very controversial question, and I certainly do not wish to go into it on this occasion, except to say that many public schools—and certainly Eton—do to the best of their abilities finance scholarships which are open to any who can win them and bursaries which are available to those who need them. I also have little doubt that many of these schools would welcome the opportunity to provide places for more children who would normally be educated in the maintained sector if practicable arrangements could be agreed with the education authorities.
I contend that schools in the independent sector are good in themselves. I believe also that they are a good, indeed an essential, element in the total mix of secondary education. They are a good

673
ingredient because they add a rich diversity, and they are essential because they set a standard of quality.
I was most interested last week to listen to a Radio 4 programme called "About Face". It was a discussion about the contrasting merits and demerits of comprehensive and independent schools. There was a general consensus in the discussion that parental choice, where it could be exercised, leant towards independent schools, and at the finish each of the three highly intelligent people who had been taking part in this discussion was asked what single thing could be done to reverse that trend, what could be done to make comprehensive schools more popular. I was particularly interested to hear the reply given by Mr. P. E. Daunt, the eloquent and persuasive protagonist of the comprehensive system. He said, "Leave it alone", and I hope I am not misinterpreting him in saying that what he meant was that comprehensive schools should be given more time to settle down, more time to achieve such excellence that parents who could afford to send their children to independent schools would decide that comprehensive schools could do the job as well and send their children to them instead. If that situation comes about, if that degree of excellence can be achieved by the comprehensive schools, it would be wholly good; it would be something in which everyone should rejoice. But I am sure of one thing: it will be achieved much more readily if there is a standard set by the independent schools at which to aim.
I agree with the view expressed by Mr. Daunt, as I understand it; but, above all, I am sure that it would be contrary to the national interest to weaken the position of independent schools, because to attack excellence is to promote mediocrity. I believe, therefore, that one of the conditions necessary to secure acceptable standards in secondary eduction in England and Wales is the continued existence of a vigorous, competitive, independent sector, thriving itself on the threat of competition from the comprehensive schools and by its existence stimulating comprehensive schools to further excellence.
4.32 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, it is the greatest pleasure to be the first to congratulate my noble friend (I hope he does
674
not mind me calling him that) Lord Charteris on a speech which was as delightful as it was robust, and good for us all to hear. The noble Lord is at the pinnacle of one of the two best schools in the country and his defence of the independent system was quite splendid. He reminded me of Abraham Lincoln's remark,
"I like a man who is proud of the place where he comes from",
and that we saw very well this afternoon. I hope the noble Lord does not mind being congratulated by someone who comes from the same place as the barrow-load of earth which was used to found Eton—that is, Winchester. We very much hope that he will share his wide experience with us many times in the future. That he is one of those shrewd Etonians is shown by the way he has picked this debate which was opened by an old Etonian, my noble friend Lord Elton. Another maiden speech, by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is to follow, then the Marquess of Salisbury and then the wind-ups will be my noble friend Lord Belstead and the Minister, Lord Donaldson—all educated at Eton. That is something very remarkable.
My noble friend Lord Elton in a very well-informed speech directed our attention to the conditions necessary to raise standards in secondary education. I ask your Lordships to consider whether there is not one condition which is more important than all the others put together. In making this case I shall confine my remarks to the maintained schools which, as the noble Baroness said, are over 80 per cent. comprehensive. Some of these schools are extremely good. The noble Baroness. Lady Seear, visited one. I hope that those excellent schools of which I have some knowledge will not take it amiss if most of what I have to say (because I wish to be short) is concerned with the less good institutions.
Your Lordships will also be aware that the quality of the teaching in the primary schools is a big factor in the failure or success of the secondary schools; and, alas!, that teaching is not always what we would desire. The standards which are in your Lordships' minds are presumably those related to proficiency in the basic subjects and to access to other subjects which should be available to all pupils

675
Suitable for them. We can evaluate those standards to some extent by looking at the statistics, by looking at the results of the exams, and by asking employers their opinion of the school-leavers who come to them for jobs. I think it is fair to say that over the last two years, on that basis, these standards have been showing improvement, but obviously we should not be having this debate if the evidence of a decline in standards, patchy though it is, were not plain enough for all to see; and, indeed, two years ago the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State themselves referred to it.
This evidence should not come as a surprise. Successive Ministers of Education felt it their duty, in order to reduce the size of classes, to increase the number of teachers at such a rate that standards of teaching in many scools were bound to suffer; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, to make things more difficult, young teachers were encouraged to use methods which could be employed successfully only by very experienced teachers. A decline in results was therefore predictable; and the party opposite did not like it when I used to say that more teachers must, for a time at any rate, mean worse teachers, especially since competition for sixth-form leavers—competition from the expanding Civil Service, from the social services, from industry and from many other forms of employment which were only just opening up for girls—was growing stronger every year. All those new oportunities made it certain that a growing number of places in teacher-training colleges could be filled only by lowering the qualifications of entry; and that is what happened. Not long ago, as I think one noble Lord has already mentioned, only half those teaching mathematics in the primary schools had taken an O-level in that vital subject. Of course, secondary schools could not he expected to raise their standards if that was the general level of the teaching in the schools below them.
But I would also draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the explosion in the teaching force distorted the age structure of staffs. In large schools, the rapid turnover in staff became very serious; and, the proportion of experienced teachers being reduced, the authority
676
of the staff as a whole was greatly impaired. This dilution—bad luck, again, for the schools—occurred at an unfortunate moment when permissiveness and indiscipline were growing throughout society. Yet, whatever may be the state of morals in our society a lack of sufficient authority undermines all that goes on in any school.
My Lords, what is the target at which we should aim in secondary education? It must be more than cramming pupils with information or getting them through some examinations before they leave. It is after they leave, how they then approach their work, what standards of conduct they evince—it is then that the real value of their education is put to the proof. I am told that a lad who wants to join one of the gangs that plan and execute bank robberies has to have at least one "A" level. He needs as much instruction and training to become a professional criminal as to become a competent clergyman. The schools cannot contract out of the question—or not entirely—of why a boy chooses to be one rather than the other.
We must therefore start with a definition of education that aims to make children not just good at physics or quizzes but good human beings and good citizens; because it is only against such a definition that we can usefully measure the standards of secondary schools. I like very much the definition given by a professor of philosophy at Chicago University, Professor Mortimer Adler. He said:
"Education is the process whereby the powers of human nature are developed by good habits—good habits not just of reading, writing and arithmetic but good habits of behaviour and responsibility".
Your Lordships know only too well that the area of education concerned with moral values has undergone a sea-change since the war and, in changing, it has not had a good influence on academic performance. Boys and girls who at home or in school are not taught habits of good behaviour, who will leave school muddled about the difference between right and wrong, who may even have been told that it is more important to do what they like than to do what is right—boys and girls brought up in that way are difficult to teach. They do not co-operate easily and may well learn much less than might have been expected from their natural capacities.

677
So, my Lords, the first condition for securing acceptable standards is for the staff to wish, and to be able, to exercise authority over the whole school. They will not be able to do this unless parents and teachers can get together and agree upon the rules of behaviour which all children should follow. When there are two sets of morals, one taught at home and quite a different one at school, great damage is done. That is much more often the case now than it used to be. Some teachers, especially the younger ones, find it difficult to stand up against the bad habits of a whole neighbourhood.
As noble Lords have said, there are other conditions to be fulfilled. The structure of the schools can be improved. For example, I think that we shall come to see that authority is so important that the schools ought to be smaller because it is easier to exercise authority in a smaller school. I am not saying anything about the comprehensive principle. I am merely talking about how you get the best out of any school. Also, of course, there may be something to be said for changing the exams. I thought that my noble friend knew so much about that that I would not add anything. And there can be big improvements, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said, in the quality of teaching as a result of the decline in the number of children on the school roll. It is essential to use that opportunity deliberately—and I would almost say "only"—to improve the quality of teaching.
But behind all the improvements that one can make in education, in organisation and in teaching, lies the acute need to develop better habits of behaviour and responsibility. Is it possible to change direction in those schools where authority is weak? Not unless the whole community will support the teachers who want such a change. It is bound to he very difficult to define, publish and teach clear distinctions tweeen right and wrong in our permissive and multiracial society, but I believe that good habits are as catching as bad habits and, to the extent that we succeed in living up to Professor Adler's definition, it will be easier to introduce all the other improvements which noble Lords have very rightly called for. To rebuild the authority of the teachers is the first condition; and we must try to help them to do this as much as we possibly can.
4.47 p.m.
The Earl of ERROLL: My Lords, I was not expecting, nor was it by design, that I should take part in a debate so populated by Old Etonians. I had not realised it in advance. On this, my first occasion of addressing your Lordships' House, I crave your indulgence should I commit any errors of omission or commission. It seems to me, from discussing this subject with various people interested in education, that the conditions necessary for a good secondary education system fall into three main parts: one, a good foundation; second, the subject matter; and, third, the teaching. The foundation—and here I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—depends very much on the primary school education because it is impossible to teach children well if you do not have a base to build upon. If you take someone at 11 or 12 years of age with little knowledge and small experience of the world and of life and try to teach him something new, it means starting from scratch, possibly with the added disadvantage that he will have an inbuilt resistance to certain subjects and already have some preconceived ideas about certain things. Therefore, it is very important to have a broad base upon which to build. The whole secondary education can then take place in which you can see someone's talents, in which direction they lie, and develop them further.
In talking about the State education system, rather than the education system in which I was brought up, the system of which therefore I do not have any direct knowledge, I would say, having spoken to several people who have direct contact with it and have studied it, that the curriculum of primary school education at the moment is based very much on the three R's—reading, writing and arithmetic. Any other subjects are now included only by the way because the teacher wishes to involve the children in other subjects. But the curriculum has been reduced because the schools have found that they cannot keep up with what was considered necessary. It is very laudable that people should leave school literate, able to read, write and do arithmetic, and it appears essential to modern life that they should be able to do so; but it is not in fact essential. It is essential in academic life but it is not

679
necessarily so in life outside where there are many other things about which a person needs to know. People may be able to lead an interesting life or a full life and contribute well to society without actually being very good at any of the three R's. The problem is of course —back to examinations—that the examiners cannot examine somebody properly unless he can read or write, other than by an oral examination. I am not going into the examinations system because that has been dealt with far more fully and can be dealt with far better by people with a greater knowledge than I. Though the teaching schemes in the primary schools are good, the general year group standards of education are dropping. It seems to me that one reason is the shrinking of the curriculum so that reading, writing and arithmetic are taken out of the context of the real life later on, and that therefore people have less of an interest in learning. Perhaps by widening the curriculum again we could get a broader base on which to build in a secondary education system; and, secondly, we might increase the primary school child's interest and give him some relevance to the things he is learning—the three as we see them essentials.
What is the aim? What are we trying to produce from the system? That is important because on that we decide the subject matter that we teach in school. Obviously, as I have mentioned, there are the three "Rs" but the main need is to equip children for life and enable them to take their place in the human society in which we live, the whole of society. One is trying to educate them for two purposes: one is work, preparation for which is the traditional role of education. The second is leisure. It is the leisure side which is becoming more and more important, because people have traditionally been brought up and educated for a job and to expect and want to do a job. Thus they feel unfulfilled if they do not get a job. Hence there arose the motto of the unions and the workers as a whole, "The right to work". That is a very important concept because it obviously shows a strong feeling.
Although there are many jobs that can only be done by humans, there are coming to be more and more jobs which are of a mechanical, routine or unpleasant nature—
680
working in unpleasant conditions in factories, and so on. These jobs can now be far better done by micro-processors, and in fact I am involved in them to a certain extent, though not in the factory environment. One has become aware of what is possible, of what level of automation is possible and of the amount of unnecessary and unpleasant toil that can be eliminated.
The problem then arises that people will have more leisure time. It will be either in the form of unemployment, which is showing itself at the moment, or in having more time on one's hands at work if one is working to a fixed number of hours per day. Alternatively, it will mean working fewer days per week. Therefore, people arc going to have more spare time. It seems to me important that the educational system should cater for educating people for leisure, particularly in this transition period where we are moving over to greater automation and therefore there is going to be more spare time. In their spare time and with their better education, people will, one hopes, be able to think up new ideas to create further employment in the future, though this may not be necessary.
If one considers why one educates people, first of all it is for science, and that is obvious. With the new ideas and technology which are creeping in and appearing day by day, it is more and more desirable for people to have a scientific background or a knowledge of science. However, there are many people who find this field very difficult to comprehend and who find science a tricky subject. For these people there must be arts subjects—the arts as a whole—craft subjects for those who like to work with their hands and are not academic, and natural subjects for those who like the countryside and things like that which can be combined with crafts. If one can start this as a broad base in the primary school, one can build on it in the secondary school and choose which direction people can go in, or they can determine it for themselves.
I realise that broadening the base of subjects taught is quite a formidable objective. Immediately people will say: "How are you going to do it"? It has already been mentioned by several noble Lords that the school population is declining. I believe that at the moment

