Lords Sitting of 10 March 1980

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

THE BORDERS DISTRICT GENERAL HOSPITAL
Earl HAIG: 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 whether the Secretary of State for Scotland was aware of the opposition from the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland to the siting of the proposed hospital at Huntlyburn before approving the scheme; and whether, in view of the Commission's recommendation in its recent report to change the site to Tweedbank, that decision is not now questionable.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, the decision to site the Borders District General Hospital at Huntlyburn was taken in 1969 when the site was acquired. I am not aware that there was any opposition from the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland at that stage. The decision was endorsed at the end of 1977 by the Borders Regional Council, as planning authority, after full consultation with all interested parties and the consideration of representations. Their representations included a suggestion by the Commission that the site be changed to Tweedbank. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that Huntlyburn is the best location for the hospital, and planning on this basis is at an advanced stage.
Earl HAIG: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but, as it is vital to make sure that the hospital is built in the right place, would he allow me, through him, to urge the Secretary of State to visit the two alternative sites, particularly as the previous Secretary of State decided against
538
holding a public inquiry, and as the plans, questioned by the Royal Fine Art Commission, objected to by the Georgian Society and contravening principles laid down by the Countryside Commission, have lately added an extra floor to the building?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I shall bring to my right honourable friend's attention my noble friend's request that he should himself pay a visit. Perhaps I may say with regard to the alternative site at Tweedbank that there is insufficient land available there for a major hospital project. In any event it is the policy of the Borders Regional Council to develop Tweedbank for housing and industry as a means of retaining population in the central Borders and encouraging population growth in the longer term. The fact that the site which has been chosen is in an area designated as of great landscape value does not, of course, preclude development. Great care has been taken over the positioning and the design of buildings within the site.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how far the building of this hospital has progressed during the interval of 11 years?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, as I understand it, the scheme is not yet under way in the physical sense.
Lord CAMBPELL of CROY: My Lords, while not wishing that the hospital should be in any way delayed, can my noble friend none the less arrange for the views of the Royal Fine Art Commission to be considered before final decisions are taken, to ensure that the extra storey which has been proposed will not cause the building to be ugly and different from the one originally intended?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. The views of the Commission have already been considered by the local authorities concerned.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Earl say when the building of this hospital is likely to be completed, and what is to happen to the intended patients in the meantime?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am not armed with that information. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord.

DOCKYARDS: GIRL APPRENTICES
2.40 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: 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 whether they will state how many girl apprentices have been trained in H.M. Dockyards since the inception of the scheme for that purpose.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, since the inception of the scheme in 1969 a total of 50 girls have completed training as apprentices in the Royal Dockyards and a further 50 girls are under training at present.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will ensure that careers officers know about this scheme? In view of the Monty Finniston Report, which dealt with the need for more engineers, should not a career in engineering be suggested to girls? I find the greatest opposition among parents because they do not realise what a good career for girls it is.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. The dockyards do run recruitment campagins in close co-operation with the local schools and with the youth employment services. All are fully aware that girls are accepted for training on an equal footing with men.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that the scheme has been a success, in view of the fact that one girl from Uganda, a refugee, was top of all the girls and the boys at Chatham? Surely this shows that it is a worthwhile career for girls.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.

ARMS SALES AND HUMAN RIGHTS
2.41 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 reply has been given to the General Synod of the Church of England, which has proposed that information should be made public about arms sales, in order to ensure that arms are not sold to regimes where there are "proven abuses against human rights, especially torture".
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, a letter sent today to the General Synod refers to the Government's view that there are substantial benefits to be derived from defence sales, but that this does not mean that the Government consider that the United Kingdom should export arms indiscriminately. We follow a policy of responsible restraint and examine each case on its merits.
The reply goes on to refer to the major reservations which customers and suppliers share about the disclosure of information, in view of the important political, commercial and security considerations involved. Experience with the proposals tabled in the UN for a register of arms confirms these difficulties. The record of the recipient Government on human rights is one of the factors taken into account in reaching a decision.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, should not the people of this country know where arms are sent on their behalf? As the most crucial issue which affects both them and their children is war and peace, I should like to ask whether arms are being sent to some of our allies who have been found guilty by the United Nations of denying human rights and even of torture? Does that not destroy our integrity when we rightly condemn the Soviet Union for its treatment of dissidents?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I have already said that the way in which a potential client

541
Government conduct their affairs is one of the issues that we take into account. We would not export arms to a country which is guilty of torture.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord say why it is that, if it is the customers who object to the information being released, we follow a different rule in these matters from that of the United States? Will the noble Lord say what examples there are of arms sales being prevented, other than the very minor case of the armoured cars which we did not in the end sell to El Salvador? In particular, why are the Government continuing to sell arms to Argentina, a State which has been condemned by the State Department in the United States and in respect of which there has recently been a report by the Organisation of American States confirming that torture has been used universally as an instrument of policy in that country?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think that it would be proper for me to go into individual cases. There has recently been a case where arms sales to Argentina have not been sanctioned. As regards the general point about disclosure of arms sales, the position is that it is extremely difficult to do a commercial deal if the customer is anxious that It should not be disclosed.
The Lord Bishop of DERBY: My Lords, I should like to press the point which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised regarding the comparison with the United States of America. The United States Congress is given much more information about arms sales than British Governments ever give to Parliament. Would the Minister not accept that there is a good case for greater openness in this country?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I can only say that one has to try to hold a balance between one's desire to conclude the deal and the desire to justify one's moral conscience. On the whole, at present, we do our best to vet most carefully any deals which are proposed, while at the same time doing what we believe is in the commercial and industrial interests of this country as a whole.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord why on earth we allowed arms to be supplied to Amin from this country? For that is the situation according to the reports which have appeared in the American Press which conducted an investigation into the supply of arms to that country. Why have we supplied the PLO whose men are being trained in the USSR—about whom everyone here is complaining—so that they can be utilised against not only Israel but our country and every other civilised country?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, first, I was not aware that we had supplied arms to the PLO. As regards the general point that the noble Lord has made, I should point out that in many cases, even if we do not supply arms, other people will do so. We must use our judgment as to what is the balance of advantage for this country. I believe that we do so reasonably well. I may add that we try not to supply arms to people who we think, potentially, will use them against us.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question raised by my my noble friend Lord Brockway and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, about the difference in the information given to Congress and here?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, we cannot be responsible for another nation's policy. Our policy is to pursue the arms sales which we believe to be in the interests of this country, and we believe that those interests would be damaged if we had to disclose every sale in great detail.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to say upon which principle the Government stand? He has put forward two propositions. The first is that the Government, in selling arms, take into account that the receiving country may or may not be engaged in violations of human rights. The second proposition is that we must remember that, if we do not sell arms, somebody else will do so. Therefore, presumably if the second principle operates, the first goes out of the window?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think that that is necessarily true at all. We would not sell arms to what we would regard as repressive régimes—that is quite clear policy. I do not say that we always get it right and régimes change, as indeed, the nature of the Amin régime changed. However, we must bear in mind that, in many cases, arms sales open a door to commercial deals and ultimately exercise political influence which is beneficial to this country.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to say what principle was operating when they supplied money to Savak?
The Lord Bishop of GUILDFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that the sale of arms by one nation to another implies that they share certain assumptions about peace-making and the ordering of the international community, and that, therefore, such sales raise important moral and ethical issues as well as commercial and political issues and issues of security? Will he not agree that these issues ought to be the subject of widespread public debate because they concern the standing of our particular country in the world? Furthermore, will the Minister agree that such debate can be conducted only if there is widespread information about the kind of arms that are being sold and to what extent?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think that I can go all the way with the right reverend Prelate. We have diplomatic relations with countries, but that does not necessarily imply that we approve of their regimes. On arms, our attitude is that, unless there is a pressing reason and there is clear evidence of a repressive regime, we arc inclined to pursue the sale of arms to them. Incidentally, we believe that there is no reason to assume that another country does not have the right to buy arms to protect itself, which is a point which is made in this pamphlet, which gives rise to the original Question.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that an honourable friend reputedly put down a Question on the Order Paper in another place concerning the sale of arms by this country to
544
Ethiopia, a regime of psychopathic violence against its own people? Does the noble Lord not consider that if people are debarred from obtaining even the slightest bit of information about the destination of arms sales, there will be widespread suspicion by the public that the criteria, which the noble Lord mentions, are not being properly observed and that we are selling arms to régimes which inflict torture and violence on their citizens?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I cannot answer for what happens in another place. I believe that there is no evidence that we sell arms to repressive régimes.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that there is a strange logic in assuming that young athletes who go to a country in order to compete in games alone, give support to the régime, while selling guns to another country does not?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think, if I may say so, that the question of what athletes do or do not do has a great deal to do with the selling of arms.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is it not true that the party opposite sold guns and tanks to the Shah's régime, which was supported by Savak, because it was concerned with jobs for our own people here? Are they now suggesting that the present Government should adopt a different standard?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, it is difficult for me to answer for the party opposite. Indeed, I doubt whether they would agree with me if I answered for them. The noble Earl is perfectly right that the proposed arms sales to Iran would have offered a great deal of employment in this country, most particularly in the Royal Ordnance factories which are now in serious difficulties as a result of the default on those contracts.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, does the Minister deny that arms are being sold to Indonesia, Singapore, Pakistan, Turkey, Argentina and Ethiopia, all of which are imprisoning political opponents without trial?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think that I could accept either of those propositions. I do not accept that those are all repressive regimes and I am not at all sure that we arc, in fact, selling arms to all of them.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has been trying to ask a question for some time, but we have had about nine minutes on this Question. Perhaps I might suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, asks his question and my noble friend answers it, and then we might move on.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, has the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, obtained a copy of the regulations which apply in the United States of America in respect of the supply of arms, and will he read them to see how different they arc from ours? Does he realise that, in addition to all the questions that have been asked, my question was not only about a régime? My question was as to why we are supplying arms to terrorists. The PLO are terrorists and they are being trained in Russia. We keep on talking about civil defence and other associated matters, but at the same time we are allowing the arming of people, who ultimately, if a crisis does arise, will be using those arms against us. Why have we supplied arms to terrorists?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, as the noble Lord requests me to do, I shall certainly study the American regulations. I do not think that I could necessarily agree with the noble Lord about the status of the PLO and I am perfectly certain that we would not involve ourselves in supplying arms to terrorists of any complexion.

THE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY: DENATIONALISATION
2.53 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 steps are being taken to denationalise the shipbuilding industry.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry has recently confirmed, the Government remain committed to the principle of denationalisation in the shipbuilding industry. When the time is right we intend to come forward with appropriate measures.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In view of the recent decline of a large order by nationalised shipbuilding firms, may I ask whether there is some way of hastening the proceedings of denationalisation, because a private firm might have snapped up that order?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is referring to the special ships for car transportation; it was reported in the Press that British Shipbuilders had referred the order to the Japanese. That is not quite either the whole story or a fair story. As I understand it from British Shipbuilders, this was one of approximately 1,500 inquiries that they receive every year. It was a rather tentative inquiry at that stage, as are so many such inquiries. British Shipbuilders respond positively to about 850 such inquiries. I think that the Answer to my noble friend's original Question is not to any major extent influenced by her supplementary question. The original Question relates to the stage in the restructuring programme which we announced on 23rd July and the progress made in that restructuring programme in order to reach a position where "privatisation "of the mainline activities becomes practical.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, if indeed the Government are to go ahead at some stage with this suggestion, will the noble Viscount confirm that they will not simply try to denationalise those sectors which are making profits, but will, in fact, look at the whole industry and not leave the public to look after the sectors which are not making profits?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord any assurance about the idea of "privatising "as a whole rather than in parts. Indeed, we have encouraged British Shipbuilders to

547
receive any serious inquiries in relation to any parts of their activity which they do not feel are vital to their mainstream activities. I know that they are in discussion on a number of inquiries in relation to fairly peripheral, but in some cases important, activities.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House the latest report on the associated matter of compensation, particularly where the three principal companies in naval shipbuilding are concerned?—as they were flourishing concerns at the time of nationalisation. At least three years have passed and as yet nothing appears to have happened.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I think that compensation is a separate question from the Question on the Order Paper. However, the position on compensation is that since a declaration as long ago as 1975 was made on the principles of compensation that went into the 1977 Act, we have a situation where some cases for compensation have been settled in accordance with that Act, others have not, and where share dealings have continued for some five years since the original declaration on a basis of the provisions of the Act. So there are very real complexities regarding going back in any way on the 1977 Act.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, when the Government adopt the principle of denationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, can the noble Viscount say in what circumstances they will adopt it—when it is making a profit or when it is making a loss?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord in full, except to say that in the middle of the immense restructuring programme which we announced in July, which has been agreed with both sides of the industry, which involves a reduction from 28,000 people to a little under 20,000 people (that is going to be a slightly higher reduction, by agreement with the trade unions, in relation to the latest wage settlement) with order books in 1979 still running at only a little over half the target agreed between British Shipbuilders and the last Administration and endorsed by
548
us, is certainly not the moment to move at the present time.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: My Lords, could the noble Lord not have been a little more explicit in his answer to my noble friend Lord Lee? Is it not the case that if the Government were to suggest selling those parts of publicly-owned industries which did not show a profit, they simply would not be able to sell them for that very reason? Private investors would not be interested in purchasing them. Therefore that leaves only the profitable parts of public ownership, and it is the intention of the Government to sell off the profitable parts of publicly-owned industry.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I do not necessarily or fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa. It is more than possible, when the restructuring programme is complete, with a loss-making activity which nevertheless has the possibility of being turned by a private enterprise interest with knowledge of that particular activity, that it might well make inquiries and take it over before profit is made.

DINNERS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinners will be available this evening at the usual time. It is proposed that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for approximately an hour in order to enable those of your Lordships who are particularly tied up in the Education Bill to take advantage of this facility. The Report stage of the National Heritage Bill will be taken during this adjournment.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
3.4 p.m.
MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Change of nomenclature]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): Clause 1, Amendment No. 1. I have to point out that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
("(1) For the purpose of removing any distinction between bodies constituted for primary schools and those constituted for secondary schools under subsection 1 of section 17 of the Education Act 1944 and for the purpose of ensuring all such bodies shall be known as bodies of governors, the enactments mentioned in Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect with the amendments there specified, being amendments consequential on the provisions of this section.").
The noble Baroness said: My purpose in moving this amendment is to give a further boost to our excellent primary schools, putting them on a par with secondary schools by sending their articles of government also to the Secretary of State for approval. This Bill aims to give primary schools an increased status by changing the nomenclature, "managers "to "governors "and "rules of management "to "articles of government". But the changes proposed will be purely cosmetic and not of substance unless we put primary schools completely on the same footing as secondary.
I see no reason to differentiate between these equally important sectors of education. As there is nothing in this Bill about the powers of government, it would seem right that the articles of government which are the nearest to a description of the powers and duties of government that any authority has should have the blessing of the department and the Minister so that there is some overall and general and coherent view across the country. A central eye can keep a watch on an authority that may not carry out the expectations that this Bill raises, not to mention the many expectations raised by the present Secretary of State
550
and the present Leader of the House of Commons when in opposition.
Speaking on the Taylor Report, Mr. St. John-Stevas, when Opposition spokesman for education, said:
" We therefore commend those sections of the report "—
that is the Taylor Report—
" which advocate greater powers for school governors. Parents, for example, would be much more likely to come forward as governors if they know they will have an effective say in the school's budget and curriculum".
There is nothing in this Bill at all to suggest how this effective say will come about.
Dr. Rhodes Boyston, when answering the debate on this amendment when moved at Committee stage in another place, said that the Secretary of State could only veto the articles, or "bounce them ", as he put it. He said:
" To transfer the power to the Secretary of State would be totally against the philosophy we are forming of devolving power to the local authorities".
He has not suggested that the articles of government of secondary schools should no longer be vetted, although he hinted that he might be willing to look at such an amendment if it were put down. I do not believe that it was, and I would prefer for those of primary schools to be vetted too.
So far as the philosophy goes of devolving power, we shall see if that philosophy is the guiding principle as we go through the Bill. It seems to me to come and go a bit. If governors are to feel that they are doing a worthwhile, useful and interesting job they must have some powers, and powers that they recognise as powers, because the sort of people you want will not give up their time to join a talking shop. They do not just want to pass splendid resolutions which might as well go straight into the wastepaper basket for all the attention that is paid to them, and they do not want to be a rubber stamp for the head or for the local authority.
Articles of government can confer powers and duties, and I have here the rules of management—that is, the articles of government to be. They spell out pretty clearly the duties of managers about the inspection and repair of school premises; the use to which the premises are put out of school hours and in the holidays; about the appointment and dismissal of the head; the appointment and dismissal

551
of assistant teachers; the appointment of non-teaching staff; a section on organisation and curriculum which says, if a hit vaguely, where the responsibilities of the authority, the managers, and the head lie.
I should now like to quote a bit from the part on organisation and curriculum. This is the first section:
" The authority shall determine the educational character of the school and its place in the educational system of the county, and subject to the provisions of these rules and to the directions of the authority the managers shall have the general direction of the conduct of the school".
There is then a section on the head's role. Then there is the following on the curriculum:
" All proposals and reports affecting the conduct and curriculum of a school shall he submitted to the managers. The chief education officer shall be furnished with a copy of any written report of major significance to the conduct of curricula at least seven days before they are considered by the managers".
It is not exactly explicit, but there is some guidance. The DES, I believe, has model articles so I do not think that much extra work would be involved either at the LEA level or at the department if this amendment is accepted.
I was interested to discover that during the Committee stage of the Labour Bill of 1978 Miss Margaret Jackson, the Minister then in. charge, at first opposed this amendment, but she had second thoughts.
She said:
" However, since the Bill was drafted one or two articles of primary schools have been brought to my attention which would certainly not meet with the approval of any member of the committee in some of the stipulations. Therefore, if my honourable friend will withdraw his amendment, or even if he does not, 1 give my assurance that we will look at this matter carefully to see whether it will be possible—I think it will be possible—to include primary schools in the provision of the Bill".
I hope the Minister in charge here today will be as obliging. Amendment No. 6 is consequential upon this one, and I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said on this important matter. She rightly said that this amendment—and, indeed, a sequence of amendments has been tabled so this subject will occur from time to time throughout
552
our discussions on the Bill—is about the relationship between central and local government in education; this of course arises over a number of issues, but, as those of us who are involved in education know, education is a national system locally administered, and the relationship between the two parts of it involves a number of matters of principle, and of course involves discussion of a number of important points which will arise from time to time.
It is true that our general policy is that controls over local authorities should be reduced, and to that end as we come to debate certain clauses, particularly Clause 12, it will be seen that we are going a considerable way to meet some of the requests of local authorities in this regard. So far as these particular matters are concerned, local education authorities have been responsible for the rules of management of primary schools since 1944 and we do not believe there is an overwhelming reason why they should now be subject to some additional control as in the case of secondary schools, because they are now to have what will be called "articles of government "rather than "rules of management ", as before.
The noble Baroness also raised in speaking to these two amendments the much broader issue of the powers of governing bodies, and it will he clear from the Bill that we have not included anything on that subject at all. It is a matter on which it is very difficult to get a clear consensus as to what the powers of governing bodies should be, and we as a Government share the view of the previous Government that in the absence of this consensus, the present arrangements give plenty of scope to those who wish to exercise influence to do so, and we do not wish to make any changes at this particular time.
We of course believe in the importance of primary schools. The first years of a child's school life are absolutely crucial, and we recognise this by saying now in the Bill that we are proposing governing bodies for primary schools in recognition of the importance we attach to them. I hope therefore that with this explanation—that there is nothing against primary schools and indeed that our wish in this matter is to keep what we feel is the right relationship between central and local

553
government—the noble Baroness will feel that the amendment, which I am in any event unable to accept, is unnecessary.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: There is more behind the history of this proposal than the relationship between central and local government. The status of primary schools historically is that of schools for the working classes. The status of secondary schools is that of schools to which the middle class and professional people sent their children, and the differentiations that have been maintained in the forms of government reflect that. Times have changed and now a number of middle class and professional people send their children to primary schools. Nevertheless, the distinction historically was a distinction of class rather than a distinction of relationship between central and local authorities. It ran all through our education system; primary schools had teachers while secondary schools had schoolmistresses and schoolmasters. The whole of the educational system is tainted with this particular language and with these changes in organisation. I very much hope that the Committee will recommend that these distinctions are irrelevant to the climate of today and should be removed.
Lord AVEBURY: The Minister said there was nothing in the Bill about the powers of governing bodies, a point that was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady David. Would it not be desirable for the Committee to direct its attention to this subject while we have the opportunity in debating this amendment? We seldom look at the powers of the governing bodies and if we let this opportunity pass during the proceedings on this Bill there may not be another chance of returning to it for many years.
I am rather disappointed that the noble Baroness did not say a little more about the existing powers of the governing bodies of primary schools so that we could have seen whether there were any matters of relevance in considering the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady David, said their powers on curricula were quite extensive; she said that all proposals on curricula had to be submitted to the managers and I think she said these were subsequently looked at by the chief education officer. However, in the
554
example she quoted she did not say whether the chief education officer had any veto over decisions that might be made by the managers.
This is not a purely academic matter because there was an occasion not long ago—noble Lords will doubtless remember it—when the managers of a particular primary school, I think in the ILEA area, departed very radically from the sort of curriculum we have come to expect from primary schools and, after a considerable period of disruption, the school had to be closed for a certain period and all the teachers were dismissed. I cannot remember exactly how it finished up, but that all had to do with the curriculum, and I therefore wonder whether we should pay a little more attention to this issue than we are apparently doing so far.
If the powers of the governing bodies are as extensive as they appear to have been in that instance, it would not make much difference whether the articles were approved by the local education authority or the Secretary of State. It would come to the same thing—that there might be conflict between the wishes of the parents who send their children to that particular school and the way it was conducted, which they might think was contrary to the interests of the children's education. So, apart from any removal of distinction, which I agree with the noble Baroness is an object of which we should approve, there is also the rather more fundamental question underlying the amendment which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the Minister will explore before we leave the clause.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: With respect to the Minister, I do not think she has so far made a convincing case against the amendment. If we look first at the immediate issue, it can be defined in this way: as things now stand, the Secretary of State has to approve the articles of government for secondary schools but will not have to approve the articles of government, as they will now be called, for primary schools. Why is that distinction being made? The Minister pointed out that throughout the Bill there runs the question: how much freedom should he given to local authorities and what matters should come

555
under the purview of the Secretary of State? I agree that one can argue this way and that as regards that point on every issue of education that arises, but why should there be a distinction here? The articles of government for secondary schools are apparently considered to be of such importance that the Secretary of State should approve them; but the articles of government for primary schools are not. One can defend that position only if one believes that the articles of government for primary schools are of less importance than the articles of government for secondary schools.
Surely we are not going to assent to that proposition, as my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger powerfully argued. Indeed, the difference in nomenclature to which she referred used to go right back to the point that the schools for young children were not called primary schools at all; they were called elementary schools where you merely picked up the elements of knowledge absolutely essential to be a citizen in a modern country, and did not go on to real education unless you were able to get to a secondary school.
Surely the drive in this Bill is supposed to be to increase the dignity of the primary schools. Why, for goodness' sake, this exception on this point? The noble Baroness argued that up to now the Secretary of State has not been asked to agree the articles of government for primary schools, or rules of management as they are to be called, so why bother to make the difference now? In that case one might ask, why bother to bring in this Bill? What is the point? When introducing a Bill which makes differences of nomenclature deliberately, and makes them presumably in order to give greater emphasis to certain points, why not seize the opportunity of giving the articles of government of primary schools the same importance in the Minister's eye as the articles of government of secondary schools? The noble Baroness puts forward the view that there seems no reason for making this change merely because they are to be called articles of government instead of rules of management. Are we to take it that that alteration of name is meant as a mere ornament and nothing more, because that is what would seem to follow from her speech.
556
There is another and perhaps larger aspect of the matter which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. What are governors for? This question has been repeatedly asked and answered sometimes not at all and sometimes in a great variety of different ways. Presumably, since the articles of government for secondary schools are to require the approval of the Secretary of State, it is assumed that he has some idea as to what the articles of government of a secondary school ought to look like and what the duties of governors ought to be, whereas apparently with regard to primary schools each local education authority is to have its own opinion as to what the duties of governors ought to be. This Bill contains so much about the powers of governors: how many governors there should be; who should appoint them; what proportion should represent parents; staff and all the rest of it. This is a huge long clause and we shall have to spend a good deal of time examining it as regards the appointment and constitution of governing bodies and the duties of governors.
We ought to hear a little more from the Government Benches about what they think the duties of governors ought to be. I agree we could not press them for an absolutely cut and dried and complete answer, but they might at least have a try at it. For example, what ought to be the duties of governors with regard to appointments in the school? It will be found in some parts of the country that, when a head teacher is to be appointed, governors are invited to present to the local education authority a list of three names from which the authority chooses one. In other parts of the country it will be found that the procedure is reversed: that the governors are presented with a list of names from which they may choose one. How far is it one of the duties of governors to make decisions about school uniforms—whether the school should have a uniform, and what kind?
3.24 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I had thought, on reading the amendments, that we would be discussing this matter when we came to Amendment No. 48, which seems to go into considerable detail. From my point of view—I may be quite wrong about this-1 have not been able to understand how the noble Lord is relating the amend-

557
ment we are discussing to more than the change of nomenclature, because that is all the amendment seems to be doing.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I agree that we shall have an opportunity for fuller discussion on the duties of governors on the later amendments. At this stage I am only making a few preliminary remarks. It seems to arise on this clause because the articles of government will presumably give some idea about the duties of governors. The Government are standing by the proposition that, where a secondary school is concerned, this formulation of the duties of governors is a matter that the Secretary of State ought to have under review, whereas for primary schools the Secretary of State apparently is not interested. That raises the question: How important are the articles of government and how important is it to get some idea of what governors do?
However, I accept what the noble Lord has said. We shall have other opportunities to pursue this. I will not press it further now, but I believe we are still all baffled as to why, in a Bill where we are deliberately trying to emphasise that we give as much weight and importance to primary schools as to secondary schools, there should be this implication that the articles of government of a primary school are regarded by the Secretary of State as of less importance than the articles of government of a secondary school. That is the question the Government have not so far answered.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I hesitate to come in at this particular stage, but I think it is right and proper that I should do so. I have spent over two years on the Taylor Report and have made recommendations to governors on this particular question. I have visited 103 authorities throughout the United Kingdom and I have listened to governors and managers. One of the things our committee found was that primary managers wanted parity of esteem with secondary schools. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to do this. I am glad that there are certain amendments on which I shall speak as the debate continues in the course of the next few days, but certain things are completely wrong; therefore, I will support the
558
amendment. I ask the Government to look at this very carefully because if we are going to get the right people in primary schools it is important that they should be treated in the same way as governors in secondary schools and given exactly the same powers.
Baroness YOUNG: I have been asked a number of very important questions. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, asked: Why bring in this part of the Bill dealing with school governors? As a Government we attach very considerable importance to this first part of the Bill. We are instituting for the first time governing bodies on all secondary and primary schools, except that the small ones would be grouped together. This seems to me a major advance. I served for 12 years on an education committee and I was fortunate to be in a local authority in which all secondary schools had governors and primary schools had managers, although the smaller ones were grouped together. I therefore grew up in a system in which the importance of school governors was recognised.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, recognized—we have all studied his report with great interest—this is not the practice throughout the country. We are attempting for the first time to take what we believe is a major and important step forward by giving all schools, both secondary and primary, governing bodies. What we have said is that they will all have governing bodies for the first time, that there will he school governors of primary schools. I am not prepared to accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, seems to have implied in her remarks, that, because we are not asking the Secretary of State to approve the articles of government of primary schools, this represents some sort of class distinction. I hope we can get away from all these concepts, because in this particular case I regard it as totally irrelevant to the discussion on school governing bodies.
The fact is that the powers of governing bodies vary considerably from place to place. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked this. I think he was referring to the William Tyndale School, the breakdown of which, when it occurred, consisted of considerably more than the curriculum. It was the curriculum, the discipline and

559
a whole number of other matters, something which, whatever part of the House we sit in, we all agree was quite deplorable. I think we would all hope, certainly the Government would hope, that when schools have governing bodies this would prevent that kind of situation from ever arising.
Lord AVEBURY: Will the noble Baroness remind us whether the William Tyndale School—which was the school I was thinking of—had governing bodies, and whether its powers were in theory sufficient to deal with the crisis that arose there? What was the sum aspect of the dispute other than the articles which led to the impasse?
Baroness YOUNG: I have not got the information as to whether that school had managers or not, but I suspect that it probably did.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: It did.
Baroness YOUNG: Thank you very much; I am grateful to the noble Lord. I believe this is the kind of matter that governors ought to look at. We are hoping very much that as we come to discuss the later provisions of school government, particularly where we are legislating, there will be provision for a minimum of two parents and two teachers and that these people will interlock—the local education authority, the teachers and the parents—in school government and therefore strengthen the situation.
I have been asked particularly why, on the narrower point of this amendment, we cannot accept what the noble Baroness, Lady David, has asked. The fact is that there are a number of matters about the roles of the local education authority, the governors and the head teachers, which perhaps one should explain in more detail. Articles of government for secondary schools are based on the provisions of the model articles issued in 1945 and cover all the matters which really have been elucidated in the course of this discussion. The rules of management of primary schools commonly follow the same pattern. We have explained that we envisage no fundamental change in the existing distribution of powers and duties.
560
One of the difficulties is that there is no agreement as to what those powers should be, and the last Secretary of State for Education, Mrs. Williams, acknowledged this when following the same line in a rather similar debate on the 1978 Education Bill in another place.
My right honourable and learned friend the present Secretary of State made the position of this Government equally plain during the debate on the Second Reading of the Education (No. 2) Bill in November 1979, when he said:
" I accept that we have not attempted to set out the powers of governing bodies any more than the previous Government did, and I accept that the reason why we have not done so is that we believe that if we get the right people on the governing bodies it is up to them to exercise their powers as they feel to be right. That was the provision proposed by my predecessor".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/79; col. 33.]
In fact, what we are saying is that we believe in leaving room for growth and change, providing for scope for the continuous development of the role of governing bodies to suit the needs of the time. The present system provides a framework within which this can and does happen, and both the recent Advisory Centre for Education pamphlet—School Governors: Partnership in Practice—and the Department of Education and Science report on local authority arrangements for the school curriculum show this clearly in their comments on the steadily increasing involvement of governors in the curriculum and educational issues more generally. If we were to agree to this amendment the Secretary of State would have to approve articles of government not only for 5,000 secondary schools but for the 23,000 primary schools.
Baroness DAVID: Surely each local authority would send up its articles of government for approval. Individual schools would not send them up. It would be only 104.
Baroness YOUNG: I agree that in that sense there would be fewer, but what the Government would be much more inclined to do would be to say that neither should be approved by the Secretary of State, rather than that both should be approved. This would be an alternative, which of course is not here.
We have considered this matter very carefully and we believe that we have

