EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL

HL Deb 10 March 1980 vol 406 cc656-717

8.5 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 2.

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Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 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 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 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 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 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 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:

1. (a) with special knowledge of educational matters,
2. (b) with personal links with the relevant school,
3. (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 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, 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.