681
the projected figures are down to something like two-thirds of the present 5 to 8-year-olds by 1986. This will then work its way up through the system, and it will mean that there will be a far larger proportion of teachers. This can either be used in broadening the number of subjects taught, in reducing the classes or perhaps in both. Here is an opportunity: if we do not allow the number of teachers to drop, using this as a method of making economies, but try to maintain the present position, we can increase the base on which the entire education system is built and, therefore, I hope, affect the output of the education system at the far end, and I hope also help people over what to my mind will be a fairly difficult coming period.
4.56 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, it is not only my first duty but my real joy to be able to congratulate the noble Earl on his maiden speech. It is always a joy in this House to listen to a younger voice; it rejuvenates all of us. But I should like to emphasise that that younger voice delivered a speech of great maturity and great interest which we enjoyed, and we all look forward to listening to him in the future. May I also join in the congratulations that were extended to the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, for his speech in this House, a maiden speech in which he so eloquently defended the fields of Eton and reminded us—as indeed did the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—that the percentage of speakers in this debate who come from Eton is almost equal to the percentage of Etonians, if I remember correctly, in the Macmillan Government.
My Lords, there are two dangers in a debate of this kind. The first is to belittle the standards of our secondary education; the second is to be over-complacent about it. There are reasons why there is so much criticism of the standards of secondary education; they are again twofold. The first is that parents take much more interest these days in the education of their children, and they expect very much more. That is a good thing. The second reason is that one very often gets complaints from employers, who fail to realise that the applicants for the positions at the lower end of their employment status, are different kinds of applicant from the applicant that they used to get.
682
That is because so many of our young people who would have had to apply for such positions in years gone by are now much more ambitious. They are staying on in the sixth forms, taking further education and going to universities.
This was put quite admirably in a short question and answer which is to be found in the Tenth Report from the Expenditure Committee. If your Lordships will allow me, I shall read the question and the answer. The answer was given by one of the officers of the National Association of Careers Guidance Teachers who were examined before that Committee. This was the question:
"… Is there any stage where you are clearly being presented with documentation by employers or statistics which indicates in their terms that students at a comparable level of attainment in schools over a ten-year period are in fact less well equipped to do the job that employers are asking of them?"
Mr. Heppell, an officer of that Association, answered:
"Employers have been producing some quite detailed statistics about young people who are going into, say, clerical jobs or engineering jobs and the level of competence that they maintain. What we are contending is that they are contrasting people at the lower level of the ability range with those they had before because a great many who would have gone into that sort of occupation are staying on at school and taking full time education and taking examinations. So they are contrasting a group lower down the ability range with those they had before".
There is a tradition of this House which one of your newer Members has learnt: it is that nobody should rise to speak unless he thinks he is a specialist in some measure in a subject or has some thing original to contribute. It is a tradition which should be exported to other places, if not merely to another place! But it is a very inhibiting tradition. It means—and I am sure that your Lordships will not regret this—that my own speeches will be limited to a very few during my life time. At all events, my Lords, I claim one original contribution which I can possibly make to this debate. It is this: immediately after the war I had the privilege of commencing to sit on the front bench of the old London County Council, where I was privileged to stay until the demise of that Council—an act of political murder for which I shall never forgive my friends opposite. During that time some of my colleagues and I had the thrilling adventure not only of trying to

683
rebuild a bombed London but also, instead of mending destruction, of doing the creative job of starting a new educational era based on the Education Act 1944.
I want, if I may, quite briefly to deal with some of the ways in which that old London County Council and the education authority that followed it—the Inner London Education Authority—attempted and are attempting to create the very conditions that this Motion speaks of. Some of the things are original, and that is why I want to talk about them this afternoon. I cannot help this parenthesis—I must be forgiven for it—but at least in the political murder of which I spoke, even my friends opposite felt that the standards of education produced in its area by the old London County Council were such that not even they would lay a finger on that area, with the result that the Inner London Education Authority survives with the same jurisdiction and area as the old London County Council had.
If I may say so—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not in his place at the monent—I was a little disappointed with his speech, if only because he is usually so assiduous in keeping to the subject on which he wants to speak. I thought we were going to have this afternoon—and I mean this—some very practical and constructive proposals in order that we might know how to manage contemporarily to keep up and improve the standards of secondary education. Instead of that—and it is only because he has built up such a high standard in this House that I dare to use these critical words—too much of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was devoted to some controversial argument about whether there should be one examination or two, and matters of that kind which, if I may humbly say so, I do not really think did him justice in respect of the Motion he brought before this House.
I turn, as I said, to what is being done and what it is hoped to do in the Metropolis to bring up the standards that we all want to see in secondary education. I am going to mention six matters quite briefly—and I promise your Lordships that I shall deal with them quite briefly. The first has been referred to on a national scale but the Inner London Education Authority is doing it on a more particular
684
scale. That is, you have to take stock of where you are, what you are trying to achieve and how far you are succeeding. The authority has taken steps to monitor its educational system by a variety of screening and testing procedures. They are beginning at the age of six, and they are doing it at the age of six because they want to diagnose at that age potential learning difficulties; and it is very right that they should. They end this screening and monitoring process by a collection of examination data at the end of the secondary schools. But the schools have to do this themselves, and not just centrally, because improvements will be realised in the schools by a process of their own creation, and the authority is encouraging schools to assess themselves. I have here a pamphlet called Keeping the School Under Review, which is a pretty good educational pamphlet and a very creative document.
I turn speedily to the second item, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred, as did the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. You cannot build a foundation for your secondary schools save in the primary schools; and that is where the job has got to be done. Here, in laying that sure foundation, the authority has planned and is setting in motion the idea of having advisory teachers to assist the inspectorate in in-service training—which has already been referred to in this debate—in order to improve the knowledge and capacity of primary teachers. Additional teachers are being taken on in order that other teachers who need this in-service training may be released for the purpose.
The third point concerns the proper use of resources. Here there has been a steadily improved pupil-teacher ratio—an improvement that the authority regards as most essential. If we are to talk politics this evening—and I hope it will not be in the slightest degree an antagonistic debate but politics have been brought into it—I must say with deep regret that when we tried to trace the 10 authorities in the whole country who were worst as regards the teacher-pupil ratio, to my great regret—I get no pride or fun out of this—the 10 worst were 10 Conservative education authorities.
I turn from the proper use of resources to the essential fourth item. Co-operation between

685
schools and colleges, must be encouraged. The Inner London Education Authority has established sixth form centres in some areas. There is a programme of sixth form summer schools, where sixth formers can be brought together in a most interesting way in order to exchange experiences, to exchange studies and to share their interests together. There are linked courses with colleges of further education and they are, indeed, widespread.
But there is a special programme now under way, of which I proudly tell your Lordships. It is to develop more closely integrated bridging courses between the school and the college, for those who would not succeed in the school system and who, if I may use the phrase, lack survival skills for the world of employment and in living generally. This programme has received a great deal of attention throughout the country, and certainly in educational circles, and indeed has obtained a grant from the EEC as part of its programme of support for the transition from school to work.
Fifthly, there is the curriculum. Much attention has been given in this debate to the need to raise the standards, not just of our schools but of the teachers, because, without raising those standards, the standards of our schools and of our pupils must obviously deteriorate. Here, again, the Authority has a proud programme. Specialised teachers' centres exist in all areas of the curriculum, where teachers and inspectors work together to improve the standards of teaching and the quality of the syllabus. In many subjects there are special curriculum development programmes, or projects, which have been funded, or to which additional support has been given, to raise standards. Examples are in the fields of science and mathematics, both of which have been mentioned, as well as in other subjects where specialist attention is very necessary, and where some teachers' standards fall short, by way of qualification and otherwise, from what we would want them to be. That applies, too, to the area of modern languages and to a very specialised area—that of the multi-ethnic curriculum.
I now come to the very last item in the speech which I have inflicted upon your Lordships, and that is in regard to the proper use which I hope it is thought the Inner London Education Authority is
686
employing for the support services. These are extremely necessary. Behaviour has been mentioned. Many of us are very worried about some of the behaviour patterns in some of our schools. There is no point in pushing the matter under the carpet. There are psychological problems and social problems, which we all know about. In many areas, there are problems thrown up by immigration, and there are problems with which we are delighted and proud to deal. But these problems can be dealt with only, as I believe this Authority is very well dealing with them, by the proper improvement of inspectors and of school psychological services.
Despite what I have said, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the fact that he put down this Motion. It has given me the proud opportunity of saying what a progressive Authority is trying to do, and I believe is achieving, in keeping up—nay, improving—standards, because none of us can be satisfied with standards until we reach the excellence that we hope to achieve. I end with one plea. As has been said, you cannot deal with children or teachers unless you have proper buildings. Unless you have proper laboratories, you cannot improve your science teaching. When he replies to this debate, I hope that the Minister, who has the cause of education so much at heart, will be able to give some encouragement to those of us who hope that the school buildings programme allocation will be made rather more generous than it is, especially to the metropolis which needs it so much.
5.15 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, may I first join those who have offered their congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, on their maiden speeches, something which we always enjoy. I was a little encouraged when the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, did at least suggest that standards in education were not necessarily measured by examinations. I remember, as an undergraduate, being told by a professor whom I greatly respected: "In this university you can get either a good education or a good degree, but it is extraordinarily difficult to get both". I chose a good education—I hope.

687
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has introduced this subject, and I hope he will forgive me if I perhaps tackle it on a broader basis than has been the case so far. I believe that the education service is facing a major crisis, which has not yet been sufficiently discussed or examined. Indeed, I hope I can convince your Lordships that we have reached a stage where a new major Education Act is a must. The 1944 Act has lasted for longer than any Education Act in the history of Britain. There were Acts in 1870, 1902, 1918 and 1944. It is now 1979. The 1944 Act had two major virtues. It had a great degree of flexibility, and it was an agreed political measure. I hope that we might have a new major Act which has both of those virtues, but I shall come to that later.
The two major problems, as I see them, are, first, the decline in the school population: and, secondly, the education and training of the 16 to 19-year-old age groups, in a situation which we have never had to face before. But let me first take the impact of the falling rolls in different areas. The total school roll will fall from 9 million to about 7½ million. It would be idle to pretend that the buildings at present available for secondary education are in all cases adequate. That simply is not true. We have buildings that were provided as temporary accommodation, and they have been there for the last 35 years. Therefore, with falling school rolls, here is a great opportunity to get rid of buildings which are no longer satisfactory or valid. I should hope, also, to revise our concept of the space needed, particularly for 13 to 16-year-olds. That is probably the age when people are most active and need more space than when they are older. Therefore, 1 hope that that concept can be revised.
I turn now to the size of schools. I share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that relatively small schools can make a major contribution to problems of discipline. In any event, I think that consensus opinion no longer accepts the validity of very large schools. So far as I can see, in the years that lie ahead, the average size of secondary schools will be between 500 and 700. I think most people would accept that this satisfies the requirements. If, however, we look at the size of comprehensive schools, we have to face
688
the simple fact that we shall not be able to sustain sixth forms which are either educationally or economically viable. The Secretary of State's definition of a viable sixth form has varied from 100 to 140, but there will not be a sixth form of 140 in a comprehensive school which has 500 or 700 pupils. I shall come back to this issue, because it ties in with the major problem of the education of the 16-to19-year-old age group. Let me continue for a moment, however, on the impact of falling school numbers.
Falling school numbers will have a major impact on teaching staff. We have to face the fact that the promotion prospects of a large number of teaching staff will be seriously affected. Therefore, the teaching staff will need to be reassured. As your Lordships know, I had a fairly active connection with the Burnham Committee for 30 years. During that period we were concerned with a service which was expanding from 5 million to 9 million pupils, and we built a salary structure which was geared to that expansion. I hope that that salary structure reasonably met the needs of that expansion. Now the Burnham Committee needs to adopt an entirely new approach. The need is not merely to tinker with the present structure but to develop a new structure which can cope with a diminishing school population—in other words, with a contracting instead of an expanding structure. It is not for me to suggest what might be involved, but I am certain of one thing, and it is a point which was raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I am quite sure that we have to give greater weight to the basic structure of the classroom teacher and very much less weight to the total superstructure which was necessary in an expanding situation. But that is a problem for the Burnham Committee.
There is another problem for the teaching profession. We in this country have built secondary education on the basis of subject specialism. We recruit teachers as subject specialists. In a contracting situation and with schools of relatively limited size, we cannot sustain the necessary range of options, the necessary breadth, if you like, of the curriculum on the basis of subject specialism as we now know it without involving ourselves in a staffing situation which will be unreasonably expensive.