561
gone as far as we can on this question of school government in trying to strike the right relationship between central and local government. We feel that we have it in accepting the practice of secondary schools now, and we believe it would be right to leave the articles of government on primary schools to the local education authorities. We all recognise the importance of primary schools, and we shall be discussing this subject on Clauses 6 to 8. But on this particular matter the Government have gone as far as they can. They feel they have struck the right balance between central and local government.
Lord PARRY: The noble Baroness's tone was so conciliatory at the beginning of her remarks that it seemed we were very close to having an agreement that was quite fundamental to the Bill that follows. Her quotation from the Secretary of State in another place seemed to me to strengthen the argument that has been put forward from these Benches for a change in the status and the provision of a governing rather than a management body for primary schools. A great deal of evidence in this behalf has been put forward by the National Union of Teachers which is the major union representing teachers in primary schools. It seemed to me that We had reached a point where the introduction of a governing body at the primary school level would be wholly helpful to the Minister, whatever the party in Government at the time.
Only one point has not been made in argument for this, and it is the point that it is recognised that the one remaining major cohesive unit within the community is the primary school. Division arises over whether children shall be educated at a particular type of school at 11-plus, but generally speaking, particularly in the rural community, the primary school unites parents regardless of class.
The Minister made a point very carefully in direct response to a remark by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, who was making the point that there was a divisive attitude to the government of schools that reflected something deeper in the concept of education. The Minister made a very careful and well argued reply. I am suggesting that the primary school is a unifying influence and, because it is, the role of the parents in the school should be strengthened. By giving a governing
562
body of a secondary nature to primary schools the Minister would—if she is sincere, as I believe her to be—seek to achieve what she says she believes in.
Lord AVEBURY: I should like to say one more word before we conclude on this amendment. It seemed to me that the noble Baroness, Lady David, was aiming at parity of treatment between the primary and secondary schools. If the Government are really prepared to think in terms of the local education authorities approving the statutes of both primary and secondary schools, this could have been a way round it that nobody had thought of before this debate. One possible solution would be for this amendment to be withdrawn on the undertaking that on Report stage the noble Baroness would bring forward an amendment that would give parity of treatment by causing the local education authorities to have the responsibility for both sets of articles. I do not know whether this would be acceptable to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and her colleagues, but certainly it would achieve that part of what she set out to do.
I want to make one other point that occurred to me when the Minister was talking about the models. She said that in 1945 model articles were issued by the Department of Education and Science (or the Ministry of Education as it was then), in respect of secondary schools; and that the primary schools—I think I followed her words—commonly followed the same pattern; in other words, that many of the articles in the primary schools are identical to those in the model issued for guidance in 1945.
Leaving aside the fact that it is rather astonishing that so little progress has been made in 35 years—that the same set of articles is still considered to be valid—the point I want to suggest for consideration is that to relieve the pressure of work on the Secretary of State, which is what primarily seemed to concern the Minister in her answer (in that she did not want to have to look at 23,000 different sets of articles, even though probably in most instances local education authorities will have the same set of articles for all the primary schools in their areas) one possible solution to this would be for only the articles which differed from those in the model to be submitted to the Secretary of State, whether it he in the secondary or

563
primary school. So the Secretary of State would then have to consider purely the exceptions, which might be very limited in number, assuming that both local education authorities followed the pattern which was laid down by the Secretary of State.
I am not sure to what extent these models fit the needs of most local education authorities and of most sets of governors. It would be interesting to hear from the noble Baroness whether in practice the large majority of the secondary schools have traditionally followed the guidance that was laid down so long ago; or to what extent there is departure on a regional basis, to which I think one noble Lord referred earlier. In the case of the selection of the head teacher there was a difference in practice. In one case the names were submitted by the local education authority and selection was made by the governors, and in another case the names were submitted by the governors and the final selection was made by the local education authority. I am not sure which of these particular solutions was laid down in the rules in 1945. The suggestion I am making is that if the local authority follows that guidance, there need be nothing submitted to the Secretary of State whatsoever; it would automatically come into effect. But where the rules depart from the model, ultimately the DES would have to approve them. If this was a solution which minimised the number of decisions that had to be made by central Government, and fitted in with the general philosophy, which, I understand, underlies the Bill, of granting as much power as possible to the local education authority, I hope that it would be acceptable to all sides of the Committee.
3.41 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to answer the two noble Lords in reverse order from that in which they spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me whether we could not get some kind of parity of treatment between primary and secondary schools, and suggested that if we could not get any agreement on the powers of school governing bodies, the matter should be left for the local education authorities themselves to decide. If in fact that is the wish—and it is certainly not a matter which we as a
564
Government have considered; I merely stated it because our thinking would probably be in that direction, rather than in the other—it is precisely the reverse of what the amendment is asking for. It is asking for more central prescription by the Secretary of State, and not less. So it seems to me that it would be difficult.
I have been asked in particular why the Secretary of State approves the articles of secondary schools, but not of primary schools. The answer is that there are model articles laid down, based upon the proposals written in 1945, but quite a large number of authorities and secondary schools vary very widely from what has been suggested, from the model rules; in fact they do have to be looked at by the Secretary of State. One of the difficulties is that because there would be so many more primary schools they would have to be looked at, too.
I should now like to turn to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, made. I am glad that he feels that I am reasonable. I think he will find during the whole course of these proceedings that I am invariably reasonable. In fact I agree with the noble Lord; primary schools, particularly in rural areas, are often a focal point for the community. They are a cohesive unit. They are extremely important. I agree—and my colleagues agree, too—that they are a unifying influence, and they are extremely important in the life of a child. It is precisely for that reason that we arc legislating for the first time for primary schools to have school governing bodies, for there to be two parents on the bodies —something which has never existed in law before, and on which in principle I am sure we all agree, because we believe in the involvement of the parents. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, I think, that he hoped that the role of the parents would be strengthened, and I agree with him on that matter.
What we are saying is that in all our proposals on the first five clauses of the Bill we are establishing school governing bodies by statute for all types of schools. We are bringing parents and teachers on to the governing bodies for the first time. In all these matters it is a question of a careful constitutional balance involving central Government, local government, governors, parents, teachers, and, finally,

565
the children. But in the main it is a balance between central and local government, and we feel that we must balance one area with another throughout the Bill. We can debate at length the question of whether we have the balance right. The Government feel that they have, and in existing circumstances we believe we have agreement with the local authorities, who will be glad to carry out these proposals and think that they are right. Therefore we feel it right to stand where we are now in regard to this balance; but this does not mean that we do not absolutely accept the importance of primary schools—
Lord PARRY: Will the noble Baroness give way? She is very forbearing and very kind. May I make the point that the reorganisation of local government has brought about a severing, a distancing, of the control of local government by the people. This is generally felt in the whole of the country. Will the noble Baroness accept that she is not historically quite accurate when she tells us that this is the first time that this proposal is coming forward. It is perfectly true that it is the first time that there has been a management structure in certain of the schools, because they were grouped. But prior to the reorganisation of local government—and t do not mean the reorganisation in the most immediate past, but that which occurred under the 1944 Education Act when I was myself in college—there was a board school structure, which provided an immediate and closely governed visitation to the local primary school, to the point where the management actually went in every week to talk over matters of school attendance and day-to-day administration. Over the last 30 or 40 years, under several Acts of Parliament, local government has moved further away from the people, and I am arguing for a closer relationship in one area where the Minister has already admitted that it is vital.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I support my noble friend on this matter? My noble friend comes from an area that was formerly Pembrokeshire, where the seat of government is about 75 miles away from one particular part of the county. Therefore there is remoteness, and so it is more important
566
than ever that governors should be part and parcel of the community.
Baroness YOUNG: I do not think that there is any disagreement between us on what the noble Lords, Lord Parry and Lord Taylor of Blackburn, are saying. We all know that local government units became larger under the reorganisation of 1972. What was Pembrokeshire is now known, I think, as Dyfed and it consists of three counties. My pronounciation may not be quite correct, but I know where the area is. The Government absolutely accept the importance of the smaller unit, the school unit, the school governing bodies; and that is what all this matter is about—and bringing parents and teachers on to governing bodies for the first time. I cannot see how government would become less remote if the Secretary of State had to approve these articles, rather than the local education authority, which in this context is of course much nearer than the Secretary of State. Therefore I think that we should all agree on this.
Baroness DAVID: I should like to say at once that the aim in putting forward the amendment is not to gain greater control, but to give a higher status to the primary schools and to stop the differentiation between secondary and primary. My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger put that point extremely well. The Minister said that there will be no changes at this time, as if the Government might be thinking about changes in the future; but surely now, when the Bill is going through, is the time to make the change. There are major advances in the Bill. Indeed, many of the clauses are the same as clauses in the 1978 Labour Bill, which fell at the Dissolution; and I am glad that there are a good many matters on which we all agree. The Minister says that the Government recognise the great importance of the primary schools. So why not take this final step, and let us have deeds, not words? I am going to press this amendment to a Division.
3.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 123.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Gosford, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Birk, B.

Halsbury, E.

Reilly, L.

Blease, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacobson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Soper, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

Darwen, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

David, B.

Listowel, E.

Strauss, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.[Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Denington, B.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L.

McCarthy, L.

Underhill, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Maybray-King, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Parry, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Peart, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Airedale, L.

Galloway, E.

Orkney, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gibson-Watt,L.

Petre, L.

Alport, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Porritt, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gormanston, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Amulree, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Armstrong, L.

Grey, E.

Renton, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Ridley, V.

Avebury, L.

Haig, E.

Robbins, L.

Avon, E.

Hampton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Balerno, L.

Harvington, L.

Rochester, L.

Banks, L.

Hatherton, L.

Romney, E.

Barnby, L.

Hemphill, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Barrington, V.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hives, L.

St. Just, L.

Bellwin, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandford, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Savile, L.

Blake, L.

Hylton, L.

Seear, B.

Byers, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ilchester, E.

Simon, V.

Clancarty, E.

Inchyra, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Clwyd, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Spens, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kilmany, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathcyclde, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Davidson, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathspey, L.

De Freyne, L.!

Lauderdale, E.

Suffield, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

London, Bp.

Swaythling, L.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Loudoun, C.

Teynham, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Luke, L.

Tranmire, L.

Eccles, V.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Effingham, E.

Mancroft, L.

Trenchard, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mansfield, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Elton, L.

Morris, L.

Vickers, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Energlyn, L.

Moyne, L.

Wolfenden, L.

Exeter, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wolverton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Norfolk, D.

Wynford, L.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
3.59 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("foundation governors").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 is akin to Amendments Nos. 5, 13, 14, 16 and 18. Indeed, some of the others are merely consequential on No. 4. Here, again, it may appear at first sight that one is concerned only with the matter of nomenclature, but I think it is rather more than that. The object of this and the related amendments is to cease referring to governors all the time according to the body which appoints them. It is recognised that there are certain schools in which there are some governors appointed by the local authority; some will be appointed by the parents and other groups; and some will be appointed by the foundation, and are known as "foundation governors". They may be, and in many cases are, of course, appointed by a religious denomination, but that is by no means so in all cases. Indeed, in London many years ago I myself taught in a school where some of the governors were appointed by one of the minor city companies. But what we are arguing in this amendment is that we should no longer keep the specific label "foundation governors "for some of them, and that they should be referred to throughout as "governors".
The point is that it will he a good thing if all the governors of a school think of themselves as members of one body. They have not come together as rival sections, one section appointed by one group and another by another: once there they should think of themselves as working together for the good of the school.
At meetings of governors there can arise questions to which the answer is by no means obvious at the beginning of the argument and which cannot be decided by referring back to some general principles one has in mind. Many of them arc topics on which one genuinely wants to listen to the arguments and give a vote at the end according to the merits. We do not want governors to be so labelled that we think of them as: "These are foundation governors and those are not". One would not want anything approaching a kind of whipping system to grow up between different groups of governors, or one foundation governor to feel that he had a duty to vote as other foundation governors voted; and the same would apply to the local authority governors.
We want them to feel that, however
570
many the sources from which they are appointed, once they are there they are all governors on an equal footing. I noticed, looking at reports of debates in the other place on this, that there were some criticisms of some foundation governors. It was alleged on good authority —and I had effort in believing it—that about 10 years ago, if you looked at the foundation governors of certain well-known schools of this kind in Birmingham, the average age of the foundation governors was 83—to which it was argued in defence that this must have meant that they approached the problems they discussed with a great wealth of experience.
I feel that if foundation governors arc always thought of as, and labelled as, a different body, the foundation may feel, "It is all right; we are entitled to so many governors. We put them there and they stay there until a vacancy inevitably occurs". We want the foundation to feel that it has a duty to provide people who will be good colleagues with all of the other governors. If they feel like that, we are less likely to get the astounding result which apparently occurred in Birmingham.
It may be argued that we are asking for nothing more than a change in name; but the Bill shows in many of its clauses the importance (to a limited point but not inconsiderably) of nomenclature, of using words and phrases that point in a certain direction. The change that I am suggesting here would point in the direction of a body of governors all united by the fact that they were governors trying to do their best for the school from whatever source they may be appointed. I hope that the Government may be able to look on it favourably.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I support the amendment? I serve on an electricity board as a part-time member. There are two full-time members and six part-time members. We feel, as part-time members, that we are second-class citizens. This is completely wrong because we make the same decisions as do the two full-time members. The same applies to schools. Again, people find that the foundation governors feel that they are more part of the school than anyone else. I am sure that the right reverend Prelates would agree with the words in St. Paul's Letter to the Romans,

571
" We are all one body in Christ ",
and, therefore, we are all one body on a governing body. I think it very important indeed that we should all feel equal together.
4.6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: If I may break in for a moment, it would be suitable to respond to that theological expertise. In the Council of Jerusalem in the 15th Chapter of Acts, they took counsel together. And in the taking of counsel together, it was set out quite plainly that the Apostles and the Elders—and noble Lords will remember that "Elders "is derived from the word "presbyteros", which is "presbyter "or "priest "today—and the brethren took counsel together. But they took counsel from their own viewpoints and then found a greater unity in the recognition of their diversity than they would have found in the non-recognition of their original unity. Therefore, having been stung to my feet by the noble Lord's remarks, I feel that I shall now resist this amendment rather more strongly than if I had not been woken from my other thoughts on other matters. I feel that the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite ought not really to quote in this House the age of 83 in reference to the Birmingham foundation governors, because I have discovered, in the five or six years that I have been here, that our wisdom increases with our years.
Baroness AIREY of ABINGDON: I have to make the confession that I am a foundation governor. I also find, if I am unlucky enough to be rung up by the Press, that their first question is, "What is your age?" I am tempted these days to make it older and older. I make it 103 now; but I think it might get older. I have never had any feeling whatsoever of difference in voting. It had never occurred to me to vote in any way except for what I believed was for the best interest of the school. It had never occurred to me until your Lordships brought it up this afternoon that there should, where the welfare of the schools is concerned, be a difference in the voting between foundation and other governors.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: As somebody from Birmingham, I can say
572
that there are a lot of different people serving on different kinds of bodies. The foundation governors have always been a bone of contention for elected members of the educational authority in the City of Birmingham. We always found when sitting on these school boards that, somehow or other, the foundation governors had got together before the meeting started (as my noble friend Lord Stewart has said) with the idea very often of pushing through the business that they intended to push through, regardless of how the rest of the governing body felt. We felt that on many occasions this caused disharmony where disharmony ought not to have existed. This arose from the fact that somebody says "foundation governor". As my noble friend Lord Taylor said, this somehow gives a status.
In the same way, I suppose my noble friend on the Front Bench will say that if you put "PC "after your name when you become a Member of Parliament, that again gives you a certain status over and above the majority of Members of Parliament. The impression I have gained, having served as a member of the Birmingham Education Authority, is that in practice there has often been dissension at the start of a meeting when there has been no need for it, because of the close collaboration between the foundation governors and the head of the school before the rest of us have even turned up at the meeting.
The LORD BISHOP of DERBY: I am sure we all support the intention behind this amendment, but the arguments produced by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, did not lead to the conclusions at which he arrived. Those of us who serve on a variety of governing bodies know perfectly well that groups of elected governors can get together as easily as any other governors to decide in advance the line which they will take corporately. This kind of accusation which is thrown from one group at another does not help the argument forward at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has seriously impugned the integrity of a great many people who are chosen in one way or another to serve as school managers or governors. We should work towards the aim that all who serve on governing bodies should be people of integrity, who

573
can use independence of judgment and seek the good of the institution which they have been appointed to serve. I believe that merely to change the name in the way suggested would not achieve the intended result.
Viscount SIMON: I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby that one may be attracted initially by the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, but the fact is that it seeks merely to alter a name and does not alter the position in any way at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, complained about foundation governors getting into a huddle. They can still get into a huddle, whether we call them "foundation governors "or not. It would not be so difficult if there were only foundation governors and local authority governors, but we shall have parent governors and, one hopes, teacher governors. It is difficult not to use some term to distinguish the place from which a particular governor conies. I express the hope that all good governing bodies should think of themselves as governors of the school and not just as the type of governor they happen to be. However, I do not think that it helps just to change their name.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): The members of the governing bodies of all secondary schools, including voluntary schools, are already called governors. As has already been said, the Bill already provides for all primary schools, including voluntary schools, to have governors and governing bodies. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary in terms of the purpose of the clause as introduced. The fact is that foundation governors are distinguished by the specific common purpose for which they are appointed and which is prescribed in statute. They have responsibilities which are not shared by the other governors.
These amendments would have the effect of standardising their method of appointment, but the instrument of government for each school already clearly sets out how the foundation governors for that
574
school are appointed, and there may be a number of persons and bodies involved. The term in the amendment, "the voluntary body concerned ", is too vague to cover the range of circumstances involved. There is no need to standardise the method of their appointment and no reason why schools should not retain their own traditions and individuality in such matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to governing bodies on which he had served, or like institutions. I, too, have served on many governing bodies in another incarnation, not all that long ago. At no time when I was not a foundation governor did I feel a second-class citizen. I am grateful for the intervention and support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich; I was also glad to hear the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. Who does not recognise the enormous contribution to education made by the denominational schools? The noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, said that she had never felt any inhibitions in voting in such circumstances. I subscribe to that view entirely, remembering all the foundation governors with whom I have served over the years.
I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, that the existence of foundation governors causes disharmony. The fact is that there are specific statutory duties imposed on such governors, and one cannot get away from that fact. Therefore, in all the circumstances, although I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, I do not think the Committee should accept this amendment as it stands.
Lord PARRY: My noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham does not need me to defend him, but surely it is recognised that in introducing this amendment he is not simply going in for semantics. Foundation governors are like foundation garments: they exist to keep the shape of the body, perhaps long after that shape has changed beyond recognition.
The Education Act 1944 resolved a very difficult question. The interventions of the right reverend Prelates reminded us of the fact that that Act provided a happy resolution of a difficult issue. The basic question is that the position of a founda-

575
tion governor on a governing body is related to a later argument on the relationship in numbers between foundation governors and other governors. That is a fundamental point. If in an aided school or an assisted school nominees of the original body setting up that school remain as foundation governors, their relationship in numbers to the others is very important. That will be taken up by the Committee on a later clause. Therefore, it was vital that my noble friend Lord Stewart raised this point.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I am sorry that at this early stage in our discussions I have to cross swords with my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham. I have had the unique experience of having for a very long time been chairman of governors in a Catholic school. I have had to fight off, on the one hand, the Westminster Schools' Commission and, on the other hand, the ILEA. If anybody wishes to witness a buck-passing exercise, they have to look no farther than that example. If one group says that it is not its responsibility, then the other group equally says it is not its responsibility either.
I wish to correct one idea. As a foundation governor, I certainly would not stay in that position until I was 83. I have not yet reached that age. In fact, the time we served as a school governor was limited. I cannot remember any occasion when we enjoyed any special privilege. The elected representatives, in the same way as they do in the other place, were always pointing out to us that they were much more important than we were. When certain people were anxious for me to be made chairman and my period as a foundation governor had ceased, it was arranged in some mysterious way for me suddenly to become an elected governor. In that way I became chairman.
I believe that once a person serves on a governing body, the reason for his or her being there becomes unimportant. One is then concerned with the school. Therefore, although I shall support my noble friend Lord Stewart on every other amendment on this Bill, I regard this amendment as rather unworthy of him. A foundation governor who serves on a government body is no different from any other governor.
Lord BELLWIN: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for her support. It is from a most unexpected direction, if I may say so; but, none the less, very much welcome. I must say that she put it so well. It was exactly what I was trying to say but did not put quite so well. But, speaking from my own experience, I never felt in any way second-class or whatever. Nor did the foundation governors, in my experience, ever try in any way to make us feel like that. It may be I was very fortunate—and, of course, coming from Leeds, I would not expect it to be otherwise. But I must say that that is my experience. The point that the noble Lord. Lord Parry, made was very interesting; but it does not get us away from the fact that there is still a basic statutory requirement on foundation governors and therefore there they are. I still say again that I fear we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I have listened to the noble Lord opposite and to my noble friend Lady Phillips. Weighing everything up, I do not wish to press this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause I agreed to.
Schedule 1 [School government: consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Schedule I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Requirements as to governing bodies]:
4.22 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY Lord VAIZEY moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 2, line 11, after ("authority") insert ("or for a non-maintained school, namely a school which receives grants under the Special Schools and Establishments (Grant) Regulations 1959").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment—and this might be taken conveniently with some others on the Marshalled List—is an important one. There is a series of schools in the country,

577
the non-maintained special schools, which are defined under regulations laid down under the Handicapped Pupils and Special Schools Regulations 1959. They are almost entirely maintained by the LEAs. There are 112 of them. They cater for over four-fifths of the blind children, half the deaf children and a third of the handicapped children, in residential special schools.
Those of us who are concerned with special education feel strongly that this very large provision of special education which is apparently in the independent sector but is wholly maintained by the local authorities calls for them to be given the same treatment as we are giving to maintained schools in this Bill. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will feel that this idea is worthy of consideration. It is a very important group. I know that this is going to be brought forward in the White Paper on Warnock, and that the Warnock Bill will probably be presented in the next Session—at least we hope it will. It seems that this is a step which Warnock would support. Since this is dealing with school governors in general at the present moment, there seems no reason why these schools should not be included in the present Bill.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I support the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on this point because it is important. Warnock makes a similar recommendation to this. It is important that we carry the special schools with us because the special schools do not want to be any different from the rest of the schools. They want to be part and parcel. They do not want any special treatment at all, but they want to be looked upon as being part of the overall system of education in the United Kingdom.
Baroness DARCY DE KNAYTH: May I also support my noble friend? As he has already said, these schools are totally unlike other independent schools. The important point is that the education of almost all the children attending these schools is paid for by the local authorities. They are, as the Warnock Report says, part of the national system of educational provision in a way that independent schools are not. Surely these schools
578
should be brought into line with similar schools in the maintained sector. At present they are virtually autonomous and they can choose their governing bodies, subject to their trust deeds, under the 1959 regulations, as my noble friend said. Some of these schools do not have any parent governors, and some have no local authority representative governors; under present regulations, teachers are not allowed to be governors. Many parents are very worried about the lack of representation on governing bodies. I feel that they have an invaluable contribution to make because they are the people who have the day-to-day experience of looking after a handicapped child. They understand what it is all about.
Experience in the maintained sector of special schools, where parents have been elected as governors, has shown that they have an invaluable contribution to make far in excess of that of other governors because, as I have said, they have experienced handicap; they take the lead in bringing together the other parents in voluntary efforts in support of the schools, and they are the people who are most ready to take all the other children out on trips.
At the Report stage in another place on 12th February the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science conceded the principle that the non-maintained special schools should be treated the same as the maintained special schools. This is very important. At column 1383 of Hansard of 12th February, he said:
" But the question is whether the right place for the election of parent governors for non-maintained special schools is in the Bill or elsewhere. That is the only argument. I accept the principle completely. Those parents must have the same rights."
I submit that if the principle is right, then surely the right place to deal with the non-maintained special schools is in this Bill, in the clauses dealing with the maintained special schools. I hope the Committee will support my noble friend's amendment warmly.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I should like to ask the noble Baroness the Minister how many of these non-maintained schools which receive grants under the Special Schools and Establishments (Grant) Regulations 1959 do not have governors and governing bodies. I speak

579
now as vice-chairman of the Spina Bifida Association. I hope that in this Bill, when dealing with handicap schools and handicapped people, we will go forwards and not backwards. It is integration, and not segregation, that all the associations dealing with disabled people want. I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the Committee will look very carefully at this matter throughout the Bill.
Lord PARRY: I should like to associate myself immediately in support of the amendment, as president of the Spastic Society in Wales and the Society for the Mentally Handicapped there. I know of the concern of parents and indeed of the societies, although I do not commit them to my views. It is absolutely essential that it be understood that if the parent of the normal child—and I use my words carefully—has a contribution to make in the government of the school, then a parent of a handicapped family, handicapped by having special difficulties that arise out of the birth of handicapped children, has a specific contribution to make. I not only support this myself but urge my own Front Bench to give support to this amendment.
Viscount RIDLEY: May I too support this amendment. I believe it would have the general support of educational authorities in the country.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I hope the Government will accept this amendment. It is more important to have a governing body constituted in this way in a special school than in an ordinary school. Therefore, to leave out special schools is singularly unfortunate. It may be that one can deal with this if one is dealing later with the Warnock report. I see no reason why it should not be done now. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Baroness DAVID: Speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, I should like to support this amendment. I think it is necessary that these schools should have the same sort of representation and I hope that the Minister when replying will not say that it is going to be very difficult to appoint parents and so on. It may be, sometimes, if it is a non-maintained
580
boarding school, but I am sure the difficulties could be overcome.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: We, too, on these Benches are concerned about this matter and would support this amendment, but we would withhold our judgment until we hear what the Government have to say. The relationship of any special schools and the ordinary educational system is very much in the melting pot at the moment, as the noble Baroness had told us before. While I think it is an immense pity that we have not been able to deal with these matters while this Bill is going through, nevertheless we must look carefully at the various arguments. In principle, I am sure that this amendment should be supported widely throughout the Chamber.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to say absolutely at the outset how important the Government regard the position of special schools to be. May I also make it quite clear that Clause 2(6) of course applies the provision of school government to special schools. It also includes special schools, where possible, in a hospital, with slightly different provisions, because the circumstances are slightly different, as everyone who is familiar with these schools will know. However, we have gone as far as we can.
The particular series of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Vaizey and supported by many noble Lords are not, of course, about maintained special schools but about non-maintained special schools, and it is because they are non-maintained special schools that we have not been able to include them in the Bill at the present time. I was therefore particularly grateful for the careful words of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on this subject because I should like to take this opportunity, if I may, to explain how the Government see this position.
May I say right away that there are in fact very good reasons, which I hope can explain to your Lordships, why it has not been possible to cover non-maintained schools in this present Bill. One reason is that the schools are, as many of your Lordships will know much better than I, run by voluntary bodies, mainly charities, so that changes in their government would

581
in fact involve amendments to their trust deeds. It is perfectly true that the Warnock Committee considered that they should in principle be governed in the same way as maintained special schools—and may I say now that the Government completely accept that principle. We believe that the principles we have applied to what I may describe as ordinary schools and which we have legislated for in our provision on maintained special schools, including the hospital schools, should apply to non-maintained special schools as well.
The reason why we are not able to accept this amendment and therefore bring in these provisions, which we accept in principle, is that in the first place it would be very difficult to do so today, before we have had any consultation with the voluntary bodies who run these schools. Although I think we are all in agreement in principle, we cannot just ride roughshod over organisations like Doctor Barnardo's, the Shaftesbury Society, the Royal National Institutes for the Blind and the Deaf and many other charitable organisations which make such a valuable contribution to special education and who are well aware of the desirability of close involvement of parents in all aspects of school life.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: But surely there have been consultations between the Warnock Committee and the voluntary bodies on the subject?
Baroness YOUNG: I think undoubtedly there was considerable consultation. I was not myself a member of the Warnock Committee but I have no doubt that voluntary bodies gave evidence to that Committee and that they were consulted. But when the Government come to legislate upon an important issue like this, I think it would be wrong for us to agree to an amendment which concerns a non-maintained school, which is run by an organisation such as Doctor Barnardo's or the National Institutes for the Blind or the Deaf, without consulting them. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, would accept that.
This is not in any way to go back on our belief in the importance of bringing parent governors on to the boards of these particular schools. The way democracy
582
works is that you do always at least consult people before coming to some conclusions that enormously affect what they are doing. We should at the very least consult with these bodies on how parallel arrangements for parent and teacher governors could best be made, and recognise any complications that might have to be overcome. I think all noble Lords who are very knowledgeable on this matter will recognise that over 90 per cent. of non-maintained special schools providing boarding education for handicapped children frequently do so on a nation-wide basis, and the effective representation of parents on governing bodies would not be quite so straightforward as it is in the matter of a local authority school.
At this stage I should like very much to reiterate what I said when I repeated a Statement on our proposals on the Warnock Report, so that any of your Lordships who were not in the House on that occasion will know that the Government are committed to introduce an early Bill to enact a new framework of special education, substantially on the lines recommended by the Warnock Committee. There will thus be an opportunity to consider for inclusion in that Bill any necessary provisions touching on the government of non-maintained special schools. We shall be able to do so with the benefit of the arguments that have been adduced today in relation to this amendment and, I have no doubt, on the amendments relating to Clause 9, to which I shall listen with great care.
I hope therefore that, with these remarks, my noble friend Lord Vaizey will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I should like to repeat my assurance on behalf of the Government that there is nothing between us on principle over this, but we feel it would not be right to go ahead and accept these amendments at this stage. However, we shall consider everything that has been said in relation to what our proposals will be on the Warnock Report.
Lord VAIZEY: I am very grateful to my noble friend for what she has said. If I may just briefly touch on some of the points she has made, of course the problem of nation-wide catchment areas

583
is an acute one; but it also affects hospital schools, with which the Bill deals, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is correct: consultations have already been held extensively. But the Minister is equally correct in saying that before legislation is introduced consultations should be held on the basis of the proposed legislation. I also think that trust deeds are always used in a "chancery lawyer" kind of argument. Trust deeds, after all, are amendable, and presumably the Charity Commissioners exist to see that trust deeds are amended in accordance with changes in the law. That is how it seems to a naive layman, who believes that law should be the handservant and not the master of Parliament.
Having said that, since I am probably the only person present who was educated in a special school, I feel quite deeply that these are the schools which most urgently need parent governors of all kinds. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. I am well aware of the deep interest and enthusiasm of my noble friend on the Front Bench on this question. I accept her assurances, and we shall look forward very much both to the debate on Clause 9 and to the proposed legislation on the Warnock Report. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord PARRY: As the amendment is being withdrawn, may I be allowed to say that there is a real danger that the noble Baroness the Minister was arguing on both sides of the equation in support of her own position in this case, since you cannot argue that you should not introduce legislation without discussing it with interested bodies and then introduce legislation that effectively excludes them. You should also have discussions with them if they are to be excluded. I think the Minister will understand my concern when I say that there is a real worry among bodies interested in special schools that they might find themselves excluded from the educational provisions and put under a social service arrangement, which has already been done with some aspects of the special education service at adult level. If we can have some assurance at this stage that the Government do not presage anything of that nature in their proposed legislation, it will be helpful.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: As the noble Baroness was not able to answer my question about the governors and the governing bodies, I should like to ask her another question. If she is able to answer this question, it may take some of the worries away from many organisations When do the Government intend to bring in this other Bill which will implement Warnock? That is the big question. Is it to be this year or in four years' time?
Baroness YOUNG: May I first apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham? I am sorry that I did not answer her question. The fact is that all non-maintained special schools must have governing bodies, as a condition of being recognised as special schools under the handicapped pupils and special schools regulations of 1959. So I apologise to her for not giving that information. Of course, I have listened very carefully to what she and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, have said on this subject.
On the question of the Warnock Report, I do not think I can go further than I have already done. I am very conscious of the point made by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls about the difficulties that I should find myself in. I can only reiterate the assurance that I gave when I made a Statement on Warnock, that we intend to introduce an early Bill to enact a new framework. I do not really believe that an early Bill is four years on. It is too important. It is two years since Mrs. Warnock and her committee reported.
We are well aware, both in this House and in another place, of the genuine concern expressed by those who take a particular interest in special education—and this is not just a form of words. I am not myself responsible for writing the Queen's Speech, and the noble Baroness and the Committee will understand that I cannot give an absolute assurance, but it is certainly the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my colleagues and I that there will be early legislation on this matter.
I absolutely accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has made. He said that parents are very worried about the position of special schools and we

585
are well aware of this. There is a very real difficulty about legislating for special schools in this Bill, except in so far as we can do so without having to amend a great many Acts of Parliament and so on. On his point about having discussions, I think I should be right in saying that, whatever party is in power, it has discussions on legislation with interested parties. It would be unusual to have discussions with organisations that were not to be included in the Bill. We should have discussions with organisations that were to be referred—
Lord PARRY: The noble Baroness will accept that I was simply picking up her defence; that she defended herself by saying that she could not introduce legislation without having had discussions.
Baroness YOUNG: And I think, if I may say so, that this is right. We should be greatly criticised for introducing legislation and not having discussions with the bodies concerned, which are obviously crucial to these schools. We should be legislating upon the schools without discussing with the people most concerned with them. But that is in no way to get away from the essential point with which the Committee is concerned.
Lord PARRY: I thought the noble Baroness was making the point that she had in fact had those discussions.
Baroness YOUNG: No, we have not had the discussions and I would not wish to pursue this matter further. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Vaizey for agreeing to withdraw this amendment and I hope that, with those assurances, the Committee will accept that we shall certainly take these points into consideration on a future Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("(8)") and insert ("(9)").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take Amendment No. 34 with this amendment; indeed, it would be total nonsense not to discuss No. 34 with this amendment. As at present drafted, this amendment merely
586
covers the matters with which subsection (1) of Clause 2 deals. That subsection provides for certain provisions, which are then laid down in subsections (2) to (8), to be included in the instrument of government. We want to add an extra provision, which is effected by Amendment No. 34, for the election of a chairman.
At the moment, the position of schools varies very widely over the country in different types of schools. In some cases, it is extremely satisfactory but in others it is not. What we are trying to get away from in this amendment is the situation in some schools and areas about which we all know where the governing bodies of schools are dominated by people nominated by the local authority who do not have a very great interest in education. We know that there are plenty of people nominated by local authorities who have an immense interest in education, and there are a large number of extremely good governing bodies. But we also know that in certain parts of the country that is not the position, and where it is not it is often the practice that the chairman of the governing body is a straight nominee of the local education authority.
We think that this is wrong for two reasons. First, any of your Lordships who have served on governing bodies—and I suppose that that is probably the majority of noble Lords in the Committee —know how important a chairman can be on a body such as this. Pulling together representatives of different interests and people from different backgrounds to work together as an effective governing body can be a difficult task. It should be the job of someone in whom the governing body as a whole has confidence, and there can be no better way of ensuring that than by democratic election. Therefore, we should like it to be definitely laid down in the regulations which govern all these governing bodies that the chairman should be chosen by election. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said in moving his amendment, which I understand is a paving amendment for No. 34. As he will know, the model instrument of governors for county schools does, in fact, provide what he would like to achieve and this represents standard practice throughout

587
the country. However, he is quite right in saying that there are some authorities where this does not apply and, having listened carefully to what he has said, I should like to say to him that if he is prepared to withdraw his amendment at this stage I shall be happy to bring back an amendment on Report which meets the case. What we require to do is not to put this provision into Clause 2, which is concerned with the composition of governing bodies, since matters relating to the proceedings of governing bodies are dealt with in Clause 4 and in the regulations made under it. If the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, I shall bring back an amendment on Report that meets this point.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister. I am sure that this is an improvement. I did not at any stage consider that my drafting or the insertion at this point were necessarily right, and I look forward to the amendment which the Government will bring forward on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("who shall outnumber the other members of the governing body by two if that body has 18 or fewer members and by three if it has more").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I am well aware that there are opposing views on this issue. There are those who would say that in the interests of wider democracy the local education authority should not have a majority view on governing bodies. On the other hand, there are those, and I count myself among them, who say that where the local authority is responsible directly for the service—certainly where it is responsible financially for the service—then the local authority in all those areas should have a majority. I was reminded over the weekend of a local councillor in South Wales—not in my own authority, I hasten to add—who was asked whether he believed that the local education authority should have the power to appoint a majority on governing bodies. He said he thought that there were pros and cons for it and pros and cons against it!
When I arrived in local government I spent the first year on the education committee, and that was quite enough for me. I made off for calmer waters and became the leader of the authority. I found that life was much easier after that. I was usually called in to arbitrate on matters and often used to get myself into very deep water with some of the vested interests that involve themselves in education. Of course, they are very great. I even took the principle of the local education authority having the major responsibility in these matters to the point of insisting that the institute of higher and further education should have a majority of elected representatives upon it, because I felt very deeply about the principle.
I do not think that there is anybody who would say that local education authorities, as a breed, ride roughshod over the wishes of parents. I do not think that would be maintained for one moment by anybody. Certainly in the governing bodies that I have sat on there has never been a demand for parents and other interested individuals and groups to have a majority on the governing body. At the end of the day there is another court to which the parents and others can appeal—that is, the elected representatives. I found that the safety net for parents and, indeed, for anybody who is involved in education is to put pressure on their elected representatives if they wish to get things changed. In my view, this is a matter of principle. I believe that local education authorities should be able to appoint a majority to the governing bodies, and I so move.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I hope that the Committee will reject this amendment. If this amendment is passed, in many areas the effect will be that the only people who will wish to go on governing bodies will be members of the education committee. The number of governing bodies that each of them will have to be a member of in order to meet this requirement will be considerable. Each will have to be the governor of perhaps 10 schools. Whether a governor of 10 schools can really fulfil the functions of a governor I greatly doubt. It is very difficult as a governor to be interested in 10 schools rather than in one. I do not think that this is a practical proposition.

589
I speak from experience, having tried to apply it.
4.55 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: Like the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, I, too, was put on to the education committee in my first year in local government and like him I, too, eventually became the leader of my authority. So it would seem that a basic prerequisite for potential leaders is to go on to the education committee in their first year.
I feel that it would not be right to deprive the foundation governors of their majority on the governing bodies of aided and special agreement schools. It is through the opening of the governing body that foundation governors exercise their functions. The trustees, diocesan authorities, et cetera, have no other channel through which to act. The two situations are not the same. The governors of such schools are in a quite different position from the governing bodies of county schools. In particular, the governors control admissions, are the employers of the teaching staff, enter into building and other contracts and have specific responsibility for the religious instruction given in the school. Foundation governors have to be in a majority to ensure the proper exercise of their functions.
Local education authorities can exercise influence and control over county schools through a variety of channels and can properly be left to decide for themselves whether they want to appoint a majority of the governing body. Some authorities have effectively dispensed with local education authority majorities already within the limitation imposed by the present statutory provisions. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said. I know one governor who was on eight governing bodies at the same time. I readily concur with the noble Lord's view that one really finds difficulty in doing a good job in those circumstances.
Baroness DAVID: I think that there is a slight misunderstanding. If governors are appointed by the local education authority they do not have to be members of that body. They are representatives of that body and they can be chosen from anywhere. Obviously you could not have education committee members on every
590
governing body in the area, However, they are representative of the local education authority, so you can choose from a very wide field indeed.
Lord BELLWIN: Yes, I entirely accept that, but in practice it is surprising how local education authorities do in fact appoint so many of their members to so many governing bodies. If the noble Baroness, Lady David, is making the point that they should not and that they ought to bring in more from other sources, one can only agree with her.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I wonder whether I may come in on this point. I apologise for having to leave the Chamber for a few moments. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. This is absolutely stupid. I came up, as did the noble Lord, by becoming the chairman of the education committee and then the leader of the local authority. I do not know whether that is the line of thought which goes on in local authorities, but this is what happened. As chairman of the education committee, I found myself as the chairman of 27 governors or managers of schools, which was absolutely ridiculous because one could not pay due respect to the work done in the schools. When, therefore, we looked into the government and management of schools we looked very closely at this point and came to the conclusion that it was wrong for anybody to be a governor of more than three schools. We thought it was right and proper that it should be three schools. May I support the noble Baroness, Lady David, on this? We felt also that they should not just be members of the local education authority but should be people with a wide interest, right across the board, who would support the local education authority. We felt that they should be there because county councillors and district councillors cannot do everything.
There is a problem about the attendance allowance. I know that this will not go down well. Nevertheless, I should like to make it quite clear that county councillors and district councillors who were getting paid attendance allowances were running around from one governing body to the next and from one management committee to the next. It went on like that. I hope that that does not occur.
Lord BELLWIN: On the latter point, it is not all local education authorities who treat service on the governing body as a designated duty for the purpose of attendance allowances. But I do know, as the noble Lord says, that there are some who do. However, it does really not change anything. I hope that in the light of what has been said the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I found that it was rather difficult to follow some of the arguments advanced against this amendment. It does not say, or even suggest, that the governors have got to be members of the local education authority. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, aright, he argued that if this amendment were carried nobody would want to be a governor unless he were a member of the local education authority. If that was not what the noble Lord meant, he was certainly arguing that the result of this amendment would be that people would have to be governors of large numbers of schools. There is not the slightest necessity for that. The local education authority can choose people to be governors of schools without loading on to each one of them that they must be governors of more than one school, and experience shows that that is so.
A long time ago I was a manager (they are now called governors) appointed by the local education authority, but I was not—and had no intention of becoming—a member of the local education authority, and I was one of a very great many. I cannot at all accept the argument that this amendment is impracticable, because we are not suggesting that the governors appointed by the local education authority must be members of the authority. It does not at all follow, if our amendment were carried, that governors would have to be appointed to do the job in several schools. There is not the least reason why the local education authority should not—and they do—find suitable people to man all the places for which they have the right of nomination on governing bodies. I reject the suggestion that the amendment is impracticable.
Now what about the positive merits of the amendment? There is a very powerful reason in the eyes of the electors and the
592
parents; it is, in effect, that the local authority is responsible for what happens in the maintained schools. There are already some difficulties about that. When I was a Member of another place, I had parents coming to me complaining sometimes about the failure of their children to get admission to a particular school. I remember one case very well where, owing to failure of proper supervision, a boy had been killed at an athletic event. In fact, owing to the composition of the governing body, the local authority could not do anything about it, but nothing I could say could persuade the parents that the local authority was not responsible for their grievance. I do not think there is any way round this. In a maintained school, the electors, the parents, will hold the local education authority responsible. That is why we are arguing, either as Amendment No. 8 suggests, that its representatives should actually outnumber the rest, or the more modest proposal contained in Amendment No. 9, that they should form not less than half. It is a sound rule of government and democracy that power and responsibility should go together. Since the local authority is the body to be held responsible, it ought not to be in a position where it is invariably outnumbered on the governing body.
There is also this matter to consider. The local education authority is, beyond any doubt, democratically elected. We know very well that one of the problems we shall have in implementing clauses in this Bill about other kinds of governor is to make sure that their election can equally be called democratic. It is one thing to put in a Bill that there shall be parent governors and elaborate arrangements as to how they shall be chosen; it is another thing to be certain how many parents will turn up at the meeting to elect them. Indeed, I fear there is always one danger; the more complicated one makes the governing body the easier it is for people who have leisure and money. That is always something to be watched when we bring on to governing bodies of schools people who are not appointed by those, like the local council, who have gone through the proper process of democratic election. I am glad to see that the Bill is giving definite status to the position of governors other than those appointed by the local education authority, to parent

593
governors and possibly other governors as well. I am very glad that the local education authority which I know best—the ILEA—was a pioneer in introducing parent governors.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: Oh, no!
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: Well, I defer to my noble friend but I think he will agree that it was a near thing! However I believe that the responsibility lies with the local authority and that its representatives therefore ought not to be outnumbered. That is really what we are discussing in this amendment and we ought not to be put off by the suggestion that it is a necessary part of this amendment that one man or one woman should be a governor of 10 schools. There is not the least necessity for that; it is a complete red herring. Therefore I invite the Committee to consider what is really involved in this amendment: the real principle of democracy and the fact that the local authority, who in the end will have to carry the can, should not be outnumbered on the governing body.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: There is a great deal in what the noble Lord has said, as one would expect of someone with his great experience, but I think the case that he has so ably deployed is in fact a rather backward-looking one. There are enormous difficulties in producing a popularly controlled and democratically elected number of people to serve on these bodies, but we think that the forward way is the way which was recommended in the report of the Taylor Committee. We think that because it is quite clear that, over the last 10 or 20 years, citizens of this country—and not just of the middle classes—have been becoming more and more interested in having some real say in the institutions which govern their lives.
Nothing could really be very much more pertinent to that than the schools to which their children go. Therefore it is extremely important that the responsibility is spread, and the Taylor Committee said—and I quote:
" We have concluded that such a partnership is most likely to work effectively if each of the four main interest groups receives the same proportion of the places available on the governing body. We recommend therefore that as a matter of
594
principle the membership of governing bodies should consist of equal numbers of local education authority representatives, school staff, parents with (where appropriate) pupils and representatives of the local community".
At this stage we have not sought to table amendments to amend the Bill in that direction. The reason for that is that these particular arguments were thoroughly thrashed out in another place, but we think that the Bill is gravely defective in not allowing for much wider representation on these groups, and for that reason we think the amendment before the committee at the moment is even worse.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: I should like to make it clear that I do not understand the noble Lord's argument when he says that he is concerned that those democratically elected should be responsible but then proposes that a whole lot of people who have not been democratically elected should be the governors, having merely been nominated by those who are elected. I find that very difficult to understand. If his principle is right then inevitably it will fall on the members of the education committee or the education authority.
The other point I want to make is a simple one. If this Bill is to work and if governing bodies are to do the job we want them to do, the local authority must be clear that, having delegated power to a governing body to do certain things, it should leave it to do them without insisting that the local authority itself must control every detail of what happens in the school.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I should like to make it clear to my former friend the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, what we recommended. It is quite clear that he is wrong on this one about the election because what we said is this: There are the elected representatives from the local authority; there are the representatives elected by the parent body; there are the representatives elected by the teachers and the staff of the school. That is, three bodies out of the four are elected. Representatives of the community are difficult to elect because one wants to bring in people who are interested in that community. What is good for Yorkshire may not be good for Lancashire;

595
what is good for Lancashire may not be good for the ILEA, and so on. Therefore, if there is a good cross-section, they will decide. The idea was that in the first place the three bodies who were elected would meet together and then they would invite certain organisations to submit nominations. Then when they got the nominations they would in the course of time elect the fourth part of the governing body. Therefore, you will get an elected body in that way. I am sorry to waste your Lordships' time on this, but I thought it was worthwhile explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, what we had in mind.
5.10 p.m.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: I have other amendments in this group. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("and they shall constitute at least half of the total number of governors.")
The noble Lord said: The debate which has just taken place confirms my belief that the further I get away from education the better I will be pleased. I think my noble friend Lord Stewart made what were the essential points in this matter. Surely where the responsibility goes the power must go also. Amendment No. 9 is a much more modest attempt at trying to achieve that end. My noble friend said that parents in affluent areas have a great deal of power in these matters. If I may reminisce for a moment, when I arrived on the local authority it was not long before I discovered that if the public gallery was full you could hay': a bet—in fact a double—first that the issue they were concerned about was an educational issue, and, secondly, that they were from the more affluent parts of the city. There is no question whatever, if an educational issue of whatever kind takes place within a local authority area, it is certain that the issue will be highlighted and brought to the attention of the public.
What we are concerned with here is the smooth and democratic running of our schools. When I hear the comments of some noble Lords about scores of
596
elected representatives rushing round their local education areas, sitting on boards of governors and claiming attendance allowances, I wonder what local authorities they are involved in. It has certainly not been my experience. I think this is a relatively modest amendment which should pass scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: In fact I thought this was a rather surprising amendment. First, it is in direct conflict with an amendment tabled by the Labour Opposition in Committee in another place which sought to restrict local education authority appointees to no more than half the number of the governors. Secondly, it would in spirit run directly counter to the kind of experimentation in the composition of governing bodies which we are already seeing in Birmingham and other places, and which until now I had thought was welcomed by all parties. Thirdly, it would in practice be unworkable, because it would not be possible in the case of a voluntary aided school to fulfil both the requirements of the amendment and the requirement in subsection (4) that there should be a majority of foundation governors.
Our concern in determining the provisions of this clause has been to provide the maximum degree of local flexibility in the composition of school governing bodies. Subsection (2) does not require local education authorities to appoint a majority of governors for any school, and it may be that an increasing number will choose not to do so as they gain experience of the new kind of governing body which will be established by this Bill. As the Secretary of State made plain during the Second Reading debate, and as we had previously said in Committee on the 1978 Bill, we believe that it should be open to the local education authority which is responsible for the school to appoint a majority of the governors if that seems to them to be appropriate. It would, in our view, be wrong and against the interests of the efficient provision of education and the development of an effective role in that process, for the new governing bodies to deny local education authorities the right to appoint a majority if they so wish. But equally it would he wrong to compel them to appoint a larger proportion of the governing body than they might in some cases wish to do.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I make my position clear on this? I am sorry I cannot support my noble friend on this amendment, and therefore I will not go into the Division Lobby with him; neither will I support the Government.
Baroness DAVID: May I say one thing about governing bodies. I mentioned in my first amendment that if you have too many people, say half of them, not representative of the LEA you will have a lot of governors who do not know what the position is about finance and so on. They may well be passing resolutions, "We would like to have another language taught"; or "We would like to have the heating improved"; or "We would like to have new curtains". They may pass resolutions about any number of things which will be taken no heed of at all. The local authority representatives should know what the position is; they should be truly representative, but not necessarily members of the Education Committee or of the Council. I think there is a misunderstanding about who are representative and what representatives should do.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: As I listen, as an ex-headmaster, my blood runs a bit cold at all this talk about governing bodies and how they are constituted; but then it has been running pretty chilly since I read the Taylor Report. It bears so little relation to the way a school is actually run. The idea that governors will pass silly resolutions about an extra language being taught! Surely the headmaster or headmistress is there to tell them not to be so stupid because they cannot afford it. While we are talking about all these complicated arrangements about electing people who then elect other people, do let us remember that what goes on in a school—and the inspectors' reports show it—is determined more by the quality of the head teacher than anything else. Do not let us take this business of governors too seriously or we shall get our emphasis wrong.
Viscount RIDLEY: I should like to take up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I should have thought that a governor appointed by the education authority was just as likely as anybody, if not more so, to pass these hostile resolutions she spoke of.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: After listening to the noble Lord, Lord James, I do suggest that there is a large educational world beyond his experience, perhaps a less happy educational world than the one he knows. We all know that headmasters can have a considerable influence. I remember once going to a meeting in the Palace of Westminster which was to be addressed by the headmaster of Eton. For some reason most of the people coming were a little late, and it was very interesting to notice how, even in late middle age, they were scurrying along the corridor at the thought of being late for a meeting addressed by a headmaster. In many State schools it really is not quite like that, and it is no good our discussing whether it ought to be. The governors, particularly when you go to all this trouble to appoint them, expect to have some influence about how the school is run.
It is to that problem, happily outside the experience of the noble Lord, Lord James, that we have now, whether we like it or not, to address ourselves. Since we are now dealing with a more modest amendment, that at any rate representatives of the local authority should not be in a minority, I believe the argument I was advancing earlier has considerable weight. It is to the local authority that people will turn, judging them to be ultimately responsible for the school. It is the members of the local authority, who will choose these governors, who will have run the real gauntlet of democratic election in which every citizen could vote. I have over the years welcomed the advance of the idea of governors other than those appointed by the local authority. But I do not believe that it is right to derogate from the real powers and responsibilities that ought to lie with those who have, in the end, been chosen by the electorate to be responsible for the education system. That is what is at stake in this amendment.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I do not know whether I am allowed to say another word, but if I am, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that in fact I have had experience as a governor of maintained schools and I was supporting him on this matter. He might not have believed it, but I was trying to emphasise that we must not go into all these tremendous elaborations

599
about governors, when really the people who are running the school are the local authority, under the headmaster.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I hope that I may be forgiven for not quite understanding that the noble Lord was supporting me. However, as it is the wish of my noble friends to press this amendment to a vote, we shall see for certain.
Lord BELLWINM: I gather from the last remark of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, that the amendment is to be pressed. However, I should like to point out as regards the last comments that have been made, that it is rather interesting that here we have on the one hand the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who is quite clearly against the amendment and with us; then the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who stays strictly neutral and in the middle; and on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, and the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, who take the entirely opposite point of view. Therefore, who
would want to say that there can, in fact, be only one way that is right?
I believe that the Government have it right because, all else apart, if we leave aside all the other philosophical points as to what governors should and should not do, the fact is, as I said in my opening remarks, that it would be unworkable in practice because it would not be possible in the case of a voluntary-aided school to fulfil both the requirements of the amendment and the requirement in subsection (4), that there should be a majority of foundation governors.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: In the light of all the possible permutations that the Minister has suggested might come about if we were to vote on the matter, I shall press my amendment.
5.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 144.

CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Birk, B.

Gregson, L.

Parry, L.

Blease, L.

Hale, L.

Peart, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, B.

Bowden, L.

Heycock, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brimelow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shinwell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacobson, L.

Soper, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jacques, L.

Stamp, L.

Collison, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darwen, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

David, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strauss, L.

Denington, B.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Diamond, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

McCarthy, L.]

Underhill, L.

Gaitskell, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gardiner, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gordon-Walker, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Banks, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Barrington, V.

Chorley, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Alport, L.

Bellwin, L.

Craigavon, V.

Amory, V.

Belstead, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bessborough, E.

Craigton, L.

Armstrong, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Auckland, L.

Blake, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Avon, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Daventry, V.

Balerno, L.

Byers, L.

Davidson, V.

Balfour of Inchyre, L.

Caithness, E.

de Clifford,.

De Freyne, L.

Killearn, L.

Ridley, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kilmany, L.

Rochdale, V.

Derby, Bp.

Kilmarnock, L.

Rochester, L.

Derwent, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Romney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Dundonald, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Sandford, L.

Eccles, V.

Long, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lothian, M.

Savile, L.

Elton, L.

Loudoun, C.

Seear, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Energlyn, L.

Luke, L.

Simon, V.

Exeter, M.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mais, L.

Spens, L.

Falkland, V.

Mansfield, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Ferrers, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Fortescue, E.

Minto, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Galloway, E.

Monson, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Morris, L.

Suffield, L.

Gisborough, L.

Motistone, L.

Swaythling, L.

Glendevon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Swinton, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Moyne, L.

Teviot, L.

Gormanston, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Teynham, L.

Gowrie, E.

Newall, L.

Tranmire, L.

Grey, E.

Northchurch, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Gridley, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Trenchard, V.

Haig, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vaizcy, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ogmore, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hampton, L.

Onslow, E.

Vickers, B.

Hatherton, L.

Orkney, E.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Westbury, L.

Hives, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wigoder, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Wolverton, L.

Hylton, L.

Reigate, L.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 9 disagreed to accordingly.
5.33 p.m.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("and governors appointed by any other local education authority if more than ten per cent. of the children at the school come from that authority's area.").
The noble Lord said: I shall not spend a great deal of time on this amendment. It was rather a puzzle to some of us that the provision contained in this amendment is not to be found in the original Bill. In my own area there are a number of examples of children from neighbouring local authorities attending our schools and, of course, vice versa. We are not suggesting for one moment that where there is a smattering of children from another local authority, there should be representation. However, the amendment I am moving suggests that if more than 10 per cent. of the children at a school come from another local authority, they should have representation on the governing body. I should have thought this a modest amendment and one to
602
which the Government could agree. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I understand the noble Lord's intentions in seeking to establish through the governing body a link between schools and the areas from which the children who attend them come, although I am bound to say that the force of this amendment contrasts very strongly with that of Amendment No. 13, which is down in the names of noble Lords opposite. However, I think that it would be wrong in principle to give one local education authority a statutory voice in the way another local education authority carried out its statutory responsibilities; each LEA must be responsible for its own schools. The formulation proposed by the noble Lords in their amendment is in any event unsatisfactory as the numbers attending a school from a neighbouring authority could vary on either side of 10 per cent., or any other figure for that matter, from year to year, leading to continual upheaval in the governing body of the school. I, too, do not have a great deal to say on this amendment, but I am sure that this is something we can and

603
should leave to the good sense of the authorities themselves.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I should like to put a point to the Minister. In a very rural area a boy living in a remote farmhouse—either in Wales or on the edge of the Pennine Chain (and I know of both cases)—may he sent to a school which is only half a mile or a mile away in another area. On the other hand, if he is sent to a school which falls within his county or division, he may have to go three miles and be moved around. I know that the Government want to save money, but at the same time I hope they do not destroy the educational purpose of British education. Nevertheless, I hope that they will look at this amendment with favour because, although a school may be in another educational area, if a legitimate percentage of children from area X go to school in area Y, it would be worthwhile to have some kind of representation in area Y. I do not think that it would be a waste of time to offer that facility, because it could improve the amenities and the understanding in the area of those living just over the border.
Viscount RIDLEY: I hope that the Committee will reject this amendment. I speak with experience of one who has been on the governing body of a school situated very close to a boundary. I can think of nothing in this amendment which would not lead to considerable friction between the two authorities, and I am sure that it would be wrong to make it part of law. Obviously, there will be consultations, and I have tabled a later amendment dealing with this. However, to have a compulsory requirement under the Bill would be wrong.
Baroness DAVID: One of the reasons for this amendment relates to points which will arise in later clauses in the Bill. If this Bill is passed, children will find it very much easier to get places in schools that are not in their own authority area. It was for that reason that we thought it right to table this amendment. After the Bill becomes law the situation will be very different from that which exists now.
Lord BELLWIN: I hardly think that the proposal would, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek:
604
"destroy the educational purpose of British education".
I think that even the noble Lord might concede that that was marginally over-presenting the situation. Of course, my noble friend Lord Ridley is quite right; the amendment would, indeed, cause great friction. I can well imagine the real resentment there would be if this was to come about. I believe that each local education authority must be responsible for its own schools. Although, as I said, I understand the intent, nevertheless in practical terms—in terms of what really happens, so to speak, on the ground—I do not think that we can accept this amendment.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): Does the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, wish to press his amendment?
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: In the light of what the Minister has said, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 p.m.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA moved Amendment No.11:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("and in the appointment of such governors regard shall be had to the needs of further and higher education, industry, commerce and agriculture; and where appropriate community relations.").
The noble Lord said: Again, although I am disappointed with the Minister's reply with regard to Amendment No. 10, I should have thought that Amendment No. 11 should be included in the Bill anyway. The amendment simply says that the governor should have regard
" to the needs of further and higher education, industry, commerce and agriculture; and where appropriate community relations".
There is no doubt that the Minister will probably say that local authorities will almost certainly take these groups into account when they set up their governing bodies. But there are some local authorities that would not take account of the interests of these groups, who are essential to the smooth running of governing bodies. I know that on my governing body of my comprehensive school we deliberately look for people