689
In the future, therefore, we have to look, I hope, to teachers being capable of teaching certainly up to 0-level in more than one discipline—perhaps in mathematics and physics. They will have to be capable of teaching over a broader field than a single subject. This is essential because there is a very real danger that, as numbers drop, community pressure to safeguard schools will be very strong. The tendency will be to say, "Give us a very generous teaching staff", and the authority will reply, "We really cannot afford a staffing ratio of I for 4, or some such number. The school will have to go". Then the community will say, "No, it's quite all right. We can manage with our teaching staff. We will just cut down the curriculum and we will start off by dropping religious instruction". That is sure to be the first to go. They might also say, "We can drop foreign languages, perhaps", or, "We can drop this or we can drop that". In my opinion, that is an intolerable situation. Therefore, we must reach agreement not on a prescribed curriculum but at least on the limited range of curriculum that is essential in any secondary school and face the issue of the staffing establishment that is competent to cover that range of curriculum. The Secretary of State will have to face the issue and say, "Unless this can be satisfied, with the greatest regret the school must go". In other words, unless it is sufficiently large and has a reasonable staffing provision to sustain a reasonable secondary curriculum, it will not be viable as a school.
Finally, I come to the issue of control of admissions. In a contracting situation, this is imperative. As the Bill was going through the other place, I read the debates on this subject. Frankly, I was appalled at the complete lack of understanding of the nature of the problem. To speak of free parental choice is a nonsense. When there are 2,000 parents chasing one school at which there are 500 places, what happens? One is driven straight back to selection on some basis. A planned structure is necessary. I take great exception to the criticisms that have been voiced regarding how untrustworthy are local education authorities. I feel that this criticism is hardly justified. If some of our colleagues in the other place had the responsibility, which chief education
690
officers and their committees will have in the next five years, of facing the problems that will arise because of falling school numbers, they would realise that a planned structure, in which there is an agreed, defined capacity for a school, is absolutely imperative if there is not to be a chaotic situation.
I turn now to the problem of the education of the 16-to-19-year-olds. In a rapidly developing technological society, it is a simple fact that the necessary level of production can be sustained by a smaller labour force. There are three possibilities. We can restrict entry into industry and commerce until a later age. We can shorten the working week. We can retire people earlier. All of these possibilities have implications for the education service, and it may be necessary to deal with all of them. However, to take the unemployment of school-leavers at the age of 16, this is not a local problem, nor is it a national problem. It is an international problem which obtains throughout the whole of Europe. We are the furthest behind in Europe in the provision that we make for the education and training of the 16-to-19-year-olds. We must put right this deficiency.
If we accept the difficulty of maintaining sixth forms in schools of reasonable size, if we accept, as we must, a new concept of sixth form work—leading not merely to A-levels but to TEC and BEC sandwich courses that lead to the relevant industrial and commercial qualifications, and if we are to avoid the dichotomy from which this nation has suffered of the academic and the non-academic, then I suggest to your Lordships that we need to face a new situation. We need to define secondary education as ranging from 11 to 16 and we need to define the tertiary stage in education as ranging from 16 to 19. We need to develop what I have called tertiary colleges, which offer full time education to A-level, and TEC and BEC sandwich courses, which offer training, and to take away the present. in my opinion rather wasteful expenditure upon job creation schemes and other activities from those schemes and put it into the training of these young people. So at 18 they are sufficiently skilled to command the job and to hold it. If we except the other alternatives of the shorter working week or the earlier retirement, we face a greatly

691
increased leisure for the nation as a whole and therefore a great increase in the need for adult education, for education to enable people to enjoy increased leisure and to use it to their own advantage.
If we take all of these problems together, I suggest that we need a new Education Act—an Act that would define the opportunities that are there and which are very real. The contraction in infants schools enables us to provide nursery classes at very limited expense. I visited one at Hillingdon last week; it was beautifully arranged, with two nursery classes because of the available accommodation due to the contraction of the infants school.
I do not think that the primary school is a major problem, apart perhaps from strengthening the teacher force. There is secondary education from 11 to 16, tertiary education, I would hope, and following that—leaving the higher education structure largely as it is—community colleges combining, what we now call, further education with, what we now call, adult education, offering both vocational and non-vocational opportunities to the community; training and retraining and also providing for the older man who wants to "make do and mend", who wants to learn how to do this or to do that or who wants to take up painting as a new exercise in his leisure, or indeed any other activity.
My Lords, it is now 10 years since I wrote a small book entitled, Towards a New Education Act. I have always accepted that it takes about 10 years before any idea that one floats becomes the subject of serious discussion. I profoundly hope that we can get back to the atmosphere of 1944, in which I was privileged to take some part, when we were not arguing party politics but how best to make provision for the next 30 or 40 years of full educational opportunity for every child, of great ability or of limited ability, of academic aptitude or of technical aptitude or of practical skill. That is still our task; that is what we have to do. I hope that the political parties can get together on this and move towards an Education Act that will provide as adequately for the next 30 or 40 years as the 1944 Education Act has provided for the last 30 years.
5.33 P.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, and later in my speech I want to touch on one or two things that he has said. First, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for introducing this important debate. I also wish to congratulate the two maiden speakers—two very spirited maiden speakers.
We have had a terrific defence from my old friend Lord Charteris about his school— Eton. I am not against private education and I think Eton is a wonderful school. After all, why should it not be? Unless economically it is priced out of the system it has the very best and the highest paid teachers, it has pupils who pay the highest fees in the country and there is every reason for it to be a very good school. So far as I am concerned that is all right, so long as it does not get a penny out of the rates. That is all I ask. It must have no money from the education authorities but must pay its own way.
The very wording of this Motion is interesting, and particularly the two words "acceptable" and "standards", which go right to the political heart of the matter. Therefore I begin with two questions: standards—for how many? Acceptable—to whom? As we are committed to comprehensive eduation our emphasis is on opportunity before standards. Of course we hope to achieve the standards, and of course we have not so far achieved them overall in comprehensive education; but surely that is the only kind of education that is essentially non-divisive. For all that the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said, there is no doubt that public schools are divisive in their education.
I came across a quotation from that great man, Disraeli. In 1874, more than 100 years ago, he said:
"Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends".
That is a marvellous quotation. Today I should like to add one little word to that quotation:
"Upon the education of all the people of this country the fate of this country depends".
This it is which embodies the comprehensive principle in education because the emphasis rests on expanding opportunities for our children.

693
It is not only that there have been tremendous and dramatic changes in this century but the pace of the change has quickened so much and expectations have been raised so high that we have many more difficult problems to tackle. The changes have been spectacular, but the very scientific and technological miracles run the risk of producing a large number of educated, unemployed people. We might have a great many as a result of the technological and scientific age in which we live. The skills cannot be taken up quickly enough, and knowledge cannot be transmitted or put into practice quickly enough.
We are nowhere near coming to terms with the speed of change and the greatest burden has fallen on the teachers who now have responsibilities well beyond their academic training and for which they are not prepared. They are custodians, they are social workers and they are teachers. At present it appears that we are short of teachers and the classes are too big. I am puzzled—and here I am so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, for what he has told us about the country being in difficulties because of the falling birthrate. I do not understand the situation, and I was much heartened by what he said about this. I should have thought that would give the teachers smaller classes and altogether easier and happier conditions. But many people disagree with that. Both teachers and pupils could have a better deal, and education would be improved.
My Lords, one of the education journalists, Oreol Stevens, who writes on education in the Observer, is, to me anyway, the only one who makes sense of this population problem. If, in 10 years, there will be 2 million fewer children, it seems to me this presents new opportunities to improve the quality of their education and to lighten the tasks that many present teachers have. She also suggests that at the same time this situation would lead to large savings in public expenditure, always such an attractive proposition, particularly to Conservatives and to local authorities. However, I have faith in what I believe is the best kind of education for a democratic society today, comprehensive education. Of course there is much room for improvement, but fundamentally any other system
694
of education in society is divisive, no matter what other people may say. A quick glance round the world today reflects the dangers in countries where the social and economic differences among people are great.
My Lords, I have very little else to say. These were just a few random thoughts on education. There are many ways in which we can improve the lot of the teachers and that of the pupils. There is no excuse for a shortage of books. That is one of the scandals of the moment, and it seems to me that it is one of the small scandals we can deal with. I think that is all I need say.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I should like first of all to congratulage the two maiden speakers, who must be having a happy evening with a feeling of relief, having taken the first step. We hope they will take many more in future. Then I must apologise that I cannot stay late this evening; I accepted an engagement three weeks ago which I cannot cancel so I hope I maybe forgiven. My Lords, I have two bees in my bonnet which I have had ever since I was vice-chairman of the education committee of our county council for six years. Rather unkindly, I hope they will sting the Minister very hard so that he will remember what I have said, because I believe they are important. The first one is the question of teacher training colleges. Teacher training colleges were set up in rather a hurry after the last war and some of their locations are, I think, quite unsuitable. I have in mind one which is in a seaside resort where the average age of the population is, I should think, 70 to 75. There is no spark of intellectual surroundings and it seems to me a most unsuitable place to put a teacher training college, though it has done quite good work. Whether our teacher training colleges are suitably located is an important aspect that needs looking at. To my mind they ought to be in the vicinity of a university.
Then, of course, the head of the teacher training college is of immense importance. I think some very faulty appointments were made shortly after the war. To my mind, not only must he have intellectual qualities, of course, but he must have a

695
great heart, because he must not only teach teachers how to impart knowledge but also give them a sense of vocation. After all, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said, they have a tremendous responsibility. The youth of the nation is in the charge of our teachers, and it is vitally important that they should realise their responsibilities in this respect.
This takes me to the question of an assembly. There has been a great deal of criticism of our assemblies in schools in the morning, but, in my view, they give a feeling of corporate existence to the school. It may just be that something is said or something is read which goes straight home to an individual in the audience. I remember something a head teacher of mine said which has had a great influence on me all my life. I think those are the sort of occasions that one should not pass by and consider useless and ridiculous. After all, youth needs a stake, like a young tree, to protect it against the gales. the winds and storms and so on. This stake should be made available to them by teachers, and it may well be that it is in an assembly that that stake may be found.
The other bee I have in my bonnet is about the EEC. I owe a great debt of gratitude to my parents because they were absolutely set on our learning languages; there were five of us. We were all quadrilingual before we were 10. It was a curious system my mother instituted. I might have gone to Germany to school in the autumn, to Paris to school in the spring, to Italy to school in the summer. All I can say is that I found it a most effective form of education, with the result that I was literally quadrilingual. I feel that we do not pay sufficient attention, either in our training colleges or in schools, to the teaching of languages. Not only is the rebuilding of Britain through the youth of the country in the hands of the teachers, but the rebuilding, or, shall we say, the making, of Europe is also in their hands. I should like to see a very large interchange of pupils between the European countries and ourselves. It opens up a tremendously wide horizon. If you make friendships you then have private hotels all over Europe; I had them everywhere. Unfortunately, my age is now against it, and my hotels have been closing down. But it is a very
696
valuable asset to have friends abroad and to travel and to see the way other people live, especially now that we are in the EEC. It seems to me that that is one way in which we could really much more quickly build a European community than we are trying to do at the present moment. I think that is all I have to say—just those two bees; I hope they stung very hard.
5.48 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I must first offer my apologies if I have to go before the end of the debate. I sincerely hope I shall not, because this is an extremely interesting debate and I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for having introduced it. I would touch first of all on just one question which he introduced in his opening speech, and that is the proposed alteration by the Minister of Education of the two standing secondary exams, GCE and CSE, into one unified exam. I sincerely hope that she will not press forward with this scheme, because the new unified exam is bound to be nearer the lower level than the higher. That stands to reason, because surely she does not want to make it more difficult for those who perhaps have limited ability; she certainly will not want to do that. So the result will be a lowering of standards rather than a raising of them. I sincerely hope that that will not come to pass. It is, of course, an attempt to unify the ability of children, to look upon them as all exactly alike. But, my Lords, however much we might like to feel that—and personally I do not share that liking, because I think it would be incredibly dull if we were all alike—it simply is not so.
We are not all born with the same talents, character, ability and so on: we are all individuals and have our own individual needs. It is for education to recognise those differences and needs and to cater for them. Some have a great talent for some form of art, some have it for languages or for mathematics, and some are very clever with their hands. I am very glad that one noble Lord mentioned craftmanship. That is a matter which I think should be very seriously taken into consideration. However, there is no doubt that we cannot all be considered alike.

697
Another matter about which I should like to make a few comments is teacher standards. I can hardly claim to have been a schoolmaster after having listened to the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris (who is sitting in front of me), although I have had a few years at teaching. Incidentally, may I say in passing how very impressed I was with both of the maiden speeches which we have heard today. It is hard to call that of the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, a maiden speech; he obviously has made many others. None the less, we welcome both noble Lords and although it is normal for your Lordships to say that we hope to hear from them often again, in this case I say it with the greatest sincerity.
Let me revert to the question of teacher standards. Teaching is not merely a question of conveying the three R's or factual knowledge. Teaching also involves the training of character. The teacher must be able to see what each individual pupil wants and how he can best get the training across to him. Of course, one essential point for any teacher is not only his personal knowledge of the subject, but the fact that he must make it interesting to his pupils. Unless one's pupils are interested one can teach to the end of one's days and have conveyed nothing. Therefore, I believe that the selection of teaching staff should be more carefully carried out. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, when he replies to say something about what amount of choice is open to the headmaster of a school, because that is, I think, an important matter.
I should like finally to make a few comments concerning religious education. At present we have what is called moral and religious education, but I personally feel very strongly that it should be Christian education. After all, we are still a Christian country and we should not be ashamed to admit it. Even if perhaps there are those who have cone from abroad who do not want to share it, they can be excepted, but religious education should be firmly based on our Christian convictions. After all, Christian principles are the only principles that, in the end, will prove a solution to all our various problems of industrial unrest, foreign relations and so on. We must realise that that is the fact and accept it.
5.54 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: My Lords, may I first congratulate the two noble Lords on their stimulating maiden speeches and express the hope that we shall often hear from them again. I should also like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for enabling us to exchange views on this important subject. Although our views differ greatly, I am sure that we should all agree that education is probably the most important of all our social services. It not only plays a vital role in the production of professional and industrial skills, upon which our standard of living depends, but it reflects and helps to maintain in the widest sense a moral and political viewpoint. Our comprehensive schools system reflects our belief in the equality of educational opportunity for all boys and girls, irrespective of the occupations and income level of their parents. It also helps us to maintain a democratic community.
A selective system of education, based on the assumption that some young people are, in an educational sense, more worthy than others, widens class distinction and makes it more difficult to establish sympathy and understanding between people of different income levels and occupations. It also narrows the parental choice. Parents today are more aware than they were a few years ago of the deficiencies of the selective schools which may not be able to afford, or indeed have room for, the wide range of equipment required in the arts and sciences by those working for the O-and A-levels.
We are asked in this debate to consider conditions which are necessary to secure acceptable standards in secondary education. I would suggest—and I do not think that this has been mentioned so far—that among the most important of those conditions is the active co-operation of parents and of parent representatives on the governing body of these schools. The parent representatives on the governing body of the school of which I am a member are indispensable, and I think that parents should be represented without delay on all the governing bodies of maintained primary and secondary schools. Pupil representatives should also have direct contact with governing bodies, but I do not suggest that they should be full members of the committee.