605
with special expertise who can help the governing body with their advice.
Particularly where you have a single industry, or a group of major industries within an area, it is helpful to the governing body to have assistance from that industry, to have representation from that industry, especially where you find the industry has provided generation after generation with employment in that particular area. Many of the children who go to comprehensive schools such as mine have had that experience. We feel that it is important, and we encourage bodies who can help our children by having them represented on the governing bodies. I beg to move.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I support my noble friend on this question. It is vital that you get people who represent the community on governing bodies. For example, if you take Lancashire you get certain areas where you have the industrial community, and if you get a good industrialist on there then it is worth while because you get the connection with the industry in that area. If you are in a rural area where you have a strong agricultural connection, then you bring someone in from the agricultural community. These people can pass on advice to the staff of the schools for which the staff are crying out.
We find these days that so many people who are entering the teaching profession are going from school to college, college to university, university into teaching, and they are not getting the experience of industry and commerce, round about them. These people can give advice to the governing body as to what is going on in the community surrounding them. It is the same where you get a predominance of immigrant population where you can bring in one of the immigrant people to support and help you and give advice. This is important. I support my noble friend on this amendment.
Baroness SEEAR: We should like to support this amendment. We have an amendment down later which asks for much the same matters to be taken into account in a more specific way. But, on the belt and braces principle, we would none the less support this more general
606
amendment in the hope that we shall get support for our amendment later.
Baroness DENINGTON: I, too, would like to support this amendment. I think it may be much better in some areas, but in many areas, and in many areas in London where my experience is, there is a lamentable divorce between those who are concerned with industry and the secondary schools in the area. There has been some improvement, but so far as I can see it is minimal. I sat for a number of years on a Quango which has unhappily now been disbanded. It was the South East Economic Planning Council. This was a matter of continual concern to the industrialists on that council. They were eminent people; they were active. They were concerned with our national welfare, and they came back repeatedly to this particular subject, the divorce between our secondary schools and industry, for the very reason that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn has just given. Teachers go from school to training school or university and then back into school, and they therefore, naturally, can interest their pupils academically but cannot talk about the industrial world. They do not know the industrial world, and they do not go out into the industrial world and try to get the industrial world to liaise with the schools.
I have talked to industrialists. I have been to visit them in their factories. They are all too willing to show the children that it is not just a job on a bench, that there are progressive opportunities within their industries and there is a career structure that a child can follow, and things that they know nothing about at all in the schools. It is important in the interests of our nation that we have this close relationship between the schools and industry. It is not true in my experience that you get industrialists on the governing bodies. I have sat on governing bodies and they are not there. If we wrote this into the Bill, it could do nothing but good.
Viscount RIDLEY: I think we would all have a great deal of sympathy with the objects of the amendment. I certainly do, having been responsible for the appointment of such bodies, and anybody who can should try to get these people of experience in local industry involved. May

607
I ask the Minister whether such a clause is enforceable at law? It seems to me almost impossible to enforce.
Lord PARRY: The beauty of the amendment seems to me to be its appeal to the Government's well advertised magnanimity in this debate. They have the opportunity here to accept a view. The most serious criticism of the amendment is that it is a statement of intent, a direction, rather than something which the Government have thought to put in themselves. There is an opportunity for the Minister to accept this in view of the support that comes for the amendment from around the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, picked up a phrase of my noble friend as an example, as he thought, of tautology. I was interested that it coincided more with Ezra Pound's version of logopoeia, which was in fact a play on the meaning of words; the shade of the context. From the noble Lord we expect far more than the use of a word; we expect the context as well. From the Government we have the right to expect here far more than a play on words, and the simple acceptance that the Committee think that it is a good idea to have this amendment.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: On the question of enforceability, may I assure the noble Lord that it is common to have expressions of this kind in the qualifications expected for all sorts of boards and institutions governmentally appointed: persons experienced in industry, in commerce, the professions, or such like.
5.48 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: As for the sentiments, there is no difference at all between us. Indeed, during the debate in Committee in another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State made it clear that we wholly agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. However, in the Bill before this House we are seeking to leave the maximum flexibility in the hands of local education authorities. I have no doubt that the right of appointment should rest with them, and I think we can safely leave it to authorities in making appointments under either subsection (2) or subsection (10) of
608
Clause 2 to ensure that membership of governing bodies adequately and appropriately reflects local circumstances and needs.
While it is true in my exprience that the extent of appointments of such categories of people as are referred to in the amendment has certainly not hitherto been as extensive as one would like to see it, it would not be correct to say that one has not seen such appointments made. Quite the contrary. If it could be that this debate today and any publicity from it would highlight this to those who might offer themselves, then it might be a contribution which we should all like to see. But in terms of the amendment I would have to ask your Lordships' Committee not to accept it, while sympathising with the sentiments behind it, on the basis that we have to have confidence and leave flexibility to the authorities themselves.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: If the Minister hopes that the debate and the fact that this amendment has been put forward will encourage such people to come forward and encourage people to appoint them, how much more so would that be the case if this were written into the Bill? I am not entirely happy with the wording of the amendment—it is not just the needs of industry and agriculture, although, of course, it includes those—because it concerns the needs of the children to know about these things, and perhaps at a later stage we could have another look at the wording. Nevertheless, this is an important amendment and the Minister has not answered it. "Maximum flexibility "would in no way be impaired by acceptance of the amendment; nor can we leave it to the local authorities, as anyone who looks round some of the local authorities and their appointments will be aware. I therefore hope the amendment will be pressed to a Division.
Baroness DENINGTON: The Minister said that, if this debate got publicity, it might encourage people from industry to come forward. Is it not a fact—we must recognise facts and to me, from my experience, it is a fact—that they would have to come forward through the party political machine? I believe that is so generally throughout the country. The people of whom I am thinking are not

609
concerned in any way with the party political machine; they are the people whose services the nation needs, and I urge noble Lords opposite to recognise that. We should all be at one on this. I believe we are at one, and I therefore urge the Government to accept the amendment.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I support the amendment. For about five years, some years ago I was a governor of a boys' comprehensive school and this subject was one of those I thought terribly important. Occasionally they allowed boys to spend a day or half a day a week visiting a factory or some other institution. I really cannot understand why the Government are opposing the amendment. It is what we need at this time in this country; all our troubles would be lessened if we had one or two generations of boys who had experience in this way. Spending a day or half a day at a factory is nothing. We want to expand this idea and I therefore support the amendment not 100 per cent. but 200 per cent.
Lord HEYCOCK: As chairman of an education committee for about 30 years, I cannot see anything fundamentally wrong with the amendment. There is a tendency on the part of governors to restrict the constitutional governors appointed to local education authorities so that they are not broad-based enough to help boys and girls at that stage. However, I wish to refute one statement; boys and girls in secondary schools do visit industry; they have careers officers to assist them and the teachers are not simply academic. In many cases, they have experience of the outside world. In my view the inclusion of the amendment would assist local authorities to broaden the base about which I have spoken. After all, we are entering a changed pattern of society. The technology of our future generations is bound to have an impact on the social community and its economic input, and it is therefore desirable to broaden the base of governors in that sense. I know from experience that these people tend to be inbred, so to speak, to want to retain their own function. Speaking from long experience of these matters—chairman of six governing bodies, chairman of an education committee for many years and having had long experience of applying articles of management and articles of governors—I am certain
610
that the amendment would do nothing but good in relation to the constitution of governors.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: The Government arc being implored in all quarters of the Committee to accept the amendment, and I really feel they should. On the question of enforceability, my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger pointed out that it has been considered for a long time to he useful to put, what I would call, clauses of exhortation into a Bill; they are a reminder. It might happen that a local authority behaved in a slovenly fashion over its appointment of governors and paid no attention to the kind of thing mentioned in this proposal. If, on the other hand, the amendment were in the Bill, the Secretary of State would then have a solid ground on which to tell them to think again. Without this provision, he could not do that, and it is a well-known principle of law that if there is in a statute something which advises against a particular abuse, it is likely to raise the general standard of behaviour. Not many local authorities would ignore all these things, but the fact that if one of them did the Secretary of State could act would, I think, act as a general stimulus to them.
The argument has been used, "We want to give as much freedom as possible to local authorities". But do the Government really want to give local authorities freedom to ignore in the appointment of governors the needs of further and higher education, industry, commerce, agriculture and, where appropriate, community relations? I do not believe the Government can want to say, "We want local authorities to he free to ignore all those considerations". That is really what they will be saying if they reject the amendment. I have seen ministerial briefs for dealing with amendments, line after line, lines of notes, and notes on an amendment handed to a Minister usually begin with the word "resist "underlined. I implore the Minister on this occasion to be a devil, throw it out of the window and accede to what is clearly the wish of all parts of the Committee.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: I wish to add my voice in support of the amendment, and particularly the part

611
which refers to community relations. Noble Lords who come from large urban areas containing large numbers of people from many parts of the world know that those people feel deprived on some occasions because they feel they are not drawn into what we call the "goings on "in the area. Nothing but good could come from stating categorically that this is a representation which is vital, especially in large urban areas like Bradford, London, Birmingham and Manchester where there is a concentration of various ethnic groups. While I will not reiterate what my noble friends have said on other topics, I feel strongly that appropriate representation of community relations is vital in our inner cities.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: It is clear that a large number of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee have some sympathy with the objectives of the amendment. Many of us have tried to say what good it would do. May I ask the Minister to say what harm it would do?
Viscount ECCLES: I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said. It is a fact that some local authorities, especially when expenses were paid to governors, tended to fill governorships with their own nominees without thinking enough about the interests of the neighbourhood. It is that we no doubt want to get rid of and I am certain that my noble friends on the Government Front Bench are as keen as any noble Lord opposite that the interests of industry or agriculture, for example, should be represented. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was right when he said that the wording of the amendment was not quite what one would like to see. I therefore wonder whether my noble friend could look at the matter and perhaps reintroduce the amendment in a way which made the case for the children, because after all that is what we are after. This is something that has happened recently and the need to unify the community and its interests is much clearer to everybody today than it was five or 10 years ago, and I think this would be a step in the right direction.
6 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I intervene in this debate because I should like to make a
612
quite different point from any which has been made. The entire discussion on this amendment has centred on representative governors. The amendment talks about governors who would have regard to the needs of further and higher education, industry, commerce and agriculture and where appropriate community relations; but it is a rather similar amendment to Amendment No. 29, and the sequence which follows on that is rather more prescriptive. What the House has great sympathy with—the Government certainly do—is that the relationship between education and industry should be improved. I should like to stress that this is not going to happen simply through representative governors on school governing bodies.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to our very important consultative document, which we have just published, on a framework for the curriculum, in which the point is made that the school curriculum should look to the importance of stressing to children the need to understand industry and the wealth-creating factors in our society. This would apply to industry, to commerce, or to agriculture, dependent upon where the school is. Furthermore, we are very actively looking at the whole question in that connection of careers officers. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, who made a very important point about this, because encouraging children either to have work experience courses or to go out and see the industries in their neighbourhood is not, on the whole, going to be done by school governors but by careers officers, by the attitude of the staff in the school. This is very important. I make these points because the suggestion seems to be implied that if you do not have a school governor who is representative of industry or of agriculture or of commerce, somehow this will be forgotten in the school curriculum. This is not the case.
Baroness SEEAR: Nobody is suggesting that the governors will do it all by themselves, but if these people are on the governing body it prompts the work of the professionals who have to carry it out. It is a partnership between the two. It cannot do anything but strengthen the hands of the people who have to carry it out if those interests are also on the governing body.
Lord PARRY: To prevent the noble Baroness having to speak twice, could I make two points? We are not talking about curriculum content at all. Curriculum content is a very different subject and one which will occupy us considerably in the course of this debate. We arc talking about involvement within the community and the representation of the school, a point which the noble Baroness gladly accepted earlier this afternoon in respect of the primary schools. Having made that point, it is essential that it should he pointed out that Amendment No. 29 does not bear any relationship whatever to this amendment. The amendment, as stated, deals with community orientation. In making those two corrective points, I do not want to lose the Minister's sympathy. I want to bind it tight with this amendment. It would be a pity if, in seeking to find a reason for what is quite clearly an intention, she were to lose touch with the real feeling of the Committee on all sides that we should make a statement within the Act which will lead to a better representation on the community base of the school.
Lord HEYCOCK: We are concerned mainly with the constitution of the governors. The curriculum is a matter which does not enter into it at this stage. We are trying to broaden the base of the governors so that there is personal contact with industry. Curricula are taught by the teachers. I say this with respect. There is too much interference with the curricula and too much expert advice about what should be taught in the school without realising significantly what is taught in the school. Experts from the Department of Education and Science may visit a school twice and suddenly make up their minds that there must be a change in the curriculum. We are not talking about curricula but about the constitution of the governors. Is the future constitution of governors to be along certain lines? They should represent industry, agriculture and commerce. We should confine ourselves to that. If the government are concerned, as I said earlier, about relating to industry I do not see how they can object very seriously to this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord who said that sometimes we are concerned mainly to retain power. This amendment broadens the base of future governing bodies.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACK BURN: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is referring just to the DES or to the Welsh Office as well?
Lord HEYCOCK: They know me in Cardiff. There is no need to refer to them because they have knowledge of me over the years.
Lord MISHCON: I sympathise with the poor Minister who has now had about five interventions in the midst of a speech which I am sure she meant to be helpful but which, so far, has not been. I want to make two points to her most respectfully. The first one is a very blunt point. I speak with some knowledge having been for over 20 years associated with the governorships of comprehensive schools in the London area. If there is any complaint at all by people who are parents in a school, it is that—and I am using the word advisedly and I may be attacked for it—political hacks are too often put on governing bodies with political parties actually calling for volunteers in their midst who would want to sit as governors of schools and say they are governors. When we are looking at a new Education Bill, it is time that we gave some guidance. We are asking for no more in this connection. That is item number one.
Item number two, to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention, is this. So often I have found a principal of a school, who is immersed, and delightfully so, in academic matters and in specialist matters relating to teaching, looking for guidance in her governing body, not in regard to curriculum, but in regard to matters which are going to help the children when they leave school. So often at governors' meetings, I have found a principal looking in vain for such guidance among the managers, as we used to know them, of some schools and the governors of others.
This is a great opportunity to give guidance. It is not mandatory. It is to give guidance and I would have thought, with respect, that the Minister would have welcomed this opportunity to do something about our governing bodies and to do it in a positive way instead of weakly hoping—I do not mean that offensively and she knows that—that some words spoken in this debate and possibly recorded somewhere will be remembered by local

615
authorities in the future when they come to appoint governors in their schools.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: Might I ask the noble Ministers, who I know are loaded with questions, to remember my simple question. What harm would it do if this amendment were accepted?
Baroness PHILLIPS: I wish that the noble Lords who keep intervening in this debate would not constantly refer to broad-based governors. I have been a governor for some time and I am getting broader H the base all the time!
Baroness YOUNG: About 14 speeches ago I was last on my feet arguing a point. I will try to pick up where I left off. I am perfectly well aware that this section of the Bill does not deal with the school curriculum. I made the point because it is the other half of the argument and we ought not to lose sight of what is going on and what the staff of the school could do. I make it because I do not recognise that this section of the Bill is concerned with school governors.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was going to tell me, now that I am a grandmother, to suck eggs, but he did not. He avoided that, just. I think his words were that we should avoid too many political hacks. I am wondering how he thinks this amendment would prevent us falling into this trap. In order to find governors for governing bodies, people we would all like to see, able people serving on school governing bodies who have knowledge in this particular way, a local authority would need a list of people. In fact, local authorities are going to have to look for extra governors if they are going to have governors of every secondary and every primary school. They are going to have to extend the net very much wider than they do, and they are going to have to make the appointments. If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, has said, this is all a political fix anyway, it will not really matter whether this is in or not; it will remain a political fix. But if, as we would like to feel, we are in fact widening the net this amendment will not enable us to do it at all.
616
My answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, is that as with many of these things I do not think it would make a great deal of difference one way or the other about this matter. The fact is that if it was read by local education authorities as being prescriptive we should end up by having very big governing bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has just moved an amendment to have the majority of governors local education authority representatives. We have all agreed that there should be two teachers and two parents, so we have already got to nine governors at the minimum. There would then be the head teacher, which would bring the number to 10. There would have to be another LEA representative; that is 11—perhaps I might finish this argument; I have given way before. By the time one had a representative of industry and commerce or agriculture, higher and further education and a majority of local education authority governors, there would be a very big governing body.
On the final point about community relations, where there is a school in which the catchment area has quite a number of representatives of the ethnic minorities I would hope that they would come on as parent governors. I would welcome that as very much of a strengthening of governing bodies.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: The noble Baroness has already given away the point that I wanted to make, which is that representatives of industry and so forth are not necessarily additional. Local authority representatives and teacher and parent representatives would surely include son-le people who had that kind of experience. They should be so elected.
Baroness YOUNG: If that is the case, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening. What we are arguing for, as my noble friend Lord Bellwin made perfectly clear in his remarks, is the least prescription and the maximum flexibility. What noble Lords opposite are arguing, for is a much more prescriptive form of governing body in which there would be less flexibility and in which local authorities would be bound to find these suitable representatives for every single school.
Baroness DAVID: We are not asking for every governing body to have all these people. It depends on the area. In some areas there would be one and in other areas another. As my noble friend has said, the representatives from the local authority can provide some of the places for these people.
Lord PARRY: The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, offered some while ago what seemed to be a perfectly acceptable solution. The Minister agrees with us and has said so, and the only support she quotes in disagreement is from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who sits beside her. The feeling of the House is totally with her, and surely we should accept the former Minister of Education's suggestion that the Government look at the wording.
Lord BELLWIN: I do not think I can let that go out. The fact is that it all boils down to, "Yes, there is the agreement of everyone that the sentiments behind this amendment are what we want to see happen". We are disagreeing on how it should happen and what effect the amendment might have to ensure that it did happen. That is the issue. One may always be able to pick out the odd situation where it would not be so, but in the main the Government are very anxious to leave it to the good sense and responsibility of the local authority. We must stand on that in regard to this amendment.
Viscount SIMON: The noble Baroness said that we were adding prescription. Surely when one asks people to have regard to something one is not prescribing anything but merely reminding them of something they should do.
Lord HEYCOCK: The noble Baroness has said that there is not much difference between us. If that is the case, why can she not agree? We are asking the local education authorities to broaden their base. In the area I come from it does not necessarily mean there would be a representative of agriculture. If one lives in a rural area, one would have a representative of agriculture. The normal size of a governing body is about 18, and I am pretty certain that within the confines of that 18 one can find sufficient representation. This is not really prescribing anything. We are really saying to the local education authorities, "For goodness
618
sake, in the changing pattern of our society, please broaden the base of your governing body and bring on to it experience outside sheer local government administration". If, as the Minister says, there is not much difference between us, I cannot understand why she does not concede the point.
Baroness DAVID: Does the Minister agree with her noble friend that she ought to take this amendment back and bring it forward again better worded? I admit it is not perfect. If she would take it back and give us an assurance that such an amendment will come before us at Report stage, we will not press this amendment now. But if we do not have that assurance we shall certainly press the amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I entirely understand the view of the noble Baroness, Lady David. It is her view that this amendment should be made, and if she takes that view she must press it. Perhaps I used—I accept the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon —the wrong word when I said that the amendment was prescriptive. At the risk of repetition, I would say again what my noble friend Lord Bellwin said—that, in relation to school governors, everybody has ideas as to who would be the right sort of representative person to have on a governing body. It is perfectly clear from the later amendments that there are all sorts of other ideas, including having a pupil on the governing body.
In the case of head teachers, quite rightly it is to be left to them whether or not they would like to be on governing bodies. There is also the question of non-teaching staff. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has put down an amendment about a representative of industry and a representative of the trade unions. There is a long list of people. The further we go down this path the more we are saying to local education authorities, "You must take account of all these factors in your deliberations". I believe that local education authorities will look outside the narrow confines of their own members. I do not think that they will need the reminder that is being suggested in this Bill, which I believe will affect the relationship between central and local government at a time when we are very anxious to give local government the maximum flexibility on these matters. I am sorry but I cannot accept this amendment.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I do not want to tell the Opposition how to do their job. They are particularly active at the moment. I should have thought that if the substance behind this amendment is something that they really want to push at the end of the day, they ought not to be poaching on this particular amendment but ought to wait until we get to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, in which they specifically outline what in this amendment is a general sort of suggestion as to what governors or councils might keep in their minds. They have on the record how they feel about this question, and they have from my noble friend, and from my other noble friend Lord Eccles, who is experienced in these matters, much sympathy for the general proposition—
Baroness DAVID: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I do not know whether he was in the Chamber when the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that she and her colleagues would not press their amendment to our Amendment No. 26, if we were to press ours; that they accepted ours, rather than theirs.
Baroness SEEAR: If the noble Baroness, Lady David, looks at Hansard tomorrow morning, she will find that I did not say that. I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady David, does not understand the phrase "belt and braces". That phrase, if I may tell the noble Baroness, means that you have two safeguards against disaster.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The noble Baroness and I are very much in line on this matter. There are on the Marshalled List two proposals directed to my noble friend as to how the Bill can be improved. One is the amendment now being discussed, which adds up to nothing; it is only words and general advice. The other amendment means the same thing, but says it rather specifically. The noble Baroness tried to frighten my noble friend a little by saying that she might press the matter to a vote. Why anyone should ever be afraid of a decision going to a vote I do not know. If one is to use the weapon of a vote eventually in order to get points made, the time to vote is when we come to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, not now on this amendment. The point has been made now. It is terribly pompous of me to tell any-
620
body how to deal with this matter, but I bet that the noble Baroness's noble friend sitting beside her agrees with what I am saying. He has a vast experience in this field, and he knows that the words that one should insert in a Bill are those words which will mean something, rather than words which merely express a general idea without any force behind them. I say to noble Lords opposite: if you want to have an effect on the Bill, do not waste your vote on this amendment. You have made your point; use your vote when we get to Amendment No. 26 or 27.
My noble friend mentioned Amendment No. 27 in passing. That is what drew my attention to it. I wonder whether she can give any indication of how she is likely to react to Amendment No. 27. If my noble friend is in the position that when we get to Amendment No. 27 she may be able to go partly along the road which noble Lords are suggesting, that may prevent the vote that is being threatened now. I would not vote on this amendment. I would hold my fire and, if necessary, vote on Amendments Nos. 26 and 27.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: Since the noble Lord has referred to me so definitely, I think that I should reply. I have indeed long experience of debating with him, and it has taught me that he is almost invariably wrong, as indeed he is in this instance. One of the grumbles from the Government about our amendment is that it is too prescriptive, though the noble Baroness admitted that "prescribe "is too strong a word. But Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are rather more prescriptive; they would arouse greater hostility from the Government. When the noble Lord speaks of our wasting our vote on this amendment, does he imagine that we come here with only a certain number of votes available? If the noble Lord really prefers Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, I trust that if we are defeated, and noble Lords on the Liberal Benches press their proposal to a vote, we shall then see the noble Lord putting his feet where his mouth is.
6.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 122.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Gregson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Birk, B.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Blease, L.

Heycock, L.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hood, V.

Simon, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stamp, L.

Bowden, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brimelow, L.

Jacobson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Stone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa,L.

Jeger, B.

Strabogli, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strrauss, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Swaythling, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Darwen, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.[Teller.]

Denington, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Diamond, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.[Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Neol-Baker, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ogmore, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Parry, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Peart, L..

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Glendevon, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Alport, L.

Gormanston, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Gowrie, E.

Onslow, E.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Orkney, E.

Avon, E.

Gridley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Balerno, L.

Haig, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Reigate, L.

Bellwin, L.

Renton, L.

Belstead, L.

Hampden, V.

Ridley, V.

Bessborough, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochdale, V.

Blake, L.

Hatherton, L.

Romney, E.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Henley, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Caithness, E.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Savile, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Spens, L.

Davidson, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Stradbroke, E.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcarron, L.

De Freyne, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Strathspey, L.

Derby, Bp.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Digby, L.

Luke, L.

Suffield, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinton, E.

Dundonald, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Eccles, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tranmire, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mais, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Elton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Trenchard, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Exeter, Bp.

Monson, L.

Vaizey, L.

Faithfull, B.

Morris, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Falkland, V.

Mottistone, L,

Vickers, B.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Fortescue, E.

Moyne, L.

Westbury, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wolverton, L.

Galloway, E.

Newall, L.

Wynford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 11A not moved.]
6.33 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend is not here and I was not expecting to move this amendment, which is to leave out subsection (3). This is a probing amendment, and the point of it is that we want to find out the attitude of the Government to the minor authority representation. The Taylor Report did not favour having minor authority representation, but this clause says that there shall be at least one governor appointed by that authority. What I think we want to know is: What do the Government mean by "minor authority"? It can be a parish meeting, a parish council or a district council; there can be all manner of minor authorities. What we want to know is exactly what they have in mind, and whether they think there should be more than one governor if there are several minor authorities represented. This is almost inevitable where you have a secondary school in the country, for there are going to be a great many parish councils involved, or a district council involved. So what we should like is enlightenment. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: The Taylor Report recommended that the right of minor authorities to representation on the governing bodies of primary schools in their area should be discontinued. However, this was in the context of their more general recommendations concerning the composition of governing bodies, and they went on to reaffirm the value of members drawn from such authorities. Reactions to the Taylor Report showed that the links between primary schools and their communities are often much valued, and the last Government's Bill recognised this by retaining a right of appointment for minor authorities. Our approach to the composition of governing bodies differs markedly both from that recommended by Taylor and from that of the last Government, but we share that Government's views concerning the value of minor authority involvement in primary school governing bodies. It is for this reason that we have continued their existing right of representation, although in a form more in keeping
624
with the flexible approach to the composition of governing bodies which is embodied in Clause 2 as a whole. I must stress that the provision made in subsection (3) is for a minimum level of representation. Where it is considered appropriate and desirable locally, representation can, and I am sure will, be larger. As for the definition of a minor authority in this context, I think one would have to say a parish council, certainly, and not totally exclude but not automatically include a district council.
Viscount RIDLEY: I hope the Government will leave this provision in the Bill. I think the link between a primary school and the parish council (where there is a parish council) has proved extremely valuable, and I think it would cause a great deal of unhappiness in the rural community if this link were to be compulsorily discontinued. There are, of course, other arguments to be advanced when we are talking about a district council, which may or may not be a very large authority; and it is not necessarily a minor one, either. But where we have a parish council—and we do over most of England and Wales; or England, anyway—then I think we should try to keep this link between the primary school and the parish council if it is at all possible.
Viscount SIMON: I should like to support the view which has just been expressed by the noble Viscount. I think it would be very unfortunate not to have representation of the parish council if it can possibly be arranged.
Lord LEATHERLAND: The noble Minister bracketed together parish councils and district councils. Surely that is a mistake. A parish council is a small entity which we can all visualise, but there are district councils in the country which cover nearly 100,000 inhabitants. Surely those two cannot be treated in the same way. I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to clarify the situation.
Lord MORRIS: The noble Baroness may find it helpful if I say that in the supplementary note to Clause 2 in these very helpful Notes on Clauses which the Government have issued, copies of which noble Lords will find in the Printed Paper Office, there is a very clear definition of what the Bill means by a

625
"minor authority". Noble Lords will find it on page 5.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I am sorry I was out of the Chamber at the beginning of this debate but, as the noble Minister has quoted my committee on this, may I tell him and the Committee that the situation was that my committee was very much divided about this matter. They had mixed views and reservations about whether there should or should not be such representation. Therefore, being a very good democrat and being the chairman of the committee, I asked them to express a majority vote, and they expressed a majority vote in the way that the recommendation indicates. Nevertheless, I feel that the amendment which is laid before your Lordships—and I hope the Minister will accept this, because I think it is something which should be gone into very carefully—will certainly help us a great deal if the Minister will accept it.
Lord BELLWIN: Perhaps I may first, in order to help the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, give in detail the definition of a minor authority. It is:
."!where the area served by the school is a parish or community, the parish or community council; if the parish has no council then the minor authority is the parish meeting. If the area is a community having no council or is an area in England not in a parish or metropolitan county, then the district council is the minor authority. If the school serves the area of more than one minor authority then they act jointly for the purposes of appointing school governors. By virtue of Section 31(10) of the London Government Act 1963, in the area served by the ILEA the councils of the inner London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London are minor authorities.".
Otherwise, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ridley and to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, for their endorsement of the Government's position on this. I feel this is something desirable; but I think the amendment is one that we could not accept. It seems to me that the noble Baroness may feel that this is one that she might wish to withdraw.
Lord UNDERHILL: Although accepting the explanation of the noble Lord, could he explain the reason why a district council, which is a non-metropolitan district, should be excluded? In the "mets" we are all right; they are educational authorities. While appreciating why the parish councils, because of their
626
local contact, should be represented, why should the district council, a very important unit, be excluded? What is the reason?
Lord BELLWIN: The district council is not necessarily excluded. It is prescriptive in this sense. It is a question of the definition and in what circumstances it would fill the role of a minor authority. I thought that the definition that I read out made the point of the circumstances in which it would do so; but, by itself, this amendment and this part of the Bill is referring to the minor authority as such. I respectfully submit that that is what we must content ourselves with at this moment.
Baroness DAVID: I said that this was a probing amendment and I shall withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12A, 13, and 14 not moved.]
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert ("and the number of governors appointed by the local education authority shall be greater than the number of foundation governors.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment aims to give the governing bodies of a controlled school the same sort of rights as those of the governing body of an aided school. By Clause 2(4)(b), the foundation governors outnumber the other members of the governing body and have the majority. The point of this amendment is that the number of governors appointed by the local education authority shall be greater than the number of foundation governors in the case of a controlled school. I think it is straightforward. It puts the two on a par.
Lord BELLWIN: This amendment seeks to ensure that the local education authority responsible for the maintenance of a controlled school shall always have a stronger voice on the governing body of that school than the foundation governors. I think it is unnecessary, however, because the making of Instruments for voluntary schools is a matter for the Secretary of State, who, by virtue of Section 17(4) of the 1944 Act, must consult with the local

627
education authority and others concerned before making Instruments. It is inconceivable that any Secretary of State would seek to limit the local education authority. I think this is another instance level of foundation representation without the full agreement of all concerned. On the other hand, he would not wish statutorily to preclude the possibility if, in the light of local circumstances, there was a genuine wish on the part of all concerned for the foundation representation to be greater than that of the local education authority. I think this is another instance where we could leave it to the good sense of the local education authority.
Baroness DAVID: With that explanation, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 17, it may be to your Lordships' advantage to consider also Amendment No. 20 which is purely consequential and, possibly, Amendment No. 23, because the principle is the same. I will not burden your Lordships with a long explanation. We all know the arguments in favour of more parent governors. I must confess that I am not entirely clear on what are the arguments against them; but the arguments for them have been well rehearsed, not least in the report of the Taylor Committee. We on these Benches, both here and in another place, would like to have seen greater representation. In seeking to raise this matter in this Committee, I have had regard to the fact that I thought it was in accordance with our traditions that we did not bring forward matters which had been decided in another place on a vote. This amendment, I think, falls into that category. As a result, I suppose, it falls into the category of perhaps asking for too little; because we are now a little despondent about getting the kind of representation that we should like to see on governing bodies.
There is one specific point that I should like to make in favour of the appointment of two parent governors where, anyway, there was going to be one. It is that if you have someone else who has the same interest as you—and I use the word in its more technical sense—it is much easier to get things done and to try to push things forward. I am sure it will be said by some Members of this Committee that we do not want to have people voting in categories; that would be disastrous if we had the parent governors against the teacher governors and against the local education authority governors. I agree entirely; but none the less, I do not think that that is an argument against having a minimum of two where there are definite categories. No one can deny that the category of a parent governor is a special category representing, in a way, a special, interest and we hope, in the future, even to be elected by them.
I suppose that it is an argument which comes particularly deep from the hearts of Members of this Committee on these Benches because the Liberal Party, over a period of time in the past when it was a lot less strong in the country than it is now, suffered time and again from the situation of having only one representative on a local authority and from the difficulty that that caused. If you are to have representation at all, there is something to be said for having representation of sufficient size. I think that means, too, that there can be mutual support within the representation. The Government have given way on the point of specific representation. Parent governors are written into this Bill. When I say, "given way ", I am not implying that they did so in any way unwillingly. I think it right that they did it. But it is not open to them to argue that there cannot be specialist categories of governors. We have them. What we want to decide now is the best number in any particular category. There is a considerable case for saying that two people would be twice as effective as one.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is asking for two parent governors in voluntary aided schools. Subsection (5) of the Bill provides, as in the case of county schools, that only one of these parents needs to be elected from the body of the parents. The noble Lord

629
will see that subsection 4(b) provides that one of the foundation governors must be a parent. In this way we are setting the minimum requirement of two parents, as in the case of county schools. Therefore, we support the noble Lord's argument, and hope he will agree that his amendment is unnecessary as the point is already met.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I accept what the Minister says. I had a feeling when drafting the amendment that I did not fully understand the clause. However, I hope that the Committee will have some sympathy with me. I am delighted that the Government have covered the point in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
6.50 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("at the time of his appointment").
The noble Baroness said: The point of this amendment is that a parent governor must continue to be the parent of a child at the school. A parent could be appointed, the child might leave the school, and one would then lose the representation on that governing body of a parent with a child at the school. We wish to ensure that whoever is the parent governor should remain a parent governor at that school but that, if the child leaves, the parent will have to go off the school body.
Baroness YOUNG: This amendment seeks to strengthen the point made by Lord Beaumont on Amendment No. 17. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady David, will accept that the Bill, as drafted, ensures that there will be two parent governors in voluntary aided schools. What she is saying is that the parent governor appointed by the foundation should be able to serve beyond the moment at which his child has left the school, but that the length of time beyond which the parent should serve would be limited.
As the instrument of government for each voluntary school is made by the Secretary of State, and as we accept this
630
principle, the Committee can take it that the Secretary of State would not approve of a parent governor staying on for any length of time after the child had left the school.
If we were to accept this amendment, it would mean that at the very moment when the child left the school the parent governor would have to resign abruptly and somebody would have to be found to fill the vacancy. However, as I said earlier, the point is met in the Bill.
Baroness DAVID: How long after the child has left will that governor remain in the job?
Baroness YOUNG: We intend to see that it will be a short period of time. However, if we were to accept the amendment as drafted, it would mean that a parent with more than one child in the school would have to cease to be a governor not more than 12 months after the eldest child left the school, notwithstanding the fact that one or more children were still in the school. Therefore, the amendment as worded would not have the desired effect.
I take the point that it would be wrong for a parent to continue to be a parent representative long after the child had left the school. But since we are agreed on the importance of having two parents and do not wish to make the process automatic on the child's leaving the school, I believe that it can be left to the Secretary of State to ensure that the principle will be adhered to and the gap will not be too long.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I follow a great deal of the Minister's remarks, but I am puzzled about one matter. I can see the Secretary of State approving the instrument of government, but I cannot see him scrutinising the list of governors in each school and being aware that the child of one of them had left that school six or 12 months earlier. Will it be possible for the Secretary of State by his own action to determine that a governor does not go on being a governor long after his child has left the school? The Minister asks my noble friend Lady David not to press the amendment, on the ground that the Secretary of State will take care of the

631
matter, but can the Secretary of State possibly exercise that degree of scrutiny?
Baroness YOUNG: It would not be done by identifying the particular parent. It would be undertaken through the instruments of government which would lay down the period of time.
Lord UNDERHILL: Although I accept the Minister's point that the Secretary of State may carry out this function, we should be careful to put something into the Bill now. I do not see why we cannot delete this phrase. We have had experience of other people being summarily left off boards of governors. My wife was a councillor and a member of a board of governors. The moment she lost her seat, the Conservative majority dropped her off the board of governors, and she was summarily dismissed. We are trying to ensure that the person concerned is a parent of a child at the school. It seems sensible for the Government to accept our argument, because the Minister already admits that the Secretary of State will adjust the matter in an instrument.
Baroness YOUNG: I should make clear that in the case of voluntary schools, the Secretary of State makes the instrument. He can lay down the period of time. We are arguing a narrow point on which in principle we are agreed. Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her setting out how this matter will work.
Lord HEYCOCK: Surely the Government must lay down the principles on which these boards of governors operate. Will it not be the case that administrative officers will make the Secretary of State aware of the fact that, in accordance with the articles of government, the person concerned has exceeded the time in which he or she may be eligible to be a member of the governing body? The Secretary of State will not have the opportunity of scrutinising these matters throughout the country, but surely the appropriate administrative officers will draw the Minister's attention to that fact.
Baroness YOUNG: The way in which it will work is that the Secretary of State will make instruments of government for voluntary schools. We are committed to the principle of two parents on these
632
boards. The Secretary of State will then write in how this will apply, and he will recognise the point made by Lady David covering what happens when a foundation governor's child leaves the school and whether the foundation governor will be expected to resign at that point—in other words whether there will be a gap. There could be a small gap. If the governors are not keeping to the instrument, they are not operating within the legal framework of the voluntary aided schools, so they could not operate in this way. There could rightly be objections.
I think that we are agreed in principle. It is a narrow, technical point and, if it will be helpful to the noble Baroness, I will write to her before Report stage saying precisely how it will work out.
Baroness DAVID: With the Minister's offer, I will agree to withdraw the amendment now, and if I am not satisfied with her letter I shall have a chance to come back on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness YOUNG: I wonder whether this is a convenient moment, as we have just completed this amendment, to adjourn the Committee stage of the Education Bill for one hour.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: Perhaps the Committee will take notice of the fact that I said "Not moved "before the noble Baroness spoke, so that I do not have to come back quite so soon after dinner.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn for five minutes during pleasure. We will reconvene again to take the National Heritage Bill.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[House adjourned during pleasure from 7.1 p.m. to 7.6 p.m.]

NATIONAL HERITAGE BILL
7.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Establishment of National Heritage Memorial Fund]:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Alport): My Lords, I have to advise the House that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment No. 2.
Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("which") in line 8 and insert ("There shall be a fund known as the National Heritage Memorial Fund, hereinafter referred to as "the Heritage Fund ", to be a memorial to those who have died for the United Kingdom, established in succession to the National Land Fund,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage we had a very interesting, if slightly rambling, discussion on the name of the fund and the title of the Bill. I gave the matter some consideration, and it seemed to me that the amendment which I have here drafted might meet all points of view that were expressed. It would bring into the Bill the words "National "and "Memorial". At the same time it solves the practical problem of what it is called in ordinary life, so to speak, by referring to it as the Heritage Fund. Also, the last two lines of my amendment express something of the original purpose which it was emphasised lay behind this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am very glad to be speaking after my noble friend Lord Reigate has opened the "batting "today. Also I should like—and I do not think that we have done so on this Bill so far—to acknowledge that I am very glad that the noble Lord has been able to be here on Committee and Report, because he was one of the first to be interested in this field. I am very pleased although sometimes his knife gets sharp and my back is too close and I get frightened. Nevertheless, I am happy to see the noble Lord.
We had a long discussion, as the noble Lord said, and I said in Committee that the Government were willing to take the
634
views of the House on this matter. That still remains the attitude of the Government; the Government are totally neutral on this point. Speaking purely for myself, I agree totally with my noble friend that this amendment seems to meet the various conflicting arguments which were put forward. I for one would support him.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I apologise for not being in my place at the start of this Report stage. I should very much like to support the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate. It is rather similar to the one that my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and myself put down in Committee but it is rather tighter and neater. It seems to cover various points made in Committee. The important aspect is that it explains what it is a memorial for. It is practical enough to realise that when it comes to working the fund one is not going to be able to use this Long Title all the time. It seems to me to be admirable and, in view of what the Minister has said, I hope that we are going to have a happy concensus on this and that this amendment will be part of what I hope will soon be a statute.
Baroness AIREY of ABINGDON: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Reigate.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I, too, in the briefest possible way, should also like to express my support. I think the amendment meets in an admirable fashion all the points that were put from various parts of your Lordships' House during our last debate. I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has received it in such an amiable and kindly fashion; indeed he dealt with this in a very kindly manner at an earlier stage, and I think it shows that he may be going to do likewise tonight.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I think we should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, for having summed up the feelings of the House and express our appreciation and thanks to the noble Lord the Minister for his receptiveness.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to agree with that, too.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("Memorial").
The noble Lord said, my Lords, this amendment is consequential. My name was put to the previous amendment, and this is consequential upon that one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Alport): I have to advise your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 6.
7.12 p.m.
Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("appointed") to end of line 15 and insert ("by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my gratitude to my noble friend—I have the feeling that this will be the last time I shall be doing so—for having accepted the previous amendment. I must confess that the brilliant drafting was not entirely mine: I had some assistance. I have put down these two amendments on the Marshalled List and they are alternatives. One is to appoint the trustees
" by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister".
and the other is that people are to be appointed by the Prime Minister. I need hardly say that I entirely prefer the first. My noble friend said on Committee stage that he would reconsider this matter, and I hope that in doing so he will have noted that my previous amendment was supported from all quarters. I think we would all wish to retain so far as possible the all-party approach that has prevailed until now. At the same time, we want to make progress with the Bill and I do not propose to make too long a speech. However, I would emphasise that, with regard to the amendments, the purpose I have had in mind all through has been to raise the status of the fund and its trustees and to emphasise in the statute the independence that the trustees should enjoy.
While I am doing so, I should like to take the opportunity, having had the chance to study his speech further, to refute some if not all the arguments deployed by my noble friend. At one stage, at column 1295 he said it was modern practice to have ministerial appointments instead of appointments being made by the Crown or the Prime Minister. That is to a certain extent true, because the majority of the appointments to which he is referring arc to what are colloquially known as "Quangos ", of which there have been a great many and of which I hope there will in the future be not quite so many. But we arc talking of bodies with a rather different kind of standing, I should hope, and I refer my noble friend to the Hansard report of the other place of 14th February 1978, and 19th May 1977, where he will find listed no fewer than 40 categories of appointments—not actual appointments but categories of appointment—which are made either by the Crown or by the Prime Minister.
They are not by any means all ancient institutions such as he referred to. My noble friend, after I have mentioned the British Museum and the National Gallery trustees, told us that they were appointed under statutes set up long ago. That is not correct. The trustees of the British Museum are appointed under a statute of 1963 and the trustees of the Tate and the National Gallery are appointed under a statute of 1954. He may well say that is continuing an ancient tradition and I would be the first to agree; but it is not true to say that this is not modern practice and merely an ancient tradition. It was deliberately not altered, in my view. Certain things were altered, as, for instance, in the case of the British Museum the Archbishop of Canterbury ceased to be the permanent chairman. However, the principle and standing of the trustees were entirely maintained.
I could cite other examples, but there is only one I should like to mention. Perhaps it is one that everybody knows; namely, that the Master of Churchill College is appointed by the Crown. Why? I would suggest it is because that college was intended as a memorial to a great statesman. Are we not discussing another kind of memorial today, and does that not equally demand the same kind of standing. position and prestige that the Master of

637
Churchill College should have for that reason?
My noble friend also said in column 1529:
" Ministers!are answerable for the policy area within which the body works and they provide its money. It would undermine their standing, vis-à -vis the trustees, if they were not also answerable for the appointment and dismissal of the trustees. "
If that really undermines the standing of Ministers, all I can say is that they are pretty poor fish. Does anyone seriously believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in any way inhibited, when he is speaking to the Governor of the Bank of England, by the fact that the latter is not appointed by him? Of course not. Furthermore, I think that if anything my noble friend's words are a little sinister. They are appointed for only three years and can be dismissed after that time. I would say on that, as he kindly referred to my efforts, that I, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and many others have been trying to establish the principle of the absolute independence of the trust and the trustees—independent of the Minister or Ministers, independent of the Treasury and, above all, independent of the restrictions which may from time to time be imposed by national policy. I think it is giving the show away to talk of "the Minister's responsibility "in regard to matters such as this.
In his speech and, I think, in the speech of the Minister for the Arts in another place, reference was made to the fact that in making these appointments Ministers would consult the Prime Minister, particularly as regards the chairman. If they are going to do that, why quibble about it at all? Why not let the appointment be made in the first place by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister or, if that is not acceptable, by the Prime Minister? What is going to happen if the Ministers disagree? Who is going to arbitrate?—the Prime Minister, of course. The machine of Downing Street is perfectly capable of dealing with the making of these appointments and of ascertaining the recommendations of the Ministers concerned. I think that my noble friend, if he gives this consideration, would agree that it is far tidier and simpler to do it in this way.
Lastly, I would say this to him: this issue of who should appoint the trustees was not properly considered in another place. They did not have the chance to do it. Mr. Arthur Jones' Bill, which followed my first effort in your Lordships' House did make appointments by the Prime Minister. That was a precedent but that Bill was never discussed. I think that before we finally decide on this matter it would be best if it were accepted and the other place had the opportunity to decide. Your Lordships' House would, of course, then accept their decision. I beg to move.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords,I should like to support my noble friend's amendment, and I very much hope that the Minister will accept it. In the course of a long life, I have served as chairman of no fewer than three of the bodies which the Minister quoted when we last discussed the Bill as having their chairman appointed by the Prime Minister—the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, the Arts Council, and the Tate Gallery. I can tell your Lordships that there are real advantages in this arrangement. The fact of Prime Ministerial appointment not only gives the enterprise a particular status, which in practice means that those who administer it or who are concerned in its administration give it special care and attention, but also the chairman can, in wholly exceptional circumstances, go direct to the Prime Minister to discuss with him some matter of principle which is of fundamental importance. That I know, because I did myself on one occasion have to do it. These are real advantages and I hope that the Government will feel able to accept my noble friend's amendment.
The Earl of WEMYSS and MARCH: My Lords, may I in a very brief few words support what the other two noble Lords have said? They have made an excellent case, and I hope very much that the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill will be able to yield on this and accept either one amendment or the other. There is perhaps one additional point, in that the scope of these trustees will cover four different parts of the United Kingdom. A unifying factor for appointment, therefore, would be found if the Prime Minister or the Crown were to do this.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships' House will support this amendment, if the Government do not accept it. It is a very special body that we are creating. It is national, and the purpose of this national body is something that is very dear to the hearts of everyone. We discussed for quite a long time whether the word "memorial "should be included and we decided to keep it in. When we consider the nature of the body, there is nothing that would mark it out as more special than any other than that the appointment should be by the Crown. It is right that it should be.
I raised the question of other bodies that have Crown appointments. I think that the Minister may have been misled or was not properly briefed. I have thinking of more such bodies. I mentioned the Forestry Commission. I have checked that up, and it is right that the chairman of the Forestry Commission is appointed by the Queen. We have just left consideration of the Education Bill, to which we shall later return, and there is no ancient statute there wiping out what we in Scotland call the HMI, which is Her Majesty's Inspector. Believe it or not, it is a Royal appointment. It may be a little more ancient than the Forestry Commission. It stems from the fact that education in Scotland used to be run by a committee of the Privy Council. When you consider these things it is not unusual, but in this case it is absolutely right, and what is in the Bill is absolutely wrong. I have mentioned this before and I feel strongly about it.
The noble Earl, Lord Wemyss and March, mentioned the fact that this will cover all parts of the country—Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England—and a considerable number of Ministers is involved there. That is one of the reasons why there is a Royal appointment in respect of the Forestry Commission. There are three Ministers involved there. They make up their minds, they present a suggestion to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister agrees and then it goes to the Crown.
I was in another place for 33 years and I should not like to count the number of Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster whom I knew. There are at least three or four of them in your Lordships' House
640
now, not one of whom had anything to do with the arts. The functions of the Chanccellor of the Duchy of Lancaster depend upon the personality of the Prime Minister. He can be shifted around and given different jobs to do; and the one person who should not be in this Bill is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It may be all right just now, but if there is a change and a different person comes into office, shall we have to amend the Bill? If we do not have to amend the Bill, then we are taking discretion away from the Prime Minister and tying his or her hands.
What is the solution to it all? The solution has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, in this amendment. So from the practical point of view in respect of naming Ministers, or naming anybody at all, and from the point of view of the status of the body that we are creating, this amendment meets the case.
Lord GIBSON: My Lords, I support this amendment. This fund is not going to start life with great resources. It is all the more important, therefore, that its standing and authority is as high as we can make it.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, a further reason for supporting this amendment is that if we turn to clause 19(3) we find that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when referred to in this Bill, is to be considered to be the Chancellor.
"in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown with responsibility for the Arts".
If we so enact, it seems to me that we shall be, by statute, making the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster permanently responsible for the arts, and that may be a very inconvenient step to take in the long run.
Therefore, in any event, I should have thought it would be right to accept one or other of the two amendments of my noble friend Lord Reigate, but it seems to me that Amendment No. 5 is infinitely preferable to No. 6. There are those who would say that in strict constitutional result they would be the same, but there are reasons, which there is no need to mention in your Lordships' presence, for realizing that Amendment No. 5 would be infinitely preferable.
7.27 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I feel a small minnow in a large pool where all the whales are waiting to eat me. I have to tell your Lordships that we have taken very careful account of all that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and others said during the Committee stage. I promised then that I would look at this amendment, and I have done so. We have been told today by the noble Lord and others of a number of bodies whose members are appointed by the Crown or by the Prime Minister, rather than by the Ministers functionally responsible. These are all bodies which have been in existence for a considerable period of time. I appreciate what my noble friend said about some of them having had their existence reconfirmed by later Acts of Parliament. I do not deny that it used to be the practice for a very substantial number of these bodies to have their members appointed by the Sovereign or the Prime Minister, but it is not the practice nowadays and I feel bound to advise your Lordships that, in my view, the present practice is the better one.
I, of course, appreciate the point that appointment of the National Heritage Memorial Fund Trustees by the Sovereign, on the advice of the Prime Minister, would serve to emphasise the importance of the trustees and perhaps invest them with a little extra kudos. But let us, for a moment, examine the realities of the situation. The Prime Minister, and indeed the Sovereign, cannot concern themselves with the minutiae of heritage policy and cannot but be unaware of all the background details. Therefore, they will have to rely very heavily on the advice tendered by those Ministers who hold functional responsibility for the heritage.
As I said during the Committee stage, those Ministers are at present my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for the Environment. I must tell my noble friend Lord Renton that this is not really a problem of the Duchy of Lancaster. If ever he ceased to be involved, the Minister concerned would be put in the Bill. These two Ministers will, of course, consult the Prime Minister about these very important
642
appointments. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also made this point during the Second Reading in another place. This is not a mere formality. It is important that the chairman of any major body should be a person whom the Prime Minister has the right to approve, and when a public body is being set up for the first time this is also particularly important with respect to the other appointed members. My noble friend Lord Reigate is concerned that there would be two Ministers making the appointments. I know that he is worried about their possibly disagreeing. My noble friend Lord Cottesloe has implied that introducing the Prime Minister as referee might make matters simpler.
If the appointment of the trustees were to be made by the Prime Minister, or by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister, they would still have to look to the responsible Ministers for advice on the appointments. Governments hold collective responsibility. Where advice to the Prime Minister on appointments was required from two Ministers, those Ministers would have to get together and agree upon their advice beforehand. If they could not agree, then in this, as in other matters on which Ministers disagree, they would be able to take the matter to the Prime Minister.
I believe it is absolutely right that appointments in a particular area of Government policy should be made by the Ministers holding responsibility there and not given a somewhat spurious exaltation through a formal statutory appointment by a higher authority which does not reflect the reality of the situation. The omission of any reference to the Prime Minister does not mean that she is not consulted, nor does it mean that if the occasion arose she would not be able to act as referee.
I hope that with these words your Lordships will see the widsom of agreeing to what I am proposing and I hope that my noble friend may consider withdrawing his two amendments.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was waiting to hear what the noble Lord the Minister had to say in reply to the quite strong feeling expressed in the House. I take his point very well—first, that consultation with the Prime Minister is

643
more than a formality and that it is not just a rubber stamping. The one point which the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has brought out is how the process will work. It did not sound quite like that either during Second Reading or during the Committee stage. The Minister has also underlined the point, quite rightly, that the two Ministers involved must play a leading part, because they are the people who will operate the Act. If I were now a Minister in the Department of the Environment I would not take it very kindly if an appointment were made, either by the Crown or by the Prime Minister, of someone who, for various reasons, was going to be difficult to work with or who was considered not to be right, practically, for the job.
Having said that, it seems to me from the feelings which have been expressed in all parts of the House that it is not very much of a job for the Ministers concerned to make their strong representations. Certainly nothing should be done over their heads. But for the appointment itself to be in the name of the Crown or the Prime Minister seems to me to get the new fund off to a very much more illustrious start. I myself think that on occasions these things do not necessarily matter; so long as one gets the right person for the job, it does not seem to be of primary interest who makes the appointment. But if it is going to mean such a great deal to the prestige, then it does not seem to me that the Government are being asked to make more than rather a small jump in order to put it on the lines which have been suggested and strongly put forward by so many Members of this House.
Frankly, I do not think that this is something upon which we ought to delay the progress of the Bill, but it seems a pity that the Government cannot come to some sort of an agreement which would suit the Members of this House and which would in no way diminish the standing of the Ministers concerned.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I did not rise before on this amendment because I had no wish to impede the progress of this admirable Bill, particularly on an amendment with which every noble Lord seemed to be in total
644
agreement. But we now find that the noble Lord who is handling the Bill is not in agreement, so I have risen to make absolutely sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is aware of the extent of the unanimity in your Lordships' House on this amendment. As there are so few Members of your Lordships' House who take the view of the noble Lord, would it not be wise for him to allow this amendment to go forward so that he can find out whether there is anyone in another place who takes the view that he appears to take or whether they take the view that so many of us in your Lordships' House take.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord the Minister is not in the position of a little fish faced by whales. He is endeavouring very hard to play the part of King Canute. He is asking the waves to roll hack; but they will not roll back. I should like the Minister to know that from these Back-Benches, in the same way as from the Tory Back-Benches, quite apart from the Front Benches, there is unanimous support for Lord Reigate's first amendment, upon the basis that all of us want this, not—and I thought this was an unhappy phrase—in order that the fund may have spurious elegance but so that it may have genuine national prestige. That is what we all want, and I hope the Minister will realise before he replies that there is not one noble Lord who has risen who is in support of the point of view that he has advanced.
Lord GLENDEVON: My Lords, I agree very strongly with my noble friend's amendment and with everybody on both sides of the House who has so far spoken. I cannot understand the Government's attitude. It is not a vital constitutional point; of course it is not. Why can they not try to do what this House wants and then see what another place decides? I quite see that my noble friend did his best with what he was trying to say, but it seemed to me that he was simply putting up Aunt Sallies in order to knock them down.
He said quite early in his speech—I think I am quoting him correctly—that the Prime Minister could not be expected to be bothered with the minutiae of a body like this. But does the Prime Minister in other bodies where she has the right of

645
prior appointment bother with their minutiae? Of course she does not. It is that kind of argument which distressses one a little about what I think is a sort of shadow boxing display by the Government, which I repeat I cannot understand.
By way of a suggestion to the noble Lord who spoke last, I should like to put in one quick word for King Canute. He did not try to keep back the waves. He told his courtiers that they themselves were being very stupid to try to do it. This mistake is always made, and that has upset me, too!
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I was not suggesting that King Canute would make this appointment, but I must make this defence for myself. King Canute did ask the waves to go back, though only because some foolish people asked him to do so. I feel that the noble Lord the Minister is in exactly the same position.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, 10 noble Lords have spoken and there has not been a single dissenting voice. The most eminent people in your Lordships' House who are interested in the arts have all agreed with one another. I should be very foolish to press my luck in the face of such wisdom. I am quite sure that if we called a Division now my noble friends would all seek advice from the Members of the House sitting here and that the unanimous opinion would be that my position is wrong. In the face of that, I must not be like King Canute. I must advise the House that I will accept what they are doing.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I am so surprised by what has happened that even my noble friend could have knocked me down with a feather. I of course choose Amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 6 was very much a second best, and I can think of a lot of arguments against it. I am delighted that in the face of this unanimous feeling my noble friend has been so generous as to agree. I have here pages of abuse which I should have poured upon his head if he had not done so, but I am now able very happily to tear up all my notes.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate,
646
would agree that some kind of consequential amendment will necessarily have to be made to Clause 19 when his amendment has been accepted. However, there would be no difficulty about that. While I am speaking on Clause 19, may I say that with deep respect I join issue with my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton. When he endeavoured to convince your Lordships that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster —
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt my noble friend. It is the Report stage and we are only allowed to speak once. We have not much time so perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to take my advice so that we may continue.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, I will take that advice but I think my noble friend will have to reconsider what he said about the effect of the use of the words "Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Jacques): My Lords, Amendment No. 6 cannot be called.
Clause 3 [Grants and loans from the Fund]:
7.41 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 7.
Page 2, line 23, after ("outstanding") insert ("archaeological").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19 and 26. I hope I shall have a helpful answer, as the atmosphere seems to be so right at the present moment. I do not want to repeat all that I said in regard to the number of museums because that is already on record but since the last stage of the Bill I have received considerable support for my view. I am worried about the guidelines. Guidelines can be ignored, torn up or changed by a Minister and I should like to see the strength of the law written into this Bill. For example, there has been a marvellous chalice found in Southern Ireland and it was not found by historians but by archae-

647
ologists and the history is now going to be written up by the historians. The sepulchre was found by archaeologists and not by historians and then, as we know, it was written into the Bible.
Also, in subsection (7)(d) of this clause there is one mention of the Secretary of State acting in the discharge of his functions under Section 5 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 or Section 11(1) or 13 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Acts 1979, That seems to tie up with my amendments. Also I should like to mention that in Schedule 4 to the Finance Act of 1975 paragraph 17 there is reference in other words to the "in lieu "system as distinct from the business of trustees in Part 1 of this Bill. I should like to know whether there will be pre-eminence for the archaeological property and whether it will qualify. For instance, would Stonehenge be covered? I am merely giving that as an example because there may be other monuments of the same kind in the future and I should like to know whether they are safeguarded. I beg to move.
Lord MOW BRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I had hoped that we might have disposed of these amendments on the strength of what I said previously. I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, feels very strongly that the term "archaeological "should appear on the face of the Bill but I must make it quite clear that the Government feel equally strongly that these amendments should be resisted.
I must tell my noble friend Lady Vickers that in no way am I open to argument on this amendment because we think it is totally unnecessary. The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Reigate did something positive; this will not be doing something positive. As I made clear in Committee, there are two main reasons why we cannot accept the inclusion of the word "archaeological "in the Bill. The first is that it is quite unnecessary—the terms "scientific "" historic "and, in appropriate cases, "artistic "do cover archaeology. Second, and I think far more important, there is a real danger that by inserting the word ," archaeological ", we may restrict the very wide legal interpretation which can at present be
648
placed on other words in the Bill, and particularly in Clause 3(1), and this, in turn could restrict the trustees to help in individual cases.
I should respectfully like to remind my noble friend that at the Committee stage we had two similar sets of amendments purporting to clarify the Bill. One was moved by my noble friend Lord Sandford, adding the words "restore "or "restoration "and the other was moved by my noble friend Lord Teviot adding the words, "record repositories". My two noble friends accepted the force of the arguments, which apply particularly to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness has referred specifically to the eighth century silver chalice which was recently found in Ireland, and I can again give her a categorical assurance that had that happened here the trusters would have been able to help in an absolutely unrestricted way. They can help with the acquisition and the preservation of such an item. I keep repeating that it is covered by the term "historic and artistic "in Clause 3(1)(b) and I should also like to reassure the noble Baroness—which I know she does not find satisfactory—that the guidelines given to the trustees will make it crystal clear that the provisions of the Bill include the archaeological matters with which she is concerned. I hope the noble Baroness will now accept the assurance that I have given and will withdraw her amendment, because I assure her that I am not in any way prepared to give way on this amendment.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I cannot very well say, "Thank you "for that reply because it is not in the least to my liking. I am disappointed about this and I was disappointed in the other House because there were 17 Members on the Committee, 15 attended and when it came to the vote only seven voted, which seems to show a lack of interest in both Houses. However, I will withdraw the amendment and perhaps I shall bring it back at the Third Reading.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the amendment is withdrawn I should not like the noble Baroness to be under any illusion. We are hoping to have a formal Third Reading and I should not like her to feel that I have misled her.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the amendment has not yet been withdrawn I should like a firm assurance from the noble Lord, in view of his refusal to accept this, that the archaeological interest will go into the guidelines to the trustees and be drawn to the attention of their potential clients, so that as far as possible there is no chance of some archeological object of great value to the heritage being missed because the word "archaeological" does not appear on the face of the Bill.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I give that firm categorical assurance and while I am speaking I failed previously to mention Stonehenge. That is, of course, already in national ownership and if such a thing occurred the trustees would be able to use their discretion.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 12 not moved.]
7.49 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 29, leave out second ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be delighted to hear that this amendment and those following are designed to meet the point raised in Committee by a number of your Lordships, in particular by my noble friends Lord Wemyss and March and the Duke of Grafton, that the trustees should be able to assist with the acquisition of rights in or over land, even though it is not intended to acquire the land itself. Having considered carefully the debate in Committee, the Government accept that there may be occasions when it would be desirable to acquire rights over the land surrounding a piece of heritage property in order fully to protect that property. To take an example, much used in Committee, it may be desirable to acquire shooting rights over land around a nature reserve so that they could be extinguished. These amendments, if accepted, would enable the trustees to give grants to help with the acquisition of such rights.
There is one further point. Some concern has been expressed that the trustees
650
should be able to help purchase not only rights but also restrictions over land without actually purchasing the land. I can assure your Lordships that the amendment as drafted covers this point. Rights and restrictions are, so to speak, different sides of the same coin. If rights over land can be secured then rights to restrict the use of that land can also be secured. There is no need to refer to restrictions specifically in these amendments. I should add that Amendment No. 13 is a paving amendment and Amendment No. 17 is consequential. I beg to move.
The Earl of WEMYSS and MARCH: My Lords, may I say a word before the amendment is put. It does, of course, as the noble Lord has made clear, go together with all the others up to No. 17 inclusive. This is an entirely satisfactory answer to the points which we were urging at Committee stage, which particularly arose out of the experience over many years of the National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland. I think the conclusion, if all these amendments are passed, is entirely satisfactory, and I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, all I would say very briefly is thank you very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("association") and insert ("connection").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert ("; or
(e) any rights in or over land the acquisition of which is in their opinion desirable for the benefit of land or a building or structure falling within paragraph (a) or (d) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do beg your Lordships' pardon. I had spoken to No. 15. I had not spoken to No. 14. I am in a quandary. What do we do? Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 17 go together, which are the ones I have spoken to. I inadvertently said I had spoken to Amendment No. 14. Perhaps