699
Close contact should be established between local secondary and modern schools. As the parents of primary school children usually have choice of secondary school, they should be given every opportunity to visit those schools and to meet members of the staff and parents of the pupils. Such meetings are usually by arrangement through the parent-teacher association, which should be regarded as an essential organisation in secondary schools.
One of the most important decisions which pupils have to make is that of occupation on leaving school. At what age should they leave? What examinations should they take? Should they continue their education on a full-time or part-time basis? Should they be content with an office job or work in a local factory? The decision taken at that stage of a boy's or girl's career may well prove to be the most significant taken in a lifetime. Careers teachers in comprehensive schools have therefore a very important role to play. They need to be in close touch with both the pupils and their parents and to be well-informed about the qualifications required for a wide range of occupations. They need to make an acurate assessment of the chances that young people have of obtaining the jobs that attract them. Most important of all, they need to believe in the great potential of young people and encourage them to make the maximum use of their abilities. I believe that that aspect of a teacher's work is the most important of all.
5.59 p.m.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, first I should like to add my congratulations to the two maiden speakers. It is most refreshing for someone of my age to hear the views of someone who has more recently left school and his reaction to the education which he has received. At the same time, to be able to hear from a senior member of the teaching side adds piquancy to the situation. We had a very notable contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Charteris. The noble Lord mentioned the redoubtable Dr. Keate and his efforts to instil discipline and learning. What he did not mention was a sequel which once took place. A number of his pupils resident in Paris
700
one day heard that their late headmaster was paying a visit to the city. Their immediate reaction was to invite him to attend dinner with them. They proceeded to give him the best dinner that money could buy. So perhaps there was some merit in his rather stringent system of education.
I was most interested in the progress report of the noble Baroness, Lady David—what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to as an end of term report. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I did not find it entirely in keeping with some parts which she quoted, of which I have local knowledge. I shall look at the figures which she quoted with great interest when they are published in the Official Report. It would appear that in our area we have done rather better than any of us thought.
The point which I should particularly like to mention today is the question of equality, which several speakers have mentioned. The emphasis seems to have been on giving an overall appearance of equality—to get away from what has been described as "divisiveness". Surely that is extremely difficult to achieve when we are dealing with completely unequal minds. If I can use an educational word, it is an "equation" which does not seem to balance. It is the problem of making it work which faces us today and why this debate has an important part to play in considering what we shall do in the future.
However, it stands to reason that if we have different standards of intelligence, they need different treatment. Under the old system, for better or for worse, they were given completely different treatment. It is suggested that it is not fair that such pupils should go to different establishments. But, in fact, is it more unfair than making them all go through the same curriculum? I think that we should consider this. So far as the more intelligent and the less intelligent pupils are concerned, it cuts both ways. It is liable to be most fair to what, for want of a better term, I would call the average intelligence. We must try to ensure that a very intelligent child receives the sort of education—and this also goes for the standard of teaching, which has already been mentioned—which he or she requires in order to give full development to his

701
or her intellect. At the other end of the scale, there is the less intelligent child who will find it difficult to keep up, even with the norm. Again, that child may need special educational facilities to give him an opportunity to develop. Under the new system they are all living in one establishment and I believe that there is a danger that it will be difficult to differentiate between the various requirements of each type of pupil. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about what steps can be taken to help in that direction.
What I have said also applies to the question of the proposed new examination, which has already been touched on. As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has just pointed out, if we do not have a reasonably high standard, it will be no test for the more intelligent pupils, and it will not help the less intelligent pupils because probably they are not capable of undertaking the examination at all. Is it really right to say that everyone must be in a position to take the same examination if it will not fulfil some function that will help them in their future?—whether it is attaining a certain standard, or making themselves proficient in order to undertake a job when they leave school. It seems to me that this is part of the same problem which I have already mentioned in connection with the general principles of education today.
I should like to mention two other matters. The first is the problem—which is a difficult one in secondary education—of the less intelligent pupils. Many of them come to the secondary school labelled "educationally subnormal". That label covers a multitude of different standards. Many pupils only qualify for that description because of circumstances perhaps beyond their control and beyond the control of the primary school which they first attended. It may be that they are late developers; it may be that they have some impediment which makes learning difficult; their situation may be due to their home background. If it is possible to give them help at the primary school stage, that is the time when it can be used to the best advantage. What is apt to happen now is that limited additional instruction is given to them at the primary stage and they are given more at the secondary stage when it is too late to be effective.
702
These unfortunate pupils are placed in the position of having to follow a curriculum which they do not understand and which they have to go through for the remainder of their secondary school life. Of course, some will never make the grade, but a great many could do so. If funds were available, I wonder whether this could not be one of the areas where money could most profitably be spent. As I have said, it is not always the child's fault. Perhaps I could give your Lordships an example of what I mean. The other day in a small primary school half the young intake were reported to require speech therapy. That seemed a very high proportion. I said to an old cousin of mine who is interested in education, "Don't you thin k that is rather surprising?" She said, "Oh, no; I am not a bit surprised. It happened to my own grandchild". The point is that parents do not talk to their children as they used to, and that is all that is required. When it happened to my grandchild I took her into a nearby field and pointed to a cow; I said, "Moo, moo, cow, moo-cow, moo-cow". Next morning my daughter said to me "Your grandchild is actually beginning to speak. Do you know she said 'Moo-cow' this morning?" Obviously, this reflects on what can be done in secondary education when they reach that stage.
The only other point I should like to make to your Lordships is on the question of the position of the headmaster. As we all acknowledge, the headmaster has a most important role to play in his school. I, for one, would say that the school is as good as its headmaster. Therefore, it is important that everything should be done to help him in his arduous task. In the case of a large comprehensive, it is a very heavy burden indeed. If the recommendations made in the Taylor Report on the functions of governors were to be implemented, this would place an additional burden on the headmaster. He would have more interference in what is surely his own province, in the running of the school, both from his staff—whom he can consult anyway through his normal staff meetings—and from pupils, if pupils are appointed; and here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stewart of Alvechurch, that they should not be appointed. However, they would add to the problems of the headmaster. Surely we should be

703
thinking in terms of saying, "How can we best help him?", rather than impede him in his duties.
I conclude by referring to a point that has already been raised; namely, that school numbers are falling and that this is an appropriate time at which to reconsider the whole position of secondary education. Clearly anything we can do is going to be dependent on the availability of cash. If we can find some way of making improvements without additional expenditure, it is surely worth looking at. It seems to me that there is an area which we can look at now, which is that those associated with education in a managerial capacity, whether in the Ministry or in the offices of the local education authority, have increased in number and they continue to increase. They are very expensive individuals. I cannot see that so far this increase has led to any improvement either in the standards of education or in the efficiency of the organisation. Therefore. I would suggest that their numbers could be reduced and the money spent in the schools on the teachers and on equipment, which is surely the only place where improvements in education can be achieved. I hope very much that this can be done in the near future.
6.11 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I should like to join with other Members of your Lordships' House in congratulating the two maiden speakers. First, my noble friend Lord Charteris, under whom I sit in another capacity. 1 hope that we shall see a great deal more of him and hear a great deal more from him in this House, and also the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, whose refreshing and original views were very much welcomed. A great many experts have spoken in this debate, although only one of the former Ministers of Education who is a Member of your Lordships' House. I have not myself got that eminence of experience, but I have a lengthy period of experience of secondary school standards. This is the 28th year that I have been a unversity teacher, for half of that time at Oxford and Cambridge and half of that time at a much more recent establishment. I have also sat on two education committees, one very small in Oxford city, and one very large, the
704
successor to the London County Council, which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite rightly grieved the demise of.
I think that when we listened to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, moving this welcome Motion, and to Lady David's reply to his speech, it would have struck everybody who listened that this is an extraordinarily difficult question. It is a complex question. The question, first, of what are the standards in secondary schools and, secondly. how you assess them and how you discover how to improve the standards in the secondary schools. None of these questions is susceptible of a simple answer. Quite rightly your Lordships have concentrated predominantly on a question of standards in the comprehensive schools.
I take the view that the debate about the comprehensive school is to all intents and purposes now over. The great majority of maintained schools are comprehensive schools, or will be. The question now is not whether they ought to be comprehensive; the question is what to do now that they are comprehensive. I tried to reflect, as I was listening to particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, talking about education, over the post-War period, part of which I experienced as a schoolboy but most of which I have watched.
I cannot help feeling that the comprehensive school had three bad fairies on its christening. One very had fairy was the Ministry of Education during the period of the Attlee Government, because the then civil servants were absolutely committed to the psychological theories upon which the divided system was based. It took a long time for those theories to be abandoned in the places where they count, which is the minds of the civil service. That meant, as it were, that the post-War reform started off on the wrong foot. A great deal of aimless and pointless debate has had to take place about what should have been substantially self-evident; that if you are going to reconstruct a secondary education system from the elevens to sixteens it was almost inevitable that it would take place inside a nonselective system.
The second bad fairy I must point to is something that the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, will be upset about, but I think it is true, and it is the old London County Council. They were great pioneers of the

705
comprehensive school, but they were committed to the idea that we could only have a comprehensive school if it was very big indeed. Consequently, in the popular mind the idea of the comprehensive school got muddled up with the idea of the very large school. This has been abandoned currently by the London Education Authority and by large numbers of other local authorities, but there is no doubt that the fear and the hostility to the big school, quite properly held very widely in the population at large, has contributed to the unpopularity of the comprehensive school.
Thirdly, and the point was made by several noble Lords in the debate, the long process of change to the comprehensive system has coincided with the rise of the permissive society. To try to reorganise secondary education, and to raise its standards, in a society where practically every value was falling seems to me to have set the schools a task which was almost incapable of being achieved. The schools have quite frequently been blamed for what is our own fault and not the fault of the schools.
It is interesting to discover that many of the areas where the comprehensive schools are most successful are the old shire counties with good, solid Tory education committees in charge of them; Oxfordshire, Cumbria. I do not think that this need even have been a party matter, and I deplore the fact that it has been. A great many of the conditions which have led to the unpopularity of the comprehensive school have disappeared. We now have a widespread acceptance of the comprehensive school as at least inevitable if not welcome, and the question is now posed by professional educationalists, both in the Ministry of Education and elsewhere, as to how to make it work. That is a substantial advance, and one which I greatly welcome.
Secondly, because of the decline of the numbers of children in the schools, the schools are becoming smaller, often despite the wishes of administrators. We must all warmly welcome this and the enormous opportunities, as well as the challenges, which it presents to administrators and to teachers. The evidence is quite clear in a number of areas that standards have risen throughout the comprehensive reform and are continuing to rise. Many of the
706
statistics which were quoted by the noble Baroness on the Front Bench bear close examination because they show a substantial improvement, particularly in the field of examinations. If you take the CSE, the 0- and A-level examination results across the country, and in particular authorities, there is no question that academically the country is much better off than it was 20 years ago.
But the curriculum is not only concerned with academic success in these examinable subjects, it is concerned with other areas of human experience. Here too, you can point—and any objective observer must point—to substantial fields of achievement. Take, for example, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award. There is no doubt whatsoever that every year many thousands of boys and girls enter this sort of scheme, and other schemes like it, and are doing incredibly well in areas of the curriculum which are very important but which are not examined by the CSE and the O- and A-level boards. I would draw attention too to the whole question of the care and compassion which is shown by a large number of secondary school pupils, particularly of the older pupils, in their work in the community. It would he silly to run ourselves down too much in ignoring these substantial achievements by pupils in the secondary schools of the country.
There is one other deeply worrying side to the picture. That is the whole question of the rise of criminality, vandalism, and the general deplorable decline in social standards which is very much in evidence. I gave a lecture a year ago, as I do regularly, to the National Defence College. I happened to put up a slide of the statistics on crime. I then discovered to my horror that I had misread the statistical points. I had underrated crime by a factor of 10, which was rapidly pointed out to me, I may say, by the eminently clever young men who go to the National Defence College.
According to Social Trends, the Government's magnificent statistical publication, no fewer than 8 per cent. of adolescent males aged 14 to 16 have been convicted of serious crime, and if 8 per cent. have been convicted, goodness knows how many have carried out serious crime because, as we know, the conviction rates are very much smaller that the crime rates themselves. I mention that