651
when we get to Amendment No. 16 I can speak to No. 14 then, because those two go together.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.54 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("associated") and insert ("connected").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do beg your Lordships' pardon and especially the pardon of the Deputy Speaker. This amendment goes with Amendment No. 14. The amendment is designed to ensure—and I am really talking to Amendment No. 14 now—that the meaning of Clause 3(1)(d) is not construed too narrowly. The Government amended Clause 3 in another place to enable the trustees to help with the acquisition of land, buildings or objects other than heritage property which they felt was needed because of their connection with heritage property. Since then we have thought further and now take the view that the word "association "could in the context of the Bill be taken to mean historical association. This interpretation would rule out the possibility that the trustees might wish to help with the acquisition of a car park or viewing point for a piece of outstanding scenic land. The use of the word "connected "avoids this problem. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 40, after ("associated") insert ("or, in the case of rights falling within paragraph (e) of that subsection, the land building or structure for whose benefit they arc acquired").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I undertook in Committee to give further thought to the necessity of retaining subsection (4) in the light of representations made in this House and in another place. We have brought forward this amendment to remove it. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, since my noble friend Lord Donaldson and I felt very strongly about this particular amendment, which now enables the trustees to make loans as well as grants, I think this is a tremendous improvement and I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Other expenditure out of the Fund]:
The Earl of WEMYSS and MARCH The Earl of WEMYSS and MARCH moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 26, at end insert ("subject to section [Acquisition and acceptance of certain property and directions as to its disposal] below").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 20, 22 and 23 all go together, so perhaps I may be allowed to speak to them together. I am not in the least enamoured of these amendments. What I should like to do, if it were possible, is to strike out subsection (3) of both Clause 4 and Clause 3, but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, will not accept that. It is my hope that the noble Lord will accept Amendment No. 23, which bears the substance of what I am going to speak about, Amendments Nos. 20 and 22 being merely verbal leads in from Clause 4 and Clause 5, referring the reader of both to the next clause, which presumably would be No. 6, that is referred to in Amendment No. 23. I am sorry it is so complicated.
The object is to prevent the trustees having to ask the Ministers every time they want to acquire or accept property. The clichéwhich we have made, and which is the only really important point here, is that the trustees, being obviously good, substantial, trustworthy people should not be entirely fettered. Presumably when they are appointed the chairman will talk with the Minister, or Ministers, and be asked among other things to be very careful not to acquire property, not to acquire another Heveningham unless they are quite sure they can pass it on to the National Trust or some other suitable receiver. They should have some sort of discretion, and if they do not all the assurances given both in another place and in your Lordships' House, that the trustees are to have unfettered dis-

653
cretion, are really negated. I know that time is getting very short, so I will say no more but hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, will have second thoughts, as he has before now, and accept Amendments Nos. 20, 22 and 23. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the Government must, I fear, resist these three amendments. The purpose, as the noble Earl has said, is to give the trustees discretion to acquire or accept gifts of property up to a certain value of the fund's resources, but at the same time to place a limit on the length of time the property may be retained. As I made clear in Committee, we feel strongly that the trustees need not, and should not, have discretion in this particular matter; and though we have carefully considered the point again we remain of that view, for a number of reasons.
First, we do not believe that an occasion will arise when the trustees will have to move so quickly—even by way of giving a financial commitment—that they would not have time to consult Ministers about their proposals. Particularly where land and buildings are concerned transactions are slow; with works of art it is usually known well in advance what will be up for sale, and for the most part it will be museums and galleries who will be the acquiring bodies.
In the very rare case where the trustees needed to move very quickly to acquire an item, they could always seek an urgent meeting with one or other of the Ministers concerned at which the proposed acquisition could be discussed and, if appropriate, approval given. Though I would be the last person to deny that Ministers are busy people, I have no doubt that, in important circumstances, Ministers would be prepared to meet the trustees at very short notice.
Secondly, I think that we must give a thought to the costs involved in maintaining heritage property. These may be small in the case of paintings or manuscripts but, where land and buildings are concerned, they could constitute a heavy drain on the resources available to the fund. And while, under the proposed amendment, the trustees could only acquire items up to a value of 20 per cent. of the fund's total resources without permission
654
from Ministers, the costs of running, maintaining and repairing a property could add significantly to the bill and take it well over the 20 per cent.
Last, but certainly not least, the Government would argue that discretion to hold property for up to three or 12 months without Minister's permission, as the noble Earl proposes, is, effectively, a power to hold property indefinitely. For if, say, the trustees were to acquire an historic house for which they could not find a new owner within 12 months, what could Ministers do but agree to the property being retained until a suitable new custodian could be found—perhaps in two, three or even four years' time? And during that period, the costs of maintaining the property would steadily he eroding the resources available for grants and loans for other equally or perhaps more deserving causes.
For all these reasons, the Government feel it is entirely right that the trustees should not be given absolute discretion to acquire property themselves without Ministers first having the chance to discuss with them what is involved. I believe that, far from finding this requirement a hindrance, the trustees might well find it helpful to have the authority of Ministers behind a decision to acquire. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl, Lord Weymss and March, will now agree to withdraw his amendment so that the Bill can make progress.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think it is rather a pity that the Government will not accept that there could be some circumstances in which the trustees could be landed in a situation where it was vital for them to hold the property, even for a short time. I cannot imagine that the trustees—and I accept that it is not their job—would buy up property in the form of land or objects and hold on to it for even a short period. However, there is an outside chance and those of us who would like to see this provision inserted in the Bill in some way feel that the amendment would take care of the odd eventuality instead of shutting the door completely. I do not know whether the Government would be prepared to look at the matter again?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House,

655
I should like to say that we really can think of no such occasion when a Minister cannot be reached to be asked.
Earl HAIG: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl on this amendment. One knows that so often opportunities arise for trustees and there are inevitable delays during which one has to ask permission from a Minister and those opportunities may be lost. Sometimes the trustees themselves are difficult to reach. Meetings have to be arranged and there will in any event be delays. I should like to support the amendment.
Lord GIBSON: My Lords, I also should like to support the noble Earl. There may well be occasions when this would be a tactical advantage, although one appreciates the argument which the Government have put forward. It is a pity that the Government do not feel inclined to accept the amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the noble Earl and I shall do so very briefly. I cannot accept the assurance that Ministers will, at all times, be in the same place and readily available. There have been occasions when Ministers have been held up in isolated places. I can remember an instance when the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, could not get away from an island in Scotland for some days—and some days may be vital in certain cases as regards acceptance.
The Earl of WEMYSS and MARCH: My Lords, I thank the various noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment. But, in view of the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, it is probably useless for me to take the matter further. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my first amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
8.5 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 31, after ("parent") insert ("or foster parent or guardian").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21. This is probably an unnecessary amendment and I move it really in order to receive an assurance that it is unnecessary. I am not a lawyer and there may be a general rule of law that would cause the word "parent "always to include "guardian". However, I do not know—and I should like to be reassured on this that it always includes "foster parent." In this context it seems to me important that whoever is, in fact, in charge of the child and responsible for its welfare should have the same rights under this clause of the Bill as are enjoyed by a parent.
The only reason that I am rather fussy about this matter is that I remember that, as regards the law concerning housing, there used to be a provision whereby a landlord could turn his tenant out if he needed the premises. Certain degrees of relationship were prescribed and they did not include somebody who had been the tenant's foster child. I should like to be reassured that in every case the person who is responsible for the child has the same rights as the parent. Perhaps the Government will be able to tell us from what legal provision that springs. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I can give the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, an assurance on this point. The amendment is quite unnecessary. "Parent "throughout the Bill has the meaning ascribed to it by Section 114(1) of the Education Act 1944, which says:
" Parent ', in relation to any child or young person, includes a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person".
Therefore, that covers both points that the noble Lord has raised.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I am greatly obliged to the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert ("and this governor shall not serve longer than 12 months after any child of his has ceased to be a pupil at the school.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 22. I imagine that, as the Minister offered to write to me about the other matter in Amendment No. 19, the matter raised by Amendment No. 22 will be covered in that letter. If I can have that assurance, I shall be pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: Yes, I am glad to give that assurance and I shall cover the matter in my letter.
Baroness DAVID: I thank the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22A and 23 not moved.]
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert ("in addition to a parent appointed as a foundation governor under subsection 4(b)(ii) above").
The noble Baroness said: I think that again this amendment will be covered by the letter which I am looking forward to receiving from the Minister. If I have that assurance I shall withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: The particular point raised in this amendment is, I think, slightly different from the point upon which I said that I would write to the noble Baroness. However, I can assure her that the amendment is unnecessary. The Bill, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, earlier, provides that the governing body of a voluntary aided or special agreement school must include a parent appointed as a foundation governor under subsection (4)(b)(ii) and quite separately that it must also include a parent governor —which is defined in subsection (5) as a parent elected by other parents of children at the school. This parent governor could not also be a foundation governor as defined in Section 114(1) of the 1944 Act; that is, a person appointed for the
658
purposes specified there. The instrument of government of aided and special agreement schools, which under Section 17 of the 1944 Act is made by order of the Secretary of State, would in any event provide separately for these two categories of governors. I have explained this fully so that we may have it on the record for Members to refer to.
Baroness DAVID: I thank the Minister very much. In fact, it was my mistake. I have a note on my amendment "covered already ", and it was covered by the statement of the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and not by the earlier statement to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.11 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I may be being rather dense about this, but I should be grateful if the Government can explain the significance of subsection (6). It deals particularly with a school established in a hospital. I can understand why in some cases in a special school it might he difficult to provide for parent governors—the school might be a very small size. I cannot quite see why it should be more difficult if the school is established in a hospital than if it is not. I should be grateful if the Government can explain why this subsection is included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I must confess that when I saw this amendment I did not quite understand the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, in tabling it, but I now understand that he wants an explanation as to what this clause really means.
As I indicated in an earlier debate about special schools, we attach great importance to the fact that the school governing provisions should apply to maintained special schools, and those include hospital schools. The noble Lord has now asked me why, in fact, the provisions are not precisely the same for hospital schools. Subsection (6) allows local education authorities to appoint parent governors to certain types of hospital schools where

659
it is impracticable to hold elections among the parents of pupils attending the hospital school. This situation arises in hospital schools serving specialist or general hospitals where the average length of stay of pupil-patients is about one week. It would not apply to hospital schools located in long-stay mental handicap hospitals, where it should be perfectly practicable to elect parent governors.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, will himself be very familiar with the different types of case. We were anxious to ensure that both types of hospital schools were covered and that the provisions of subsection (6) would apply only where there were so many short-stay patients that it was quite impracticable to have a parent of someone in the hospital school. I hope that the noble Lord will accept this explanation and will, therefore feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I am obliged to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Jacques): I understand that Amendment No. 26 will be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) Local education authorities in appointing governors as laid down in subsections (2), (3) and (4) above shall have regard to the desirability of appointing persons:

(a) with special knowledge of educational matters,

(b) with personal links with the relevant school,

(c) living in the immediate neighbourhood of the school.").

The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said, this amendment is shown on the Marshalled List in the wrong names and should be down in the names of myself and my noble friends on these Benches. It has also been suggested, possibly because of that mistake, that it would have been right to take Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 as if
660
they were a whole. That is not our intention and so, when I have moved Amendment No. 26 and it has been put, my noble friend Lady Seear will move Amendment No. 27 as an amendment to it. This is not a sign that there is any dissension in the ranks of the Liberals, but they are, in fact, two slightly different types of amendment.
The amendment which I now move is very different from the ones that were considered before dinner in the names of noble Lords on the Labour Benches, whereas the amendment to be moved by my noble friend Lady Seear has a considerable connection with those other amendments.
My amendment is to do with a very general recommendation as to the qualifications for governors. Much as I approve and completely support the view that the local education authority should try to recruit people with particular interests of one kind or another, my amendment says that the governors should be chosen with a very definite reference to the school itself and to the interests of the particular school. Your Lordships are always moving in the middle ground between those who say, "Of course, this is common sense, and anyone with common sense would do it ", and those who have bitter experience of some parts of the country where, in fact, this has not been done in the past.
Therefore, I still maintain—as I did on the previous case which we considered—that it is very good that we should write this into the Bill so that it is there and can be referred to; so that anyone rising in a committee—whether it is a committee of the local education authority or wherever—can quote chapter and verse when trying to put his case forward. Although this Committee stage is still very "young "—I did not mean that!—I think that it has gone very well so far. I was tremendously surprised the last time this point about people being qualified was raised, that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, felt bound to turn it down. It seems to me that here was a case when on the whole and except for the Government Front Bench, everyone was agreed and no one could see a really rational objection to what was being suggested. If that applied then to the amendment being put forward by the Labour Front Bench, as I think it did,

661
surely it applies even more to this particular amendment, which is milder and which is concerned wholly with educational matters and matters to do with the immediate vicinity of the school and people who will be interested in the school. I still think that it is necessary that it should be included in the Bill and should be underlined, and, therefore, I beg to move.
8.19 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR Baroness SEEAR moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, Amendment No. 27:
At end insert—
("(d) two of whom shall be persons actively engaged in industry.").
The noble Baroness said: We now have the opportunity, pointed out to us by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, to vote for a more precise and definite Motion than the previous Motion, which merely suggested that persons with knowledge of industry—I deliberately do not use the word "representatives "—should be included on the boards of governors. Unlike the previous amendment, this amendment requires that there should be two persons with knowledge of industry. I am sure someone will say, "You have said industry ' and not ' commerce and agriculture '". I am using industry "here in the sense in which it is used in the standard industrial classification, which embraces both agriculture and commerce. It is a generic term; it means persons actively engaged in spheres of work.
The reason why we are pressing this is due to the overriding need, which was stressed in the previous debate but which I wish to underline, to get into the councils of the schools knowledge of what goes on in the world of work. We cannot exaggerate the need to get this link established and established quickly. Looking around in the industrial field, in the economy generally, to put right the ignorance in the schools of what youngsters need when they go into the world of work is one of our crying necessities. We all know that youngsters are being inadequately prepared for the world of work in many schools not through ill-will, but through sheer lack of knowledge of those concerned about what those youngsters are going to face when they leave school.
We had arguments deployed earlier this evening. I want not only to underline them but also to underline the urgency of doing something about this. Of course, the noble Baroness the Minister was right when she said that the work in this connection would be done by careers advisers and school teachers, but it is important that there should be people on the governing bodies who can ask probing questions; who can help to establish links between the schools and places of employment; who can put forward the ideas and suggestions that can only come from people who are themselves involved and up-to-date—and I underline "up-to-date "because so much of what is said in the educational field about industry is decades out-of-date—so that they can bring forward knowledge of what the world of work is like today. I stress this as a matter of the greatest urgency.
I know that the noble Baroness will say that we can leave it to the good sense of the governing bodies. But the governing bodies have presumably had good sense for a long time, but they have not done it. If they had had the good sense, they have not used it. It may be because some of them at any rate did not have the good sense. The fact that we may be legislating, in a way that is unnecessary even, maybe, for the majority—though I doubt it—still is no argument against legislating because the minority is an important minority. I beg the Committee to think again about this matter which we discussed earlier, and to take the opportunity to vote positively to make sure that we get people with up-to-date knowledge of the world of work on to the governing bodies of all our schools. I beg to move.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I do not want to repeat again everything that I said earlier in the debate, but I want to emphasise what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said. In going round the country and visiting many schools and listening to many people in the teaching profession, I find that they are crying out for this. They themselves wish this to happen. They wish to know what is going on. They want to get involved, because they find that they are completely at a loss as to what is going on in industry, using Lady Seear's definition for industry. They wish to know all this.

663
I was greatly disappointed that we did not take advantage of the situation in the raising of the school leaving age for this link between the schools and industry at that particular time. This is a golden opportunity for us to accept this, and for us to be a bridge between ourselves and industry, and try to encourage people to take an active part in what is going on. I support the amendment.
Lord SEGAL: While very reluctant to speak against this amendment, which I should imagine has a great deal of sympathy on both sides of the Committee, to insert two "persons actively engaged in industry ", may I ask whether we ought not to be rather careful to see that both these people are not actively engaged in one side of industry? Ought we not to be precise and see that they are accurately balanced, one on one side of industry and one from the other side of industry?
8.25 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: I should first explain that the amendment is defective, as there is no provision in subsections (3) or (4) for the local education authority to make any appointments. It is under subsection (2) that a local education authority will make its appointments to the governing bodies of all maintained schools.
At first sight this Amendment, like Amendment No. 11, seems a reasonable and desirable one. But the Government believe that it should be the responsibility of the local education authority to decide how the local community should be represented on governing bodies and that the selection of appropriate individuals for this purpose can and should be left to their good sense. It is precisely to facilitate this that we have proposed in the Bill only a basic framework of minimum levels of representation, leaving the overall size and detailed composition of governing bodies for local education authorities themselves to decide. The Bill already provides for parent governors, who will in most cases live close to the school and will always have personal links with it. Beyond that I do not see any point in providing in statute for old boy or grand parent governors. Teachers may be presumed to have some specialist knowledge and we are not trying to set the governors up in competition. While I entirely accept the
664
desirability of governing bodies being constituted so as to provide a link with the world of work, I say as I have said several times, I am sure that the way this is done should be left to the good sense of LEAs. I am sure in any case that we would not wish such links to be limited to representatives of industry—other amendments we are considering show that the net can and should be cast wider than that.
For that matter there are many groups besides these listed with a strong claim to representation on school governing bodies. Amendments proposed in another place listed no fewer than nine such groups: higher and further education, industry, commerce, agriculture, community relations, non-teaching staff, pupils, trades unions, employers—and one could think of others like universities. To list all of them would have no more effect than to list none of them. The Bill provides in Clause 2 for any of them to be represented and I am sure that it must be for local decision in the light of local circumstances how individual governing bodies should be composed.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, said that so far as he knew schools were crying out—I think he said—for it to happen. Indeed, if that is so here they have the opportunity to make it happen. It is to be within their powers henceforth so to do. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Segal, made was very apposite, because he feared that they may be all from one side. They might in some circumstances indeed all be from one side; but then to get a balance you would have to specify, if you did not want that, that there would have to be one from one side and one from another. Then you would have to start to define the one and the other. Then you would have to consider the relative merits of the claims of others as well.
I suggest we would come back to the basic point that, at the end of the day, we have to leave it to the local education authorities. if, in fact, as perhaps quite fairly the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, the track record so far in that sense is not what we would like it to be, well that is for attention in another way. But for us to prescribe by statute precise detail of the kind now submitted I think would be wrong and would be self-defeating.
Lord HEYCOCK: In considering any new Act of Parliament surely we profit from experience. I assume that the amendment before us this evening is one drawn from experience. I am pretty certain that it was the intention of the noble Baroness to talk in terms of curricula, which is the broad base on which teachers talk in terms of careers; careers masters who have contact with industry, and give guidance to the children. Those are factors within the curricula of a school.
What is being said here is, leave it to the local authorities to give guidance. If this is the 18th amending Act to the 1944 Act, one would assume in the broad sense that we have drawn from experience. What is being said clearly is that if we have members from industry on a governing body, then that would lend added experience to the normal experience of people collected there.
I do not want to get vocational guidance in the school at any early stage in any sense, but to enter the broad curricula and teach children until they are 16 years old. Frankly, I am appalled when I hear it said that we give all authority to local authorities. How can that be the case when local authorities are restricted in many ways? We will come later to the whole question of school transport and a variety of other things, and we must accept that there are restrictions on local authorities. Therefore, on the one hand it is a said, "We must give them this kind of flexibility ", while on the other we say, "These restrictions will be placed on them". The Government cannot have it both ways.
What I am putting is a logical argument; we must broaden the base of the governors. Yes, we must get them from industry and whatever other trades and professions are relevant, and if I were in my area of Port Talbot, probably the steel industry would be related in this context. if I lived in an agricultural community, I would draw the governors from agriculture. What we want is a variety of interests, economic and social, related to the schools.
Bearing that in mind, I am surprised that on this simple and elementary amendment the Government should be sticking their feet in. It is all very well to say that local authorities should have
666
freedom, but I warn that if the Local Government Bill ever reaches your Lordships' House we will see how much freedom local authorities are getting. We cannot use the word "freedom only when it suits us. Let us use flexibility of freedom logically—and that goes for when noble Lords express reasoned argument—and if the Government accept the amendment I will believe they believe in freedom.
8.33 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: It may be for the assistance of the Committee if I say that we on these Benches are not entirely happy with the Government response to our amendments, and therefore we think it right to divide this argument, as it is divided on the Order Paper, into two, because if we do not get the right response we are prepared to divide the Committee on both sections. There are certain matters which I would adduce in reply to the Minister's comments on Amendment No. 26, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), but I will hold my fire on that because I know that my noble friend Lady Seear wants to respond.
At this stage the only point I would make is in response to the statement by the noble Lord that the amendment was badly drafted because it referred to subsections (2), (3) and (4). I think he will confirm that it is right in referring to subsection (2) and it is wrong only in that I did a sort of blunderbuss blanket fire and included subsections (3) and (4). If the Committee accept that point, I undertake to withdraw subsections (3) and (4) on Report. Thus, putting off for the moment the important points I want to put about Amendment No. 26, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and returning now to the amendment to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Seear, I do not think the Minister produced an adequate answer to that, but I think my noble friend would wish to take it from there.
Baroness SEEAR: Beacuse we have already discussed this at some length, I do not have a great deal more to say, except to confirm what my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley said, that if the Government cannot accept the amendment I am afraid I shall have to divide the Committee.
Lord PARRY: I hesitate to intervene, and I am encouraged only by the sudden reappearane among us of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who promised us a great deal of attention on Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 before he disappeared, so perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I say that it might be helpful to the Committee in its present mood of family interest in what is, after all, a family subject—namely, education, whatever our backgrounds—to note that my noble friend Lord Heycock is a man who has put a lifetime into the service of education in Wales and is greatly honoured among my countrymen for the service he has rendered. When he speaks, he speaks on (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Amendment No. 26, because he has special knowledge of educational matters "and "personal links with the relevant school".
When I stayed recently with his son, I found his grand-daughter being taken to school by her grandfather before he caught the train to your Lordships' House, and he delivered her to the local nursery school. My noble friend is therefore totally connected. He lives in the immediate area of that school and has been all his life actively engaged in Welsh industry. I suggest he is typical of men and women on both sides of the Committee who have given service in local government. I am sure we would all join in refuting some of the sneers we hear from time to time about the quality of that service by men and women of all political parties who devote their time and energy, as my noble friend Lord Heycock has done, to the furthering of the chances of a new generation in this country.
It is in this context that I will read to the Committee a letter I have received which is germane to the amendments under discussion. It is from a Mrs M. E. Carter, who, so far as I am aware, I do not know; but 1 say that in defence because my wife may hear about this debate. Mrs Carter writes from 32 Cannon Street, Cherry Orchards, Shrewsbury, Salop, and she says:
" Nursery education and the Education Bill. I wish to bring to your notice the need for nursery schools and hope you will bear this in mind when the Education Bill is brought to the House of Lords. I believe nursery schools play an important part in preparing young people for formal school and teaching them gentle disciplines and how to make friends with other children, which is obviously advantageous. Nursery schools provide
668
employment for teachers and enable mothers to go back to their careers after they have had children. In my opinion, nursery schools are necessary in our present-day society and I hope you will bear this in mind when considering the Education Bill".
That letter has probably also been addressed to many other noble Lords, who would have received it, as I did. At times we must screw our courage to the sticking place, to quote William Shakespeare, and in this debate at some time noble Lords opposite must give way to the general feeling which they express and share with us and allow us at least one amendment, and I hope this might be the one.
Lord GRIDLEY: I intervene briefly to say that I find it difficult to support the amendment. I was chairman of a board of governors, although it happened to be a girls' school, which I found very interesting, and I should have thought that when one was considering the appointment of governors to the governing boards of schools it would be unnecessary to stipulate to education authorities the provisions they must take into account when making the selection. I should have thought—and it is my experience that they do think—that it would be of importance to select a governor with special knowledge of educational matters; certainly they would look at the desirability of having somebody with relevant links with the school itself, and one would equally certainly look for a person who was living in the immediate neighbourhood. I therefore cannot see that it is relevant to suggest that the amendment should be passed, for I sincerely feel that these considerations are borne in mind by the education authority.
Lord AUCKLAND: I have given a great deal of study to these amendments and, although I am not on the board of governors of any school, I have two close relatives who are chairmen of boards of governors and I have close links with at least two of our local maintained schools. I much prefer Amendment No. 26(b) as being by far the most logical of the amendments tabled, and one which I am sure in any case is applied to the majority of schools. Once we go into all the professions, industries and so on, bearing in mind that the Bill covers the entire country —not only Wales and the North, but Surrey, Sussex and so on—I agree with my noble friend Lord Gridley that it is the

669
local authorities which, after all, have wide experience, whatever their political persuasions might be, of deciding these factors. The vast majority of school governors are involved in industry, commerce, medicine, agriculture and so on, although admittedly some of them may have retired from those trades or professions. I believe that Amendment No. 27 is unnecessary, because where do we stop? The local authorities should have the say. That is, after all, why they are democratically elected. I hope this amendment will fall.
Baroness DAVID: I am absolutely amazed at the negative attitude of the Members on the Benches opposite. We have got a new Education Bill and we want to do something with it. To say that everything is all right, thank you, is not good enough. We have had no new arguments against this amendment which were not offered against Amendment No. 11 which we put forward. It is quite extraordinary that this amendment cannot be accepted by the Government.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I want to say only a few words. There is always the possibility that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, may arrive while I am saying them. The Government are being most tiresome and really pernickety about this. Lord Bellwin's first objection to Amendment No. 26 was that it was defective. Apparently it was defective because the words "(3) and (4) "in it were unnecessary. Being equally pernickety myself, I should have thought that made it excessive rather than defective. It certainly was not defective in the legal sense because the presence of those unnecessary words would not have invalidated the effect of the rest of the amendment. That has been the level of the Government's comment. But on the serious issue, surely the position is this.
It has been made plain during the debate on these amendments, and on the earlier amendment moved from our Benches, that there is very widespread feeling in the Committee that it would be useful to give a general guide to local authorities asking them to remember the claims of industry and the other things which have been mentioned when they are appointing governors. That seems a widespread view. Ballots are fashionable
670
today, particularly among supporters of the Government. I have a feeling that if we took a ballot of Members present in the Chambers at this moment we would have a majority for these amendments or for the earlier one. The Minister was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, if she could say what harm it would do. That question is still totally unanswered, except for one very odd answer indeed. Lady Young pointed out that if an amendment which I moved earlier, which would give the local authority representatives at least half of the board of governors, had been carried then these amendments would have made the total number of governors too great. Since my amendment was not carried, there is no substance in that argument at all.
I cannot help feeling that somewhere at the back of the Government's mind there lies the real reason why they are obstructing this amendment, but I cannot for the life of me guess what it is, and I do not believe anyone else can either. The reasons against so far have been quite trifling: we want to give the local authorities freedom. Do you want to give them freedom to ignore every reasonable consideration when they are appointing governors? Since the Government are on the point of bringing in a Bill that is to tic local authorities hand and foot financially, what is all this talk about giving them freedom? There has been no conceivable real objection. I accept that there may be faults in the wording of all the amendments. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, pointed out the answer to that. The Government have only to say that they are warmly in sympathy with the objects of these amendments, that it would be desirable to put something of the kind in the Bill, and that they will produce a reasonable, workable amendment in that sense on Report, and they will receive congratulations from all sources. I really do beg the Government to do it.
8.44 p.m.
Lord BELLWIN: Perhaps I might deal with the points raised more or less in the sequence in which they were raised. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said about the respect one would have for the noble Lord, Lord Heycock. It goes without saying at all,