707
as an example—not because I am sitting next to my noble friend Lord Longford—because it happens to be a measurable tip of a perceptible iceberg in our society, which is the flaunting of criminality and vandalism as part of the aspect of contemporary society with which we have to deal.
If we are to take credit as teachers or people involved in schools for what the schools have done, as the noble Baroness properly did in respect of examination results, and as I have mentioned in other less easily measurable areas of the curriculum, we must also ponder seriously the evidence of the rise of anti-social behaviour in society. I come reluctantly to the conclusion that there is very little the schools can do about it. I used to be a great believer that the schools could do a great deal, and with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, I am not wholly sure that the independent sector shows conclusively much evidence about this because the independent sector willy nilly, as he rightly pointed out, is dealing with people who have chosen to go to those particular schools, where the parents, teachers and pupils to a considerable degree are working in the same direction.
There is, at the opposite end of the spectrum, a substantial group in society where the parents are opposed to the teachers and the teachers are opposed to the pupils. That is true not only of a high proportion of inner city schools but of schools which I have visited in some other parts of the country. I hope the factors which have been mentioned—the fall in teacher turnover, the fact that teachers are staying longer in schools and the general settling down of the system—will help, but I doubt very much whether the solution lies in the schools. Where the solution lies, by the re-creation of some sort of widely acceptable scale of values in our society, I do not know, but I am convinced that until such a renaissance has taken place the schools will continue to have a very uphill job indeed.
6.23 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to join in the debate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for initiating it, and I congratulate the two new Peers who have
708
contributed to it. For 25 years I have been connected with a local education authority and I have seen changes within and outside it. I know that my noble friend from London agrees, though he did not say so officially, that large comprehensive schools were a mistake. At the time we were experimenting; we did not know the answers so we had to try. We did try, and we found that the experiment did not work in the way that many of us had hoped. It was not a political issue at that time. I say that because any member of the general public attending a meeting of my authority at that time, sitting in the public gallery, would not have known who were Labour and who were Conservative members. We were trying to get the best for the children of our area and we went for large comprehensive schools. We realised after a certain time that it was a mistake, so we started reducing; then we found that the birthrate began dropping too, and that provided us with an opportunity. We, like many of the 103 authorities in England and Wales, decided to go for our own particular system. Some authorities decided on 11 to 18 schools; some on sixth form colleges; various schemes were tried throughout the United Kingdom, and that was good.
For two and a half years I have been visiting schools and authorities and talking with managers and governors. I might mention that what has been going on in another place in regard to a report that was presented there is another matter and it breaks my heart to see the way in which they are dealing with it. I hope that when we will have an opportunity to debate that matter in this House we shall reverse some of the decisions that have been made there, but I will leave that for the appropriate time.
I must emphasise that the present Government—I am not, as I cannot, speak on behalf of the Government, even though I support them fully—have done a great deal to try to understand and overcome the difficulties. I was most impressed with the statement made by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Potterhill regarding a new Education Act because I have supported him on that all along the line. The 1944 Act was a splendid measure because it was an Act right across the board and was accepted by all parties. I feel it right and proper that we should now have a new Act right across

709
the board, and I am grateful to Lord Alexander for pointing that out. Nobody in this House, indeed in the country, has had more experience of dealing with local authorities and teachers' organisations than Lord Alexander, and the way in which he has co-operated with associations and organisations should be recognised more widely. I pay tribute to him for the work he has done over the years in trying to get a new Education Act.
Many people accept that one of the worst things that happened to education in this country was the disappearance of the Association of Education Authorities, which had been a mouthpiece for the world of education. However, it has gone and we must accept that things change with the passage of time. That being so, I think it right and proper that I should draw attention to some developments we have seen. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that the most important person in a school was the headmaster. I acknowledge that, but any headmaster worth his salt must realise that the world is changing rapidly. Any headmaster must take cognisance of the views of the governing body. At the moment—and I say this with due respect to my friends in the teaching profession—there are too many people who go from school to college, to university, and then directly into teaching, and so they do not know about the requirements of commerce or industry. It is important that they should know about these things. The governing body are the people who can advise the headmaster on these matters. That does not mean that they want to do the headmaster's job for him. They do not want to do that; but rather leave it to the headmaster.
Let us look at what the present Government have done. I do not want to go into the realms of politics in discussing this matter, but it is important that I point out to Members of the House what the Government have done. There is the assessment and performance unit, which is absolutely first class and was established in 1975 to monitor activities of schoolchildren in English language and so on. It is hoped that the results from the unit will be published in 1980. There is also the Act of 1976 which dealt with secondary reorganisation. As already stated, 83 per cent. of children in maintained schools are being educated in compre-
710
hensive schools. The majority of authorities—and here I again speak with authority in the sense that I have visited more authorities probably than has anyone else in the Chamber during the past two years—accept comprehensive education provided that they can do it in the right way. This is a situation that I find.
Let us go further and consider examinations. We recognise that the examination procedure as it stands is not good. Various things are wrong with it. If I had my way I would do away with A-levels, and I would introduce the international baccalaureate, so that it is accepted by every country in Europe and throughout the world; but this is a personal view. When you start speaking about the international baccalaureate most people do not know what the dickens you are speaking about. Therefore, you have to explain it. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for helping me out on that point. I can see that quite a number of my colleagues do not understand it. That is something that I should like to introduce.
There are other suggestions and changes regarding the examination system which the Government are trying to look at at the moment. For example, the Schools Council is looking at different types of examinations, and a report will be made in due course. Let us go a step further and consider the introduction in in-service training which is a very important matter. Here again I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said. In view of changes that have taken place, it is important that teachers should be able to transfer from one subject to the other. I hope that local authorities will be prepared to allow teachers secondment to universities and training colleges in this way, because to do this is important. I feel that someone who has been in a profession for a length of time needs retraining, and I am sure that the Government will realise this. I know that the Government have allowed for 1,700 extra places this year, and this will mean that people will be allowed to be seconded to colleges and universities in this way.
I should like to say much about school government, but as I am the 15th speaker in the debate I feel that your Lordships may have heard enough, and I know that later I shall have an opportunity to say much more about school government and the way in which I feel that it ought to go.

711
Therefore, perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for leaving the matter at that. I thank your Lordships for allowing me to speak.
6.36 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the speeches which your Lordships have made today show the wide range of interest which has been attracted by the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Elton, and I wish to add my appreciation of the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I think that the noble Earl is a former Army parachutist, and so I do not feel that his first dive into a debate in your Lordships' House was too difficult for him. He interested us very much by his references to the needs to develop the curriculum in the light of increasing leisure time nowadays, as well as the increasing problems of unemployment. I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, chose to make his first speech in your Lordships' House in today's debate. I hope that the balanced and open-minded way in which he spoke of the work of independent schools may cause the Government to think seriously about the formulation of their party policy in the future.
It occurred to me that, in a debate of this kind, I ought to say something about school behaviour, but then I recalled rather guiltily that perhaps I had not been the best example of good practice in that field when I was concerned in it, so I decided to keep my mouth shut. How very glad I was that I did so, because by keeping my mouth closed and my ears opened I learnt much from my noble friend Lord Eccles and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I wish to make one other short point at this stage. I thought that a considerable part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, might be devoted to the subject of governing bodies because he was the chairman of the most important committee on which is based the legislation which we hope will shortly come before the House. However, the noble Lord refrained because of the coming of that legislation, and I very much hope that we shall have the benefit of his views, regardless of whether we on this side of the House agree or disagree with them, when the Bill comes before us.
712
Although the scope of the debate is wide, it goes surely to the heart of what people want from education. After all, those who work within the education service primarily must be concerned about the quality of the service which they provide, and it is natural for parents to be anxious that their children should make the most of their opportunities. In many ways these hopes have been fulfilled in recent years. Today there are more young people seeking further and higher education—and I am encouraged in this assertion by what has been said in the debate by people who have so much more experience than I—there are better exam results, and there are certainly more opportunities within the curriculum than there were some years ago. But we must face the fact that there is a contradiction. A few weeks ago the senior personnel officer of one of the best known retail firms in the country told me that her firm is compelled to turn away increasing numbers of applicants as a result of a short entry test in numeracy and literacy which forms part of the firm's interview procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was absolutely justified in putting his finger on the point that my informant might not be comparing like with like because of the passage of time. None the less, my Lords, that information was not an isolated point of view. There were, I think, echoes of it in the speech which was made in January by the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Education and Science, when Sir James Hamilton questioned the effectiveness of the dissemination of good practice among local authorities; and, of course, the Prime Minister himself was more explicit some 2½ years ago when, in the speech which he made at Ruskin College, Oxford, he voiced his concern about complaints from industry that some school-leavers do not have the basic tools for the job that is required.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who is replying for the Government, may well say that it is precisely for these reasons that the assessment of performance unit was established at the Department of Education and Science. At a time when this country needs more mathematicians and scientists, and certainly to have a better command of languages than my generation ever managed, I need no convincing that a body like the APU

713
can be of real value. But let us be under no delusion that the unit tests the progress of the individual pupil. It does not. At the North of England conference held in January, Dr. Marjoram is reported to have warned that the unit of which he is head could tell us nothing about individual pupils and schools, but will inform us only about performance and trends. But the paradox is that the Green Paper which launched the great debate between two and three years ago called for a sound system of assessment, and in essence that view was repeated only last year by Pamphlet No. 93 in the DES's Reports on Education series. I accept absolutely that the basis of any good system has got to be continuous teacher assessment, but to provide no minimum standards before the age of 16 really seems very much like desiring the end without willing the means.
What I should like to ask the Government is: Cannot the assessment of performance unit, together with Her Majesty's Inspectorate—or possibly, if that does not commend itself, the National Foundation for Educational Research, from its independent standpoint—produce tests in basic skills for a particular stage or stages of a child's education which schools could use if they wished? This system would not intrude into teachers' freedom, and would not segregate children, but would be, as I would see it, a personal assessment at a critical stage or stages of a child's education. I ask this because, at a time when the examination system appears to be under review, surely examining should be looked at as a whole. Yet, if the Government will forgive my saying so, there appears to be no overall strategy. There has been an immense amount of work done by the Schools Council on what are called the N and F proposals designed to replace A-levels; there is the certificate of extended education, an examination which some pupils, after one year in the sixth form, are already having set for them, but upon which the Secretary of State has not yet pronounced; and then there are the plans for a common system of examining at the age of 16-plus.
It is this last proposal which has received the support of the Secretary of State in the White Paper which was published last October, and within the last month, in order to provide the vehicle for the new exam, the Department has asked the examination boards for
714
proposals to reduce their numbers from the eight GCE boards and 14 CSE boards to three, or at the most four, examination boards in England and one in Wales. My noble friend Lord Elton spoke about this in some detail, so may I simply say that I have a good deal of sympathy with those, particuarly members of the teaching profession, who dislike having to decide whether a pupil should enter for one examination or for another. Indeed, if I was teaching I know perfectly well on which side of the fence I would be. But it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to be convinced that a major change in the examination system of this country is not only desirable but is also practicable, and I really do not think that the Secretary of State has discharged that responsibility.
It is now clear that a common system will require alternative papers to be set, and even then many people, like my noble friend Lord Salisbury, doubt whether it may be possible, by a common system, in fact to examine right across the 60 per cent. ability range who sit for examinations. But if is is possible, then the fundamental question of how optional papers are to be graded within a common system remains completely unresolved. No conclusion has been offered as to what sort of constitution the new examining authorities may adopt. As to local authority costs, during the debate this afternoon many of your Lordships have spoken with tremendous experience of local authorities. All I can say is that local authority costs have been virtually disregarded; and how the GCE boards are to continue to finance their high overhead costs also appears to be something which continues to be disregarded.
The noble Lord may say that the committee under Sir James Waddell, which reported last year, sorted things out because it recommended that the new examination would be feasible. But feasibility and practicability do not necessarily coincide. I am sorry, but it appears to me that the Secretary of State, having seized upon the Waddell Committee's conclusion, has taken it as a signal to put her faith in a cart which at the moment appears to have no horse; and then, to cap it all, the Secretary of State apparently intends creating yet another QUANGO, a central co-ordinating body, to go along for the ride. The motives for introducing a new system of

715
examining are something with which, without any effort at all, reasonable people can say they have great sympathy, but I think the Government have made very little attempt to face the practical problems. Despite warnings, it is still not clear how the link between a new exam and A-levels is going to be preserved; and such are the uncertainties that pupils are apparently going to have to wait, as my noble friend told the House, another six years, and probably longer, before any change can be made.
My Lords, may I turn from that for just a moment to the forecast, the really incredible forecast, of a fall of (what was it that Lord Alexander said—1½million?) 1½ million to 2 million pupils which is already taking place in our schools and is to go on, I think, until about 1990. To anyone working in education since the war, this news must have seemed like blessed relief; but as was said so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, whose experience of education since the war is unrivalled, already we are aware that there are attendant difficulties. I should like to ask the Government two questions. The first is: Can the Government give an assurance that special measures will continue to be taken to improve on the numbers of teachers in shortage subjects? May I say that I very much appreciated and support what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said about the initiative which the Government have taken with regard to having the one-year teacher training courses for teachers in shortage subjects, although I wonder whether languages is a subject which should not be added to these teacher training courses.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, because I am being asked a great number of questions, I wonder whether I may say, in order that I do not forget that one, that the answer to it is, "Yes".
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He answers my apprehension absolutely. I think, as I am being critical of the Government, I must just add that, despite the Government's commitment to a continuing improvement in the pupil-teacher
716
ratio, which again I very strongly support, obviously I realise—I think all your Lordships realise—that at some time during the 1980s there is going to be, in real terms, a fall in teacher numbers. That is why I was putting the question about teachers in shortage subjects, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply.
The second question is this. I should like to discover whether the Government have given any thought to the distribution in the future of rate support grant. The fact of the matter is that the Government have been starving those local authorities which the Government seem to regard as wholly rural in character of the needs element of rate support grant. Consequently, areas with some of the most pressing educational needs are being penalised from year to year. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in his speech referred to some of what he called the shire counties who had led the way in reorganisation. As I am going to speak about my own local authority, may I say that my authority was one of the first to reorganise and has been, in my view, forward-looking in every possible way ever since I knew the authority and started to live there. The fact is that my own authority, Suffolk, by no means a high wage area, has experienced a population explosion with a massive increase in pupil numbers and has been suffering very much indeed.
How is the authority being asked to finance all this? The answer is by the absurd combination of a high capital building programme for more school places, supported by a steadily reducing share of rate support grant. For that reason, it is no good the noble Baroness, Lady David, in her speech complaining that there has been under-spending by some local authorities. Indeed, when my noble friend Lord Elton spoke about what we misleadingly often call the non-teaching costs, and particularly put his finger on the importance of spending on books and materials, I could only think rather ruefully that in East Anglia we do our best, but with a steadily soaring rates bill and persistently diminishing support from Government. Beacuse I am tying these remarks into the fall in school population, I hope the Government will not run away with the idea that the prospect of falling school numbers is going to relieve the situation. As I understand it, I nationally, the average size of secondary

717
schools is forecast to fall to (I think) rather less than five forms of entry during the 1980s—and that is if there are no closures at all—and in many rural areas the fall would be steeper. If we are to avoid major school closures, if we are to preserve as many sixth forms as we reasonably can, and if in the countryside we are not to suffer further massive closures of village schools, this Government discrimination must stop.
My own local authority is only an example of a wider picture. Of course, inner cities have pressing problems, but I think that there has to be a fairer allocation of resources. The East Anglia region as a whole has now lost over £52 million of its share of the needs element of the grant. What makes the situation, which I think probably affects the South-West as well as the East and maybe the West Country as well, so tragic in human terms is that the authorities that I speak of contain a mixed society with some centres of very high population growth—and the nine GLC expanding towns in East Anglia come to my mind—and other remote areas of static or decreasing population, a mixture which the rate support grant calculations seem quite unable to comprehend. I ask the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government this question. How long can this discrimination continue? It is becoming intolerable to those of us who care about the quality of the education service in their areas.
We on this side of the House have, I think, always been consistent in making it clear that we deplore the Government's constant preoccupation with structure. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in doubting Lady David's particular form of Couéism: "Every day in every way comprehensive schools are getting better and better." From these Benches we have criticised Government policy, not because we do not believe in reorganisation but because we do not believe in forcing local education authorities into secondary reorganisation without consulting them properly. We differ about this, but time will tell. I must point out, however, that time is already showing that the fall in pupil numbers may well require authorities to revise the type of reorganisation which in some cases they have had to choose, and I believe that time will prove that all-ability schools will develop their own
718
strengths and, as a result, parental demand for a particular school sooner or later will drive a coach and horses through the very rigid rules of the 1976 Education Act.
It is arguable that a Government which have been so much concerned with structure may tend sometimes to neglect—and I know that we none of us very often mean to do these things; but on this occasion it is "to neglect"—their general duty to promote education. If noble Lords opposite think I am being unfair, all that I can say is that I was dismayed to read a reply which Miss Jackson, Parliamentary Secretary at the Department of Education and Science, gave on 2nd February to a Parliamentary Question in another place which revealed that the number of Her Majesty's Inspectorate had fallen since 1st January 1974 from a total of 443 inspectors to 403. The Government will agree, I am sure, that the existence of the Inspectorate is an essential condition within the terms of this debate for the maintenance and improvement of standards.
Having listened to the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, of the imminent education and demographic problems connected with the fall in school numbers, who can doubt that we must have a healthy Inspectorate, and if possible an increased one? There used to be a saying that it was not what an HMI report said but what it did not say which was the more revealing. Certainly advice from the Inspectorate is always given in such a way that no one should take offence but all should take it to heart. Of course, the Inspectorate speaks from a position of generally accepted strength because its advice is given independently. May I ask what is the target for the establishment of Her Majesty's Inspectorate? Can the Government disclose what efforts are being made to improve recruitment, and are the Government prepared to make the resources available? I should also like to know how many HMIs have been involved in the preparation of the numerous Government surveys and inquiries and how many have been included on Government-appointed committees during the last few years; and whether—I ask this specifically—the number of HMIs occupied in those ways has increased since the Government came to office.

719
The standards to which your Lordships have been referring in this debate are not just standards for the clever child. That "a man's reach should exceed his grasp" is as true for the handicapped, for those in remedial classes, for the maladjusted and, of course, for the thousands and thousands of children who, some 14 years ago, were referred to by the Newsom Committee as Half Our Future. I cannot honestly say that it was my view when I was younger, but I believe now that children are happier if they are always reaching out for that little bit better. It is genuinely in their interests, it is crucial for this country. That is the measure of the value of this debate and of the importance of the reply which the Government will now give.
6.59 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, there are always two levels in a debate of this kind. There is the "nuts and bolts" level with which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who opened so moderately, was chiefly concerned; and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has ended up faintly less moderately but not offensively. Then, through the rest of the debate, we have been talking on almost a philosophical level. We have been talking not of "nuts and bolts" but of the realities of the situation which are extremely difficult to deal with. I find summing up a debate of this kind extremely difficult. As I have been asked and been given notice of one or two specific "nuts and bolts", I think that I had better deal with those as quickly as I can. I will then try to have a look at what has been said and pull it together or pull it apart, as the case may be. The most important topic of the debate of the nuts and bolts kind was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and is the question of examinations. I was encouraged by his political leader Mr. Mark Carlisle's approach to this subject the other day, which I thought was a good deal more friendly than Lord Belstead's or indeed Mr. Carlisle's predecessor. I hope that from my point of view the going might not be quite as rough as at one time it looked. I have prepared some notes on this matter and I think that I must get them on to the record otherwise it will look as if I am refusing to face the question.
720
We are determined that the job of preparing for the GCSE shall be done thoroughly and well. The education departments are at present discussing with the examining boards and the Schools Council the administrative arrangements which must be made first. New syllabuses must then be prepared and appropriate examinations devised for each main subject. The Secretaries of State will be monitoring these preparations carefully and will only set a date for the introduction of the new system when they are satisfied that all the necessary work can be completed in good time. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, thought we were doing it too soon; the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, suggested that we were going to do it too late. As will be seen from what I have said, we are keeping our options wide open.
It will be easier for employers and parents to understand the single grading scale of the new system. This is obvious; it does not need much elaboration. The new grades will relate to known standards in the present dual system. This is one of the points made by the local authorities in their submission to us, that the grades should relate to the old O-level grades and start from there, and this they are going to do. Nearer the time of implementation there will have to be a major publicity campaign to explain this to everybody. It is not necessary to do it in this House because here everybody will have read the Waddell Report and indeed the White Paper and will know as much about it as I do.
The case for reducing the number of separate examining boards from the present 22—eight GCE boards and 14 CSE boards—was brought out by the Expenditure Committee in its report last year. Comparability of standards nationally will be more readily achieved by having fewer examining authorities. This again is perfectly obvious to the meanest intelligence. The central co-ordinating body—as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, derisively described it, "the Quango"— will be of prime importance in ensuring that standards and public confidence in the examinations are maintained. It will determine national criteria for all syllabuses and examinations to be used for the new GCSE and will monitor the system when it is operating. This will secure the coherence needed to ensure comparability

721
between examination result throughout the system. The Secretaries of State will decide on the constitution of the co-ordinating body after discussion with the interested parties. Its exact relationship to the existing constitution of the Schools Council will need careful consideration, but I hope that it will be chaired by the Council's chairman and that its servicing can involve the Council's staff. In all the discussions which have so far taken place—and many more are to take place—nobody has criticised the importance of trying to get central co-ordinated criteria. This is common ground among everybody concerned. I think the central co-ordinating body is something one simply has to have.
Noble Lords have referred to the need to maintain the standards associated with present O-level examinations, and to provide appropriately for candidates with different levels of ability. The provision of alternative papers at different levels of difficulty is very important in this context. A good deal more development work has to be done before it will be clear how best to provide alternatives of this kind subject by subject, but it is not difficult to give some illustrations of the problems and ways in which they might be tackled. This is the only technical problem in the whole business which seems to me to present some difficulty.
I remember from my own school days—shared with many other noble Lords, it appears—that we used to have test papers in mathematics which were called problem papers. They began with simple problems which all of us could tackle but went on to harder problems near the end of the paper which only the mathematicians among us could handle and which I used to leave severely alone. This is one way you could do it, my Lords. A different kind of issue arises in the field of literature where different set books could be read. One class could be reading Hornblower and the other Proust. Obviously the level of the intellectual paper would be quite different. This would be a perfectly reasonable technique in that particular way. These are only examples, of course.
It will be necessary to provide these alternative papers, and because of that there will still be occasions under the single system when schools will need to teach separately groups of pupils preparing
722
for the harder or easier papers—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made. We shall not get rid of it altogether but the extremely difficult decision made in the past, usually at age 11 or thereabouts, of doing an entirely different syllabus will not arise. It is a much less violent decision, though the decision is not entirely removed. There will still be a place for school-based examinations of the Mode III type, but under the GCSE proposals all syllabuses and examinations, of whatever type, will have to satisfy the nationally agreed criteria. The Government believe that this will go far to alleviate the concern which some have expressed about standards in Mode III examinations. This is again a point I have made before. Everybody is agreed that the imposition of national criteria is desirable.
The Department have asked the boards to put forward proposals for the constitutions of the new examining authorities which will provide the GCSE. The White Paper indicates the principles on which these constitutions should be based, but because the boards are independent bodies, and proud of it, and because of the need to allow for regional variations, the White Paper does not prescribe a detailed pattern. The Government's proposals do not imply any change in A-level examinations. It is only in respect of their contribution to the GCSE work that the GCE boards would work within the new examining authorities.
We know very well how important the GCE boards' work is in relation to A-level examining. This is recognised and there will be no change here. One would have thought from hearing the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that this was a terrible muddle and completely unthought out. I think that this is entirely unfair. I do not think it is true. The fact that pretty well everybody concerned thinks that it would be a very good thing if a way could be found to make a change of this kind entirely justifies the Government in going into it carefully, following the advice of an extremely well informed committee and issuing a White Paper to try and get the thing moving but without forcing it. So much for the examination question.
The other question of which the noble Lord gave me notice was the rate support

723
grant distribution. As he knows only too well, this is matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I understand that he met a deputation from Suffolk on 12th February to discuss these matters. I do not know whether the noble Lord knows what was said—I do not. That would be the next thing if the noble Lord is interested to find out. I understand that all categories of authority will receive greater amounts in real terms of needs element of rate support grant in 1979–80 compared with 1978–79. This total picture includes increases and decreases in grant as determined by the standard approach. There is no question of discrimination against any authority. While the grant to shire counties as a whole increased in real terms by the equivalent of 0·6p rate, Suffolk's grant decreased by £485,000 in real terms, or the equivalent of ½p rate.
To put the matter in context then, to make good the decrease in grant, Suffolk needs to increase rates by only ½p in the pound, and Suffolk's rate poundage of 65·23p in the pound is below the average for shire counties of 67·4p in the pound. It seems likely that local budgeting decisions will have a much greater effect upon the level of rates in the county. The rate support grant is a block grant, paid in support of local government expenditure as a whole. It is not earmarked in any way. It is for each authority to decide and defend at the local level its own pattern of expenditure in the light of its own assessment of local needs and cirstances, including resources of all kinds.
Here I should like to make a point which has been made before: One of the deeply important things in our education system—and noble Lords opposite have said this on several occasions—is the power which rests with the local authorities to make their own decisions. I know it is galling for noble Lords opposite for me to get up and say that it is the Tory local authorities which are under-spending on books, which is true, and which have dragged their feet on nursery schools, which is true. On the other hand, I am fully aware that noble Lords opposite cannot alter this, and indeed should not be able to alter it. We have to stand by it, and I have to stand by the situation that, if a local authority does not spend as much as the rate support
724
grant says it can, there is nothing in the world I can do about it.
The last point I was given notice of was the question of the strength of the Inspectorate. It is now 430. The number in post at 1st March was 403, which is a shortfall of 27. A full programme of competitions is maintained and the numbers should be up next year. The shortfall is attributable to a combination of circumstances, including the need to recruit only candidates with the right personal qualities, experience and qualifications. As we all know, skilled labour of any kind is getting more and more difficult to find, despite the difficulties at the other end of the market.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question which of course he can answer in writing? Am I right in believing that, if you wish to become an HMI, you have to accept in advance that you will have to work in any part of the country and that your location of living does not enter into it?
Lord DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I understand that is the case: Mobility is one of the conditions. About three-quarters of the Inspectorate are mainly concerned with schools; 45 to 50 per cent. of their time is spent in inspecting institutions—the same proportion as in 1959. The last available figures show that they visit annually about one-quarter of all maintained primary schools and about two-thirds of all maintained secondary schools. I do not have the figures the noble Lord asked for, as to what other things they do and how many surveys there are. If he likes to write to me or to put down a Question for Written Answer about that, I will give him the answer. I doubt whether it is worth pursuing, but that is up to him.
I want now to look at some of the other things which have been said today because it is always a pity to sum up a debate without doing so. There is one particular thing which interested me in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, which was not touched on by other speakers. It referred to the difficulties of promotion—the better you are the more likely you are to get into administration. Of course that is perfectly true. It is true in almost every walk of life. The only people who go on doing the same

725
thing, roughly speaking, are accountants, who seem to be promoted and remain accountants. I have no idea what the answer is on this matter; it is an interesting point that we might discuss further some time. I find in the arts world that there are people who are very good at either the visual arts side or the musical side, and before you know where you are they are spending all their days in an office dealing with something which has nothing to do with what they have been trained for. I think this is a very important point. I do not know what the answer is but, as I say, perhaps we will talk about it on another day.
The noble Lord said in his opening speech that we had really come to the end of the comprehensive argument. I think that is so, and I appreciate the way in which the House has treated the comprehensive argument today. We differ quite bitterly on one quite small point. Both sides think that the comprehensive system is good, can be made better, should be made better and is in many ways very desirable. We believe that it is inconsistent with selection. We think that if you combine it with selection you destroy it, and noble Lords opposite do not agree with that. That is the only point at issue: we have not discussed it tonight and I appreciate that. It would have been a great bore, because we know exactly what both sides think.
I need not refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, because she is not here; but she wrote me a very polite letter about that. Her reference to "dotty teaching methods" was interesting. There was a stage, which I think we inherited rather than produced,where the sort of permissive world was having some rather odd views, as certain people do now; but of course that has nothing to do with the comprehensive schools. I could quote half a dozen curious schools which have dotty teaching methods, which have nothing to do with comprehensives, but there we are.
One other point made by the noble Baroness was also referred to by several other speakers: that is, the very serious and awful question before us—the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, raised this matter in his excellent maiden speech—namely, the bleak future for the unskilled. I think this is something we shall have to think about more and more: it was also referred
726
to by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, in a very moving way. But above all I should like to thank the noble Earl for having brought out this important point in his maiden speech. Once again it is something to which we shall have to give a lot of thought. People talk about "training for leisure" but most people do not want to be trained for leisure. I worked for many years in a pioneer health centre with 900 families, and what they liked, with the exception of about 20 self-selected groups in different things, was beer, billiards and whist. That is what they liked and that is what they did, very largely—and why not? We were perfectly happy for them to do that: but there are certain problems.
I now come to my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Charteris. Of course, if the Labour Party want to put up an attack on the public schools, they will not put me up! My family has four generations of very much appreciated treatment or teaching from Eton; my father even taught there. I love the school and nothing is going to make me say I do not. I think that my noble friend Lady Gaitskell made a very good point. There is absolutely no reason why anybody except the parents of children who go there should pay a penny towards it; it is extremely well endowed anyway, and that raises questions which I shall not raise tonight. They have been raised elsewhere. However, I do not think I can let the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, be the only ones with headmaster stories. I may have quoted this before—the way Eton changed from being an old-fashioned school to being a modern school. It was, I think, in 1860 or 1880 when Dr. Hawtrey, who was then headmaster, called the masters together in chambers and said: "Gentlemen, I have hired a man to teach the mathematics". That was the change.
There was one thing I would like to say about Eton, loving it as I do. I have a grandson at a comprehensive school and I have a grandson at a public school —not, alas, Eton because, as the noble Lord knows, they would not have him, wrongly—but that is a different point. However, I have no doubt whatever that my grandson at the comprehensive school is learning something about life which the other boy is not learning. That is all. Whether it is worth it, I do not know.

727
It is rather difficult. He does not carry a new suitcase because he thinks he will be laughed at. That would not happen at Eton or anywhere else like that. There are different standards, but for what it is worth I throw that in. Anyway, I very much enjoyed the noble Lord's speech and I am sure that we shall hear him very often.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is always interesting but, if I may say so, I felt that his approach was slightly Wykehamist. It was just a tiny bit "pi", if your Lordships know what I mean. There were faint memories of Dr. Arnold, and I think that his speech lacked irreverence. The problem about teaching children is that nobody knows how. What you have to do in order to teach children is to have good teachers. Nobody knows how to make a good teacher. When it is said that everything would be better if people respected authority, I say that of course it would, but how do you make good teachers? Nor, in my opinion, does the noble Viscount know. But I agree with his general point, and we all accept now that the schools should be smaller, though it leads us into the kind of problem that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, pointed out, where, if you get them to the size you want for one purpose, they are not big enough for a proper sixth form school. So there we are.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon was very interesting in speaking about the ILEA. I note that, like so many colleagues, he would like a little more money spent. We have not done badly in relation to spending on buildings, but I shall not go into detail on that. I think that his six points were fascinating and very useful for us to study. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, set something going in his desire for a new Act. This will be studied by my colleagues who, I think, will have plenty of time to bring one in next year; whether or not they will, I cannot say. But the noble Lord has made it quite clear that there are new problems—I have touched on two or three which have been brought out by noble Lords—of a kind which it has not been our business to consider up to date, and they need considering. I am grateful to the noble Lord and what he said will be very carefully studied.
728
I have already referred to my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. She wants smaller classes—so do we all, and we are getting them. Classes today are smaller than they have ever been in our public education history. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, is not here, so I need not refer to her speech. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, was right in saying that teaching standards is the vital matter, and that what teachers have to do is to interest their pupils. This is the point I was making. Nobody knows how to get a teacher to interest his pupils. Aldous Huxley, who wrote that marvellous book in which he described the windows of Eton College as blue, jaundiced and bloodied with 18th century glass, was an absolutely total failure as a master at Eton, but was a very interesting man. So we do not know how to do it but the point is absolutely sound.
I think that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, spoke about religious education. The rules remain what they always have been since the 1944 Act. The interpretation of them may vary from place to place; in fact, I believe it does. But an assembly is still in the 1944 Act, and there you are. My noble friend Lady Stewart talked mostly about the active co-operation of parents, which is absolutely fundamental—probably as important as asnything—and we shall discuss that later on when we come to the Taylor Report. We discussed at great length three months ago the question of careers teachers and the relationship of pupils and parents to business. We had rather an interesting debate on that point and I shall not go over it again, but a good deal is being done.
The noble Marquess puzzled me rather, because he seemed to think—I am sure that I misunderstood him—that comprehensive schools were mixed ability teaching schools. That is not the case. Mixed ability teaching is tried here and there, at the request of the local authority or the headmaster, but, generally speaking, so far as I know, comprehensive schools have streaming and setting and all the other ways of internal grading according to ability. So I think that that worry is not important.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. One point was that I wondered whether it was intended to continue

729
with streaming, which the noble Lord has said is not at issue. My other point was that if there is to be streaming, is it possible to ensure that the most intelligent and the least intelligent get suitable special treatment?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I think that the answer is, Yes, it is. It is being done in most comprehensive schools. My grandson is a very clever boy, and he is very well looked after at school. There is no problem whatever. The noble Marquess said that a school is as good as the headmaster. I entirely agree; but, again, I do not know how to get good headmasters, and nor does the noble Marquess. My noble friend Lord Vaizey has left the House, so we can leave him out. My noble friend Lord Taylor is somebody whom we always want to hear on this subject. He raised the question of the transfer of teachers. My impression is that it is perfectly easy to do this, but it costs a local authority money to do it. Perhaps that is the reason why it is not done as often as it ought to be. I have already answered the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, so I think that I have done my duty.
Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I have come to the end of my speech. May I end by referring again to our end of term report, which my noble friend put so well. I believe that this is what this Government stand on. We believe, with your Lordships, that the quality of education is what education is about. We are sceptical as to all the different things that can be done, but we think that what we have done has been highly relevant: the review of the curriculum, the progress towards completing the comprehensive system, the Assessment of Performance Unit, the new requirements in maths and English for intending teachers—this is a very important point—the crash courses in subjects where there is a teacher shortage, and the provision of extra resources for teacher training needs, the fall in class sizes and the marked decline in teacher wastage, and our intention to help the disadvantaged and to expand nursery education.
These things we have done. They are beginning to show results, as my noble friend showed, at Merton, Hertfordshire, East Sussex, Leicestershire and many
730
other places. At the national level, it is significant that twice as many young people gained one or more A-levels in 1976 as did 15 years ago under the then selective system, and over four-fifths of school-leavers now get some examination result against barely half 10 years ago. Education is an impossibly difficult subject. We are not only not complacent; we are worried about a very large number of things. But we have made a considerable effort. We have done a number of things which Governments have not done before. We think that some progress is being made, and I believe we are entitled to look for the support of noble Lords opposite in what we are trying to do.
7.29 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, in thanking all the contributors to this notable debate, I should like especially to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, on a most valuable embarkation upon the waters of this House, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for a distinguished start in his Parliamentary career. The end of term report is what we have been told we have been hearing. I suppose that any report which was written by the pupil would be as good. None the less, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for his summing up and for unconsciously correcting an error which I slipped into my speech. There are only 22, not 30 examining boards, as I think I said.
I must take issue with the noble Lord on one point about comprehensive education. We differ as to whether or not the system should be imposed. That is not, I think, a dead issue. I do not believe that his attempt to create a difference of opinion between my right honourable friend Mark Carlisle and I will succeed. I have not said that work on the 16-plus should be aborted but that it should be completed. I was moderately reassured by the noises which he made in reply to my fear, although no revised date for the reception of the consortia-suggested territorial and organisational proposals was given. I hope that that will be coming. Having heard the noble Lord, the difficulty now is not to start the whole debate again, but I shall resist that temptation and, with your Lordships' leave, will withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PERSONS) BILL
7.31 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. First, I would claim that, unlike some Bills, this one has merit, in that it is short, it is clear and it goes some way towards meeting a real need, which is to put a further check on one form of violence. Today, I think that we all accept that we live in an age of increasing violence, and we are uncertain about what we can do or ought to do. This Bill offers us a way to help—if not in a very big way, at least to help effectively.
The Bill is concerned with one problem; namely, violence or threats of violence in certain circumstances on licensed premises where such trouble can all too easily start. There have been far too many tragic instances over recent years where licensees, their staff and even their guests have been badly damaged. The Bill has the support of licensees and is in step with the resolution carried at the Trades Union Congress in 1976.
This is not a police Bill, in the sense that the police have asked for it, but it ought to make their task easier. I have said that the Bill does one thing and one thing only, and now I shall elaborate. It empowers a court, in certain circumstances, to impose an additional penalty—a suspension or an exclusion order—for a period between three months and two years, on a person convicted of an offence on such licensed premises where there was resort to violence, or threatened violence. It lays down a further penalty if that person fails to comply with such an order imposed upon him.
Some noble Lords may say that this does not go far enough, and that it should go further. They ask why this ban cannot be organised on a national basis. The problems are not so easy to deal with as some would believe. I am sure that the policing of a ban on a national scale would fail and that the analogy with the ban on drink and driving is not a fair one. We in this country have driving licences, but as yet we do not have drinking licences. My submission is that a national ban would just not be possible, and that this proposal ought to be looked at much
732
more as a clear cut, practical first step. In the light of experience we may be able to go further, but we must avoid at all costs doing anything now which is confusing and which creates a situation that may be difficult to operate or extend later.
In this short Bill there is no question of redefining any existing offence or of reassessing the penalties set out in existing Statutes. I have already said that some will say that the Bill does not go far enough, and no doubt we shall hear more about that during the Committee stage. I have submitted that a national ban would be impossible to police. There may be a halfway solution which is practical and simple, but I am not as yet convinced that there is. Others, I expect, may say that the penalties are not big enough, but we must not be emotional about this. We must put into the Bill a scale of penalties which is in line with today's thinking and practice.
Lastly, whatever we do, we must ensure that the task of the police is made easier rather than harder, and I submit that the present Bill does this. The task of a police constable, when called by a licensee to his premises where there is a threat of trouble, can be very confusing. The troublemaker may well be a trespasser in law, but the task and responsibility of the police constable—I speak subject to correction because the Minister was a practising barrister—is limited to assisting the licensee to eject the man, using only such force as may be reasonable in the circumstances; that is, in practice at least, until he is outside on the pavement when the situation can change. This is the kind of situation which a police constable with some years of service, a mature man, can sum up much more quickly in practical terms than a man with very short service, and we must bear in mind that today the great majority of our police constables have only a very short period of service behind them.
If this Bill becomes law, the troublemaker who breaks a suspension order and enters the licensed premises from which he is excluded under the order commits an offence. Hence, a young police constable, arriving in response to a call from a licensee, will or ought to be much clearer as to his position and his responsibilities. Others may draw attention to the fact that under this Bill there is no power of

733
arrest. That, I would submit, is in line with much of the law affecting licensed premises.
Finally, this Bill refers to Scotland as well as to England, and it is so clear in its provisions that we have not provided for a referendum. The licensees in Scotland have developed the private enterprise black list procedure much further than have the English. What we are proposing in no way conflicts with this in practice. Rather, it will encourage licensees in any district to co-operate with one another and with the police. I feel confident that not just licensees but the whole country will welcome this short Bill which, as I have said, is a step to combat increasing violence, and I am now going to ask the House to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Inglewood).
7.39 p.m.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, one of the most remarkable features of this Bill is that I believe that until my noble friend got up to move its Second Reading not a word about it had ever been spoken in the other place. It is a very strange way of making law. The Lower House, we are told by certain leading Members of the Party opposite, is of such great importance that it can survive without the assistance of this House. We are told that they can get on perfectly well without us, yet a Bill, which brings into being a new penalty which is of very considerable importance and which I hope will be of considerable use, can make its way into law without a single word being spoken about it in the other place. There are about nine legislators present this evening who are able to deal with this modest but sensible Bill. I congratulate my noble friend for moving it so sensibly, so well and so clearly and for pointing out to the House how helpful its provisions can be.
For many years I was the Member of Parliament for Epsom, and I recollect that at certain times of the year, but principally in the summer, there was a very considerable invasion of that part of the country. Many of the licensees had to board up their premises. In that particular district, licensees often encountered very grave
734
difficulties, in particular from wandering travellers who had come for the races and who caused a very great deal of trouble, either solacing themselves over their failure at the Derby or celebrating their success.
However, I think the lisensees need a considerable amount of assistance, and my noble friend is right when he speaks about the difficulty of the police constable's task when he is brought to the public house at the request of the licensee. Obviously by that time in a situation which has arisen everybody will be inflamed by drink and it will be difficult to attract the attention of witnesses or to get them to give an exact explanation of what has happened. The wretched police officer is usually presented with the situation of the licensee making the complaint, which is probably fully justified, but the person against whom the complaint is made, and his friends, indignantly denying it. Quite a difficult situation can often arise and that the Bill should produce a further penalty is useful.
As my noble friend has made clear it cannot have a very wide effect because the exclusion is limited to the particular public house and it is impossible to have a situation where a person is, so to speak, "warned off the turf" or the example which the noble Lord used of the driving licence—a national exclusion from all public houses. It would be quite impossible to police and quite ludicrous to introduce such a matter into the criminal law. But in this Bill it means that there can be an exclusion from that particular public house, and that is of use. Judging from my experience of the licensees who came to see me in Epsom when I was Member of Parliament for that constituency, I think this Bill will be welcomed because there are sometimes particular persons who are troublemakers and they can be kept away from the public house and prevented from causing further trouble there. Therefore, I think this Bill is a limited but useful measure and one which I hope all noble Lords will wish to support.
7.43 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble friend Lord Inglewood in this small but very important Bill at a time when there is no division between the parties on the

735
need to combat the increasing violence. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, stated, this is the first time that this Bill has really been discussed in Parliament. Mr. Anthony Grant, who introduced the original Bill in another place, had to choose between losing the Bill this Session or letting it rip through without discussion and acquiescing to Amendments which, in my view, sadly watered down its effect. Like other noble Lords I sincerely hope that the issues will be more thoroughly discussed and more rationally amended in your Lordships' House at Committee stage.
The British pub is envied throughout the world. Convivial, democratic and the meeting place for friends, it is controlled by professional staff upholding and administering the laws under which they are allowed to operate. It is a British institution. In certain areas, however, it is in danger of being destroyed by mindless violence and all too often the weapon is a broken bottle or glass with the raw edges thrust into the victim's face, accompanied by vicious and maiming kicks to the body. The latest figures show that there are more than three serious—and I mean serious—attacks each week on licensees or their staffs.
It is common ground, firmly expressed and condemned by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, that excessive drink lies at the root of many violent assaults. Equally, the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Sport, has roundly condemned the rowdy football thugs who rampage after a match—either exulting in victory or drowning the sorrows of defeat in drink.
I will mention one case, and one only of many. It is that of Mr. Dixon of the Travellers Rest, Blythe. He, keeping the law, asked a customer to drink up because it was closing time. He was knocked down, brutally kicked and two ribs pierced his lungs and he had innumerable stitches in his mutilated face. After eight weeks in hospital and the removal of a lung, he then suffered an infected kidney and liver as a result of the damage and he could no longer work. He was unable to wear shoes, to smoke or to drink any alcohol. A very short while later Mr. Dixon died. His assailant was charged and convicted—admittedly before the
736
death of Mr. Dixon—and he was fined £15. Several victims of pub assaults have won very substantial awards from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. But, my Lords, we want the thug to pay for his crime and not only the taxpayer.
A measure of the all-party support, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood has pointed out, is the 1976 TUC Conference resolution specifically calling for a ban from all pubs for a period specified by the Bench. It is not often that this old Tory backs a TUC resolution, but in this issue I do. The TUC resolution is far stronger than this watered down Bill and perhaps I feel a little stronger about this than my colleagues who have spoken before me. I sincerely hope that at Committee stage we shall be able to command all-party support for certain strengthening Amendments.
I find it somewhat ridiculous that under current law the courts may exclude people from licensed premises as a condition of bail or probation, but they have no power to exclude as a consequence of violence or threat of violence. I believe that magistrates will welcome this power, as already in some cases where disturbances are frequent they are using hail as a means of excluding hooligans. But I do not think this is enough. I fear that there is a real risk that publicans, for their own protection, if they do not get some additional help under the law, will be forced to take the law into their own hands by employing "bouncers". They do not want to do that and neither do we want them to do it. This Bill would enable courts to make suspension orders on violent thugs by excluding them from licensed premises for periods of up to two years from the date of conviction.
Here I feel a little more strongly than do my colleagues. I think the Government's draconian Amendment to the original Bill is disastrous; from a total ban in the original Bill to a one-pub ban virtually destroys the intention of the Bill. The licensed victuallers, the TUC and many others want a total ban. In my view a one-pub ban is too small, but I do not go all the way with the resolutions that I have mentioned.
There are six pubs within 100 yards of my Westminster flat. A person is banned from one—what sort of penalty is it that

737
permits him to go to the other five quite freely? In my view it is derisory: it makes an ass of the law and, as I said on another subject last night, I like laws to mean something, to be effective and to be respected. The convicted thug would laugh all the way from the court, make the Harvey Smith sign at the Dog and Duck and walk into the Rose and Crown opposite.
I inquired of my local police station—and that is only one station of very many in the City of Westminster licensing area—how many licensed premises they control in their limited territory which runs from the river by this House, through Victoria to Pimlico and is bounded on the north side by Birdcage Walk. They have 48 public houses, 140 clubs and licensed restaurants and between 40 and 50 off-licences. All these are within easy walking distance for the thug. Like the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, much though I appreciate the publican's desire for a total ban, I do not think it is administratively practical.
I have been in the Home Office, and I fully appreciate the yeoman efforts of our hard pressed police forces. I am against imposing upon them a task I do not realistically believe they can fulfil. For example, Bill Bloggs is convicted in Birmingham; he is seen in court, and with luck his photograph is published in the local paper. He is certainly listed and known in the police stations and by the pubs in his area. He goes to Wembley for a Cup Final. He commits an offence. He says he is John Smith and no one there can identify him otherwise. He might be cautioned by the police or he might be let off by the Bench the next morning as being, in their view, a first offender. Unless and until every station is linked with computer facilities to tap a central national register to identify a violent offender, I think it would place an impossible burden on the police and bring them into unmerited disrepute.
For this reason I believe that in Committee we should find a balanced solution, a halfway house between the derisory and useless one-pub ban and a full United Kingdom ban, by amending the restriction to any pub within the licensing area where the offence was committed. On penalties, I think that, within the discretion of the court, such violence should carry maximum
738
penalties more commensurate with the damage inflicted on the victim. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred to today's thinking. No one ever refers to today's wages. When I fought my first election the average national wage was £7 and there were hundreds of various offences on the Statute Book with the penalty of a fine of £5. When you earned only £7, £5 was an awful lot. Today, the national average wage is £50 or more, and very few of the fines have gone up seven times. Therefore, in many instances the penalties we now impose are not so savage on today's wage earners as they were when the national average wage was £7.
The courts in their wisdom will assess the extent of the damage inflicted and the violence used. A black eye or a split lip from a clenched fist cannot be compared with a hideous broken glass attack, with an eye lost and a lacerated face, and probably endless painful skin grafts over months or years. We want penalties to frighten people from using the lethal broken glass, and a maximum which the courts would be empowered to impose in terrible cases like that of Mr. Dixon. I therefore hope that the penalties will be very fully considered in Committee. My Lords, all workpeople are entitled to be protected at their place of work. The Health & Safety at Work Act imposes endless safeguards on employers. The barman and the barmaid are at work, and with the traditional "mine host" they are entitled to our protection.
7.54 p.m.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I am most reluctant to intervene in this debate, and to show my reluctance I will make just one point very quickly indeed. It is with regard to penalties, which I hope will be borne in mind in Committee. As your Lordships know, the penalty for noncompliance with a suspension order is a fine or imprisonment or the imposition of a further suspension order. I believe, in practice, that the penalty most probably imposed, will be a further suspension order. However, the penalty for noncompliance with the further suspension order is precisely the same maximum fine and precisely the same term of imprisonment as for failure to comply with the original suspension. I feel that this is a point which ought to be looked at in Committee.
7.55 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I intervened very briefly at this stage to give the Government's views on this Bill. I would like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, very much indeed for giving us the opportunity to debate this Bill today, and for his, if I may say so, admirably clear speech. Perhaps I could also just mention one point arising out of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. He is, of course, correct in saying that the Bill was not debated in another place. There were, however, Amendments passed in another place, as I am sure the noble Lord will recall.
The Government recognise and indeed share the deep concern of the licensed trade organisations to protect their members from violence among the customers of licensed premises. It would be fair at this stage to make it clear, however, that the Government have an open mind on the Bill now before the House. There do, of course, already exist measures to enable licensees to deal with the problems of violent and unruly behaviour on their premises, and noble Lords will wish to consider whether this Bill's provisions will in fact offer any greater protection.
When the Bill was first published it provided for a suspension order to be made in respect of any licensed premises, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has already referred. This is a provision which in the past the Government have consistently opposed, mainly on the ground that there is no way in which licensees would know who was subject to a suspension order and accordingly no way in which such an order could be enforced. One of the Amendments made in another place limits the operation of a suspension order to the premises on which the original offence took place. This should, in the Government's view, greatly reduce the difficulties of enforcement, since it is reasonable to assume that the landlord will recognise someone who has previously caused trouble and will know that he is subject to a suspension order. But will such an order make any real difference to the existing situation? That is really the fundamental question your Lordships will wish to consider.
740
At the moment the owner of any licensed premises which is not an inn has a common law right to decide whom he will admit to his premises and he can eject any unwelcome customers. This is the same right that any citizen has in deciding whether or not to let people into his home. In addition, Section 174 of the Licensing Act 1964 permits a licensee to refuse to admit or to expel anyone who is drunken, violent, quarrelsome or disorderly and to call upon the police for assistance in doing this. This Bill will add to that situation the person who is subject to a suspension order.
Noble Lords may wish to ask themselves whether a licensee will want to expel such a person unless he is being drunken, violent, quarrelsome or disorderly, in which case the power to refuse entry or to expel already exists, or whether an attempt to expel a suspended person in advance of disorderly behaviour is more likely to lead to such behaviour than to avoid it. Noble Lords will also wish to consider, no doubt, whether the use of the police to assist in the ejection or expulsion of someone who is not currently causing any disturbance can be justified. This would in fact be an additional use of police manpower, though I fully take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made. If it is considered that the risk of disturbance is reduced rather than increased, and that the use of scarce police resources to restrain people not actually causing any disturbance is justified, then it can reasonably be argued that the introduction of a suspension order is justified. This is because of the disincentive to troublemakers to enter licensed premises and because a specific penalty is provided if they do so.
This is a matter on which, as I have already said, the Government have an open mind. But there are two additional points which I think should be brought to your Lordships' attention. The first is that the Licensing (Amendment) Act 1977 restored to the police the right to enter a public house for the purpose of routine visits, even if they did not suspect that an offence is being committed or is about to be committed. I understand from the police that they are finding this restored power very useful. Is any additional power really necessary? That is

741
the fundamental question for your Lordships.
The second point is that the closest existing analogy to the new power is the power of magistrates under Section 6 of the Licensing Act 1902 to make an order preventing an habitual drunken offender from going into an off-licence for three years. During the last four years for which records are available (1974–1977) the annual average of convictions for drunkenness was 100,000, but only two such orders were made. While I have no means of knowing the reasons for such a limited use of this power, it must inevitably raise the question whether the courts will make use of a similar power in respect of licensed premises. And if the power is unlikely to be used, the desirability of further complicating the criminal law must be questionable.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, mentioned that the law provided that it was possible for magistrates to impose a ban on someone going into an off-licence. Does it refer to one specified off-licence or any off-licence?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I regret to say that I am not clear at this juncture whether it is a specified off-licence or any off-licence. However, I shall certainly look at the point and either let the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, know in writing, or, if your Lordships decide to proceed to further stages, perhaps I can answer the point then. However, I shall certainly look at the matter and will gladly let the noble Baroness know.
In conclusion, I would therefore urge your Lordships to consider this Bill most carefully and not to assume too readily that it will improve the existing situation. The possibility of the new power effectively increasing a licensee's ability to defend himself and his premises must be weighed against the possibility of unnecessarily provoking a disturbance and the likelihood of increased demands on scarce police resources. It is for noble Lords to decide which should weigh the heaviest.
I hope that those few observations about the Government's approach to the Bill will be of some assistance.
8.2 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. They have all spoken in favour of the Bill, if not in its present form at least amended in one way or another. I for one look forward to the Committee stage and am very ready to see whether we can find what one could call a halfway solution between an exclusion from one set of premises and the national ban which it seems we are all agreed is not something that we can easily operate.
We are not attempting to reassess the penalties awarded for the orginal offence; we are concerned with an additional penalty. I am sure that the Minister was right to draw attention to the two ways that we should look at the Bill, but I am left in no doubt at all that the provisions of the Bill will not provoke disturbance or violence on licensed premises. Furthermore, I cannot see that it will make any additional demands on the police—if anything, less so, because it will discourage people with this intention from going into public houses and creating a situation where the licensee has to ring up the police and ask for help.
I am certain that there is a case for the Bill, and I hope that the House will now give it a Second Reading and see it as speedily as possible on to the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX BILL [H.L.]
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS BILL [H.L.]

    WAGES COUNCILS BILL [H.L.]
    ELECTRICITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL [H.L.]
  EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Joint Committee without Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.