671
unreservedly. He said that it would be useful to have such categories of people on the governing bodies. Of course it would. He went on to say that it would broaden the base. Indeed it would. But the point we are making is, but not by statute, for the reasons which I mentioned earlier and which I will, if I may, touch upon again in a moment.
I should like to make one comment on an observation which Lord Heycock made and which Lord Stewart just touched upon. Lord Heycock said that he was not sure if the Bill was coming into this House. Let me give him an assurance that it will be coming. Let me also say, as I have already indicated, with no disrespect—I hope never—that I need no lessons from anyone when we talk about freedoms for local government; that my personal aspirations for local government are as deeply held as those of anyone else in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, is always so persuasive, often very hard to resist. Sometimes it is not easy so to do. I heartily endorse his sentiments, again without reservation, about local government. He will always get me to respond to him on that. I did not think his reference to nursery schools was terribly relevant to this particular amendment, but why not get it in anyhow? The sentiments were there, and why not? I was grateful to Lord Gridley for his support and also to Lord Auckland, who really hit the nail on the head and referred to the kernel of our objections to accepting this amendment, despite the fact that I repeat again that with the basic philosophy behind it there is no difference between us. The fact is—Lord Auckland said it—where do you draw the line? I touched on it in a category of nine groups which were mentioned in another place as an example that they, too, would feel that they should be included, and why not? That is the whole point. We are saying "By all means, yes, it would be a good thing. Yes, do let us broaden the base." But at the end of the day it has to be left to the local authorities to do it, because when one starts to try to categorise them, to list who should be in and who should not be in, one runs into trouble and takes away from the local authorities.
Lord Stewart wondered what was the
672
motivation. It had to be, as he saw it, something sinister, because he could not see the merit of it on the surface. May I assure him that there is nothing sinister at all. It is precisely what I have said. It is no more, but it is also no less. Regretting as I do the fact (one would like to be so helpful and accommodating—and, who knows, in other ways we may be at times) I fear that on this matter the Government have to stick by their line.
Viscount SIMON: The Minister said something about taking things away from the local authorities. It is not clear how this amendment takes anything away from the local authorities.
Lord BELLWIN: Perhaps that was slightly out of context. I was referring to the matter of freedoms for local government generally. I think that was the point I made. I was referring to something else.
Lord MISHCON: Before the Minister makes up his mind finally on this matter, which is very important, would he consider it with some of the clarity of thought with which he usually indulges the House but on this occasion has failed to do so? As I understand it, his main point is that we are dealing with the exercising by a local authority of its discretion; that that discretion ought to be a very wide and unlimited one when it comes to the question of the appointment of governors. I certainly do not bow to anybody in this Chamber, if I may say so with humility, although the phrase did not start off with humility, on the point of view of respect for the powers of local government. I believe I am entitled to say that.
This is not the question. For example, if one tries to look at the logic of the Minister's argument, one turns immediately to a clause of this Bill that we have already looked at. I am referring to Clause 2(5), which says:
" The governing body of a county or controlled school shall include at least two parent governors!"
That is national policy laid down. Can one not argue that local education authorities have got the good common sense to say that parent governors ought to be included in their midst? Why include that in a Bill? Why not say to the local

673
education authorities, "We can trust you. You have got common sense. You want parents included "?
Subsection (6) of Clause 2 states:
" Subsection (5)!shall apply to a special school maintained by a local education authority!"
It goes on:
"!it appears to the authority to be impracticable for the governing body to include parent governors it shall include at least two governors who are parents of children of compulsory school age."
Subsection (7) says:
" The governing body of a county or voluntary school or a special school!shall if the school has less than three hundred registered pupils, include at least one, and in any other case, at least two teacher governors!"
Again, nationally we are laying down to the local education authorities, without peradvanture, without giving them the slightest discretion, a mandatory provision that they shall include parents, because otherwise they would not dream of it, and they shall include teachers because they have not got the intelligence to include teachers.
Then we come to a question of national policy which in my respectful submission is even more important, however important teacher inclusion, pupil inclusion and parent inclusion may be. One comes to a national crisis at this moment in regard to the contribution that the next generation can make to the industrial life of this country. It is the biggest national problem that we have got. Those of us who do not agree with that could not have been at the debate in this House —what a fine debate it was—on the Finniston Report. We have got an opportunity, because of national policy and national need, and in a national Parliament, to say, "Please, local education authorities, nationally we realise the importance of this. Include in your governing bodies those who are schooled in industrial life and those who may therefore encourage in our schools the sort of product from the schools which will be of use to the nation in time to come".
I must comment on the sheer incongruity, the illogicality of providing—I must repeat it—an insistence upon local education authorities as to the number of parent governors and the number of teacher governors but saying it would be
674
such an infringement of local authority powers and such an insult to local authority intelligence that we cannot give them this guidance in a statute, because guidance is all it is. If the Government decide to adopt this attitude tonight, it is not just a question of obstinacy. It is a question of losing a golden opportunity to put in a national Bill that which we need so badly in the years ahead.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Having listened to the last summary I find the Government's attitude prosaic and anachronistic. Driving up today and listening to my radio, I heard that new impetus is being given to teaching this generation of children the art of electronics: how to use computers, buying computers for schools and working out what they will cost. If anything needs to be known today by nations it is that they have to keep up with the new impetus in industry.
When the 1944 Education Act was published the Fabian Society produced an excellent pamphlet on the Butler Act. One of its final paragraphs asked how we were going to give the engine and the power to this new Act. The engine and the power to the generation of the future are based upon different mathematics from those I was brought up on and different from those which my wife, who has an honours degree in mathematics, was brought up on. It is a completely new approach, and unless into the schools of today are brought people who are aware of the advances, the electronic devices, computerisation and cybernetics which are entering into modern industry, one is bringing up a gang of people who can only use the pick and the shovel.
I am therefore suggesting that one cannot turn down jestingly the constructive debate which the Committee has had today. The future of Britain depends upon the quality of the children we produce, children who are alert and can master the magnificent knowledge which is at the fingertips of mankind today. No longer are we a bunch of agricultural labourers and a bunch of shopkeepers. We are a nation whose destiny depends upon our ability to compete with the rest of the world educationally and also in industry and its subsidiaries.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I fully agree with the eloquent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. The only point where he is wrong is in thinking that that kind of thing has very much to do with the governing body. I have indicated this before. What really is going to deal with this revolution which some of us know something about, being scientists, is having properly trained, good science teachers and other teachers in our schools. The members of governing bodies do not really—nor should they—have much to do with cybernetics or the technological revolution. They meet about once every three months or whatever the period is, but they do not and should not have much to do with the curriculum because they do not know much about it.
I would accept this amendment if I were the Government, but I can quite see that what they are saying is, "Look, this is platitudinous." If I may say so, it is quite different to say there should be parent governors, because that is a new step. I am not sure I approve of it, but it is trendy, it is a new step, so one has it. But the idea that one must have some people who are interested in education, some people who live in the neighbourhood, some people who are aware of what is going on in the outside world and have contacts with industry so that the kids can get jobs, is not worth putting in legislation. I think that at the end one will be saying they have got to be clean, honest and sober. One cannot do that; it is too silly. I would accept it to make anyone happy, but, on the other hand, if the Government are not prepared to accept a string of platitudes like that then they have my sympathy.
It is not a bit like parent governors. Believe me, it has nothing to do with the changes that have got to take place in our schools. The changes are not revolutionary. They will not be done here. The real point is that we have got to support the best teachers in their efforts. They know where to go. They know what is required. They know about the technological revolution. What they want is the chance to do it in the best possible circumstances.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: In view of the noble Lord's great experience in these matters, does he not think that one of the problems in our
676
schools, and indeed in further education, is that so many young people of great talent do not think of going into industry as their career, and that the contribution which might be made—albeit on a board of governors—by those with great experience in industry who would be interested in the school might well alleviate a grave national lack of talent going into industry?
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I think that there is a real point there. I never noticed it because I was in Manchester, that great industrial city, and I had some industrialists round about the place all the time. Many of my best boys went into industry, where they still are. I think that this reluctance to go into industry is slightly overdone, but that is another story and has nothing to do with the amendment. I believe that most schools are fairly conscious of the need to get a few industrialists on their governing bodies, partly because they are usually fairly rich and contribute to the appeal fund. That is my experience of schools, but it is probably a jaundiced one. Honestly I have not really noticed this point, but I appreciate the motive behind the question: namely, that we must encourage more and more of our best chaps to go into industry at one level or the other.
Lord PARRY: To ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, even through the Front Bench of the opposite side of the Committee, is a little like treading on the feet of Gamaliel, instead of sitting at them. Nevertheless I think it important to ask him whether he believes that his view of the lack of importance of the governing body in the context of a school such as Manchester Grammar School is in fact the Government's view in putting forward this legislation. I get the impression that the Government believe the governing bodies of schools to be vastly more important than the noble Lord, Lord James, does. One can understand the attitude of a successful headmaster of a great school being slightly patronising towards his governing body, but that surely is not the mood of a Government putting forward legislation—
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I would not say that my attitude was patronising; it was friendly, warm—
Lord PARRY: I withdraw the word.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I had the happiest relations with my governing body. I believe that raising the status of governors, making them governors instead of managers, is absolutely admirable, and I am sure that they are giving the greatest help to schools. What I do think is patronising is to explain that such a body should contain, first, people who are interested in education, secondly, people who live in the neighbourhood, and thirdly, something else. That is patronising, because anyone who is not half-witted would realise that straight away.
Baroness SEEAR: I really must say to the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, that if one is High Master of a school such as Manchester Grammar School one has happy relationships with excellent governors, but some of us have had to deal up and down the country with schools that are totally unlike Manchester Grammar School. The experience of many of us has been that there is not the necessary knowledge of industry in the teaching force. The teachers have gone from school to college, and then back to school. There is a great contempt for industry among many teachers, a contempt based to a considerable extent on lack of knowledge of what industry is like today.
This is not something which we on the Liberal Benches have dreamt up. It is widespread experience, reported up and down the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said. If all schools were like Manchester Grammar School, the educational problem of this country, and schools' relations with industry and with governing bodies would be quite different, I fully accept. But if we are to wait until all schools are like Manchester Grammar School, this country will be broke.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: If the noble Baroness thinks that putting on a governing body one person who knows something about industry will bring about the change suggested, I am afraid that she deludes herself.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: I think that the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, has missed a very important
678
point. I was not aware that he had been associated with Manchester Grammar School, which of course enjoys an enormously high reputation. But the fact of the matter is that in many hundreds of schools throughout the country governing bodies now want information on what is happening outside. In far too many areas too many children have nothing waiting for them outside. Parents want to be informed by people within the community of, for instance, Manpower Services Commission schemes, or life and social skills courses. In my experience of sitting on a governing body these matters are hardly ever mentioned. There is usually a long debate perhaps about how well the sixth form is doing and what wonderful results they are achieving, or perhaps about a problem with young X, Y or Z, playing truant, and what is to be done about it. Really important problems that face youngsters in areas unlike that of Manchester Grammar School call for expertise on the governing bodies. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government persist in resisting what is a means of helping governing bodies in the schools.
I have tremendous respect for the noble Baroness. She is a bonny counter-puncher, but I have noticed that the deeper we get into the Bill, the less she seems to be punching her weight, and it seems to me that pound for pound the best arguments are coming from this side of the Committee.
Baroness GAITSKELL: May I add one sentence to this particular debate. Not only do I think that this proposal is useful, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, has said, but it is good for the children and it is good for the other governors. That is all I want to say.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I point out to my noble friend Lord James of Rusholme that I, being a Lancastrian, and knowing Manchester Grammar School very well, recall that when the noble Lord, Lord James, was High Master of the school he did quite a number of good things in courting industry and bringing industrialists on to his governing body, through his chairman. He did exactly the same at York. I have for many years followed the way in which he has worked, and he has done a jolly good job in tackling the matter this way. There-

679
fore I am surprised at what he has said this evening.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I rise merely to say how jolly good, but why put it in legislation, because it is so obvious?
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, seems to feel that I am unable to say anything on this amendment. It is not that I am unable to say anything, but rather than I feel that we have had rather a diffuse discussion. It has gone backwards and forwards on a number of issues which are not really relevant to the point at issue. The Government have designed a Bill in order to have by statute school governing bodies, and we have decided as a matter of principle that there should be the minimum prescription about them. We have proposed to include parents, which the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, may feel is a little trendy, but which we believe recognises what is a great social fact of today. We have included teachers because we believe in the importance of the teachers as the backbone of the education system; and we recognise, for all the arguments that have been adduced on this matter, the importance of the teachers as part of school life.
That is all we have said. The rest is for local education authorities to decide. We accept in principle a great deal of the argument as to the need for better links with industry—and I must say that I welcome the conversion of the Benches opposite to the importance of British industry, both private and public, which I have seldom heard set out so well by so many at such great length. I think it is splendid. May I say that this is just as much a matter for the staff of the school as for the governors, and I am afraid we cannot accept these amendments for the reasons we have already stated.
Lord HEYCOCK: Can the noble Baroness tell us why, then, the Government decided to include parents? What is the justification for that and for having teachers? I have experienced both among governing bodies. Can the noble Baroness tell us what contribution they are likely to make to the administration of the school? That is the point that the
680
noble Lord, Lord James, made. For goodness sake, we do not want to talk about curricula, or to interfere with curricula. That is laid down. We did it in Manchester, and I understand in every school in this country; and, if I may say so, the headmaster and the teachers have the freedom to do that. We are not concerned with that fact or at all, but we are concerned with bringing industry in, so that we get the experience. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor that you did it in three instances, and now you are objecting. You must have had a specific reason for bringing them in. What we say is that, for the same reason you had for bringing them in, we would like them in our own schools.
For the life of me, I cannot understand logically why you say, first of all, that we will have parents—there must be justification—and then that we will have teachers, but then you say we have no justification for bringing industrialists into the governing body. Frankly, I cannot understand the logic of that reasoning at all. If there is justification for outside influences within the school, then obviously we must embody it very clearly. I do not want to repeat what I said previously, but we are going into a new age. I am not going to suggest that industrialists will teach the kids in school the mechanics of the silicon age or the changing pattern of our society. No; but at least they will bring into school the experience of industry, and might take the children out to industry, where they can experience these fundamental changes. I think that is the essential value of this suggestion, and for the world of me I cannot understand why the Government are making heavy weather of this. They talk about liberty and freedom. Those are relative terms in the circumstances. You must have a certain amount of freedom. Frankly, I cannot understand the logic of the argument, putting two in and saying that the third must not go in.
In Manchester, you get the grammar school, with its large catchment area and the best type of students in the school, and then you get another school where you get a restricted catchment area and you hope that the impact of the governing body will at least give an impetus towards having some relation to industry. I cannot in any sense understand the

681
attitude of the Government on this particular issue. As I said earlier, this will be a new Education Act and I presume that what we are deciding this evening, from our own experience, is that these things should be done. We are not making it mandatory. What we are saying, in a kind of advisory way, is that these are the things we should like to have in the constitution of a governing body.
Baroness SEEAR: May I suggest that we now divide the Committee?
9.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) to the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 81; Not-Contents, 115.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B.

Ardwick, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

Plant, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hall, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Barrington, V.

Hampton, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Heycock, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Birk, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Blease, L.

Ingleby, V.

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacobson, L.

Simon, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacques, L.

Stamp, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Collison, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stone, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strauss, L.

Darwen, L.

Listowel, E.

Tanlaw, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Denington, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Underhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Parry, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peart, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Eccles, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Inglewood, L.

Ampthill, L.

Elton, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Armstrong, L.

Exeter, M.

Kilmany, L.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Kimberley, E.

Avon, E.

Falmouth, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Balerno, L.

Falkland, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Bellwin, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

London, Bp.

Bessborough, E.

Gainford, L.

Loudoun, C.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Galloway, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Burton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Lyell, L.

Cathcart, E.

Glendevon, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cockfield, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gowrie, E.

Mansfield, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Greenway, L.

Middleton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Gridley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hacking, L.

Morris, L.

Craigton, L.

Haig, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Harvington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Davidson, V.

Hatherton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Henley, L.

Moyne, L.

Denham, L.

Hertford, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Derby, Bp.

Hives, L.

Norfolk, D.

Digby, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Northchurch, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dundonald, E.

Hylton, L.

Onslow, E.

Orkney, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.

Swinton, E.

Ponder, L.

Savile, L.

Tranmire, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Reigate, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vaizey, L.

Renton, L.

Spens, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ridley, V.

Stradbroke, E.

Vickers, B.

Rochdale, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Vivian, L.

Romney, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Westbury, L.

St. Just, L.

Strathspey, L.

Wynford, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Young, B.

Sandford, L.

Suffield, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment to the amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.21 p.m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): We now revert to Amendment No. 26, unamended, as it stands. The Question is that this amendment be agreed to?
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: It is not our intention to test this in the Lobbies tonight. I think that, after the last exchange, it is surely right that we should give the Government time to go away and think. This Committee has shown in the speeches that we are not at all partisan. There is a very real point here and a very real feeling that there should be something written into the Bill to give guidelines, to encourage those authorities which have the right ideas and to discourage those which have the wrong ones. The noble Lord, Lord James, said that to write into the Bill that people on the governing bodies should have special knowledge of educational matters and should have personal links with the relevant schools and live in the immediate neighbourhood of the schools was as platitudinous as to say that they should be clean, honest and sober.
In my time as a spokesman for the Liberal Party on education (which I have been, on and off, for twelve years) I have met members of boards of governors who have been clean, honest and sober. I have met boards of governors which did not contain people who lived anywhere near the school—and you can find that in the derelict areas of the East End of London without going into any other cities. I have met people who have had no personal links with the relevant school and who have been appointed to the board as some kind of benefit. I have never met a whole governing body none
684
of whose members had special knowledge of educational matters, but I have met governing bodies very few of whose members had any knowledge of educational matters. It is absolute nonsense to say that such boards of governors do not exist.
To write into the Bill provisions such as I have suggested obviously will not bring about reform overnight, and nobody pretends it will. But I say to the noble Lords, Lord Gridley and Lord James, both of whom seemed to think that there was no need for this provision, that wide though their knowledge of schools may be, it is not wide enough. There are plenty of schools such as I have suggested, and one can find them easily.
I am not averse to anybody suggesting that I am talking rubbish, and no doubt a number of noble Lords will take that view, but on this matter I do not think that I am doing so. However, since it is time to move on to another subject, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.25 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY Lord VAIZEY moved Amendment No. 27A:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) Local authorities when appointing governors to a special school shall have regard to the desirability of appointing one or more persons with experience of work among, and the special needs of, disabled persons and of the person or persons with that experience being or including a disabled person or persons.").
The noble Lord said: The Minister on the Front Bench said in the last debate that he had the desire to be accommodating. I hope that he will be accommodating. This amendment does not cover any of the nine groups to which he referred in the last debate. I would submit to your Lordships that it is neither trendy nor politically very powerful; but it seems to me a very important principle

685
that in the special schools the governors, where possible, should comprise people who themselves are actively concerned in the work of the special schools and who themselves are people for whom special schools are designed.
The country has benefited enormously from charitable people who have done this work out of the goodness of their hearts; but as part of the general movement towards people assuming responsibility for their own lives, we must include in this the responsibility of the disabled to assume the responsibility for their own lives and, in particular, for their own children. Therefore though the Minister felt unable to accept my earlier amendment, I am very much encouraged by the thought that the spirit of that amendment will be contained in the new Bill which we hope will be coming forward very soon. This amendment should prove to be completely non-contentious. It certainly will be extremely helpful to the special schools. I beg to move.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I support the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on this amendment. I was chairman of a special school for many years. I found it most advantageous to the rest of the managers of that particular school to have people who were actually disabled, had been disabled or had been part of the community of that school, on the governing body. They assisted us greatly. They gave us a lot of knowledge and know-how of what went on in the school, what disabilities there were, and it was very good for us. I am sure that this amendment is the right one because it will greatly improve the efficiency and the running of a school.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I should like also to support the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. While speaking on this amendment I wish also to speak on Amendment No. 33 which is to be moved by the Countess of Loudoun, Lady Kin-loss and Baroness David. I think that Amendment No. 33 has great complications. It there says that there should be somebody belonging to the medical profession and a governor who is himself handicapped. This would be difficult or impossible if that person happened to be mentally handicapped and associated
686
with a mentally handicapped school. However, Amendment No. 27A is flexible. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept it. It is common sense; and those of your Lordships who have handicapped children know that it is the people who have had first-hand experience who really understand the problems. I am absolutely certain that this is one of the things with which Warnock would agree.
Baroness D'ARCY de KNAYTH: May I say a few words to my noble friend's amendment? We covered the arguments fairly fully in the previous amendment about the advantages of representations on governing bodies of people with day-to-day experience of disabled people. The noble Baroness's usual argument about waiting for Warnock surely is not applicaable here. Maintained schools are already referred to in subsection (6). I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she can accept this mild and sensible amendment. It is a glorious opportunity for her to show willing by accepting this amendment. I warmly support it.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I want to urge the Government, whenever they are asked to do anything sensible, not to say that they cannot do it. This is what one is always advised when in Government. One is always told, from the draftsman's point of view, that one must not say anything in case it implies the opposite somewhere else. Everybody knows that this is complete nonsense. Just as over the industry matter—which I hope the noble Lord will bring up again at Report—this is an entirely new aspect, one which has never before been in an Education Bill. It is sensible to bring to the attention of governing bodies and local authorities. It makes complete sense. I hope that the Government will resist the advice which I am absolutely sure they are being given: that by putting this amendment in they may create difficulties concerning somebody else later on. I believe this to be foolish, untrue and unworthy of them.
Lord HYLTON: In the interests of short speeches, may I just say that the presence in your Lordships' House of the "mobile Bench ", so-called, and the invaluable help we get from them on so many occasions, is a very strong argument for deciding in favour of this amendment.
Lord PARRY: I would wish to associate myself enthusiastically and, entirely uncharacteristically, formally.
Lord HEYCOCK: I should like to support the amendment by just illustrating one point very clearly. There was a physically handicapped boy we got into our secondary school and, through careful teaching at the school, the lad eventually went to university, where he obtained a degree. We got him teaching at our physically handicapped school in Penarth; and I want to say that it was an inspiration to those handicapped people, to believe that there was one, at least, who, by courage and endurance and with the assistance of others, was able to overcome his handicap. I am certain that by supporting this amendment we shall be doing something at least for the handicapped. We probably built the first school in the whole country in Penarth, making a broad basis for the physically handicapped child. I am certain in my own mind that having people who arc connected with the handicapped and people who have associations with the school, will make a contribution, and it will be an inspiration to all those who are in the school.
Lord SEGAL: I think it would be a very gracious act indeed if the Government, by way of a change, would see their way to accepting this amendment. It is so eminently reasonable, and I cannot imagine anyone possibly finding sufficient grounds for refusing it. After all, the wording is so moderately expressed; it is not mandatory in any way but simply asks that local authorities, when appointing governors, should "have regard to the desirability". Could any amendment be more reasonably phrased? I think it would be a welcome change of attitude on the part of the Government if they would see their way for once to accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is phrased.
Baroness DAVID: Noble Lords will have noticed, and indeed it has been mentioned, that I am a signatory to Amendment No. 33, which covers quite a lot of the same ground that we have been debating. I would be very willing to accept that this amendment is more flexible and better worded; so if the other signatories to Amendment No. 33 are willing, 1 would certainly withdraw that
688
amendment in favour of this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and would be very pleased to support it.
9.34 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I have of course listened very carefully to all the arguments that have been put up on this amendment. May I say right away that the Warnock proposals do not in fact apply to this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, would appreciate when I made this point earlier that in fact we have included maintained special schools in the governing body provisions under this clause. What we were talking about before were the non-maintained special schools; and that is a quite separate issue, one which would come under our proposals that we hope to present to Parliament later in the form of a Bill concerned with the Warnock Report.
I find myself in a very great dilemma because the arguments that have been put on this case are in fact the reverse of the arguments that were put earlier on the case about the non-maintained schools. If I understood the argument correctly from the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about non-maintained schools, one of the reasons he was so concerned that they were not included in the Bill—a point that I and the Government understood—was that he felt they were being treated differently from other schools. We are treating maintained special schools in precisely the same way as all other schools. There is no difference in what we arc saying about maintained special schools, and we have gone as far as we can to deal with the whole question of hospital schools. We have done this, not because there is some trick, because we arc trying to do something different or peculiar, or because of something that we have suddenly thought of, but because we have taken on board the argument that was so well put, time and again, by those who take a great interest in this subject.
I am not at all trying to score a debating point here. I have listened so often to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, to the noble Lord, Lord Segal, and to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, arguing about special education and the needs of the handicapped. If there is one point which has come through very clearly on every

689
occasion, it is that they should not be treated, in so far as it is humanly possible, in any way other than the way in which everybody else is treated. In order to make this point, the Government have written into the Bill that special schools should be treated in precisely the same way as others, and now that we have done this we are under great pressure to say "Treat them differently. "That is why I am in a dilemma.
Lord PARRY: Will the noble Baroness give way? She is very kind. In fact, what she says is not the case. The argument that is being put is that they should be treated exactly alike. If the noble Baroness is saying that there should not be a handicapped person on the governing body of an ordinary school, then she has a point. But what we are saying is that as the fit and the healthy are put on the governing bodies of schools attended by the fit and the healthy, so it is correct that someone with knowledge of not being fit and healthy should be on the governing body of the school for such children.
Baroness YOUNG: That is a very splendid Welsh argument.
Lord PARRY: I thought it was Greek logic.
Baroness YOUNG: I am not sure that I would put it in that way. However, at this time of night I do not intend to debate Greek logic. In setting out all our proposals about government, we have said that there should be two parents and two teachers and this will apply to special schools. There would be two parents of children in the school, who would obviously have first-hand and close experience of dealing with their own handicapped children who are in the school. There would also be two teachers of the special school; again, two persons with close and very detailed knowledge of the school.
If we were to accept this amendment we should, in principle, be treating special schools differently because, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, we should, in fact, be saying that whereas, for want of a better term, ordinary schools would have just two parents and two teachers, special schools would have not
690
only two parents and two teachers, but probably,
"!one or more persons with experience of work among, and the special needs of, disabled persons "—
which I should have thought the two teachers would have—
" and of the person or persons with that experience being or including a disabled person or persons".
With the exception of a disabled person on the governing body, either teachers or parents would meet the cases that have been put up.
This is why I think that the Committee needs to consider very carefully whether we want to break the principle of treating special schools in precisely the same way as we have treated other schools. I hesitate, because I suppose that I shall be accused of being thoughtless over this, but this is a matter to which I have given a great deal of thought and I have listened to the House on a good many occasions. But I am not at all convinced that it would be right at this stage, at the beginning, to treat special schools differently.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: May I put another Welsh point to the noble Baroness? She said, quite rightly, that special schools should be treated in precisely the same way as other schools. That will be correct if the Government are expecting, as they obviously are, to have an unamended Bill at the end of the day. But if the noble Baroness had listened to and conceded some of the points that have been put on previous amendments, then she would have been able to say, "Yes, of course we can concede this amendment, because the special schools will then be treated in exactly the same way as the other schools".
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: May I ask the noble Baroness about something which has crossed my mind? Some of the special schools are very small. Will it not be rather complicated if they have only two teachers? Some of them perhaps have only two teachers.
Baroness YOUNG: The answer to that question is that our intention, where possible, is that there should always be two teachers. Perhaps I should write to the noble Baroness if there were to be special schools of a smaller size than that, but it would be our intention that every

691
special school should be treated in precisely the same way. Because, in the case of small special schools, it might seem rather different, one would not want to group them as one would group small primary schools where the same question arises and where it has been decided to group the primary schools. Small special schools would be treated on their own.
Lord HEYCOCK: One accepts the philosophy of trying to educate the children within a normal school, because it is done with partially deaf children and with a variety of other children. But there are special schools; one cannot call them by any other name. There are schools for the mentally and the physically handicapped. There is a variety of handicaps. Therefore, they are schools which are distinct and different. We are saying that, because of the character and nature of these special schools, they should have representation on the governing body that is distinctly related to that school. They are in a special category. I have been the governor and chairman of mentally and physically handicapped schools and I know what an inspiration it has been to handicapped people. The psychological importance is that the handicapped will go into the school and take the same responsibilities as a person who is not handicapped.
This acts as an inspiration to the children who will have to face life afterwards and come to terms with being mentally or physically handicapped. Even if they are treated in the same way as normal maintained schools, they are still special schools with special handicap difficulties to overcome. We cannot get away from the environment of the school. To concede this would do nothing to the maintained school. Having been defeated on two amendments, I should welcome the passing of this amendment because of the special nature of these schools.
Lord VAIZEY: I can appreciate that the noble Baroness is getting exasperated with the physically handicapped, but I would suggest respectfully that the principle she is holding is different from the one I am holding. Her principle seems to be uniformity. My principle is t hat the reason why the governing
692
bodies are being strengthened with parents and teachers is because of experience. We want the governing bodies to be strong because they draw from a great variety of experience in society, particularly from people who are deeply involved in the schools. Therefore, when one gets to particular schools with special problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, has just mentioned, it only makes sense to add to the volume of experience which is present on the governing body this particular kind of experience. Furthermore, my noble friends and I are suggesting that the nature of this experience, the experience of the handicap itself, is of crucial importance to the representative nature of the governing body: to move the special schools from being something which is provided by society for people with handicaps to the kind of provision which handicapped people are making for themselves. I shall not press the amendment, but I shall be very grateful if the noble Baroness will think more carefully, because I shall certainly want to raise the matter again at Report.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment he ought to take some notice of the feelings on this side of the Committee. I thought that the argument put forward by the noble Baroness was extremely ingenious, but not in fact correct. If you have parents of disabled children, two of them, among your governors they may or may not be suitable to give other people advice on how to deal with other children. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that they will be suitable. If they are suitable—this is a permissive, not a mandatory amendment—there is no need to do more than pay attention. But the idea that any two parents of disabled children are able to give the kind of advice and the kind of practical help that is required in special schools seems to me to be purely wrong. As the noble Baroness is saying in essence that she agrees with us that it is already doing it, I think it would be comforting to us if she would look at this again. I do not believe she is already doing it.
Baroness DAVID: Before the noble Baroness answers that, I should like to ask a question. I understand from what she said before, and also when we had a

693
Statement on the Warnock Report, that the conclusions of that report were on the whole accepted by the Government. The suggestion to have a disabled person on the governing body of a special school comes in the Warnock Report, and I should like to know whether the noble Baroness accepts that idea.
Baroness YOUNG: First, I should like to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. In fact, I realise of course the question she was asking. Where it is a small special school under the provisions of Clause 2(7) there would only be one teacher governor, because it has fewer than 300 pupils. That would be the position. I am sorry that I misled her and I wish to correct that right away.
On the second point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, on the Warnock proposals, it is true that among the many proposals that were made there was a suggestion that on the governing body there should be either someone who was handicapped or who had experience of handicap. This would arise when we speak about the Warnock Report, and I would respectfully suggest that what we are trying to do at this point in this Bill is to go as far as we can with regard to the school governing proposals with respect to special schools. This was not a debating point. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, may think it was an ingenious argument that I said they should be treated in the same way.—
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: An ingenious mind, anyway.
Baroness YOUNG: I shall take it as a compliment that he thinks I am sufficiently clever to think of it, but, odd as it may seem to him and to other noble Lords opposite, I and my colleagues frequently listen to what is said in this House. We listen particularly to the experts, of whom there are a great many—and I do not number myself as an expert on this subject but as somebody who is just very interested in it and particularly on the question of handicapped children and handicapped adults. There are many people in the House who know a great deal about it and one theme which has run like a common thread throughout it is the idea that everybody should be treated as far as possible in the same way.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, now accuses me of asking for uniformity. I thought the idea was that everybody should have equal treatment; if that is equated with uniformity, so be it. In fact, although the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has said that he will not press this amendment to a Division I will look at it again. I cannot make a promise because in fact we are trying to treat special schools in exactly the same way as the others, but in view of the very great feelings expressed in all parts of the Committee on this matter I will take it back and look at it again.
Lord VAIZEY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27B not moved.]
9.49 p.m.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA moved Amendment No. 28.
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("three hundred") and insert ("one hundred and eighty").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to amend that part of the Bill which at present says that the governing body of a county or voluntary school or a special school maintained by a local education authority shall, if the school has less than 300 registered pupils, include at least one and in any other case at least two, teacher governors; that is to say, persons who are elected by teachers at the school and are themselves such teachers at the time when they are elected.
This provision would be quite unexceptional if it were not for the fact that we have a fair certainty that there will be a dramatic drop in the rolls of primary schools over the next few years and if this clause is implemented it could lead to problems, particularly in the teaching profession. The medium size of primary schools within five years will be about 180, and if the cut-off point is made at 300 pupils this will mean that the majority of primary schools will have a minimum of only one teacher governor. This amendment places the cut-off point at a more appropriate level and ensures that for the small schools the minimum number of parents is no more than that for teacher governors. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, said. Our aim in setting the size of school below which the minimum number of elected teacher governors need only be one rather than two was twofold: to allow for the practical difficulties of electing two governors from a very small teaching staff in the smallest schools, and to make it possible to keep down the overall size of the governing body in such schools. The figure of 300 was chosen not because LEAs wanted to be able to keep teacher governor numbers down in the larger schools falling below it, but to help the voluntary school authorities to keep down the overall size of their governing bodies. In their case the addition of a teacher means the addition of another foundation governor as well to keep their majority at the level set out in subsection (4). In
696
practice there will be two members of staff on the governing body of most of these schools, because in addition to the elected teacher governor there will also be the head teacher.
The Earl of SWINTON: I wonder whether I may ask the Minister a question? This seems the right time to do it. I certainly do not agree with the amendment. I am not at all sure that I agree with the Government, either. There has been a lot of talk about small schools, and as far as I can make out it is agreed on all sides that this means those with under 300 pupils. In my own authority we have only 36 out of a total of 433 primary schools with more than 300 children. We even have 5 secondary schools out of 69 with fewer than 300 on the roll, and I know that we do not have a single special school with more than 300 pupils or anything like it. A great many of our primary schools are two teacher schools. The head can choose whether he or she wishes to be a governor under the new legislation. What about the wretched assistants? So far as I can make out, if the head says that he does not want to be a governor the assistant has jolly well got to be, whether he wants to be or not. What sort of punishment will be inflicted on them if they decide they do not want to be a governor?
Lord BELLWIN: I should have thought the answer really is twofold. First of all, there is the point I made about the head teacher, and secondly, when you start to get to the really small schools you start to talk about grouping. I should have thought that that was really the answer to my noble friend Lord Swinton. Either way, I think the point is still valid; either the head teacher or the grouping would be the answer.
The Earl of SWINTON: In large rural areas the schools are many miles apart. When it comes to grouping, first, the villages are not speaking, and, secondly, we are going to have a discussion on rural transport; and I cannot see how the governors will get to the meetings because there are no bus services and I do not think they could afford the petrol.
Lord BELLWIN: Of course, one could get grouping where you had a primary school and a smaller school on the same

697
site, as often does apply. Clearly, I have no easy, facile answer to my noble friend, but I still think the point is valid, namely, that the head teacher will in any case in most circumstances either be a governor or certainly be sitting in with the others.
Baroness DAVID: I think one of the reasons for having teacher governors was that they could say something which the head would not say. It was particularly to get a different viewpoint from that of the headmaster or headmistress.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: My noble friend Lady David has made one of the two points I was going to make. The other point is that I am not convinced by the Minister's reply. A figure of 180 pupils with two teacher governors, even with the inclusion of a further foundation governor, would not necessarily make the governing body unwieldy. However, I shall not press my amendment.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I remind the Minister that none of the teacher associations is in favour of grouping?
Lord PARRY: In view of the fact that my noble friend is about to withdraw his amendment, it is occasionally nice to point out that there is not a monolithic structure on this side of the Committee either! I believe that the Committee feels that if it could get the size of schools down to 600, as a maximum and 300, as a positive effective step, then perhaps some of the problems of government of the schools might resolve themselves.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.56 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("and one representative of the non-teaching staff").
The noble Lord said: I think that in modern schools—and many of us have had experience of them there should be on the council for the direction of the school and at staff meetings, the opportunity (and it may not arise all the time) to have a representative of the non-teaching staff. Those of us who have worked in various areas of education and who have had in particular to visit rural and country schools, know the importance of the non-teaching staff during winter time in remote areas which are likely to be snowed under, with children isolated and left in those schools to sleep the night. That happens in the moorlands of this country. I think that the non-teaching staff have a right to be considered and consulted and given special opportunities—nothing to do with the curriculum—concerning the running of the school. It could be left to the discretion of the head. I should like to move very simply that that matter be considered by the Committee.
Baroness YOUNG: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has said on this matter. If he looks further down Clause 2 he will see that subsection (10) would, of course, permit the inclusion of a representative of the non-teaching staff or any other person who was thought appropriate, to be a member of the school governing body. I think that he would find that if the school governors or the local education authority wished to include a representative from the non-teaching staff, they could do so under that particular subsection.
In saying that, it is important that the Committee should understand that governing bodies are not negotiating committees and that in most cases it is the local education authority who is the employer and who determines the conditions of service. We believe that the most effective way for non-teaching staff to contribute to the work of governors may well be through the proper consultative machinery of the type recommended in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Having said that, I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, would in fact be met under subsection (10), if it were required, and I hope that he will

699
therefore feel that his amendment is not necessary.
Lord HEYCOCK: The situation is left completely open under subsection (10). Anyone could be appointed under that subsection—it is possible for a carthorse to drive through it. It is very clear. We, in some instances, have appointed members of the non-teaching staff. It is not a question of negotiation. When there is a matter pertaining to salaries and teacher posts as such, they are not permitted to be present when it is discussed. It is part of the statutory obligation which a local authority has when it administers governing bodies.
Let us take the example of a large comprehensive. It has a non-teaching staff of about 60 to 70, including the cleaners and the people who produce the school meals. Surely if you say that teachers and parents have a right, logically on the other side you should say that the non-teaching staff who are involved could bring, not necessarily the techniques of teaching, but the kind of social training which is part and parcel of their job into the atmosphere of the governing body. Therefore, to say that it could be done under that subsection, is not to face the fact very clearly, because anyone can be appointed under that subsection. Unless it is made obligatory upon the authority, they may not do it, but they will appoint someone under that subsection. I do not think that the answer which the noble Baroness has given is a clear one to the points that have been adduced by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek.
The Earl of SWINTON: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, will withdraw this amendment. I have great respect for the noble Lord but I could not follow his reasoning on this at all. It is perhaps fair enough in a large comprehensive school where you have several to choose from, but the noble Lord cited the moorland schools. The moorland schools I know mostly have one or two teachers, and at the very most three. The one non-teaching member of the staff is the caretaker-cum-dinner lady, who is a most worthy person and the salt of the earth, but the last thing she wants to do is to become involved with the managing
700
body, even though, with all respect, she has a great deal to contribute to it. I rather think that the noble Lord took a wrong example of the schools to which to go.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am grateful for the interjection of the noble Earl, but if he read the amendment he would see that it does not just say "three teachers "; it says "the governing body". The governing body of a school does not comprise just the teachers. It was, therefore, the governing body of a county or voluntary school or of a special school maintained by a local education authority. I simply cited the rural areas; the comprehensives also have their problems. However, I do not want to delay the Committee. The vast experience of the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, has been mentioned. The noble Baroness has pointed out the place where you can drive a gambo through; she should know that a gambo is a Welsh hay cart. Despite that, the spirit of the Committee will have effused, or perhaps I should say suffused, this Committee. Consequently, I believe that it would be wise at this moment to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("and representatives of the local community").
The noble Lord said: This is another hay cart! What are we asking? The amendment reads:
" Page 3, line 7, at end insert (` and representatives of the local community ')."
Am I to be told that there are opportunities elsewhere for representatives of the local community to be appointed?—because where does a community begin and where does it end? How many miles must one be from the focal point of a school for the boundaries of a community to end? I suppose that it would be the pool from which students and pupils are drawn. I believe there is a case to get the community spirit there and to have a member of the community here. It could be parents or others who may have a local interest in the school. One could talk for an hour and only go round the same

701
point, which is unnecessary with a wise Committee such as this. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: It is very good of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, to enlarge my vocabulary. I shall certainly read Hansard with greater interest tomorrow to find out what this new word is. I am not at all clear what the noble Lord means by a representative of the local community, because I should have thought that was exactly what a local councillor was—a representative of the local community—and that is what he or she is, in fact, elected to do. I see that the noble Lord, Lord James, is no longer in his place. I tremble to think how he would have summed up this particular amendment. However, I should not have thought that it was necessary. The local councillors who are representatives of the local community will clearly be on school governing bodies, and certainly parents, who will be members of the local community, and, in many instances teachers also. Therefore, it is not necessary to write it into the Bill.
Viscount RIDLEY: I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment. It seems to me almost meaningless. People who are representative of local communities arc the parish and district councillors, whom we are already agreed should be on this body.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I think the noble Viscount has a point. The Committee have heard my point. Having heard both sides, I do not think it is as important as I may have thought. I shall reserve my powers for more powerful amendments. In view of that I will willingly withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.6 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("and schools which contain children who have passed their 15th birthday shall have one pupil governor").
The noble Baroness said: A secondary school cannot fulfil its educational duties without full co-operation between the pupils, staff and parents. This co-operation can best be achieved through the governing bodies, whose members meet
702
regularly to consider the school's policy, progress and problems. The appointment of pupil governors would widen the viewpoint of the adult governors in many different fields, which would include the school curriculum, job selection and training, and relations with the local community. These appointments would also help the pupil governors to understand the viewpoint of their parents and teachers on a wide variety of matters concerned with their educational needs.
This amendment does not say that pupil governors would undertake all the duties of adult governors. I would suggest that they should not be members of committees that appoint staff, and that they should not be present when the suspension of pupils is under consideration. Nevertheless, although pupil governors would not be present when decisions were taken relating to the appointment of staff or the suspension of pupils, the judgments of the adult members of the governing body would be wiser than they might otherwise have been had they not had on many occasions the opportunity of hearing the viewpoint of pupil governors. I beg to move.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I have a daughter coming up for 15 who has a great many contemporaries of the same age. They are very mixed up, very immature, and very busy studying for their O-levels. Had the noble Baroness put down a pupil representative of sixth-form age, when they are doing A-levels and have only three subjects with which to contend, I might have thought differently.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: The Committee will hardly be surprised if I say that I agree with my noble friend Lady Stewart of Alvechurch. I have been doing so for some time. May I first refer to the points raised by the noble Baroness. The amendment would leave it for the pupils themselves to decide which pupils would be chosen, and of course they could not compel a pupil who said: "I am too busy. I have my work to do." I think you would find that the pupils chosen would be those who could take it on, and I think they would do it well.
I have tried to look at this in a historical perspective. It has always been part of

703
the tradition of English education that we felt that schools ought not to concentrate too narrowly on intellectual attainment, important though that is, but that a school was intended also to be one of the forces that developed the character and general abilities of a child, enabled that child to play a full part in the society in which it was going to live, and, added to that, helped him to be the kind of person who would improve that society. What was the purpose historically in the old days of the prefectorial system at the public schools? It was to train an upper class who would rule an empire and who, in time of war, would give the lead on the battlefield. It served in that context the purpose it was intended to serve.
But nowadays people do not go out from schools to rule an empire, nor is it assumed that leadership in time of war is confined to the upper classes. We have to ask, then, what kind of qualities are appropriate to the kind of society we live in today, and they are surely the kind of qualities comprised in the capacity to listen to argument, to respect one's fellows, to consider when something has been proved and when it has not, and generally to take part in a reasoning, arguing and democratic society. There is only one way to learn that, and that is to take part in it.
Some schools have already experimented successfully with this, so it is not a leap in the dark by any means, and in my view the Government should be helpful in this matter. They have not been very accommodating so far; just once or twice the Government have given about a quarter of an inch. They now have a chance to accept on a more generous scale the arguments that have been put forward and to agree to an amendment which will of itself be of a generous kind.
One of the first things said to me when I was a young teacher by a senior colleague was, "You can never teach people something they do not want to know ", and of course the great art of teaching is to try to persuade them to want to know. How one does that varies from pupil to pupil and perhaps from subject to subject. This is one way of getting the pupils to see that school, after all, is really meant for them and not just for the teachers, the education officers and so on. It is
704
imaginative, it has been shown to be practical and the Government should take a step forward.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I support the amendment because it has great possibilities for the Opposition. If we take the example that has been set in Iran, these pupils might kidnap the Ministers on the Government Front Bench and hold them until the whole Bill is settled, and then we on this side of the Committee win.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: Perhaps I may give the Committee the benefit of the experience I had during the deliberations of the Taylor Committee. We spent much time discussing this matter—visiting schools and discussing it with students—and we got a very mixed reception. There were sixth form pupils who felt it would be a good thing for them to be on governing bodies, while others thought it would not be a good idea and they felt that the best method would be for them to work through schools councils and be observers at governors' meetings rather than be participants and full members of governing bodies. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, said, there were a number of young people who were very mixed up at the age of 15. I say with respect to my colleagues on that committee that I found that they, too, were very mixed up on this one. However, in true British style, we decided to compromise. We compromised by saying that when the Government of the day reduced the age of majority from 18 to 16, at that time they should be members of governing bodies, but not until then, and that until that time they should be just observers.
That was our decision after spending more time than your Lordships, with respect, are spending on the subject tonight. I urge the Committee to be very careful about the amendment because it could have repercussions in many ways. To those who have said that schools have tried this—in particular I know that Sheffield has tried it, and there they have minors on governing bodies—I say that if anybody wanted to challenge a decision of a governing body with minors on it, then, according to the 1944 Act (I am not a lawyer but I spent a good deal of time working on the 1944 Act) those decisions would be ultra vires.
The Earl of SWINTON: It cannot be said that the party opposite has the sole right for a noble husband to support a noble wife. I do not always agree with mine, which is why she sits on the Cross-Benches and I sit firmly on this side of the House, but I agree with her on this point. Very sensible words have been spoken by Lord Taylor opposite. This amendment one must be very wary of. Lord Stewart made much about the prefectorial system. That is the way to do it. There are prefectorial systems within the maintained system which have much more to be said for them than the very nasty prefectorial system which was in operation when I was at school, when boys flogged other boys. Thank God, nothing like that happens in a State school. There are plenty of opportunities for older pupils to shine at that and to contribute to school councils, but I do not think that the right thing to do is to put them on governing bodies.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: With the experience of Lord Taylor it is difficult to disagree. My experience in regard to matters concerning school governing bodies is much less than his, except through the children I have had at State schools. I detect in the debate something of which I have a great deal of experience; that is, the idea that the student body is too mixed up and too immature and that you must be very careful of letting them in. I know that trap, because I have been round it a number of times in the universities. It was said that graduate students must not come on to committees of the college and of the London School of Economics. Then it was said about undergraduate students. I hope Lord Stewart, in dealing with this amendment, will press the principle upon the Government although the age is set too low in the wording that is before the Committee.
Between the age of 16 and 17 young people today are not so different from the students of 18 with whom I live. When you bring them on to the committees and the important governing bodies two things happen. First, they respond like ordinary human beings: they find that it is very boring and tend not to come as many times as they thought they would. Secondly, when crises arise—and in the universities, as the noble Baroness knows, we have recently experienced, and are
706
about to experience, even more of those—it is a new dimension to university life to know that the demonstrations of your students will not be aimed against you who are not responsible for the policies of the Government, but on a united basis to join with the staff in dealing with the problems and, if need be, to demonstrate against the Government whose responsibility it is. I do not believe it would be very different in schools if the right age were found.
I appreciate that it may be that the wording of this amendment may set it too low. I would hope that the Government would accept the spirit of this amendment, not with the idea that it would produce anything like the prefectorial system, a notion which would make me vote against it under ally circumstances whatsoever, but in the hope that it would produce among the lower and upper sixth formers the same kind of benefits which have been found in higher education from bringing students not so much older into the committees and governing bodies of those institutions.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: I have had a certain amount of experience of dealing with institutions where there are students of all ages. One of the most fascinating ironies of this debate has been to hear Lord Stewart lauding the 19th-century prefectorial system as a form of governing body. I go far to the left of Lord Stewart as regards education. I have always regarded the prefectorial system—because the young always tend to be rather cruel to each other—as one of the greater mistakes of the great 19th-century educators and one whose influence I have tried to mitigate in my own professional career. But, still, he has got a point. The only thing is that it has got nothing to do with the functions of the governing body. It sounds fun but it has nothing to do with being a governing body.
In trying to run a school what one does is to bring the mature young people, whether they are 15 or 17, into collaboration with one and tell them what one's plans are, ask them for their views and have all sorts of informal contacts. But one spoils that by making this a formal business. Could one condemn them to anything worse than sitting on the committee? I have said to students at university, "What an ambition ! Haven't

707
you anything better to do with your lives? Haven't you got books to read or girl friends to take out or games to play? For heaven's sake, you want to sit on committees? I am paid for it; you are not. "
What one is doing is to take these young people and make them do something they do not fully understand or appreciate, because they cannot put it against the whole background of administration. When they are doing it they cannot think of Tocqueville or someone like that, as we do. It becomes fun when one can do that. It is fun to manipulate, but not for them. We are encouraging young people to take on responsibilities. I do not think they are too great for them; but they seem just a waste of time for those people at that young, splendid age when life ought to be exciting, when they ought to be reading stuff for the first time, not sitting listening to old men talking about the rules of the bicycle shed. I feel this very strongly indeed, as noble Lords may gather.
The great thing is the poverty of the argument that is produced—the 19th century prefect system. Gracious me! not really, now. Leave them alone. Let them grow. Let us do the dull jobs we are paid for, and at the same time talk to them all the time about our jobs and their jobs and their work as human beings, not as members of a committee.
10.22 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I must reply to that. In the various educational experiences I have had I have never been a headmaster, and the difficulty I have had with headmasters all my life is to get them to listen to what one is actually saying. The point I was arguing was this; I thought it was plain enough. The old public school prefectorial system was designed to support an imperialist, aristocratic society, and in that context it did what it was intended to do. I am pointing out that today we do not live in that kind of society, but we have the same problem of getting the co-operation of young people in making the kind of society we live in work well.
One of the things that society requires is the very opposite of the old aristocratic
708
and imperialist tradition. It is a democratic tradition and a tradition of showing equal respect to all other human beings. One of the ways in which one learns that is by arguing about practical matters that are within one's experience. Many of the problems which governors discuss are within the experience of children of this age and they can make useful contributions. The suggestion that we are dooming them all to a boring existence is based on the assumption that they will spend their whole time at governors' meetings. It is simply one of the experiences in a varied life. They would also read books, play games and so on. This kind of experience of being able to listen to an argument and to weigh up the best way of handling a problem when one cannot get all one wants is useful and interesting. The experience of schools which have tried it has shown that to be so.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn referred to the gloomy prognostications about what would happen when one brought students into the governments of universities. Incidentally, that was a suggestion made by Adam Smith in the year 1776 when he wrote the Wealth of Nations, and we have at last caught up with him. I am suggesting that this proposal is suitable to the kind of society in which we now live. It is something the value of which has already been shown by experience.
I wish to add one final point. The amendment refers to schools which contain children who have passed their 15th birthday. It does not say or imply that all the people they choose would be merely 15year-olds. Indeed, the probability is overwhelmingly the opposite: that they would choose the older and more experienced among their number. So the Committee need not be worried about a governing body being composed exclusively of 15year-olds. It would include older pupils, who throughout our education history have been considered capable of bearing responsibilities of some kind. I believe that the amendment deserves better consideration than the Government have so far given it.
Lord PARRY: The noble Lord on the Front Bench made a valuable qualification towards the end of his speech, much of which I totally agree with. It goes without

709
saying that I support him in the contentions that he has made; I have done so throughout the debate, and shall continue to do so until the end of consideration of this amendment. I should like to be totally, 100 per cent., in support of what has been said, but it seems to me that the qualification is extraordinarily important, particularly in view of the case that the Taylor Report made clear—the question of the legal right of those aged between 15-plus and 18 to participate in judgments such as come before governors. Therefore, until the vote in a democracy is available to someone aged 15-plus, as opposed to 18, he cannot be, in the sense that has been canvassed, a full participant in the democracy. Such young people have to be learners at various stages towards it. I accept totally the implication in the amendment. However, I do not accept what the amendment does in defining the matter to those aged 15-plus. If the principle of the amendment can be enshrined, I could go with it—but not in its present form.
10.23 p.m.
Baroness DAVID: May I say a few words in favour of the amendment, which has had a rather cool reception from certain quarters. I have been a member of a governing body which included pupil governors, and it worked extremely well. They were usually a bit shy to start with, but then they warmed up and were extremely interesting. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, and the point about the legal rights, I remember that there were problems when it was decided to have pupil governors, but the matter was discussed with great care. I cannot quite remember what the solution was, but the legal department of the county council agreed that it was all right to have pupil governors and there has not been any trouble.
We talk a lot today about political education and so on. If these young people are to be ready to vote at 18, and are to know what is going on, it would be quite good for them to mix with other people whom we are told are so political; it is said that many governing bodies are political affairs. This might be quite an education for the young people. I hope that people will not be quite so frightened of this proposal as they appear to be. I
710
repeat what my noble friend has said: that the amendment refers to those who have passed their 15th birthday; they could be 16, 17, or even 18. I hope that noble Lords will now feel a little more warmly towards the amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: In the provisions that we have made on school government there is nothing whatever to prevent any authority that wishes to have pupil governors, from putting them on governing bodies. The provisions have been so drawn as to allow this. It is for the education authority to decide in its own local circumstances whether or not there should be pupil governors on the governing body of a school. We left it in this way, and I must say that I was surprised when I saw this amendment because it is directly contrary to the view taken by the last Administration in the consideration of their Education Bill in Committee last year, when they did not support this proposal.
I was not going to add anything after I had listend to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, and the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, who in the course of his committee proceedings must have considered with great care the whole question of having pupil governors on governing bodies. However, it might be helpful for me to clear up the legal position on this matter. The department's present understanding is that the question whether the common law permits minors to be appointed as school governors is in fact unsettled, although it is likely that minors may be appointed as governors of county schools. Any legal uncertainties that there are have not prevented some 17 local education authorities from appointing pupil governors for county schools, and we consider that the best course is to leave the decision as to whether to appoint pupil governors for county schools to local education authorities in accordance with their own interpretation of the law. This, I think, would entirely accord with what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said on this matter.
However—and this is an important point—even if the law on this matter were to be clarified, this would not alter the fact that pupil governors would, like all governors, be open to potential legal

711
liabilities—for example, for negligence. These issues are greater with regard to voluntary schools, where the governors have greater responsibilities in respect of school premises, and, in particular, aided and special agreement schools; and even if the law permitted minors to be governors of voluntary schools it would not be right, we believe, for the Secretary of State, who is responsible for making the instruments of government for voluntary schools, to provide for the appointment of pupil government and so expose minors to these risks, however small in practice.
I therefore think that there is a very important distinction between the governing bodies of county schools and the governing bodies of aided and special agreement schools, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, would recognise is this particular context. What I am saying to the Committee is that whereas it would be perfectly possible for a local education authority to appoint pupil governors to a county school, the situation would be quite different in an aided or special agreement school, and therefore we could not accept this amendment as it stands. In fact, it runs counter to our principles, which we have been over many times this evening and which I will not reiterate once again.
What I do think is important—and I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will agree—is training school pupils in responsibility, which I think was the point which the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, raised in connection with the prefectorial system of the past, and which I think was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord James, when he said that he consulted his senior pupils about all matters. It is, I think, important for the the older pupils, particularly, to be treated in this way, to have their opinions asked and to be consulted; and I am bound to say from my own personal experience of being a governor of a school in which there was a school council which operated really very effectively both in training children in responsibilities and in enabling them to express an opinion in a democratic set-up, that this seems to me a very valuable adjunct to school life. Again, it is not one which we would wish in any way to prescribe for all schools, but it is one which I would commend to the Committee as something which I think would meet the point about responsibilities without having to go as far as the appointment of pupils as school governors.
10.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 108.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Seear, B.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

Simon, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Birk, B.

Heycock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Blease, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Strauss, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Underhill, L.

David, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peart, L.

Winstanley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Avon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Bellwin, L.

Burton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Belstead, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Armstrong, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cathcart, E.

Cockfield, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Reigate, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hives, L.

Renton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ridley, V.

Davidson, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochdale, V.

De Freyne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Romney, E.

Denham, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

St. Just, L.

Digby, L.

Kilmany, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sandford, L.

Dudley, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Dundonald, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Savile, L.

Eccles, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Selkirk, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Elton, L.

Loudoun, C.

Skelmersdale, L.

Exeter, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Spens, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lyell, L.

Stamp, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Falmouth, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fortescue, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Gainford, L.

Middleton, L.

Suffield, L.

Galloway, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swinton, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Morris, L.

Tranmire, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Glendevon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Trenchard, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gowrie, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Greenway, L.

Norfolk, D.

Vickers, B.

Hacking, L.

Northchurch, B.

Vivian, L.

Haig, E.

Onslow, E.

Westbury, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylcbone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Orkney, E.

Wynford, L.

Pender, L.

Young, B.

Harvington, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.42 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) The governing body of a county or voluntary school shall include, in addition to such governors as are mentioned above, governors appointed from members of the community which is served by the school, including at least one representative each of trade unions and employers.").
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords who heard the news at midday today will agree that this amendment contains a very good point. We were told in that news bulletin that one school is using its pupils after school to tidy up and is paying them 90p per hour. In another case the payment is 40 or 50p. I shall not name the local authority; there is no point in my being vindictive or jumping to conclusions. However, trade union groups are beginning to protest at this action because it takes jobs out of the hands of public employees. Consequently, that action has caused some acerbity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, supported by the talent and nobility of the
714
noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, suggested that I should examine subsection (10) which reads:
" Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the inclusion in the governing body of any school of governors additional to those required by this section".
That means to me that a local education authority may, by arrangement. "May "—that is all we are asking. It is not put in the imperative mood, it is subjunctive. It says:
"!may make an arrangement for the constitution of a body for any two or more schools maintained!".
Baroness DAVID: That is the wrong part of the Bill.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I thought there was something funny about that. Let us go back. I quoted correctly subsection (10). Now let us get to the subsection that I should be reading:
" The governing body of a county or voluntary school shall include, in addition to such governors as are mentioned above, governors appointed from members of the community which is served by the school, including at least one representative each of trade unions and employers".
I take it that subsection (10) could make that possible. I am on fertile soil. As

715
my grandfather used to say to me when I was a little boy, his garden was so fertile that if he knocked a six-inch nail in the ground in the spring, it came up a crowbar in the summer.
I do not see how the noble Baroness can get out of this one, because she has already conceded that what I asked before could be applied under subsection (10). I am asking clearly this time that representatives of trade unions and/or the employers may be permitted. At this late hour, without flourishing the speech any further down the corridors of time, I will ask the noble Baroness to look at this point with care, because I believe that it is constructive and helpful, and could maintain good relationships in the community with the employers and with the trade union movement. It would not encourage the employment of pupils after school, cleaning up the schools, dusting, dealing with the drains and cleaning the windows, as was reported today on the radio to be taking place. I will leave it at that, and ask the noble Baroness what she thinks of this amendment.
Lord MISHCON: Before the Minister rises, I wonder whether I might add to the very precise speech just made by my noble friend. He did, at the very end, say something that I am sure he would want to correct. Knowing him as I do, and his wish always to be correct, may I point it out to him? He read out "trade union and/or employers". I am sure that he did not mean to add the word "or". Therefore it is "trade unions and employers".
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: May I ask whether the noble Lord also meant "shall "or "may"? In this amendment it says—
" shall include, in addition to such governors as are mentioned!".
I have sat on a board of visitors of a borstal for years, and we have always tried very hard to have a trade union member. The one we had from Leeds was a splendid and popular man. The only trouble was that he did not stay very long because he just could not spare the time. I also sit on a community health council, and the trade union representative we have there has great problems because he loses wages if he takes time off work. If
716
the noble Lord presses his amendment, perhaps he could see that their costs are covered, and that they do not lose out on their wages.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. But I am dominated by the logic of subsection (10). That says:
" Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the inclusion in the governing body of any school of governors additional to those required by this section".
These are additional to those required by this clause: namely, representatives of the trade unions and the employers. The word "shall "came there. I inserted the "may "and said I was not putting it in the imperative but in the subjunctive.
Baroness YOUNG: I think I am quoting the noble Lord, Lord Davies, exactly when I recall that he said, "I am dominated by the logic of this amendment "—and I only wish really that he was. The truth is that I am not sure that he is, from what he has said. It is in fact not a permissive power he is asking for because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has quite rightly pointed out, his amendment says "shall include "; so this is not permissive but obligatory in this sense.
This is not an amendment that the Government could accept, for all the reasons we have had on a series of amendments before, but the noble Lord is quite right in saying that subsection (10), which has been deliberately written as it is. allows the inclusion of other governors, as I have tried to explain on other occasions. For the reasons I have advanced on a number of discussions on the school governing bodies, the noble Lord will understand that I cannot accept this amendment but that, by leaving local education authorities free to appoint other than the two parents and two teachers, it would be perfectly possible to call on other people of the nature that he has described.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: That is a very neat answer from the noble Baroness, and really it is only saying what I said—that subsection (10) could cover it. I am willing to accept the spirit of the reply. In view of that and at this late hour, it would be cruel to go on any longer, seeing

717
how hard the noble Baroness has worked today. In view of that, I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG: It seems to me, now that we have reached seven minutes to eleven o'clock, that there is not time to do justice to a further amendment tonight. If it is the wish of your Lordships, therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed.