Lords Sitting of 11 March 1980

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

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE: ELECTROSTATIC PRINTS
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Public Record Office charges 20p for each electrostatic print of documents requested for copying.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the charge of 20p represents the current average cost of producing an electrostatic print in the Public Record Office. The increase from 17p last January was the first since October 1977, apart from a 1p increase for VAT.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that there is a vast difference between that charge and the charge made by the British Library of 7p, the Bodleian Library in Oxford of 6p and, commercially, between 7 and 10p per copy for the same service?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lady is begging the question by describing it as the same service. It is a different service. More than two-thirds of the costs of the Public Record Office are attributable to salaries and wages. The high proportion is due, first, to the work involved in locating the documents and producing them and, secondly, to the difficulty of working with documents of different shapes, sizes, colours and densities, many of which
722
are made up in assemblages which have to be handled with care if damage is not to be done to the document;thirdly, to the fact that the vast majority of orders are for single copies of individual documents;and, fourthly, to the cost of providing estimates to customers, especially by correspondence, and of keeping accounts to meet the management requirements proper for a public service.

VALUE ADDED TAX ON CONFECTIONERY
2.38 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the reasoning behind the imposition of value added tax on confectionery when the vast majority of other foodstuffs, including components in the manufacture of confectionery purchased individually, are zero-rated.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the reason is to raise revenue. The total revenue from confectionery, ice cream, soft drinks and other products of this kind which are subject to value added tax is estimated to be about £400 million per annum and for confectionery alone about £200 million. I think my noble friend will recognise that the Government could not forgo revenue of this order without making good the loss in other ways.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer which was the type of Answer which I expected from the Treasury, I should like to ask him two supplementary questions. First, is he aware that the ingredients for confectionery—cocoa, chocolate, sugar and so on—can all be obtained zero-rated and that if people decide to make their own confectionery they can also obtain those ingredients zero-rated? Is my noble friend further aware that the confectionery industry contributes a great deal of educational value towards the hygiene of teeth and so on, and that although there are a number of particularly obnoxious cream cakes available in various places,

723
certain types of chocolate and barley sugar are much more nutritious than others? Therefore, while recognising that VAT is a necessary tax—and I quite appreciate the importance of the figures that he has mentioned—is my noble friend aware that nevertheless it is an anomalous situation?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, as regards the first point made by my noble friend, it is also true that barley, which is used in the production of beer, is zero-rated, but the final product is not. That is a common feature with a tax like VAT. As regards my noble friend's second point, the reason for confectionery being charged to VAT is based on revenue requirements and not on any arguments about the nutritional or other value of the products concerned.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether, if the Government are minded to give consideration to the request made by his noble friend, they would bear in mind that this country is one of the highest consumers of sugar in the world. A tremendous amount of sugar is consumed in this country and I think that there is abundant medical evidence to show that it is responsible for many conditions of ill health and obesity. At present we are suffering from a very serious problem of dental caries, mainly in children, as well as in adults.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am well aware that arguments of that type are advanced, but I personally would not wish to become involved in them. So far as the Government are concerned, the overriding factor in this particular case is the amount of revenue involved.

HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) ACT 1977
2.43 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the Housing
724
(Homeless Persons) Act 1977 so as to relieve local authorities of the burden of housing immigrants who arrive at airports within their area but have no other connection with that particular area.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, as I said on 17th January in an answer to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, the Government are currently reviewing the operation of the Act and any decisions to amend its provisions will have to await the outcome.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which will give little comfort to the ratepayers of Hillingdon and those around Gatwick—the only two London airports accepting immigrants—who are already, like other communities, burdened in many ways. Is it not very unfair that these two areas should have to bear this burden? Cannot the Government consider making some form of grant, equivalent to the extra burden which these ratepayers have to bear, until they are ready to amend the Act?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I must repeat that until we know, from the outcome of the review, the precise extent of the problem as it concerns and affects the two areas in question, it would be difficult to say precisely what ought to be done. It would be fair to say that the evidence would not seem to be as extensive as might be thought. Nevertheless, to prejudge it and also to prejudge precisely what one would do about it, would not be right. Clearly one must wait to see exactly what it is we are talking about. If it should be that the burden is as great as my noble friend intimates—and I repeat that we shall know only when we have the results of the review—clearly, we should want to look at it in the light of that.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, if I may, I should like to ask one more supplementary question. I did not say that the burden was very great;I said "the burden "—and undoubtedly there is a burden on the ratepayers. It is entirely wrong in principle, whether the burden be small or large, that the

725
Government should not take any action to alleviate but simply say "Wait and see"
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, what can we do but wait and see, when we do not have the facts in front of us to indicate the extent of what we are talking about? If it should prove to be—as some would suggest—quite minimal, the burden on the ratepayers would not be as my noble friend suggests. However, if it is a burden of significance, clearly the Government would want to take that into account.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in asking the Minister a question, may I say how delighted I was that he did not agree that there as an excessive burden at this stage, because I believe this matter has been greatly exaggerated. Does he not agree that the Greater London Council offered Hillingdon extra housing, which it did not take up? Secondly, does he not agree that in the recent case of the Ethiopian woman and her child, which has led to a great deal of publicity, the court found that they were completely homeless, without any other place of residence at all, and they would presumably have had to be housed in some way by any local authority?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I should say at once that I did not, in fact, say that there was not a great burden on Hillingdon. I said that as yet we did not know quite what it was, and that we wanted to know. As for the other case to which the noble Baroness referred, I would point out that the court said that in those circumstances there was a duty to house. However, I think it would do no harm to make it quite clear that that is not so in every case. This was the case of someone who was designated and given the status of a refugee. In those circumstances the courts judge that there is a duty. However, it should also be stated that if it can be shown that the immigrant has not taken reasonable steps in advance to find accommodation, there may, indeed, not be a duty to do other than find some temporary accommodation until such time as the person concerned can reasonably find himself something else. Therefore, the matter is not as clear-cut as it might seem on the face
726
of it. I think that we would be well advised to wait just a little longer until we know the outcome of the review. Then we can reach conclusions.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate how long a resident of Hillingdon has to spend abroad before he can return through the airport and claim, as an immigrant, priority on the Hillingdon housing list?

THE BARLINNIE PRISON EXPERIMENT
2.48 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will extend the Barlinnie Prison Special Unit system for offenders guilty of violence to all prisons with such offenders, including the Maze Prison, Belfast.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord BELSTEAD): My Lords, we have no specific plans to introduce in England and Wales a unit similar to the Special Unit at Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow. I understand that there are no plans to establish such a unit in Northern Ireland or to set up additional units on similar lines in Scotland. We are taking a close interest in the Barlinnie experiment and have arranged for senior Home Office officials to visit Barlinnie shortly.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he not agree that the present treatment of violent offenders generally is proving a failure, and that there is no rehabilitation? However, is not the liberal treatment at Barlinnie proving successful, not only in the well-publicised case of Mr. Boyle, but in others? Are discussions taking place about the extension of the Barlinnie system, and, if so, would it not be to the benefit of the officers at the Maze Prison if it were applied there, and thus undermine the IRA propaganda about the H Block, which is probably their most effective instrument to influence others?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord that the handling and treatment of long-term and violent prisoners is not successful in this country. In England and Wales we have the dispersal system;the prison at Grendon has its therapeutic regime;there is C wing at Parkhurst which exists as a structured regime for prisoners who suffer from mental disorders, and of course there are a number of prison hospital annexes. In addition to that, the noble Lord referred to the rehabilitation of prisoners in the community. This is what the parole system and the pre-release employment scheme are all about. The visit of officials from my right honourable friend's department is precisely to meet the second point which the noble Lord put to us.
We are genuinely going to see what we think it might be feasible and practic-able to take from the Scottish system to put into the system in England and Wales. This is taking into account the fact that the system at Barlinnie is a heavy commitment on staffing resources. As to the final point of the noble Lord, that is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question that I asked a year or so ago, about the Maze Prison? Is it still true that what the prisoners in the Maze Prison are doing is self-inflicted? It makes a great difference whether the conditions under which they are living are self-inflicted or are not self-inflicted.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, so far as I know—and this falls slightly but not completely outside the question the noble Lord is asking—what the noble Baroness is saying is correct.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in pursuing attempts at rehabilitation of violent offenders to make them non-violent, I hope we do not get into the position of being such "good-doers "that we let violent men return to our population to continue the crimes for which they have previously been imprisoned?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I shall certainly take into account what the noble Lord has said.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord's department take the view that the propaganda of the IRA as to the appalling conditions in prison serves the useful purpose of discouraging people from going there?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am delighted to say to the noble Lord that that question falls very far wide of the original Question
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, despite what the Minister has said, do not the recidivist statistics prove the absolute failure of our present prison system to deal with violent offenders? Is not the result of the more progressive treatment of Barlinnie an indication that rehabilitation can take place? If it were applied in Northern Ireland, would it not destroy the IRA propaganda which is proving so effective?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not agree with what the noble Lord said to begin with, and I should like to make that crystal clear. So far as the subsequent remarks of the noble Lord are concerned, may I repeat that, although the Barlinnie experiment is, so far as we know—and there is no research on the subject—a very interesting one, it involves a very heavy commitment, so far as resources are concerned, for the Prison Service. The Prison Service in Scotland is in better shape, so far as numbers of prison officers is concerned, than in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that I had to say to the noble Lord in my first reply that this is a matter finally for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to decide.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, would the Minister agree that there is a very basic difference between recidivist offenders referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and violent offenders in general, which is the subject of this Question?
Lord BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords, indeed I would.

BUSINESS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time.
It is proposed that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for approximately one hour in order to enable those of your Lordships who are particularly connected with the Education Bill to avail yourselves of these facilities.
The Report stage of the National Heritage Bill will be continued during this adjournment.
It may also be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that breakfast will be available from 6.30 to 7.30 a.m.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
2.55 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(BaronessYoung.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERCARE in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Requirements as to governing bodies]:
The Countess of LOUDOUN The Countess of LOUDOUN had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) The governing body of a special school shall include, in addition to such governors as are mentioned above, a governor who is a member of the medical profession, and a governor who is himself handicapped.").
The noble Countess said: As the content of my amendment was fully discussed yesterday on a similar amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I do not propose to move my amendment today.
[Amendments Nos. 34, 34A, and 35 not moved.]
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert (";and

(c) where a secret ballot is to be held, the authority shall ensure that a brief biography of the candidates and statement of policy is made available with the ballot papers;and

(d) such ballot papers must be issued to all electors;and

(e) in the election of parent governors each parent of a pupil shall have a vote, and where a parent has more than one child in a school he shall have one vote in respect of each child and

(f) in the election of staff governors each full time and each part time member shall have one vote.").

The noble Baroness said: I am sorry for delaying the Committee. I was expecting somebody else to move this amendment. What we want to do is to explain how these people, the parents and the teachers, will be elected to the governing body. We have set out the conditions here. We want there to be a secret ballot. I think that the amendment explains itself. We want there to be a secret ballot and we want the people who are going to vote to know something about those they are going to vote for. If you have a large secondary school, quite obviously all the parents will not know each other and it is going to be difficult to choose unless they have some information about them, and what their ideas are about on what should happen in the school. Everyone should have a ballot paper, and every parent should have a vote, and in the election of staff governors every full-time and every part-time member should have a vote. This is quite self-explanatory, but they are important conditions so that every member has full information and every opportunity to vote sensibly.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I support the noble Baroness on this matter. I think that this is important. This is taking place where there are members of staff on governing bodies and where there are already parents on governing bodies. The experience that we have gathered over the time is that it is important that people should explain where they stand, where they are and so on. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord BELLWIN: It is really a question of how far the noble Baroness, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, accept that local education authorities are responsible elected representative bodies who do not need their hand held in this way. Our policy on this side of the Committee is to work on the assumption that LEAs will behave reasonably, and to leave as much of the detailed arrangements as is possible in their hands. In the case of elections of parent and teacher governors, the only, and crucial, condition it seems necessary to lay down in statute is that elections shall be by secret ballot. The matters stipulated in the amendment are only some of those which local education authorities will have responsibility for resolving.
It is not clear according to what criteria the noble Baroness has chosen these particular matters, but there are others, such as the minimum required number of votes cast for an election to be valid, that could as well, or perhaps even better, have been included. Surely experience should tell us that the more detail, the more chapter and verse, one writes into matters like this, the more complex it all becomes. That is only a short step away for there having to be legal interpretations because situations have arisen which have caused problems;and then we have lawyers involved and all those sorts of arguments. For all these reasons, we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord PARRY: Would the Minister not agree that the theme running through our discussions yesterday emphasised the fact that local government has moved so much further away from the people in Great Britain that handholding exercises become necessary from time to time? I do not believe that any of us are confident that the new system of local government is close enough to the people to give the type of detailed knowledge that the amendment suggests to the far away men in far away places who control the destinies of the schools.
The Earl of SWINTON: I applaud what my noble friend the Minister has said, but he did not mention the subject of expense. I do not know what expense would be placed on local authorities in these hard times to produce all these papers. And what about the sheer
732
practicalities of the way in which it would be done? As for brief biographies of candidates, with authorities asking children to take home details when there is an election, I am certain that half of them would get lost. Children have a great deal to take home to their parents and much of it gets left in their pockets. It seems that the biographies of some candidates would be given to parents while others would not. In my view the expense would be out of all proportion to the effect the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, and I hope the Government will not accept the amendment.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: If biographies of this kind were made available to all the electors in an area, that would tend to make parents who have children at school all the more interested in what was going on in the school. I am in favour of secret ballots in principle;indeed, following our experience a few moments ago, it would not be a bad idea if we had a secret ballot to decide who is to move certain amendments. Time and again yesterday it was said that very often governing bodies of schools are packed with party hacks. If biographies of candidates were to be handed to those who were to elect school governors, such hacks would be brought to light. I have sat on governing bodies and have been quite unaware sometimes (although I have been suspicious) of the political leanings of some of the governors;they hide it very successfully on occasions, and indeed there are more non-political Conservatives on governing bodies on which I have sat than I thought there were in the whole of the country.
Lord HEYCOCK: We are talking about the articles of government in relation to the appointment of people and, returning to the last point the Minister made, we must remember that the election of these governors is the responsibility of the local education authority. The amendment merely suggests that if we are to have governors, there shall be a method of selection. What is wrong with that? That is not taking anything away from the local authority;they are the controlling body who have statutory obligations for their area. The amendment is saying, and saying clearly, that this is the method we should like to see adopted. As I said last night, we are dealing with a

733
new Education Bill and we now have the opportunity, drawing on a lifetime of experience, to add something that in our view is distinct and important. There is no need to suggest that we want to take something away from local authorities. In the end they are responsible for the articles of management both for primary and secondary schools. The amendment spells out clearly and fundamentally the method we should like to see adopted for the selection of people to serve on those bodies.
Lord MORRIS: From what I have heard from noble Lords opposite, I get the distinct impression that hundreds of people are queuing up to serve as governors of schools and that these posts are being bitterly contested. I do not think that that is the case and I should like clarification on that point.
Viscount SIMON: Are we not making rather heavy weather of this? I agree very much with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who called attention to the cost of this proposal. Apart from that, I was wondering who would write these brief biographies. I suppose it would be the people themselves. If they are, as has been suggested, party hacks, I do not think they will write that in their biographies.
Lord PARRY: The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, illustrates beautifully the nature of the dilemma facing the Government. It used to be the case that a biographical note was not necessary because the candidate was known;he was met in the street by those electing him to office. We now have an attenuated system of local government which forces on us the very complexities which noble Lords are now considering. It seems to me vital that the children of our schools should be entrusted with governing bodies comprised of people whose identity is clearly known, and in the system we now have that is not the case.
Lord MILVERTON: I support the Minister in opposing the amendment. So far as primary schools are concerned, from my experience of being a manager of Church-controlled primary schools I would say that the system for appointing managers works very well. They are known and, in my view, those appointed
734
take the job seriously and have the good of the school at heart. I support my noble friend in saying there is no need for the amendment. From my experience of Wiltshire, I am sure that the LEA there carry this out as well in the comprehensive schools as in the primary schools.
Lord BELLWIN: The noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred to what he called the dilemma facing the Government. I was not aware that the Government were facing a dilemma on this issue, least of all on this amendment;we may face dilemmas on some others, but certainly not on this one. He also said that local government was moving away from the people. I suppose that is a view, but I think everyone in the Committee is concerned to ensure that that should not be so, and I do not think there is anything in the Bill that will do other, if that is the case, than bring it closer. In any event, if anybody has experience of organising and running elections, it must be the local authorities. They have great experience of this, as I know. My noble friend Lord Swinton referred to the question of expense, and I am grateful to him for making that point. Certainly there would be greater expense if we were to follow the lines proposed in the amendment, but in all honesty that is not the prime reason for us not waiting to accept it. Nevertheless, my noble friend made an important point.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, made a similar point and I am grateful to him for his support in resisting the amendment. Likewise, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Milverton, who I think said the same thing but in another way. I am grateful to him none the less, as I am to my noble friend Lord Morris. The noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, said that he was concerned to make parents more interested. The whole tenor of our response to the amendment is that if what the amendment proposes is what an education authority wants to do, let it go ahead and do so, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it from doing so. We are saying that to require it statutorily and to insert it in the Bill in such detail in the way proposed in our view cannot be right, and that is why we cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness DAVID: Having listened to the views expressed by the Committee, I

735
am willing to withdraw the amendment, as the secret ballot is mentioned in the Bill. But I shall enjoy later this afternoon reminding the Minister of what he said about trusting local authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.10 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 29, leave out subsection (11).
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment to find out what are the Government's intentions. As the clause now stands, when the Bill becomes law, if it does, presumably, to begin with, there will be two kinds of school: those where the instrument of government is formed after the Act, and to which this clause would apply;and those already in existence, to which the clause would not apply until the Secretary of State says that it should. It would not be desirable for that difference to be maintained for any length of time. I should have thought that it would be quite possible, almost as soon as the Act is passed, for the Secretary of State to make an order applying the section to all schools, but we should like to know whether this is how the Government propose to set about the matter. I beg to move
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said that he wants to know what are the Government's intentions in regard to this particular subsection of the clause. The effect of his amendment would be to hasten the implementation of this Part of the Bill regarding changes in the government of schools. If carried, the amendment would have the effect of applying this Part of the Act immediately it is brought into effect. In all the matters that we are considering in the Bill we arc having regard to the effects of public expenditure, and we recognise that there attaches to the school government provisions the possibility of increased expenditure by way of clerking of committees and so on —I sec that we have other amendments on this matter. It would only be right to draw the Committee's attention to this point.
736
We believe that it is essential for both practical reasons and public expenditure reasons that provision should be made to allow the new requirements about the composition of governing bodies to be introduced over a period of time. Subsection (11) is, first, intended to require the new instruments made after the Bill comes into effect to conform to the provisions of Clause 2. Where at present there are not such instruments of government they would then subscribe to the Bill. But the subsection also allows that existing instruments would continue until the Secretary of State makes an order under subsection (11)(b) applying the provisions of Clause 2 to that school. It is our firm intention to press ahead with the introduction of the changes contained in the Bill as quickly as is practicable, and the provision of subsection (11)(b) will enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the implementation is not unduly delayed.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: Can the noble Baroness give me an indication of how long it will take, and would it be fair to assume that within a year of the passage of the Act this provision would apply to all schools?
Baroness YOUNG: At this stage I would not wish to be drawn into stating a timetable on this. We have said that we want to bring this provision into effect as quickly as resources will allow, and we certainly would not expect it to drag on for several years with nothing happening. Clearly we shall move in close consultation with our colleagues with regard to how the local authorities wish to proceed on these matters. I should not wish to go beyond what I have said. We do not wish this matter to be unduly delayed, but on the other hand, with regard to all that we are to say on all the subsequent clauses of the Bill we recognise the economic constraints under which we are all working.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Grouping of schools under single governing body]:
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 2, leave out ("only to two primary schools") and insert ("to two primary schools catering for different age groups").
The noble Baroness said: We are rather anxious about the Government's inten-tions regarding setting up a governing body for every school. It does not actually state that intention at all in this clause, and so I move this amendment because it puts forward some safeguards. As subsection (2) stands, several primary schools could be grouped together under one governing body;in fact, many could. My amendment strives to say that two primary schools, or rather a junior school and an infants school could be grouped together. This would seem to be reason- able, because very often the children from the infants school go straight on to the juniors school, and the two schools are usually very close together. We want to provide that junior and infants can be under one governing body, but that groups of primary schools should not in fact be grouped at all. I beg to move.
Lord BELLWIN: I understand the noble Baroness's reasons for proposing the amendment even though, as drafted, it would not achieve the effect that she has in mind. I certainly agree that the most obvious case in which it would be sensible to group two primary schools is where a junior and infants school share the same site. But there may be other circumstances where local authorities would wish to do this, and yet again it seems to the Government sensible to leave this to the discretion of the local education authorities, for local determination in the light of local circumstances.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: Surely, even in Leeds this would not take place. It would work out much differently, because in grouping quite a large number one might not get the right kind
of position where head teachers were just coming in, reporting, and going out;and it could go on like this. Surely, what is proposed here is a sensible thing to do.
Lord BELLWIN: When anyone says to me, "Even in Leeds ", I usually respond by saying, "Especially in Leeds". But on this occasion I think I must say again that the thrust of this point, so far as the Government are concerned, is that I am fairly sure that local education authorities would resent this removal of a discretion that they have at present in this matter. It really comes down to a point that we debated again and again yesterday, and which no doubt we shall debate yet again and again before the week is out. It is a question of how far one is willing to leave the matter to the discretion of the local authority. So that I give no hostage to fortune for what I may say this week or further in the future, let me say that there are of course situations where there is something different, but frankly we do not think that this is one of those situations, and therefore we resist the amendment.
Lord HEYCOCK: May I assume from the statement of the Minister that he logically applies the same reasoning right through this matter, and that the local authority can do this? If they want to do what is implied in the amendment, can they do it?
Lord BELLWIN: The answer to that is, Yes, indeed, they can.
Baroness DAVID: I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. I may appear rather distrustful of the Government's intentions, but I feel that there is quite a let-out here, and so I should like to press my amendment.
3.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65;Not-Contents, 149.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Brockway, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Aylestone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

David, B.

Birk, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Blease, L.

Bullock, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Blyton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Denington, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Collison, L.

Diamond, L.

Bowden, L.

Crook, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Janner, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Galpern, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gardiner, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Mishcon, L.

Strauss, L.

Gosford, E.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Parry, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hall, V.

Peart, L.

Underhill, L.

Hamnett, L.

Phillips, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Henderson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Heycock, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

White, B.

Jacobson, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Exeter, M.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Alport, L.

Foot, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Amherst, E.

Forester, L.

Norfolk, D.

Amory, V.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, B.

Ampthill, L.

Galloway, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amulree, L.

Gisborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Auckland, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Baker, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Renton, L.

Balerno, L.

Gowrie, E.

Ridley, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gray, L.

Robbins, L.

Barnby, L.

Greenway, L.

Roberthall, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grey, E.

Rochdale, V.

Bellwin, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Belstead, L.

Haig, E.

Rochester, L.

Berkeley, B.

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

St. Davids, V.

Bessborough, E.

St. Just, L.

Blake, L.

Hampton, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harvington, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Hatherton, L.

Savile, L.

Braye, L.

Henley, L.

Seear, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hives, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Simon, V.

Brookes, L.

Hunt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Sligo, M.

Burton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Spens, L.

Caccia, L.

Ilchester, E.

Stamp, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Carrington, L. (A Principal Secretary of State.)

James of Rusholme, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cathcart. E.

Kimberley, E.

Suffield, L.

Chesham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swansea, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Swaythling, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Loudoun, C.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Torphichen, L.

Daventry, V.

Luke, L.

Tranmire, L.

Davidson, V.

Lyell, L.

Trenchard, V.

De Freyne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ullswater, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Derwent, L.

McNair, L.

Vernon, L.

Digby, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Dundonald, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Westbury, L.

Effingham, E.

Maybray-King, L.

Wolverton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Middleton, L.

Wynford, L.

Elton, L.

Milverton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Minto, E.

Young, B.

Energlyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.28 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 12, leave out from first ("governors;") to end of line 14 and insert ("provided that there shall be at least one teacher and one parent elected from each school").
The noble Baroness said: Subsection (4) of this clause says:
"…. and for the purposes of the election of such governors the schools to which the arrangement relates may be treated either separately or as if they were a single school".
What I am striving to do in this amendment is to make sure that each school has one teacher and one parent if there is a grouping of schools to provide one governing body. As the clause stands, the two parents or two teachers could come from one school. It is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It just makes for fairness between schools.
Baroness YOUNG: I understand perfectly the point the noble Baroness, Lady David, is making. In inserting this particular subsection, we have tried to ensure that governing bodies, by having one parent and one teacher from each of a number of grouped schools, will not become too large. It is our intention eventually to move to the stage at which every school has its own governing body. We have had this arrangement whereby two can be grouped together and if more than two are to be grouped together this can be done only with the approval of the Secretary of State. But it is possible under the proposals. If the amendment of the noble Baroness were to be carried, this would then mean three parents and three teachers on the governing body and we would be getting a much larger governing body. While I see the point she is making, I hope she will accept that we hope that these are, as it were, transitional arrangements and that we do not want governing bodies which could become too large. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just produced an extremely good reason for supporting this amendment. If there are really going to be three parents and three teachers, let us have it.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: Did I understand the noble Baroness, Lady Young, correctly—that it is her intention that each school will eventually have its own governing body?
Baroness YOUNG: The position we should like to arrive at is that each school would have its own governing body, but we accept that in the meantime there will be cases where it would be more sensible to group. Local authorities do not have to group. There is no compulsion about it, but under the Bill they are allowed to group two schools together. My noble friend Lord Bellwin identified the sort of situation we were thinking of in regard to an infant and a junior school, which would be an obviously sensible grouping. Many of us can think of instances where it might be sensible to group, for example, an infant, a junior and a primary school together. This would be possible, but it requires the agreement of the Secretary of State, because we do not wish to encourage larger grouping.
Our intention is that there would be in the grouped infant and junior school the two parents and the two teachers, and one would assume that one would come from each school. But if it became larger than that, there would have to be a local arrangement about it. We have not insisted upon this. It would be perfectly possible under our arrangements. All that we have insisted upon in our proposals is that there will be a minimum. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, could be met by the fact that there could easily be three;but we are not legislating upon it.
Lord HEYCOCK: Is it the case that under the Bill one can have a single governing body for a primary school and a secondary school? Is that correct, or have I misunderstood the noble Baroness, Lady Young? Her previous argument based on the grounds of expense has gone out of the window, because if each one of those schools is serviced this will double or treble the expense of the administrative authority if there are single group governing bodies. I wondered whether I had heard the noble Baroness correctly, because on the grounds of economics it is absolutely out.
Baroness YOUNG: Under the terms of the Bill there would be a governing

743
body for all secondary schools. It is the Government's intention that eventually there will be a governing body for every school, but there are circumstances where it is sensible to group two schools together and that is what Clause 3 is about.
Lord HEYCOCK: In my own area, which is a large area, primary schools and secondary schools are grouped for the purpose of making savings in staff. If we have single-group primary schools and single-group governing bodies, and if they have to be serviced and meetings held on different dates, it is going to be rather expensive to the local authority. That is what my director of education tells me.
Baroness DAVID: I must admit that I am not really satisfied with the answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I think it could lead to a good deal of ill-feeling between the various schools if they do not each have a parent and a teacher. If they have rather big governing bodies to start with, by having three parents and three teachers, perhaps that will encourage them to hurry up with their arrangements for having separate governing bodies, and therefore I should like to press this amendment.
3.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87;Not-Contents, 130.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peart, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Phillips, B.

Amherst, E.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Amulree, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

[Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Gosford, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Banks, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, Bp.

Birk, B.

Hall, V.

Rochester, L.

Blease, L.

Hamnett, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blyton, L.

Hampton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Henderson, L.

Seear, B.

Bowden, L.

Heycock, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Brimelow, L.

Hunt, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Simon, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacques, L.

Steward of Alvechurch, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strauss, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Swaythling, L.

David, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Underhill, L.

Denington, B.

McNair, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Diamond, L.

Milford, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Foot, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Parry, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Galpern, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Belstead, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Berkeley, B.

Caccia, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Alport, L.

Blake, L.

Cathcart, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Boothby, L.

Chesham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Clancarty, E.

Auckland, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Baker, L.

Braye, L.

Clwyd, L.

Balerno, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Daventry, V.

Barnby, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Davidson, V.

Bellwin, L.

Brookes, L.

De Freyne, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Hunter of Newington, L.

Robbins, L.

Derwent, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochdale, V.

Digby, L.

llchester, E.

St. Davids, V.

Dormer, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Just, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Dudley, E.

Kimberley, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Dundonald, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Savile, L.

Effingham, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Selkirk, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Elton, L.

Loudoun, C.

Skelmersdale, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sligo, M.

Energlyn, L.

Luke, L.

Spens, L.

Falkland, V.

Lyell, L.

Stamp, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathspey, L.

Galloway, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Suffield, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swansea, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Mansfield, E.

Swinton, E.

Gowrie, E.

Maybray-King, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Gray, L.

Middleton, L.

Torphichen, L.

Greenway, L.

Milverton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gridley, L.

Minto, E.

Trenchard, V.

Haig, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

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

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vernon, L.

Moyne, L.

Vickers, B.

Halsbury, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vivian, L.

Harvington, L.

Norfolk, D.

Westbury, L.

Hatherton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Wolverton, L.

Henley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wynford, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Radnor, E.

Yarborough, E.

Hives, L.

Renton, L.

Young, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ridley, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Governors' proceedings and tenure of office]
3.44 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 5, line 6, after ("State") insert ("after consultations with bodies which appear to him to be representative of local education authorities").
The noble Lord said: I am sure that, on this clause, the Government will accept this amendment. After all the Government have said about consultation, and so on, and about how they want to democratise and bring things back in, I am sure they will certainly accept this one. If there is anyone who objects to it, I am sure it will not be the Government Ministers, because, going back to yesterday's questions and answers, I am sure they will completely agree that this is a sensible amendment to the Bill which will work very well indeed. I am sure they will appreciate it with open arms, even in Leeds. I beg to move.
Viscount RIDLEY: As I very nearly put down an amendment in identical
746
words at the request of the Association of County Councils, I feel bound to support this amendment. It is almost meaninglessly trivial, and I hope that the Government will accept it. If not, I shall be delighted to be Content for once in this long day in front of us.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am afraid
that, although it is a very simple little amendment, I, for one—and I have studied it fairly carefully, as I have studied most of the amendments to this Bill so far fairly carefully—simply do not understand it. It says:
"after consultations with bodies which appear to him"—
that is the Secretary of State—
"to be representative of local education authorities".
I am no educational scholar in any theoretical or practical way, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is able to tell me who else, apart from local education authorities, are representative of them.
Baroness DAVID: Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord because I think I have the answer;or, indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, could give it. It is, I think, the ACC and the AMA.
Lord BELLWIN: I have to suggest that it really is unnecessary to write this into the statute. The Secretary of State has already made it quite clear that there will be full consultations with all interested bodies, including the local authority associations, before any regulations are made, and I am happy to reaffirm that today. Indeed, can noble Lords recall any occasion on which regulations of this kind have been made without such consultations?
As for the point which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made, I would suggest that the argument that local authorities must always have a statutory right as such to be consulted would be unique. Indeed, I doubt very much if that is what they would want, simply because they are responsible for implementing the regulations. Those responsible for voluntary schools will be just as directly affected. There are, for that matter, many others who also have a strong claim to be consulted—teachers' organisations, parents and so on—and quite probably they would be consulted. But, clearly, there is no case for writing into the Bill a statutory obligation so to do in the case of one group, of one section of the people concerned, and not the others. Therefore, perhaps with a slight tinge of regret, I fear that the Government have to resist this amendment.
Lord UNDERHILL: I just cannot understand the reasoning of the Minister on this issue. If he regards it as an automatic thing, then why not put it in the Bill? Because at the end of the day we could come to the decision that all we need to do is say, "Let us have an Education Bill and leave everything to either the Secretary of State or the Minister". This ought to be put in because it is a safeguard, and the Minister himself says that it will actually be carried out. Therefore, why not put it in the Bill and be reasonable?
Lord BELLWIN: I am not aware that I am not reasonable, but there may be other opinions as to that. I thought the point I made about the other bodies concerned was a very relevant one which was not touched on in what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. There are others too, who will have to be consulted on a whole variety of things from time to time, and if one were to write it into the statute
748
that the local authorities should be so consulted then one would have to give serious consideration to other bodies which may also have to be included in this way. I really do not think this is practical I am open to correction on this, but I suggest there is very little precedent from the previous Labour Administration, or any other, for that matter, for writing such a requirement for consultation into legislation of this kind.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I remind the Minister that years ago—and I am sorry that Lord Alexander is not in the Chamber at this particular time—it was the wish of the department that there should be consultation with the Association of Education Committees, as they were at that particular time, and that that was written into quite a number of statutes. This was often the case. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, is not here to support me. This was common practice.
Lord BELLWIN: I cannot comment on the circumstances to which the noble Lord refers;but I feel confident in standing on the generality of the point that I made, that in fact it has not been the general practice for Administrations in the past to write into legislation that there shall be consultation of this kind. I think it is right to say that.
Lord HEYCOCK: The normal practice is for those consultations to take place. From my long experience, I can say that if there is any change in the pattern of the articles of managers or governors, the normal consultation takes place with the Department of Education and Science. In my mind, that is the normal pattern of administrative response between those in the department and those who are administering education in the field.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I am not withdrawing the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
3.52 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to Clause 4(1)(b) and is concerned with the tenure of office and disqualifica-

749
tion of governors. We should like to know on what grounds persons are likely to be disqualified from being governors. Difficulties can arise. I can remember that in the case of a teacher in an aided school the question arose as to whether he could be the manager of a school run directly by the local education authority since in law he was the employee, not of the LEA but of the board of governors of the aided school. That is an example of the kind of problem which might arise. What have the Government in mind as being the grounds for disqualifying people from becoming governors? I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: On this particular point, I think the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, would recognise that on these matters we should consult quite widely about the grounds on which the regulations would be made. These would be subject to consultation with those who are concerned. I think it would be difficult to lay down in statute form, as the noble Lord has suggested, the list of matters that might have to be considered.
As he asked specifically what are the kinds of grounds on which disqualification might occur, I may say that it is possible that people might be disqualified who had failed to attend a specified number of consecutive meetings, which is a common practice in a number of governing bodies and on other committees. Teacher and parent governors might be asked to withdraw from the discussion of certain matters—matters, say, concerning senior staff appointments or matters relating to their own children. None of these matters is settled. There will have to be discussion and consultation. And there are others. Anyone who has had experience on public bodies and committees will know that there are occasions on which it would be desirable that someone should be disqualified;and that is what we are concerned with here.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I am obliged to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.56 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) On appointment all governors shall receive a handbook setting out the powers and duties of governors and a guide to how they shall perform their duties;and where appropriate courses shall be run for new governors.").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 43. May I suggest that we consider at the same time Amendment No. 44? Owing to the very considerable power and duties of school governors, and the fact that the degree of success which a school has in service to a community may be influenced considerably by the efficiency and understanding of its governing body, it is clearly essential that all governors should be provided with a handbook setting out their powers and duties—and may I emphasise that these should be set out in a language which, speaking for myself, ordinary people can understand. The handbook should outline the organisation and services of the local education authority and the duties of its officers and should include the names and addresses of officers whom governors may wish to contact. The handbook should include an index so that governors may readily find the information that they want. The handbook should also provide information about short training courses both for new governors and for governors who wish to be brought up to date with their work.
The times at which these courses should be held should vary, and both evening and afternoon courses should be held in most, but not all, LEA areas. All governors should be informed by letter of the existence of these courses, of the ground they will cover and of their varying interest and value from the governors' point of view. I have with me the handbook which LEAs provide to all governors. If the Government are interested, they might like to look at it.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I support this amendment because it is one about which I feel strongly. When one becomes a Member of this House, one receives a handbook giving instructions as to what goes on and so forth;and I think that is very important. When one becomes a governor of a school, very often, in many authorities, one does know what one's position is. It was interesting to me, in going round the country, to note how many governors and managers did

751
not know what their responsibilities were. Therefore, I believe this amendment to be worth while.
May I give another illustration regarding training. I do not want to go on too long, but I think it is very important. Years ago, when I became a magistrate, I received notice of appointment and I sat on the bench at that time without any training at all. Luckily, we had a very good chairman of the bench who at that time said—if I can use a Lancastrian phrase that my Yorkshire colleagues will understand—" Look, lad! Just sit back and listen for 12 months and tha'll be all right". Listen and learn! Now, magistrates are trained;they go through a course of training.
Because of the legislation in education and because of the difficulties that governors and managers are facing, and will be facing, I believe it is important that they should know what the situation is. We do not want to train governors for a B.Ed. degree, but we want to give them the benefit of the experience of certain officers who would explain the fundamental principles of what a governor is expected to do. Therefore, I think it is right that this should be brought into the Bill at this time.
4 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: We should like, from these Benches, to support this amendment. I am not sure that I have understood it correctly. Is Amendment No. 43 an alternative amendment to Amendment No. 44? They seem to be covering the same ground. I am not clear whether one is an alternative. We are on Amendment No. 43 but I think the noble Baroness spoke to Amendment No. 44 as well. If I may also speak to Amendment No. 44, may I ask whether there is a misprint in the last line but one? Surely it means initial training for not less than five hours per year?
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: I gave much thought to that and decided that it meant that the course should not be longer than four hours 59 minutes.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: At the moment all the noble Baroness is
752
asking for is what they get already because what they get now is less than five hours' training.
Lord UNDERHILL: May I support the noble Baroness in this amendment? Some years ago there was such pressure in the Labour Party where I was in the West Midlands that we had to produce our own memorandum for school governors throughout the whole of the counties of the West Midlands. This is still necessary and the Labour Party head office—far from being an affluent body—runs a correspondence course for school governors and managers. That is still continuing and has been going now for a few years. Our course could only be for those representing local authorities who are Labour Party members. It can do nothing for non-political representatives. This would indicate that there is a grave need for school governors to have something of this kind. The ILEA considers it necessary to have a handbook, and I hope that this helpful suggestion will be accepted by the Minister.
Baroness FISHER of RE DNAL: Yesterday it was stated that there were some foundation governors in Birmingham aged about 80. However, things have progressed and, if the Minister is interested, there has been a complete reorganisation of governing bodies in the City of Birmingham. It is not a handbook, the folder and the file are almost equivalent to what the Minister has this afternoon. It gives all the details, responsibilities and penalties of governing bodies. Also, two courses are run on Saturday mornings for all members of governing bodies. I feel sure that if the Minister is interested the Conservative chairman of the education committee in Birmingham will be very pleased to supply her with what they are doing there.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: May I take up the point that the noble Lord opposite raised as to the drafting of the last but one line of Amendment No. 44? I assumed when I read it that there was a misprint and the word "not "had been left out. We were told by the noble Baroness in charge of the amendment that this was intended. With respect, this is a ludicrous provision to put into any legislation. Five minutes' in-service training would, it seems to me, fully

753
comply with this as a statutory provision. Without touching at the moment on the merits of this kind of training, I must protest at a proposal which, if put into a statute, makes a mockery of legislation.
Lord ROBBINS: I have no objection whatever to handbooks. I agree with what has been said regarding the utility of the handbooks provided to members of the House of Lords. I do not understand why such a trivial matter should he written into a Bill. But what I least understand is the coupling of the provision of handbooks—which is a banal but not negative circumstance—with the suggestion of an in-service course. Is it suggested that there should be an in-service course of four hours 59 minutes for members of the House of Lords?
Lord MISHCON: Many of us are intrigued by the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has raised. The mind boggles at some examples that might be produced if this were legislated for in the present form. It can of course be altered. I have in mind a submission by some ingenious lawyer that as a governor had had five hours and five minutes' in-service training, all the acts that he performed after that were ultra virus. In such circumstances, we all might be amused but not pleased with our efforts. I am sure that this can be dealt with quite easily before the Report stage. We are really dealing with the spirit of the amendment.
I have risen in order to try and save the time of the Committee because it is my privilege to move Amendment No. 48 in a moment. I think that if I make one speech, the Committee may be tolerant and listen to me. If I try and make two speeches, I will not have such a favourable reaction. Therefore, I want to try and make only one speech. Amendment No. 48 provides for the way in which the duties and powers of governors shall come into existence so that there is uniformity.
Under that amendment there is a power—indeed a duty—so far as the Secretary of State is concerned, to bring such regulations before Parliament which will approve them by Affirmative Resolution. The powers and duties are defined in Amendment No. 48. It would appear to be logical to be talking about Amendment No. 48 because this is the way in
754
which, if that amendment were passed, the powers and duties will find their way into the handbook which, in turn, is to be in the possession of governors.
There is no doubt at all that all of us are very concerned to produce the highest possible efficiency and experience in the governors of our schools. Many of us who have chaired boards of governors have suddenly come across a point where we have to turn to the clerk to the governors. It depends on the area whether that clerk—and I say this without any offence to any official—is really schooled in the duties and powers of governors and what is in the Education Act, and so on. Many a time I have seen that reference has to be made to the clerk of governors in order that the powers and duties of governors may be defined at a certain meeting when the governors are dealing with a particular point. It is obviously right therefore that from the very start, and by virtue of an enactment, the governors, who we hope to see of a very efficient standard, shall know what their powers and duties are. Amendment No. 48, provides for uniformity regarding those powers and duties.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, it would mean that if in statute one provided for the powers and duties to be settled by the Secretary of State, it follows logically that then one has to provide that obviously it shall be a duty to pass over the handbook containing those powers and duties to the members of the governing body. I very much hope that this amendment will be accepted without any of us having to bother at this stage about the trivia of whether it is not less than, or less than, five hours, as mentioned here. I am quite sure—and I have no right to speak for the noble Baroness—that at this stage, provided that the principle were agreed, she would not go to the stake (if I may use that phrase) in regard to the time limit of the in-service training.
The LORD BISHOP of ROCHESTER: I should like to support the last phrase in Amendment No. 43, and to do so on the grounds that I think that, as we all want the best possible governing bodies for all these schools, the fact that appropriate courses shall be run for new governors will emphasise that we want those who undertake this work to have their primary

755
interest in the school, and to be ready to give time to it. If that should lead them to become a governor of the school it should override any outside loyalty to any other body whatever.
4.10 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: May I ask a question that could affect my vote on this? It may sound a trivial, grammatical one but the word "shall "occurs three times. "All governors shall receive a handbook ", with which I entirely agree;" they shall perform their duties ";and "The local education authority shall make provision. "I quite agree with the first and the third "shalls ", but I wonder whether how "they shall perform their duties "is not meant to be how "they should perform their duties ";I think it makes a difference.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERH ILL: I wonder if this is necessary. Unless I am misinformed I should have thought the duties of the governors are defined in the articles of government, and I presume a copy of these articles would be given to any governor on appointment as a matter of course. Therefore, he or she should know what his duties are, what the powers of the governors are. I accept the virtue of training, but I should not have thought this was a matter to be put into a Bill but rather a matter to be left to local education authorities to arrange. I am a little fearful of the prospect of setting up training for 300,000 people, which will be roughly the number of governors if this Bill is made effective. I really doubt whether these amendments are necessary.
Lord MILVERTON: I agree with the noble Lord in asking whether these amendments are really necessary, because there are handbooks which are given out to one when one becomes a governor. Wiltshire do as Inner London Education do, and give you a handbook—more than one;they run courses and are planning to do more and more for governors and managers. So I should have thought that if my noble friend the Minister could just hint to all local education authorities that they should do this sort of thing, the necessity of an amendment could be avoided.
Baroness YOUNG: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak
756
not only to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 but to the amendment moved by Lord Mishcon which is No. 48. The noble Baroness, Lady Stewart, in moving these amendments stressed the importance both of having a handbook for new governors and of training new governors. It is not surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, supported this because, of course, in his committee recommendations his committee recommended that all governors should have a short period of initial training, that they should attend in-service training courses regularly, and that a person should be designated by the local education authority to be responsible for co-ordinating the training of school governors.
From the tenor of the remarks from all parts of the Committee, because of the importance of school governors, everyone recognises that there is a value in having training for governors. I was, of course, interested in the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, about the Birmingham handbook which I have not actually seen but which I can imagine is a large one and is, I am sure, valuable to governors;and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about the Labour Party's handbook. May 1 say "snap "to him;we have one for the Conservative Party that we have produced and which has sold very widely and been extensively used. It is a completely factual book about the powers and duties of school governors, and I am sure that just as his book has proved to be useful, so has ours. This is because people becoming governors for the first time do want something of this kind.
I return, if I may, to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to ask: is this amendment really necessary in statute form'? In fact, any local authority can produce a handbook and can—and many do—run training courses. In fact, recent surveys show that over half the authorities already either provide or sponsor some form of governor training or have firm plans to do so, and there is a steady expansion of the amount of training provided.
The two reports from the Advisory Centre for Education, one published in their magazine Where in 1978, and a second one in 1979, show that over

757
50 per cent. of local education authorities are actively concerned with providing some kind of training for governors, and about 40 per cent. of the authorities in fact mention training in their replies to Circular 14/77 on the school curriculum. So that the initiative in this matter is already taken by a great many local authorities. However, following the publication of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, my department gave a grant of £90,000 to the Post Experience Courses Section of the Open University to enable it to develop a nationally available course of training for school governors.
I have just recently received information about some of the details that the course would contain, and it would be the sort of course that would be usable by a local authority if it were running a course for governors in its particular area. It includes such matters as the starter pack, the organisation, curriculum, pupils, staff, resources and finance, and something about the community. These would be booklets, as I undertsand it, and possibly film strips and tapes go with it. I hope this will lead to a course which is of value in its own right and which will act as a complement to local training provision which is specific to its own area.
We could not accept the second part of Amendment No. 44 even were it to he redrafted, because this would commit us to increased public expenditure which at this moment we would not want to place on local education authorities because we believe they ought to be free to develop their own schemes. However, I hope that I have said enough to reassure the noble Baroness that we are acting on the report of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor;that there is a great deal going on in the world on the training of school governors and we hope that the work at the Open University will enable a very effective and useful way of training and complementing the training for governors in local education authorities. With those assurances, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Stewart, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord MISHCON: May I take it that the noble Minister has not answered the point of Amendment No. 48 because she intends to do so when I formally move it? If so, of course, I have no complaint.
Baroness YOUNG: I wanted to clear this point with the noble Baroness, Lady Stewart, but I will answer the point on Clause 48. The difficulty that we find ourselves in in this new clause that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has proposed, is that he is laying down the duties in relation to school governors in the six different subsections that he has proposed. When we introduced this Bill my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it quite clear that we did not intend at this stage to legislate about the powers of governing bodies. Indeed, he may recall that the former Secretary of State, Mrs. Shirley Williams, acknowledged the difficulties about legislating on powers when she introduced the 1978 Education Bill in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, might like to remind himself—the reference is December 1978, column 1230—of what she said on that occasion. It was almost exactly echoed by what my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State said on 5th November when intro-ducing our Bill. Because there is no general agreement about the powers of governors, no general consensus about what they should be, we have left this to individual local authorities. These are matters which we feel are rightly left for them. The articles of government for Secondary schools will still be based on the model articles used in 1945 and cover, in fact, all the matters to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention on this particular list. The rules of managements of primary schools commonly follow the same pattern and there is no reason why, when setting up governing bodies for primary schools, they should not follow the same pattern because the matters to be decided are very similar, although the ages of the children are different. I hope that with these assurances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment too.
Lord MISHCON: Perhaps it would be tidier, in view of the question which was addressed to my noble friend Lady Stewart, if I shortly reply to the points made by the Minister when Amendment No. 48 is moved;but it will not be in the course of a long speech that I shall do so.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46 not moved.]
4.21 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 5, line 15, at end insert—
("No governor shall take part in any discussion or vote if he has a direct precuniary interest in the matter.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very brief point. I think the principle of the amendment will be generally agreed, but we should like to hear a little more precisely how the Government view this, because lately there have been one or two arguments in local councils as to what exactly a direct pecuniary interest is. I have always understood that in almost any body you can vote for something that will benefit you if it is a part of a large group of people who were also being benefited by it. For example, it is possible for Members of Parliament in another place to vote for an increase in old age pensions even if they themselves are going to benefit from that increase. I can imagine a board of governors having a question before them which would benefit the children of one of them, but he would not for that reason be precluded because it would affect not only him but all other parents of children at the school. On the other hand, if the question before the board was one of direct interest to a governor—say as a builder—then quite properly he should be precluded. What I really want to know is this: How do the Government see this question?
Baroness YOUNG: I think the first and most important point to remember is that if this amendment were to be accepted it would of course apply both to county and voluntary-aided schools. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the position of governors of county schools is rather different from that of governors of voluntary-aided schools, because in particular governors of those schools are in law personally liable for their actions and could be thus held to have a pecuniary interest in almost any matter, even though in most cases any cost arising would in practice be met by the maintaining authority or from trust funds or would be covered by insurance. There is therefore a difference between the two types of governors.
760
In fact, there are quite a large number of matters which fall to he covered in regulations. Among those which will be subject to very full consultations will be the question of the financial interest of governors. It is a little difficult to single out precisely the kind of circumstances we envisage as regards this, but I think it would he common practice with local authority committees and other statutory committees that the whole issue of pecuniary interest should be one that is covered, and I think we should want to leave it to consultations to see what agreement might he reached upon it.
Lord SHINWELL: The noble Baroness is quite correct in saying that local authori-ties do protect themselves against any form of corruption by any of their members. We are well aware of corruption having taken place. I shall not enlarge upon that as I think your Lordships are sufficiently aware of what has happened in various parts of the country—indeed when some members of local authority councils were imprisoned. I think we must be careful not to put temptation in the way of governors. I am not quite sure whether the noble Baroness is right in failing to understand the kind and nature of items that would come before the governors: as, for example, the maintenance of the school, the provision of materials, building and the like. All those items would present opportunities to people who lack integrity so that there is the possibility of corruption.
I think, therefore, there is something to be said for the amendment, and we should have the assurance that governors will not be open to any question of suspicion. There is, of course, no question of suspicion: we do not doubt their integrity but it is possible that they could be tempted and therefore they ought not to vote on any matter in which they could possibly have a pecuniary interest. That has been accepted by local authorities and there is no reason at all why that should not be accepted.
Baroness YOUNG: Of course, I am fully aware of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, both about cases of corruption in local government and the issues that could possibly arise over school governing bodies, though it is much less likely than other possibilities. Perhaps

761
I may draw to his attention the relevant model article of government for county secondary schools from the 1945 model articles. This says:
"Except with the approval in writing of the local education authority, no governor shall take or hold any interest in any property held or used for the purposes of the school or receive any remuneration for his services or be interested in the supply of works or goods to or for the purposes of the school".
That, I think, covers very broadly all the circumstances in which a governor could have a pecuniary interest. Clearly, if this needs to be amended—and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in his report recommended, I think I am right in saying, this form of condition within the model rules—that would be a matter for discussion. But this is what we seek to include and we would expect that governing bodies generally would base their instruments on the model rules which would include this.
I am quite certain that all responsible governors, and certainly local education authorities, would recognise the importance of this proviso. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, to be asking what it was and I think that by quoting the article in full, as I have done, he will see the circumstances to which we are referring.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47A not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
4.28 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
"Duties of Governors
"The Secretary of State shall by regulation, (which shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament), set out the powers and duties of governors. Such regulations shall set out:

(a) the ditties in relation to the appointment and dismissal of all teachers, and non-teaching staff in the school,

(b) the duties in relation to the maintenance of the school buildings and grounds,

762

(c) the duties in relation to the curriculum, timetables, and hours the school is open during the year,

(d) the duties in relation to the supply of materials to the school,

(e) the duties in relation to the discipline within the school,

(f) the duties in relation to school uniform, and any other requests the school may make to parents to pay for visits or materials."

The noble Lord said: The Minister, when we were dealing with Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, said that the problem of dealing with the powers and duties of governors had come before the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science and also before the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, and that both had felt that there were difficulties in the way of legislating for such matters and setting this out by regulations. I have on personal and political grounds the greatest respect for the previous Secretary of State for Education and on personal grounds the greatest respect for the present Secretary of State for Education. But the fact that the difficulties have been put off from December 1978 to December 1979, and presumably may be put off even further, does not enable us with good conscience to throw off those difficulties again.
We must examine the desirability of this matter—and the desirability is to wrestle with the powers and duties of school governors. They do not differ;in their main elements they are the same. If noble Lords examine the examples given in the amendment, I believe that they will take the view that, within those categories, we have included every type of school envisaged in this part of the Bill.
There is a good case for uniformity, and for saying that the powers and duties of governors should be examined by Parliament when the Secretary of State makes a regulation as to what those powers and duties should be. It may be that when the previous Secretary of State examined this matter in December 1978 further discussion was necessary with local education authorities before uniformity could be attained. A substantial period of time has elapsed since then.
Unless we grapple with this problem now by passing this amendment, I believe that we shall he faced with yet another

763
case of a beneficial provision being put off because further discussions have to take place. We must see that decisions on such vital matters are made. I ask the Minister seriously to consider this amendment. I would be more than happy to accept an undertaking by her that before Report the remaining difficulties will be circumvented so that we may have the uniformity in regulations that is so necessary in respect of the powers and duties of governors throughout the kingdom.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I am sorry that I am unable to support this amendment. I do not believe that uniformity is desirable. The duties of governors in urban areas may necessarily be different from those exercised in a rural area. Let me take as an example the maintenance of school buildings and grounds. In an urban area it may well he that the grounds are maintained by the parks department. Therefore, governors are not held responsible for the maintenance of grounds. This happens in a number of areas. In a rural area this is properly and rightly a direct responsibility of the governors. In relation to the supply of materials to a school, again there are variations. In certain areas there is a central supply department and the governors have no responsibility in respect of supplies. In other cases the governors quite properly have such a responsibility. Therefore, I cannot accept the proposition that there should be uniformity in these matters throughout the whole country.
Lord MISHCON: I rise briefly to deal with the point made by Lord Alexander so that the Committee should not be confused. I did not suggest, and would not suggest, that the duties and powers in regard to specific schools in respect of grounds, or whatever it may be, should be laid before Parliament by regulation. I was merely saying that the regulations should contain a little sentence, which would be clear to everybody, stating that where the grounds are in the ownership and care of the school, it is for the governors as part of their duties and powers to deal with them. There is no difficulty on this score. The desirability of uniformity is greater than the small difficulty of using wording to indicate that where these matters fall within the
764
purview of the school, by virtue of property, duty or whatever it may be, they should be dealt with by the governors.
Lord HEYCOCK: On the subject of standardisation, we must remember that the articles respecting governors are standard throughout the country. Such articles relating to the control of schools, whether maintained or otherwise, are more or less uniform. That is certainly the case in Wales. Therefore, in administrative terms there is already a type of standardisation.
It may be necessary by regulation rather than by provisions written into the Bill merely to indicate some of the functions of governors. I appreciate that there are differences in rural areas. In my county, for example, the subject of grounds and their maintenance is a matter for the local authority. The local authority carries out that function because it has the wherewithal to do so. I wish to emphasise that there is now a sense of uniformity in administration, and that the amendment seeks merely to give some indication that this is the case. I appreciate the standpoint of Lord Alexander, but remind him that there is already a great deal of standardisation in many facets of education. We are merely suggesting that this should be done by regulation as and when the Minister sees fit.
Baroness DENINGTON: I am unable to accept the argument put forward on this amendment by Lord Alexander. I believe that the governing body of a primary or secondary school should be responsible for overseeing the needs and requirements of all pupils in all aspects of the school. If the grounds which the noble Lord suggested should be maintained by the parks department were not kept in a proper state or were not up to a school's requirements, surely it would be for the governing body to draw the attention of the education committee to the fact that the parks department of the local authority was in dereliction of its proper duty. The same consideration applies to the supply of stationery, or anything else required by the school. Therefore, I regret that I cannot go along with Lord Alexander's argument.
Baroness YOUNG: As this discussion has progressed, I have become conscious

765
that we are talking at cross purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that we had put off a decision on this matter since December 1978. There is no question of anybody putting off a decision. Both the Labour Government and the present Government reached the same conclusion on this subject, both administrations having considered the matter carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Heycock, was right in his argument in that most governing bodies operate within the model rules. Those rules lay down a framework. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, was also right in saying that circumstances in different schools vary. Consequently, they vary within the framework that is laid down. In a sense both noble Lords were right.
The Labour Government when they introduced their legislation in 1978 and the present Government are concerned to stand by the model rules—rules which we believe are broadly acceptable to all the interested parties. We have no intention of changing the basic distribution of powers and duties as they affect local education authorities, governors and head teachers. Therefore, we stand by the framework.
What we should like to see, and what I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would like to see, is the possibility for development, where necessary, within that framework, because none of us can see precisely how the role of governing bodies might change in the future. That is why we believe that the system which we currently have provides this framework, and both the recent Advisory Centre for Education pamphlet School Governors: Partnership in Practice and our own report on Local Authority Arrangements for the School Curriculum show this clearly in their comments on the steadily increasing involvement of governors in the curriculum and on educational issues more generally. This is perfectly acceptable.
I do not think the noble Lord's point would be better met by these prescriptive rules that he is suggesting applying to every school, because many of them are quite permissible within the current framework. On the other hand, if they become too prescriptive, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, correctly pointed out, they could not possibly apply to every school.
766
I hope, therefore, that he will feel we are meeting his point and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord M1SHCON: In view of the very conciliatory terms in which the Minister has graciously dealt with this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Parental preferences]:
4.41 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 6, line 21, after ("school") insert ("in that area").
The noble Baroness said: We now come on to the extremely important clause which deals with admission to schools and parental preferences. I am interested in a number of amendments that are to be moved to safeguard the position of a local authority. This amendment is to insert the words "in that area ", so that subsection (1) would read:
" Every local education authority shall make arrangements for enabling the parent of a child in the area of the authority to express a preference as to the school in that area".
This amendment would make sure that a local education authority has a responsibility to make arrangements for parents to express preferences for schools, only in so far as those arrangements refer to schools within the area of the authority. Thus authority A should not be expected to make arrangements to enable a parent to express a preference for a school in authority B. If agreements have been reached between the authorities involved, then such arrangements may be made and would be permissible, given the terms of the amendment. In order that local authorities are able to plan effectively, without being undercut by neighbouring authorities seeking to attract pupils into their schools, for whatever motives, Clause 6 should make it clear that the requirement on an authority to enable parents to exercise choice should apply to its own schools or its own provision.
There is in the notes on clauses a slightly alarming phrase. Subsection (1) goes on to say:

767
"…to express a preference as to the school at which he wishes education to be provided for his child in the exercise of the authority's functions and to give reasons for his preference".
The phrase "in the exercise of the authority's functions "is rather mysterious, so I looked up the notes on clauses. They say:
" The phrase in the exercise of the authority's functions ' in subsection (1) brings in not just maintained schools, but any school with which the authority might make an arrangement for the education of the child".
I think that that is rather alarmingly wide.
It is particularly important to insert the words "in that area ", when one thinks of the later clauses about recoupment between authorities and so on. If this Bill is passed, it will be very much easier for children to move across boundaries, and at a time when rolls are falling it is even more difficult for local authorities to plan their educational provision. So this is a safeguarding amendment. I am glad to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is here, because I should have thought that this was something about which local authorities would have been extremely anxious.
We do not want a lot of poaching to go on across boundaries. I know that in some areas a perfectly amicable arrangement is reached, when another authority's schools are much closer than their own, but there is a danger. We have all heard about the Kingston situation, and the fears of Merton and Richmond that their children will be passing across the border. So this is an important clarifying amendment and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord HEYCOCK: I should like to support the amendment. I have been talking to many directors and administrators of education, and they are very worried about the wide interpretation which might be put on parental choice. I thought that section 76 of the 1944 Act was quite clear about parental choice, and that should have been sufficient. In North Wales, there is a clash between the teaching of Welsh and English in schools, which can create problems. Is it suggested that English parents in Gwynedd can send their children across the border, and that the Gwynedd education authority should make payment? You can drive
768
a coach and horses through this regulation. A parent can exercise his right to choose a grammar school, rather than a comprehensive school.
As I said, I support the amendment, and I think that parents' choice should be confined to the administrative area in which they reside and to which they contribute. I would certainly agree to that. There is choice in Wales on linguistic grounds, but within the area of the authority. There are also religious grounds upon which a parent can exercise his choice, but, again, within the authority's control. I am certain that this provision could cause all kinds of difficulties. At the end of the year, there are always difficulties in assessing the inter-authority payment for functions which another authority has performed, and this is one feature which disturbs authorities. At the moment, they are bending over backwards to see that parents have a choice. Naturally, in a free society there must be a modicum of choice, but, logically, it should be a restricted choice. The noble Baroness talks about expense, but this wide parental choice will be the most expensive part of education, from the local authority standpoint.
Let us get back to Section 76 of the 1944 Education Act. We made provision for parental choice in certain circumstances, and parents could appeal to the Minister if an authority acted unreasonably. I want to say this clearly, as a local authority representative for nearly 42 years. If you do not want to create problems and difficulties, and have myriads of appeals and legal interpretations, then, for goodness sake, support the amendment, because it is a logical one and restricts parental choice. But I agree that parents should exercise a choice within the area to which they make their contribution.
Lord HUNT: I rise to speak without the authority and knowledge of the noble Lord. Lord Heycock, and without having heard all the argument, but I also tend to agree with the amendent. My reason is a different one. I think it is very important that the Bill should not mislead parents into expecting things which, in the very great majority of cases, will not be realisable. The clause as phrased gives the impression that parents are going to be at liberty to make proposals about

769
moving their children from one school to another over distant parts of the country, which in principle I do not think is a good thing. In 99 cases out of 100, on economic grounds alone local education authorities are not going to negotiate such a change. It is very misleading and I do not think that parents should be led up the garden path.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: The noble Baroness who moved the amendment said, with frankness, that it was moved in the interests of the local authorities. No doubt it is;but, by the same token, it is an amendment which, if adopted, would affect prejudicially the rights of parents, inasmuch as it would limit the area in respect of which they can express a preference. I therefore take the view that it would have an adverse effect on the rights of parents and I am therefore very much against an amendment which would have that effect.
I quite take the point of the noble Lord who has just spoken, that if parents express a preference for a school in some other area it may not be possible to meet that preference and that there may then be disappointment. But it seems wrong, because of that, to seek to deny all parents the right to express a preference for a school outside the area.
I should like to put another thought to the noble Baroness. If quite a lot of people in a local education authority's area express a preference for schools outside that area, then that local authority probably ought to be doing some hard thinking about what is the matter with its schools and what improvements are needed to meet the wishes of parents.
I was also struck by the noble Baroness's reference—which I took to be a not wholly enthusiastic one—to what she described as "the Kingston situation." I am not unfamiliar with the Kingston situation, which I regard as extremely satisfactory. The Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, under a progressive and effective education authority, has created very high standards in the schools of that borough. It is therefore not at all surprising that parents in adjoining boroughs have pressed those adjoining boroughs to allow their children to come to the Kingston schools. Indeed, the parent of an intelligent child living in that area would almost be failing
770
in his duty if he did not do so, because the educational opportunities in that borough are so high.
If your Lordships think that I am indulging in a "commercial "on this point, I would ask them to consult the Oxbridge scholarship results for the last 10 years which the noble Baroness will find fully confirm what I have been saying. If, therefore, the moving of this amendment by the noble Baroness is designed in any degree to disturb the wholly satisfactory situation in which the educational standards of North-West Surrey are raised to a considerably higher level than they would otherwise attain because of the efforts of the Kingston Council, that gives me redoubled reason for being against her amendment.
Lord HEYCOCK: Since 1944, Section 76 has acted as the fundamental basis upon which parents exercise a choice. Would the noble Lord tell me what is wrong with it?
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Much as I would love it, I think that to give the noble Lord a lecture on many clauses of of the 1944 Act would mean that the noble Lord might find himself inclined towards taking his dinner before I had finished. I am saying that the Bill as it stands seems to me to be satisfactory to deal with the situation. I would bring the noble Lord and the Committee back to the point that it is the noble Baroness on the Front Bench there who wishes to alter that which seems to me to be the satisfactory position of the law as it will be if the Bill becomes an Act in its present form.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: Would not my noble friend agree that this would fall particularly hard on those parents who want their children to go to particular denominational schools on account of their faith? Quite often there is adequate primary education for those who wish to go to a Catholic, or to a Jewish, or to a Church of England school, but this is not always possible when it comes to the secondary school. If this embargo were to be imposed, it would fall particularly hard on those who want their children to go to a particular school of their faith. I am thinking of an experience I had in my old constituency. When a child

771
who had suffered for some years in hospital and who was very frail went to school, she could not stand the hurly-burly of the very active, boisterous and healthy youngsters around her. On medical advice it was suggested that the child would be able to mature and get into the other school if initially she could go to a convent school. I am happy to say that this happened some years ago, that she has now been to university and that she is a very brilliant young woman who is now earning her own living. But without that opportunity to cross the border, as she did, she would have been deprived of the opportunity to go to the absolutely correct school for her particular condition at that time.
Lord JANNER: It is not very often that I disagree with amendments proposed on this side of the House. I am bound to say that the argument which has just been put forward is extremely important, particularly from the point of view of those religious denominations which have schools to which parents want to send their children. I hope the Committee will forgive me for referring to my own sphere —the Jewish people. It is a religious section of the population. Many of them might be affected adversely if they could not send their children to schools of that denomination because they were unable to send them outside a particular area. I hope that my noble friend will consider this point because it is extremely important to us. Indeed, an amendment is to be moved concerning this point by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, which I propose to support.
I think we ought to consider the effect of religious schools. After all, we are living at a time when the moral side is tremendously important to everybody in the world. In my view, religious schools have the effect of getting people to understand the duties which are incumbent upon them in order to prevent the kind of things which are happening now—the violence, the terrorism, the murder and God knows what! In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will reconsider the point.
Viscount RIDLEY: As the noble Baroness, Lady David, invoked my aid in support of this amendment and tried to
772
draw my fire, may I say to her that I prefer to keep my powder dry until my own amendment on the same subject, Amendment No. 59, is reached—which I hope will not be very long from now—when I hope that some of my supporters will have finished their tea.
Lord KILMARNOCK: I tend to share some of the concerns which have been expressed by my noble friend Lord Hunt. It seems to me that in most cases, since we are talking about the broad concept of parental choice, parental choice will be extremely limited. Even if, say, 20 places out of an agreed intake of 200 in a given school are reserved for the parental choice list, this will reduce the opportunity for children living within the catchment area. That is particularly the case in an area like Buckingham, which I know fairly well, where there are very few grammar school opportunities for local children.
What will happen to prevent a school of good reputation which has become fashionable—and we all know that schools do become fashionable—increasing its numbers, resources and buildings at the expense of a neighbouring school which is declining? Surely local education authorities will be bound to resort to quota fixing as a means of getting around the headaches arising from this proposed legislation. They alone will decide when a school is full, thus defeating in advance the principle of parental choice. I suspect that parental choice will turn into a huge illusion which will achieve very little except to put a nightmare burden on the appeals system. I should like to assure the noble Baroness that I am simply an objective seeker after truth, and I should like her to convince me to the contrary in order to help me to decide how to vote on these amendments should they be pressed.
5 p.m.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was absolutely right. The ideal situation is for a local authority to have a high standard in all its schools, but unfortunately that does not apply in many areas of the country and perhaps I may cite my own example. Until 1974 there were five schools in my area which did not have sixth forms, so clearly there was tremendous interest within those catchment areas on the part of parents to get

773
their children into the schools which did have sixth forms. I found a much simpler solution: I gave sixth forms to all the schools and the result has been quite astonishing. In my own school, for example, quite clearly standards in every respect have risen, but unfortunately we are faced with the situation—and here I come to the point made by my noble friend Lady David—that we are in a period in which local authorities will be facing very serious problems because of the rapidly diminishing rolls.
Again to quote my own authority—and I take these figures out of my head but I can assure your Lordships they are approximately correct—we have 38,000 students in our comprehensive schools;by 1990 12,000 of those places will go. Clearly that will place a tremendous series of problems on the South Glamorgan County Council in the relatively near future. What I suspect—and I hope with all my heart that this does not happen—is that sixth forms will be taken from the schools into which they were introduced fairly recently and we shall have the same old stampede. Indeed, we might even find that schools which cost millions of pounds to build will in fact be closed and a great deal of capital investment will be wasted. So I think the Government should look rather more closely when we refer to the problems faced by local education authorities, and those problems will increase. There really ought to be a rather better response from the Government on this issue.
Baroness JEGER: I need some assistance from the noble Baroness on the Front Bench. I was chairman of the Standing Committee on the Education Bill, in 1979, introduced by the previous Government and, but for the unfortunate result of the last general election, Clause 7 of that Bill would have excluded the necessity for the parental choice to be restricted to the area in which the child lived. I think there is a great deal to be said for giving a wider choice. One argument that I know is very practical, refers to the fact that a child might be living in the first house on one side of the boundary and across the road, perhaps 50 yards down, there is a first-class school which can be reached within a few minutes' walk. I take the view that local authority boundaries are not sacrosanct. They are lines on maps and we
774
are speaking about children. We could be imposing a long and unnecessary journey on a child just because of the accident of a line on a map. I honestly feel that this is a restriction which does not meet with the spirit behind either this Bill or the Bill that was introduced by the previous Government, and I hope those points can be reconsidered.
5.4 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: I want to make only a short intervention. This amendment and indeed the whole of this Part of the Bill carries my mind back 26 years because of the attitude towards parents. When I first went to the Ministry of Education in 1954 there were practically no parent-teacher associations. One was formed in Wiltshire and I attended a meeting and said a few words of encouragement. I was immediately told by my local authority that these were the most dreadful things;that parents had nothing whatever to do with the schools;they were all ignorant and the teachers knew far better how to handle their children than they did.
A couple of years later the parent-teacher associations were sufficiently numerous to want to found some kind of national body (I do not remember exactly what). At that moment not only the local authority associations but all my civil servants came to me and said "Minister, you must not touch it. It will be the worst possible thing for the education of children in this country if parents get any form of power or grip on the thing at all". Well, I told them where they could go and we encouraged the parent-teacher associations, and then, little by little—and it is partly because both sides of the House encouraged better secondary school education after the war—there grew up a new generation of parents who wanted to have something to do with the education of their children and it became more and more necessary, step by step, to find ways for parents to express an interest which I dare say before the war—and I know nothing whatever about what happened in the schools before the war—they did not want to have. However, they did want it from 1960 onwards. Therefore, when one looks at this part of the Bill the first thing one must be quite sure about is that the local authorities in general will be against it,

775
because of course they do not want their power fragmented in any sort of way.
What my noble friend Lord Boyd. Carpenter said is perfectly true, that crossing boundaries is a form of competition (or can be) and can show up differences in standards between one local authority area and another. Thus, if we take the boundary between Wiltshire and Gloucestershire and Hampshire, which is the part of the world where I live, it is an extraordinary boundary. I cannot think whoever drew it, but it has the result that a lot of children from Hampshire want in one place to come to Wiltshire and more still from Wiltshire want to go to Andover, or Ludgershall or somewhere just over the border.
Why should we want to hold that up? I really think that the only question before your Lordships is whether we are hurrying too fast in giving parents some say in the maintained schools. There is a rate beyond which one should never increase one section's power against another because it provokes reactions which are not worth while. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is probably right that in certain cases the appeals procedure will be very difficult to administer. But we do not have a Bill like this very often, and the Government quite rightly have said that the time has come to do something more for parents. Therefore, I should take the risk and let this clause remain as it is.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I do not dissent from the importance of encouraging parents to take the most active interest in the education of their children. Indeed, before the war, some 30 years before the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, became Minister, I had a parents' association in every school in the area which I then administered. But I am concerned with the breadth of this clause. Unless I misread it, as a parent I can choose ally school in the country and say, "That is my preference and I insist upon going before an appeals committee, accompanied by a lawyer, to defend my choice". Surely, that is a little unrealistic. I greatly fear, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has suggested, that parents may be encouraged to think that this is offering them what it cannot possibly offer and
776
they will be sadly disappointed. Incidentally, according to the recent evidence of Dr. Rutter, not all parents are necessarily very good at choosing the right school for their children.
Baroness DAVID: Before the Minister replies, may I answer a few of the things that have been said about my speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Janner, did not quite listen to what I said. I said that if agreements have been reached between the authorities involved, such arrangements would be permissible given the terms of the amendment. That refers, among other things, to children wishing to cross boundaries in order to go to a denominational school of their choice. The only thing is that under this Bill they may be able to go to the school provided they can pay the fare to get there. Under my amendment there would be nothing to stop parents choosing a denominational school not within their own boundaries. My noble friend Lady Jeger mentioned the point about children being very close to a boundary and a school across the boundary being very much more convenient. That would be dealt with in the same way;agreements are reached between local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that I was speaking from the point of view of the local authorities. I may have said that, but I was thinking not only of the local authority but of all the children in the area. Some with rather articulate parents may think there is a rather smarter school across the boundary and opt for that. But what we have to think of are all the children who are going to be left;we have to think of the provision of education within the area for all the children and not just for a few. I have not brought the figures in with me, but Kingston, I believe, is going to spend some enormous sum of money on its grammar schools and a negligible amount on its secondary moderns. I think what could go on could be very unfair. My amendment is thinking of all the children in the area of the authority, as well as of the authority being able to make sensible plans, particularly in a situation of falling rolls.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Baroness is quite right in saying this is an important amendment. It does show the divide

777
between the attitude of the noble Baroness and her supporters and ourselves on this very important issue of parental choice. This particular clause is one of the most important in the Bill and it is one to which we as a Party attach great importance. We committed ourselves in our manifesto to extending parental choice, and this is the active recognition of that commitment in this clause. I was extremely grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which I think put it very well indeed, and also to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, speaking from his long experience in education.
Let us look at the circumstances, if this amendment were carried, in which parents would be restricted to choosing a school within their own area. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger who made the point that there are many children who find that the school they would prefer to go to is across the road and because quite arbitrarily the local authority boundary runs along the road they would not be able to go to that school because it is in the area of another authority.
Baroness DAVID: If I may intervene, I did deal with that point. I said that arrangements can he made to deal with that, and my amendment would not prevent that.
Baroness YOUNG: Yes, I take that point, but what we have done is not only give parents the right to express a choice, but in Clause 33 we have given the right of automatic recoupment. The noble Baroness will be familiar enough with the difficulties of recoupment of costs from one education authority to another to realise that Clause 6 by itself would be quite ineffective without Clause 33, which gives the guarantee of automatic recoupment. This will give a great deal of choice of schools to a number of parents. That is the first group of parents.
The second group of parents are those who would like to choose a denominational school, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, made the point. Never before in my time in the House of Lords have we been on the same side on any issue, so I was very pleased to have his support. The noble Lord is quite right. There are
778
a number of Jewish schools in London where children have to travel very considerable distances, and although within ILEA there is automatic recoupment this does not apply in other parts of the country. I am quite sure the right reverend Prelates will appreciate this point very much, from the point of view of voluntary aided schools and the value to them of having these provisions in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Heycock, made the point that the situation in Wales would become very complicated. I think he quoted Gwynedd in which some schools are conducted in Welsh, and some parents may prefer to have the schooling conducted in English. I may say that this is precisely the sort of situation in which parents might wish to express a choice.
Lord HEYCOCK: I was talking of teaching through the medium of Welsh. There is an essential difference between teaching through the medium of Welsh and a bilingual school where you teach through the medium of the mother-tongue, either English or Welsh. What I am saying is that you are going to run into all kinds of legal problems
Baroness YOUNG: I am sure it is very unwise of me to embark on an argument about teaching in Welsh with the noble Lord, Lord Heycock. All I am saying is that I believe all parents in Wales also ought to be able to express a choice and under our Bill they will be able to do so, whether in Gwynedd or Glamorgan.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, expressed a difficulty which was also expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that parents may be disappointed in all this. The fact is that whenever you give freedom of choice to people, freedom is never limitless;someone is almost invariably disappointed. But surely it is wrong to say that because not everybody can he satisfied, nobody can be satisfied. And that is the logic of the argument.
Lord. BROOKS of TREMORFA: If the noble Baroness will give way at that point, it seems to me to be the essence of the argument. What we are saying is that it is a tiny minority who will be having the choice. When a parent goes along to an appeals committee the parent does not say, '''I have come to listen to the reasons why my child cannot go to the school of my

779
choice". He says, "I have come here to exercise my choice and you are not giving it to me". The noble Baroness has not really dealt with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made, that the overwhelming majority cannot exercise their freedom of choice, and this is where "freedom of choice "is a misnomer.
Baroness YOUNG: If the noble Lord had restrained himself until I had finished my argument I would have answered this point, and I will answer it now. The parents who actually have choice at the moment are those who can afford to pay, a point made frequently in your Lordships' House and one that no doubt will be made at greater length later this evening. I have known rich parents, sending their children to maintained schools, who have decided to buy a house in the catchment area of the most popular school. They, too, are in the fortunate position of exercising choice. But a lot of other parents, who are not well off, and who do not choose to send their children to independent schools, and are unable to buy a house and move where they wish, surely are entitled to exercise choice. I think it is a deplorable attitude to a lot of parents to take the view that they are unable to exercise choice. If the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, looks at Clause 6, he will see that subsection (1) is qualified by subsection (3). This answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. Subsection (3)(a) states:
" if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources".
There is a point about voluntary aided schools, who will be responsible for their own admissions;and then paragraph (c) deals with the point about selective education.
Neither I nor my colleagues at any point have said that every parent is going to have an absolute right for their child to go to the school of their first choice. All we are attempting to do, for which we believe we have extensive public support, is to try to get the maximum amount of choice that is allowable. I believe this is a matter of principle to parents who are in fact, as my noble friend Lord Eccles said, deeply concerned about their children's education, well able and desiring to make a choice. Furthermore, we believe that cross-
780
authority opportunities for parents will help to raise the standards of education both within an authority and throughout authorities. A bit of healthy competition will do no harm at all and will be a measure of what is going on. But the principal reason for inserting this clause about which we feel very strongly—and there could be no question of accepting this amendment—is our commitment to parental choice.
5.21 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Before this matter is decided, I wish to express great discomfort about the present situation. We on this side are being pushed into a position where it is suggested that we are against parents having choice. That is not only nonsense, but everyone who says it knows jolly well that it is nonsense. It should not be said. It was said to me again and again during the debate on our Education Bill and I lost my temper every single time. It is an absolutely intolerable and dishonest argument.
What in fact is happening is that the Government are, with one hand, making going to school for anyone much more difficult as a result of their transport provisions, which we shall discuss later, and on the other hand are promising something which simply cannot be fulfilled. Parents who do not read the provisions carefully—most of them will not read them at all—will not realise that, under paragraph (a), if a school is full or even popular there will be no choice whatever, any more than there ever has been. It is a piece of window-dressing of the most blatant kind rather neatly putting us on the defensive. I wish to defend myself.
Lord UNDERHILL: I wonder whether the noble Baroness would give me some advice?
Baroness YOUNG: I should be delighted.
Lord UNDERHILL: Subsection (1) refers to:
" the parent of a child in the area of the authority".
It goes on to say:
" wishes education to be provided for his child in the exercise of the authority's functions".
Does that not confine the provision to the area of the actual authority? Therefore,

781
it is not possible to have a preference for a school in the area of another authority. It seems to me that we need a clear interpretation of the legal position.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, Clause 6, the first of this whole sequence of clauses, is designed to enable a parent to express a preference. I have already indicated that, because of the recoupment provisions, the parents may express a preference in another authority's area. At the same time, Clause 8 requires information about schools so that a parent can make an informed choice. Clause 7 contains the appeal procedures. I am very sorry that I have caused the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to lose his temper. Indeed, I hope that he will not do so. I can assure him that I shall not lose my temper, no matter how cross he becomes.
Lord JANNER: Will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness YOUNG: First, I should like to finish what I was saying to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I believe that we are fulfilling a commitment. I accept —and it would not be right for me to say other—that we cannot provide complete parental choice for everybody, but that does not prevent us from trying to give as much as we can. There is no doubt at all that, as parents nowadays take a much greater interest in their children's education in a rather more professional and more sophisticated way than they did in, for example, 1944, it is quite right that they should have these provisions included in the Bill.
Lord JANNER: From a personal point of view, I should like to say that I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for whom I have the highest regard, as she knows, even though we have crossed swords so very often in the course of our debates. However, she may not be quite as pleased when we come to a later amendment in which the noble Duke, Lord Norfolk, and I are very keenly interested.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: is the noble Baroness aware—bless her heart—that the whole of this debate has been pillars of cloud? I have listened to what has been said and I have looked at what the Bill says. The clause heading is, "Parental
782
preferences ", but as we look at subsection (2) we find a different situation. In the Notes on Clauses it says that it requires:
" LEAs and the governors of county or voluntary schools to comply with any expressed"—
listen to the full flowing language—
" parental preference, subject "—
and here comes the rub—
" to certain limitations listed in subsection (3)".
It then says that it:
" provides that the requirement to comply with a parental preference does not apply
(a) if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education "—
who in the name of the Lord will measure that?—
"or the efficient use of resources".
These are esoteric phrases. It then says:
(b) in the case of an aided or special agreement school if compliance would be incompatible with any arrangements between the governors and the LEA in respect of the admission of pupils to the school …"
the child does not go. It then goes on:
" In the case of a school whose admission arrangements are based on selection by reference to ability and aptitude "—
I know how difficult it is to measure both of those, especially when one looks around this noble House (I shall mention no names)—
" if the child is not selected under the operation of those arrangements".
I think that we have used up a great deal of time, because whatever we say this provision will remain on the Statute Book.
Lord HEYCOCK: Do we understand from this provision that it is partial parental choice within regulations? Let us get the situation perfectly clear. The noble Baroness has said that it cannot be full parental choice, so therefore it can only be partial parental choice. Can we have the situation perfectly clear?
Baroness YOUNG: I am not sure that I fully understand the question asked by the noble Lord. It is an absolute right of a parent to express a prefernce, and that stands in Clause 6. It is an absolute right to have information about the school in order that the preference shall be an informed preference. I have said that one cannot guarantee that every preference will be fulfilled, but we are going as far as we can in that regard.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: When the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, puts on his angry act, it is usually rather disingenuous. Quite often it is a way of distinguishing between the pure motives which no doubt distinguish him from some of the less pure motives from the Benches behind him. I wish to substantiate that statement. It is not that he is seeking to lay blame on the Benches behind him, but he is wishing to distract our attention from what is being said on the Benches behind him. Listening to the speeches that have been made from the Back Benches of the Labour Party, it is amazing how many of them have been about how this provision will, in fact, be a nuisance to the authorities. On these Benches we are much more interested that it should be an advantage to the parents. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and other Members of the Labour Benches know perfectly well that when we talk about freedom of choice and it merely means freedom by the purse, we are on their side and we vote with them because we know that when it is put forward it is a sham. However, it seems to us that as regards the particular case which is being put forward by the Government there is genuine choice only for a limited number of people, and only partial choice under regulations. But, of course, what more could it be? It is a genuine extension of choice, and if there is a Division we shall vote with the Government.
Baroness FISHER of REDNAL: I was interested in what the Minister said. She had, until a few minutes ago, been using the word "choice "but changed it in her last reply to "preference". Indeed, that is all that the clause is saying—it is saying "preference". I might prefer a mink coat, hut I know very well that my choice will have to be rabbit or some imitation fur. For parents to show a preference might sound all right, but it does not alter the situation as it is at present.
People have all kinds of preferences as to where they would like their children to go;but, as I read the Bill, according to the arrangements which will be made, in the majority of cases one would have to appeal if one chooses a school that is not within the arrangements. The arrangement that is normally laid down by a local
784
authority is that one chooses the school nearest to the area in which one lives. I know that that is the practice in most urban areas, because it is important that the size of the school has been designated for the number of children expected to live in a given area.
Therefore, bearing in mind what the previous speaker from the Liberal Benches has just said, it should be emphasised that no choice is given to parents. The parents are being asked to have a preference;that does not mean to say that they have any rights at all. The parents have a preference for one, two or three schools, and that is what normally will happen. If the parents do not get their first preference, it is most unfortunate and they will have to appeal. But to whom can they appeal? They will have to appeal to the local education authority, which has already made the arrangements as to where children will go in that given area.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but when we discuss Clause 7, which deals with appeals procedure, she will see that that is not the provision in the Bill.
Lord UNDERHILL: I should like, if I may, to press the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the question I asked and which I do not believe she answered. Perhaps I did not put it very clearly. I should like to put it another way. In the light of the wording of subsecton (1), is it possible for an authority to exercise its functions in the area of another authority?
Baroness YOUNG: The answer is: yes, because it would be contained under Clause 6(1);and the phrase:
" in the exercise of the authority's functions "
means not just maintained schools but any school with which the authority might make an arrangement for the education of the child. It is in that connection that a parent can exercise a choice outside the area.
I do not believe that I have fully answered the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. We believe that there are severe disadvantages in tying a child to the neighbourhood school. This has been recognised in

785
many urban areas, and the fact is that not all authorities give the parents an opportunity to express a preference or a choice. We believe that this will mark an advance in that parents in all authorities will be able to express a preference; that there will have to be an appeals machinery; that there will have to be informaton about the schools, and that all local education authorities will start thinking about the opportunities of widening the experience for children in schools rather than narrowing it to the particular area in which they happen to live.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: Will the Minister agree that this point also comes under subsection (5)(a)?
Baroness YOUNG: I am not quite sure that I am with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, over his question.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I believe that subsection (5)(a) covers what the noble Baroness has been saying.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is quite right. I thank him very much for drawing it to my attention.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 6, line 29, after ("would") insert ("in the opinion of the local education authority").
The noble Baroness said: If I may, I should like to speak to the next three amendments. I should like to read out Clause 6(3)(a) as it would be if these three amendments are accepted. It reads:
"(3) The duty imposed by subsection (2) above does not apply—
(a) if compliance with the preference would in the opinion of the local education authority prejudice the provision of efficient education of all the children in the area of that authority or the efficient use of resources for the education of all the children in the area of that authority".
I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she can say to whose opinion it refers. Is it in the opinion of the local education authority? If so, I presume that the noble Baroness will accept my amendment. Does she believe that the prejudicing of the provision of efficient education
786
is of all the children in the area of that authority, and the efficient use of resources for the education of all the children in that authority? I should have imagined, and I hope, that she would agree with that, and would be willing to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: The amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady David, has moved is, in fact—if she will forgive me for saying so—a wrecking amendment. It would effectively remove from authorities any obligation to meet parental preferences, and would put their decisions beyond the challenge of appeal committees. The noble Baroness asked a question of my noble friend, to which I shall try to give the answer. As I understand it, the question relates to Clause 6(3). That reads:
"The duty imposed by subsection (2) above does not apply—
(a) if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources".
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked: in whose opinion? The answer is that we shall come to that when we come to deal with Clause 7, which provides the appeal system. It is then that I am sure my noble friend and perhaps I, if I can do so, will be able to explain to your Lordships how those words in subsection (3) of Clause 6 are to be interpreted on appeal.
Baroness DAVID: In those circumstances, I think that I shall save my fire for Clause 7. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
5.37 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 6, line 31, at end insert ("within the area of any one local education authority or any zone covering the areas of two or more local education authorities").
The noble Baroness said: I should like breifly to move this amendment. This is a slightly different amendment and adds after the word "resources" the following:
"within the area of any one local education authority or any zone covering the areas of two or more local education authorities".

787
This gives a chance for co-operation and the authorities getting together. Therefore I imagine that this amendment would be acceptable.
Lord BELSTEAD: I do not like to be unhelpful to the noble Baroness, but I do not think that this amendment is acceptable. The situation as we see it is that an authority or governors of a voluntary school will only refuse a child admission if they believe that they are not under a duty to admit him or her. If they wish to plead that the child's admission would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources, they must have good grounds for believing so, which will stand up to challenge on appeal. These are bound to relate to their own locality, but the considerations involved may, it is true, cross local education authority boundaries. Your Lordships will notice that the provisions of Clause 6(3)(a) have deliberately been placed "at large ", if I may use that expression, so as not to restrict the matters which can be taken into account.
However, what I have just said would have the ground cut from under it if the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness was to be accepted, because the amendment would limit the relief to the prejudice, which is being talked about in Clause 6(3)(a), to the area of one local education authority or a zone covering local education authorities alone. That goes against the more general wording of the Bill as it stands, which puts the matter at large.
Baroness DAVID: I think that the phrases "the provision of efficient education "and "the efficient use of resources "are extremely vague. I do not know how they will be interpreted by the appeals committee, if and when it is set up, but I shall not press this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: These phrases are used within this clause. It is the guidance to the education authorities. Surely in the first instance, under Clause 6(3)(a):
" the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources "
must apply to a judgment of that education
788
authority. It is not good enough for the Government to say we must wait until a later clause. We have a right to know exactly what the standard of judgment is here and now under Clause 6.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I try to do a little better for the noble Lord and as I am not quite as familar with this as my noble friends on these Benches I may help myself at the same time. If I am not out of order, may we look one clause ahead to Clause 7—and I shall keep this brief, because I think this is getting rather near to offending against the rules of order. I think that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is this. The way in which an appeal—and I am thinking of the point which the noble Lord made—will work so far as this point is concerned is that the arrangements which the local authority will have made for admissions to schools will be published—and that is required in another completely different clause, Clause 8. Should a parent be dissatisfied, the parent will have the opportunity to go to an appeal committee under Clause 7 and put his case. The committee will be bound to have regard to the authority's published admission arrangements, but it will be for the local authority to demonstrate that any limitations on parental preferences which are set out by the arrangements are justifiable in terms of the provision of efficient education—which is what the noble Lord is asking about—or the efficient use of resources. It will be for the appeal committee to listen to the case which the local authority is making;to listen to the case the parent is putting, and to decide on those two criteria—if those are the two criteria which are relevant to the appeal—whether the parent's appeal has been made out or whether it has not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
5.43 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 6, line 31, at end insert ("(having regard to the limits determined by the local education authority under the provisions of this Act)").
The noble Baroness said: This is an extremely important amendment. We have to think of the situation of falling

789
rolls. They are going to fall extremely fast. Authorities are going to be left with an extremely difficult situation with schools shrinking. They have to make a plan about how they are going to cope with this. When we were discussing the last Education Bill, the noble Baroness said that there would be a clause in this Bill which would deal with planning admissions, and I am not satisfied that we have it strong enough.
I should like to add at the end of line 31(3)(a):
" (having regard to the limits determined by the local education authority under the provisions of this Act)".
I am not just thinking of the local education authority and its being able to manage things comfortably and easily. It is important for them to have some overall plan for all the schools in their area while they are dealing with this situation, otherwise there will almost inevitably be some schools which will not be favoured, will become sick schools, if a great deal of care is not taken. The courses which could be provided would probably be fewer, and there would be an unfair situation for a great many children. We have to give the local authorities the power to plan their admissions;to have what I think is called a planned operating capacity for each school. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: As I understand this amendment—and I think there are other amendments linked to it—what the noble Baroness, Lady David, is asking for is a return to the proposals on planned admission limits which were in her own Administration's 1979 Bill. One of the difficulties which we found when looking at these proposals was that once the admission limits had been set to particular schools, they were in fact unchallengeable. We feel that this is not an acceptable situation for parents to be in. We believe this to be arbitrary and contrary to the best interests of the parents.
If an authority wishes to refuse a child's admission to a particular school, they must justify the refusal not just by reference to an arbitrary number but by reference to a great many things, which would include a point made by my noble friend Lord Belstead;that is, the efficient use of resources and the efficient provision of education in their area. They must find
790
something more than simply a question of numbers, so that children are not simply numbers on a list. We believe that the Bill as drafted achieves this.
The amendment which the noble Baroness has moved actually allows the local education authority to determine in advance that these considerations are to be regarded as satisfied by the limits that the authority set to the number of children that they will admit to one school, rather than to have to give any other further explanation. This is a major difference of principle about the numbers in the schools. We all know that rolls are falling, but I do not think that we can use children simply in a numbers game to sort them into schools in this way.
Baroness DAVID: Is the noble Baroness then prepared to let some schools keep full and let the numbers in others drop substantially? What will happen about the staffing? Will they be able to keep staff to teach a couple of foreign languages and science subjects? How does she imagine that the authorities will cope with that situation?
Baroness YOUNG: Among the published provisions on schools which they will have to give will be the numbers of children that they admit, and this will be one of the criteria. Everyone will know that this is one of the criteria to be laid down. Nobody is arguing that there should be sick schools. No one would wish to have that at all. But to argue to the contrary of that that every school should have a planned admission limit, and that parents will not be able in any way to alter this limit once it is set regardless of any arguments that they may be able to adduce because the number is set, is not a satisfactory situation. I cannot believe that the noble Baroness herself thinks that it is.
Baroness DAVID: Actually I do.
5.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 55) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72;Not-Contents, 172.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Hamnett, L.

Aylestone, L.

Heycock, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Birk, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

Jacobson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacques, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jeger, B.

Snow, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Soper, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Listowel, E.

Strauss, L.

Darwen, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

David, B.

Lloyd of Hampstcad, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Denington, B.

McCarthy, L.

Underhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Galpern, L.

Parry, L.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peart, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Plant, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

James of Rushholme, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denman, L.

Killearn, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Derby, Bp.

Kilmarnock, L.

Alport, L.

Derwent, L.

Kimberley, E.

Amherst, E.

Digby, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dormer, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Amory, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dundonald, E.

Long, V.

Amulree, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Loudoun, C.

Avon, E.

Effingham, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Baker, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Luke, L.

Balerno, L.

Elton, L.

Lyell, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Banks, L.

Exeter, M.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Barnby, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mais, L.

Barrington, V.

Falkland, V.

Mancroft, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Bellwin, L.

Foot, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belstead, L.

Forester, L.

Middleton, L.

Berkeley, B.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, V.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Milverton, L.

Blake, L.

Gainford, L.

Minto, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Galloway, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Bradford, E.

Gisborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Glendevon, L.

Morris, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gray, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Grey, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Burton, L.

Gridley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Haig, E.

Newall, L.

Cathcart, E.

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

Norfolk, D.

Chesham, L.

Northchurch, B.

Chitnis, L.

Halsbury, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hampton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Onslow, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harvington, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hatherton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Craigavon, V.

Henley, L.

Radnor, E.

Craigton, L.

Hertford, M.

Rathcreedan, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Hives, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Croft, L.

Holderness, L.

Reigate, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ridley, V.

Daventry, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochdale, V.

Davidson, V.

Hunt, L.

Rochester, Bp.

De Freyne, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Rochester, L

Resolved in the negative, and amend tent disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
5.59 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 6, line 37, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: In our recent discussions there have been some powerful speeches made, particularly by noble Lords opposite, on the subject of parental choice. I might add, in parenthesis, that we shall treasure those speeches in our hearts and remember them when, at a later stage in the Bill, we are discussing the possibility of children actually getting to school—having the transport to do so—and one must hope that those who show such zeal will be able to see that it is financially possible for the children to go where their parents would like them to go. Of course it is usually Tory philosophy to increase people's rights in law and on paper, and to make it increasingly difficult an economic fact for them to be able to exercise those rights. That is broadly what those two parts of the Bill taken together will do.
I come now to a limitation on parental choice contained in Clause 6(3)(c), which is quite different from the limits imposed by paragraphs (a) and (b). The limits imposed by paragraphs (a) and (b) could be fairly defended as being the result of sheer physical necessity. The limit imposed on parental choice by paragraph (c) is quite wanton and artificial. It means that if a parent says, "I would like my child to go to that school, which is called a grammar school ", and all the arguments of common sense seem to suggest that the child should go—the nearness of the school the fact that the parents like it, and that
794
they know other children there —the parent is then told, No, the child cannot go there because the local authority has a selective arrangement. That is to say, it puts the children when they are approaching the age of 11 through a kind of test which is supposed to tell what kind of school they are fit for. As I say, this is an artificial and quite wanton limitation on parental choice, and it is important therefore to examine what is the validity and the idea of a test at the age of 11, because some of sort test there must be.
There has been a fearful amount of argument as to what kind of test is best for choosing whether a child should go to a grammar school or secondary modern school at the age of 11. That has always seemed to me a quite vain argument. I think it was the March hare who argued that his action in trying to repair his watch by putting butter in the works was justified by the fact that it was the best butter. Much intellectual energy has been wasted in trying to devise the best form of selection at 11-plus.
I am going to quote—not verbatim—from the conclusions of a quite full inquiry that was held some years ago into the working of the 11-plus examination. The inquiry found, first, that the examination was extremely fallible;that many children who were not considered fit for grammar school education subsequently turned out to be fit. Secondly, the inquiry found that the examination varied considerably from one part of the country to another in the proportion of children whom it admitted to grammar schools. Next, it was found that the examination varied enormously from year to year in the proportion of children whom it considered to be fit or not fit for grammar school education;and also that it worked very differently as between boys and girls, and in almost all authorities to the disadvantage of the girls.
That judgment on the 11-plus—which, to put it crudely, is what paragraph (c) is about—came from a study made some years ago by the Women's Conference of the Conservative Party. It confirmed a judgment that I quoted to your Lordships during the Second Reading debate of the Bill, in which a coalition Government White Paper in 1943 said that there was nothing to be said in favour of selection at age 11.
On the examination's fallibility I would add that I think it can probably detect those children of such outstanding ability that anyone could detect that ability, whether or not there was an 11-plus;and that is all that can be said for it. It fails disastrously the other way in that a great many children who have real ability will —as the phrase goes —" fail the 11-plus "
Secondly, I think that the examination is seriously divisive, because if it is once decided as a result of this testing procedure that some children go to schools that are deliberately meant to be for clever children, and that the others go into schools that are deliberately meant to be for children who are not very clever, there is the danger that the children in the second kind of school will conform to the unfavourable judgment that has been made of them. One of the discoveries about comprehensive education is the good effect it has had on chilren who at the age of 11 appeared to have only very limited gifts, but for whom being in a school with more gifted children is a stimulus. They are deprived of that stimulus in the secondary modern school. The stock reply to that was, "Oh well, once you have discovered your mistake you can transfer the children from the secondary modern to the grammar school". Would there always be a number of vacant places in the grammar school for such transferees;or, if it were found that a mistake had been made the other way, were children to be transferred from the grammar school to the secondary modern school? Try arguing that one with the parents of the child and you will find that you will not get very far.
The idea that the defects of the 11-plus could be remedied by transfer meant that one was saying to the child in the secondary modern school, "Come, work hard, be diligent, and you can win the greatest
796
prize that this school offers—you will be able to get out of it". On that basis a school would never have a very good morale. Any differences there were in talent between the children at age 11 would be magnified and exaggerated by the process of putting them in different schools.
There is a further objection, sight of which is sometimes lost: the perversion of primary education that follows from the existence of the 11-plus. Create the 11-plus, make it quite clear that some schools are the kind of schools that can lead on to further education, to university, and eventually to the better paid jobs, and parents will inevitably judge the primary school by asking, "What is its record in getting children past the 11-plus? "That is to say, primary school will be thought of mainly as a cramming establishment to get children through the examination. I do not believe that today one will find any primary teachers who, once they have been delivered from that tyranny, will want to be put back under it.
The 11-plus also has a very serious social effect. It has been demonstrated that the 11-plus cannot—even if it is a desirable thing to do—properly decide according to what is supposed to be innate ability. Some years ago there appeared in the Guardian newspaper a letter from the father of twin daughters, who had both sat the 11-plus. One of them had passed, one of them had failed. They were fraternal twins, or perhaps the correct expression is sororal twins. No, I am sorry, I should have said that they were identical twins, and if there was anything in this nonsense about inherited intelligence quotients, the results of the 11-plus examination ought to have been the same in each case. But one does not wish to be pernickety, and I do not press that point. The father received two letters from the local education authority. The letter that told him about his daughter who had failed the examination was addressed to "Mr. So and so". The other one was addressed to "So and so, Esq.". That is only one instance, but it is symbolic of the whole attitude.
I have often had to face people who believed in the selective system, and I must say that of all the many lobbies that I have encountered over a good many years, the advocates of selection at 11-plus were

797
usually the rudest and the most ill-tempered, and the most unwilling to listen to argument. I found that the commonest argument as to why they did not want schools in their neighbourhood to go comprehensive was, as one of them put it to me, "I don't want my daughter to mix with rough girls. "Some of them, quite frankly, would not have been capable of discussing questions of curriculum, and were not interested in that. They wanted to feel that their child was going to what was regarded as socially the best school. Sometimes one receives what are the most pathetic of all letters. They are letters in the child's handwriting, so clearly dictated by an adult, retailing the snobberies and the prejudices of the adult as a reason why the schools in a particular neighbourhood should not go comprehensive.
There is a particularly serious aspect in one of the problems that we have to face today. I do not think it can be disputed that, on the whole—there will be exceptions—the children of recent immigrants will be at a disadvantage in any form of 11-plus examination. Many of them come from countries where English is not the mother tongue. Others come from countries where the standard of education is lower than it is here. Whatever their natural gifts, it is not likely that they will be able to do as well as other children in any form of test that is supposed to show aptitude at the age of 11. You will be in danger, therefore, to the extent to which you keep the selective system, of segregating increasingly black and white. The plain fact is that not only does this sort of thing happen;it is what a good many of the advocates of selection want to happen.
In the minds of many people the purpose of the 11-plus is to see that those parents who have themselves enjoyed a better than average education shall be sure to pass on that advantage, to pass on not merely a good education, but a better education than somebody else's, to their children, to create privilege and to make it hereditary. I need not dwell on the injustice of this. I add the further point that, in the situation in which the country is today, where we need the energies and good will of all our people, this is not the right kind of educational system to promote. I believe that, when it really comes to the point, everyone knows that.
I have never found an advocate of selection who was prepared to let his own child go to anything but a grammar school. That reveals the whole nature of the argument. The secondary modern is the school for somebody else's child. In view of this, after all we have learnt about the evils of the 11-plus, and in a clause which is supposed to emphasise parental preference, can we insert something which flatly denies parental preference? You can prefer as much as you like. You can produce any reason you like, but the 11-plus examination tells you that your child will not go to this school. Surely, if there is anything in what has been said in all quarters of the House about parental preference, we must reject paragraph (c). I beg to move.
6.3 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I must add one word to the extraordinarily clear explanation just given to the Committee of exactly what the argument is about, because this concerns the entire Bill. There are a number of other things in the Bill which we do not like, but this is the centre of what we do not like. We had this argument when I was in the noble lady's position for what seemed like months two or three years ago, and I do not think a single member of the Opposition side ever spoke up in favour of the 11-plus. I know that some noble Lords were not here and might have done so had they been here. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, might have spoken in favour of it if he had been here, but he was not. In the course of those three or four months I do not believe I ever had to attack the 11-plus as put forward by somebody from the other side. One always found them saying, "I am not going to defend the 11-plus, but …" I just wanted to add that to what my noble friend has said.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: The noble Lord has challenged me in his usual agreeable way. As he himself said earlier, I certainly have no wish to lose my temper with him. He referred to the perfectly accurate fact that I did not take part in the debates in this House on Mrs. Shirley Williams' infamous Bill.

799
That is perfectly true. What the noble Lord knows—and I think the House should know—is that, at the time that Bill was being discussed, I held a public appointment under the Crown as chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and under the rules connected with the name of the late Lord Addison. I was inhibited from taking part in controversial debates. The noble Lord knows that, because we had a passage of arms before the change of Government when I pointed this out to him. I take it a little amiss that he should make this comment again this afternoon without adding the explanation of which he is perfectly well aware.
Lord DONA LDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: It never occurred to me that the noble Lord would take this as anything other than an opportunity to express the view which he was then unable to express for reasons which I stated in public, at his request, to this House. I do not think I need say it every time I get up.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: If the noble Lord is asking me to make a speech on selection, he knows that he is dangling temptation in front of me. From a wider point of view, I rather suspect his motives, because when is the snare set in sight of the bird? May I remind him of a fact which he and Mrs. Shirley Williams were quite unable to rebut;that whatever the merits or demerits of selection—we could go on about that all night, but I do not propose to do so—the fact remains that in certain parts of the country where selection was practised the local authorities responsible for that were consistently returned to office and power and responsibility at every local authority election. The real argument which Mrs. Shirley Williams and he never faced was why education authority areas who wished to continue this system should be denied the right to do so by the legislative blunderbuss of a declining government.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: I do not wish to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has already said so clearly and so eloquently. I am thinking of a small boy who passed his 11-plus, who went into the grammar school stream and who was under very
800
great pressure by responsible parents at home and by his teachers to do well at school. But it happens that children develop at different ages. Some are slow developers and they are not ready at the age of 11-plus. Others may pass an examination at 11-plus and then not be able to take the pace of the special grammar school teaching. If you were in an enlightened authority such as the one which was in the heart of my constituency in Cannock, where an excellent secondary schoolmaster could help certain children to move from the secondary modern to the grammar school, that was one thing. The child was proud. But what can you do about a child who is in the grammar school stream but who cannot go back to the secondary modern? There is so much cruelty and so much lack of imagination in all this, in addition to the snobberies which go with it.
There is another point. There is a certain type of child who is the natural craftsman and artist of the future. One of the great wrongs we have done children is to promote my type. I could pass an examination on anything at a certain age, but my hands were completely useless. Let us face it, if you could do your arithmetic correctly and had a very good visual memory and that kind of thing, you went soaring ahead, but another kind of child might, for nervous reasons, not be able to stand the racket of an examination. Those children are the artisans, the engineers, because between the skilled mason and the sculptor there are very strong links. You do not need to go back to Leonardo da Vinci to know all about that. On every count there are the snobberies, the cruelties to children, the divisions in families. Those of us who have represented constituencies must all have had situations where the daughter in a family goes to the grammar school and the boy goes to the secondary modern, or vice versa. This is no way to deal with children.
6.19 p.m.
Lord HEYCOCK: I believe the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is going to answer the points made by the noble Lord. The first time I met the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was when I came to discuss comprehensive education with him. On that particular occasion, in order to

801
argue very clearly for the justification of the case I was then presenting, I used, if he can remember, Mrs. Thatcher's Circular 1070. In that circular she made three points—that if one satisfied academic standards, if one satisfied public opinion and if one had the financial resources, then at least, under Circular 1070, which was the Government's own circular, one could reorganise on a comprehensive pattern. That afternoon, after 40 minutes, I was able to prove, because of our own experience, that on sheer academic grounds there was justification for reorganising secondary education in the Neath area, for financial reasons and because of public opinion. We did not have one single objection on grounds of public opinion.
The situation we were faced with about selection in the county of Glamorgan was simply this, and it is fundamental. It is said by educational psychologists, for what it is worth, that about 30 children out of every 100 who start school are competent enough and have the intellectual ability to profit by the type of education given in what was deemed to be a grammar school. In Glamorgan we found that in one area 19 per cent. of the children would get into a grammar school and in another part the number would be 35.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyle, was Minister of Education in 1965 when we presented a case for reorganisation on a comprehensive pattern in Port Talbot. On that occasion he very kindly sent me a letter complimenting us on the reorganisation on a comprehensive pattern. There is no historical reason why the age group should he from seven to 11 or five to 11. It was only in an Act of 1911 that, for some unknown reason, it was decided to have this division of children on an age basis. In 1952, when Miss Horsbrugh was Minister of Education, she granted us the first comprehensive school built from the ground. I believed that selection had gone by the board. The next stage, if one comes to analyse historically secondary education, would be tertiary colleges—11 to 16 or 15 to 18 in tertiary colleges. That must be the next move forward if one wants to reorganise secondary education.
I was unopposed in Glamorgan for 30 years because the people I represented believed in secondary education. The
802
fact that one wins elections indicates that the people are accepting one's basic educational philosophy. Our experience in Glamorgan eliminated this intensive selection at 11 plus where there was a concentration on English and arithmetic. As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has very properly said, the school that had more passes was considered by parents to be the better school. From our experience of children coming up into the comprehensive pattern at Sandfields, we found that at least 19 of them went to the university. Had they remained logically in a modern secondary school they would not have gone there.
In the small grammar school the choices at A-level were very limited. In a large comprehensive school the choices at A-level are much greater. One is talking about academic values in every sense of the word. I can say from my experience that it relieves the primary schools. They can have wider or more liberal studies because they arc not concentrating on enabling children to pass the 11-plus examination. Glamorgan is about 99 per cent. fully comprehensive and we have more children going to the university than ever before. According to the headmasters of previous grammar schools, the standard of children passing A-levels is higher under the comprehensive system than it was under the old grammar system.
I am not an expert on this. I was chairman of the Welsh Joint Education Committee for about 30 years and I analysed the examinations very clearly. I am appalled that we are going hack to talk about selection. Previously we were talking about freedom for parents. Let us also give freedom to children in the broad educational sense. Let us accept the changing pattern of educational philosophy. Let us get on with the job in every sense of the word. In 1952 when I approached Miss Horsbrugh she permitted us to change our transport facility to a much wider concept than we have at present. I believed that the question of 11-plus selection was dead and that every educationalist worth his salt who understood the basic, fundamental philosophy of education would have got completely clear of that. 1 am certain that if we go back to selection we are going backwards in the field of education.
Baroness BROOKE of YSTRADFELLTE: I should like, if I may, to put the record straight on one point. The suggestion has been made that it was impossible, or very difficult, for children who were in a secondary modern school to go to a grammar school but much more difficult for them to do the reverse. As the chairman of a governing body which has seen this happen many times between a voluntary aided girls' grammar school in London and one of the large, prestigious comprehensive schools in London, I should like to put it on the record that it has been perfectly possible to do that with great success on both sides, in and out.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: The noble Baroness is talking about a child going from a grammar school to a comprehensive school. We have been talking about going from a grammar school back to a secondary modern. The child suffers humiliation, and the child I am talking about had a complete nervous breakdown because he was not suited to that particular education. Even if he had been, we had no comprehensive there. If there had been a comprehensive he would have been able to get ahead according to his talent.
Lord MORRIS: I must support my noble friend on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, mentioned twins. As a twin, I feel I should record the fact that at the age of 11 or thereabouts my twin brother and I both took the same entrance examination. I passed it with flying colours and he failed it miserably. Our parents came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to divide us, so we went to the same school. The result of all this is that my brother is still as thick as he ever was.
Lord BELSTEAD: At the end of quite a long interchange, may I remind the Committee that the effect of this amendment would be to do away completely with selective education? I thought it might be a good idea to remind ourselves what we are talking about. I remember very well when the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, and I met for the first time;it was a long time ago now. It is perfectly true that he and I met because he wished to establish a comprehensive school in the local authority area in Wales which he
804
has served for so many years. At the department there were reservations because the school would have been very small in numbers. I am a great supporter of the smaller school, but there were feelings that perhaps the school was going to be almost too small. The issue which decided that particular case, if I remember it from 10 years ago, was that on educational grounds the noble Lord and his advisers were absolutely right and that the school would have every chance to prosper.
I must say to noble Lords opposite that the difference between the two sides of the Committee on educational grounds is that in 1976 the Labour Party made it clear that they did not want to leave it to local authorities to decide what sort of educational provision they should have, and in the process, incidentally, destroyed many good voluntary-aided and all the direct-grant schools. Last year the Conservative Party amended the law, making it clear that local authorities could choose as to whether they wanted their schools to proceed on comprehensive grounds or on selective grounds, or on a mixture of both. We on this side of the Committee intend that where parents want it there shall continue to be selection. But, if I may answer a point which was put by one of your Lordships on the other side of the Committee, this does not mean that the selection process must not he fair and objective, and that it cannot be challenged before an appeal committee. Most authorities which have grammar schools already have careful procedures for looking at borderline cases and for taking the best decisions that they possibly can in respect of the limited number of places which are available.
So this provision—which, incidentally, in essence, is exactly the same provision as we find in the 1944 Education Act, and which is a provision, therefore, which was operated by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, when he was Secretary of State for Education—is something which we believe should be continued in the present Bill, and I therefore ask your Lordships to resist this amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I must say that before the noble Lord got up to speak I was inclined to support the Government, because I thought that the amendment would not have any effect

805
on the selective system at all, and that therefore it would be pointless. The reason why I thought it would not have any effect is that subsection (3)(a), I thought, would deal with the matter even if you eliminated (3)(c);in other words, that if in fact people tried to get into an academically selective school children who were not suited for it, the local authority would be able to turn it down under (3)(a). But the noble Lord tells me this is not so. The noble Lord says that if we pass this amendment then we will in fact be doing away with the selective system. So be it: that sounds a very good reason for voting against the Government.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: On a technical matter, may I ask a question of the noble Lord who has just spoken? He says, "Do away with the selective system "—one of those smashing, emotive phrases that we all know from these debates. Could he say how he is going to ensure that a child gets the right sort of education that it needs without some kind of selection? Just tell me in simple words.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: No, I am sorry;I am not going to rise to that bait. The noble Lord, myself and other noble Lords who are speaking in this debate have been over this time and time again. I have argued the straight comprehensive system against him before now and I am prepared to do it again, but I do not honestly think that this is the time to do it.
Baroness GAITSKELL: If we get down to absolute fundamentals, I would wish to make a very brief intervention on this. If we want to educate to their highest capacity most of our children, then we cannot have the selective system. If we want to educate a small number of either rich or poor children who we think are cleverer than the others, then we have the selective system. In the state of our country at the moment we do not want to educate just the clever and the rich to their greatest and highest capacity;we want to educate all our children, because if we do not educate all our children in this scientific and technological age we shall go on being poor and we shall go on being slandered in the world, and looked down upon, as we are, in fact.
806
We have to educate most of our children to the highest ability of which they are capable.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: I think we are missing what is the simple and essential point. There is no question of abolishing selection. Any authority that did that would be in breach of the 1944 Act. They arc under a legal obligation to educate children according to their age, ability and aptitude;and if they do not take steps to ascertain their-ability and aptitude, they are clearly in breach of the Act. What we arc discussing is whether that should be done within one school, so that each child gets the opportunities appropriate to his ability and aptitude, or whether we should do it in separate schools. That is what we are discussing, not the issue of whether or not there shall be due care taken to have regard to the abilities and aptitudes of children. That, surely, is a fundamental requirement. I should not like to see a school which ignored these factors and tried to educate children.
Lord PARRY: I believe that the noble Lord who has just spoken was absent from the Chamber when, from the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham made what was an excellent speech in which he made perfectly clear that it was understood that selective processes are not at issue. It is quite clear that age, aptitude and ability arc matters which will govern the distribution of pupils throughout schools. What we are trying to do is to make absolutely certain—and I thought that was the Government's intention until a few moments ago—that in doing that we provide a machinery within each district which will see that the children in that area have access to education according to their age, aptitude and ability.
Our concern here is a genuine one—I thought we had made that clear—for the fact that this Bill as it is written seems to be based on a different philosophy. If we are honest and admit that there is a differing philosophy on education in our approach to this Bill, and that some of us believe that we have fundamentally to change the disposition of education, then we can approach it in terms of an argument which is more honest than I think this debate has become in the late

807
stages of this afternoon. It was the lotus eaters, I think, who, in the afternoon, came unto a land in which it seemed always afternoon, and I have had that feeling in the dying stages of this debate. I hope we shall get some new energy when we break for supper and come back addressing ourselves directly to the question.
On this question of education, in relation to this particular amendment on selectivity I think we should point out that the bands of deprivation that exist are not in fact a matter of philosophy. In the schools that we administer, whichever Government are in power, there are bands of deprivation which arc not mentioned in the public debate on education. I was always conscious, as a sixth-form master, that the dispositions made to me when I was teaching at that level were in fact in positive benefit for the sixth-form structure;but when I was teaching at other levels of the system—and I have taught as a primary teacher as well as in further education I found bands of deprivation to the disfavour of the children in those schools. There was positive discrimination, for example—and properly so—in favour of the backward and the handicapped, and there was not such discrimination within each different school in favour of the average. So I would claim that, no matter how we organise education, the average child in each particular school is the really disadvantaged individual.
I do not want to take the Committee further into that argument, away from this particular amendment, but this point at this moment is totally apposite. We arc dividing ourselves on this issue as to whether we are providing within the system of selectivity an educationally acceptable and a socially decent manner of disposing of the abilities of our children within the structures of our schools.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: I should like to add a word, speaking from the county of Surrey, which has always had selection. I very much agree with the point of view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, Why should not a local education authority choose for itself the structure which it thinks suits its locality best? In Surrey, we have always had selection. We have a splendid record of local grammar schools. I am glad
808
to say that some still survive, although they have had to become independent to do so. In parenthesis, I may say that in the last few years I have been very glad to help my local one in Guildford (which has a history of 400 or 500 years) to become independent. We had little difficulty in raising funds to make it do so. As to those funds, we were very concerned, under the last Government, to set aside enough money to give bursaries to families where there would not be enough money to pay the fees at the now independent school.
The point I wish to make is this. In Surrey, where in days gone by I used to take an active part in the education committee, and was happy to do so, our comprehensive schools as they developed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, also achieved a very high standard;and the sixth forms have achieved superb results in getting their students into universities. So I often feel that it is a great pity that we have made a major political issue over this, because the fact is that the comprehensive schools and the grammar schools both have a part to play.
Whenever I listen to my noble friend Lord James of Rusholme I am persuaded once more that we have to do something special for the gifted child. Personally, I am not a parent with children in that category, but I see families who are. I have seen them grow up and I know how much we want them in the top ranks of industry and the professions. We need them to be educated to that top level and we need to make special provision for them. We are depriving those children and ourselves if we do not make such provision. I am happy that my noble friend has kept this selective system within the general structure and that later on, when we come to talk about assisted places, we may say that we have done the best we can to help children from families who could not afford to pay fees to go to schools which will give them the kind of education they need.
6.43 p.m.
On Question. Whether the said amendment (No. 57) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98;Not-Contents, 149.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Hamnett, L.

Aylestone, L.

Heycock, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Birk, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

Jacobson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacques, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jeger, B.

Snow, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Soper, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Listowel, E.

Strauss, L.

Darwen, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

David, B.

Lloyd of Hampstcad, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Denington, B.

McCarthy, L.

Underhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Galpern, L.

Parry, L.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peart, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Plant, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

James of Rushholme, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denman, L.

Killearn, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Derby, Bp.

Kilmarnock, L.

Alport, L.

Derwent, L.

Kimberley, E.

Amherst, E.

Digby, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dormer, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Amory, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dundonald, E.

Long, V.

Amulree, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Loudoun, C.

Avon, E.

Effingham, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Baker, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Luke, L.

Balerno, L.

Elton, L.

Lyell, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Banks, L.

Exeter, M.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Barnby, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mais, L.

Barrington, V.

Falkland, V.

Mancroft, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Bellwin, L.

Foot, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belstead, L.

Forester, L.

Middleton, L.

Berkeley, B.

Fortescue, E.

Mills, V.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Milverton, L.

Blake, L.

Gainford, L.

Minto, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Galloway, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Bradford, E.

Gisborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Glendevon, L.

Morris, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gray, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Grey, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Burton, L.

Gridley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Haig, E.

Newall, L.

Cathcart, E.

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

Norfolk, D.

Chesham, L.

Northchurch, B.

Chitnis, L.

Halsbury, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hampton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Onslow, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harvington, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hatherton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Craigavon, V.

Henley, L.

Radnor, E.

Craigton, L.

Hertford, M.

Rathcreedan, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Hives, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Croft, L.

Holderness, L.

Reigate, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ridley, V.

Daventry, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochdale, V.

Davidson, V.

Hunt, L.

Rochester, Bp.

De Freyne, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Rochester, L

St. Davids, V.

Stamp, L.

Ullswater, V.

St. Just, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Vaizey, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Strathspey, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sandford, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Vernon, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Suffield, L.

Vickers, B.

Savile, L.

Swaythling, L.

Vivian, L.

Seear, B.

Swinton, E.

Wigoder, L.

Selkirk, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Winstanley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Wolverton, L.

Simon, V.

Torphichen, L.

Wynford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Tranmire, L.

Yarborough, E.

Smith, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Young, B.

Spens, L.

Trenchard, V.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Plant, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Grey, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbiede, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Avebury, L.

Hamnett, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Banks, L.

Heycock, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rochester, L.

Birk, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

Hunt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Seear, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacobson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Simon, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Byers, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Strauss, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Swaythling, L.

Darwen, L.

Listowel, E.

Tanlaw, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Denington, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Underhill, L.

Diamond, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Claughton, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Whaddon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wigoder, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ogmore, L.

Willis, L.

Galpern, L.

Oram, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gardiner, L.

Parry, L.

Winstanley, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Derby, Bp.

Hylton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Digby, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Baker, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Balerno, L.

Dundonald, E.

James of Rusholme, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Eccles, V.

Killearn, L.

Barrington, V.

Effingham, E.

Kimberley, E.

Bellwin, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Elton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Berkeley, B.

Exeter, M.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Faithfull, B.

Lothian, M.

Blake, L.

Falkland, V.

Loudoun, C.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Ferrers, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lyell, L.

Bradford, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Galloway, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gibson, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Gisborough, L.

Mansfield, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glendevon, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Burton, L.

Gormanston, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gowrie, E.

Middleton, L.

Carrington, L. (A Principal Secretary of State.)

Gray, L.

Mills, V.

Gridley, L.

Milverton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Haig, E.

Minto, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

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

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Cockfield, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Halsbury, E.

Monson, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hampden, V.

Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Mottistone, L.

Craigton, L.

Harvington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Croft, L.

Hatherton, L.

Moyne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Henley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Hertford, M.

Newall, L.

Davidson, V.

Hives, L.

Norfolk, D.

de Clifford, L.

Holderness, L.

Northchurch, B.

De Freyne, L.

Hood, V.

Nugent of Gulidford, L.

[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
6.53 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 7, line 11, after ("authority") insert ("after consultation between the local education authority or governors concerned and the local education authority for the area in which the child is resident").
The noble Viscount said: I think it will be agreed that it is time that we had an amendment from this side of the Committee. I hope the Government will agree to it. I move this amendment on behalf of the Association of County Councils. I should like to state quite firmly that they completely support the Government's proposals to strengthen parental choice, which was so well debated just now. There is concern about the effects which one local education authority's decision on admissions may have on efficient arrangements for other children in a neighbouring authority. In the same way, a voluntary school in a border area with declining numbers might admit pupils from a neighbouring authority without any regard to the consequences to that authority's schools and pupils. The amendment in no way limits the parents' rights to choice, nor does it wish in any way to interfere with the principle of pupils crossing boundaries where that is decided to he possible. Nor does it give the local authority, which is "exporting "children, any right to veto such arrangements. All I seek to ensure here is that the home "authority or the "exporting "authority should be consulted about what is going on, should know what the patterns of admission in their neighbouring areas are,
812
and have a chance to plan and make the best use of scarce resources. I believe that this amendment is relatively harmless but will greatly help the smooth working of the arrangements under this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: May I ask the noble Viscount whether this is the unanimous view of the county councils' association?
Viscount RIDLEY:I doubt whether we are ever unanimous. It was the strongly held opinion of the education committee of that association.
Baroness FAITHFULL: May I ask what the administrative arrangements are financially? Is there to be a transfer of financial responsibility?
Viscount RIDLEY: That comes in a later clause in the Bill. I do not have the reference with me;but recoupment is dealt with later in the Bill.
Baroness YOUNG: My noble friend's amendment is prompted by a concern which I recognise of some members of the local authority associations to ensure that they are fully informed where pupils from their area are being educated in the schools of other authorities. I hope that my noble friend will accept the explanation that we believe that his amendment is unnecessary. Authorities will know what their neighbouring authorities are doing because of the information that neighbouring authorities will be required to publish under Clause 8 of the Bill. It has not been a requirement of authorities before this Bill and therefore it will be published, and each authority will know what its neighbour is doing. There is nothing to prevent local education authorities discussing further, one with another;but

813
we do not believe that it is necessary to put this kind of consultation into statute form.
The answer to my noble friend Lady Faithfull is that part of our provisions to allow parents to express a preference for the school in an area other than the one in which they live, is the automatic recoupment provisions in Clause 33 whereby one authority will automatically pay to another where this child goes and is accepted in the other authority's school.
Viscount RIDLEY: In the circumstances and subject to whether we ever get to Clause 8, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if the House do now resume. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed.

CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons;read 1a, and to be printed.
CONSULAR FEES BILL
Brought from the Commons;read la, and to be printed.

NATIONAL HERITAGE BILL
6.59 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Lord GIBSON Lord GIBSON moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
"Consideration of Historic Association of an Object with a place
. In exercising their powers under sections 3 or 4 above in respect of an object or collection or group of objects having a significant association with a particular place, the Trustees shall consider whether it is appropriate for the object, collection or group to be, or continue to be, kept in that place, and for that purpose the Trustees shall obtain such expert advice as appears to them to be appropriate."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, whereas under Part II of the Bill a duty is laid on Ministers, when exercising their functions under the acceptances in lieu procedures, to consider the desirability of leaving objects in places with which they are historically connected, in Part I of the Bill no such duty is laid upon trustees when exercising their functions in relation to giving grants for purchases. I wonder why not. Clause 9(5) in Part II of the Bill cannot be implicit throughout the Bill. Indeed, one would think it implied, since it is not mentioned, that a similar duty is not laid on the trustees. One would think it implicit that they should not have regard to this consideration, and I feel sure that that is not the intention.
In moving this amendment, I should like to make the point as strongly as I can that I am not anti-museum. It was suggested in Committee when an amendment of a rather similar kind was moved, but in different words and with a quite different emphasis, that it was inspired by feelings, in a sense, hostile to museums. I was chairman of the Victoria and Albert Museum Advisory Committee for a number of years and I am on the National Art Collection Fund whose purchases all go to museums. I am extremely museum-minded.
In saying this, may I just make the point that I am sure that the vast majority of objects taken into public ownership through public funds will go to publicly-owned places and not merely be publicly held. But the fact is that there will sometimes be occasions—and it ought to be laid upon the trustees that they consider this on occasion, it must be left to their discretion—when an object which they helped to purchase should be left in the place with which it is historically connected. In leaving it to their discretion, it nevertheless is important to give them guidance in the Bill and not to exclude from Part I a duty which is laid on Ministers in Part II.
Baroness BIRK: I should like to support the amendment to which I have put my name, moved by my noble friend Lord Gibson, for all the reasons which he drew out. Particularly I would like to associate myself with the remarks he made about museums. The Bill is extremely good in covering this point in Part II, and Clause 9(5) is something which we welcome very much indeed. But it is true that the point is not covered in Part I. It would make a very good balance if the Government would accept this amendment, and I hope the Minister will. In the unfortunate event of his not accepting it, I should like to have firm assurances that the trustees will be given guidance on the in situ question in the context of Part I and what the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, has said.
7.2 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I must apologise because my answer will be slightly longer than I would have liked, but it is very easy to make a generalisation in trying to improve a Bill. To give the full merits of the argument needs a few words occasionally.
Amendments and new clauses very similar to these were debated fully in another place. The Government's view is that leaving objects in situ should be facilitated and encouraged, with due weight given to the matters of conservation, security, public access and opportunity for study by scholars. If taxpayers' money is to be spent in acquiring objects of national heritage quality, we must ensure that they are placed to the best advantage, but that does not necessarily mean that they should remain in the house of the vendor. We shall make sure that the trustees are aware of this in the guidelines which will be provided to them by the Ministers. We have provided in the Bill that the trustees should have the minimum of constraint, and we have tried to leave them free to decide as much as possible for themselves.
They have to decide on their own definition of the national heritage. They have to decide on what experts they consult what conditions they impose on the assistance they give, and what proportion of the purchase price they bear. Against this background, we have to ask whether these new clauses add to or detract from
816
the powers of the trustees. The trustees, I would point out to the noble Baroness, already have the power to make such conditions as they see fit under Clause 3(5). In deciding whether to give assistance, they can take into account any relevant considerations. It is improbable in the extreme that the question as to whether an object should be kept in situ will go by default. The vendor will be bound to raise it. In important cases, the trustees will be bombarded with advice on the point. It will be open to the trustees to decide, whether, in any publicity that they put out, they wish to say anything on the in situ aspect of their work.
The new clause thus does no more than state what is bound to happen anyway, but we need to remember that the bodies which will be seeking to acquire objects will for the most part be museums and galleries. Very few of these, national or local, will be prepared to lay out money of their own for the purchase of an item which they will not be allowed to put on their own premises. They will be persuaded to so do only in exceptional circumstances, but if the trustees are placed under an obligation to consider the point this could imply that they should always give this factor priority. Then some museums could be induced to back out because the conditions were unacceptable, or they might be frightened off from applying for assistance in the first place. We do not want the trustees and the museums to hassle over whether they are prepared to co-operate in the purchase of objects in case after case because the in situ aspect is given undue weight. I would not wish to make too much of this point, since the clause attempts to confine its scope to those cases where the in situ point arises, and that is likely to be a very small proportion of all the cases that come to the trustees for assistance.
The new clause also attempts to relate this to Clause 4, which deals with the situation where the trustees are to acquire and hold property in their own right. It is not the Government's intention that Clause 4 should be used except in very rare cases which shall always be considered on their merits by Ministers. In such cases, the question of the ultimate destination of the property would be the central issue to be decided. It would be superfluous to make an explicit reference to the question of keeping the item in situ.

817
The short point is that the new clause is really unnecessary and counter-productive. I take some comfort from the rather vague terms in which it has been drafted which do not specify why the trustees have to take the matter of the in situ aspect into account and what they should do about it once they have formed a view. I hope that the new clause will not be pressed in view of the assurances I have given about the trustee's existing powers and the guidelines they will receive from Ministers.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I was expecting the Minister to give us the answer which I thought I had got. I was so sure that he would give it that I did not bother to make reference to the fact that this point is covered by an earlier Finance Act. I do not know whether the noble Minister has that, but I think it was 1971, but I cannot remember what section. I was advised that this was covered by that Act, and therefore this is unnecessary. If that is not the case, I think his answer is not entirely satisfactory.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I must confess, speaking off the cuff, that I am not able to answer the noble Lord on that point at this moment, but I should have thought that the arguments I put forth were in their own right totally satisfactory, to be quite honest.
Lord GIBSON: It is obviously pointless to press this amendment. We have been given very satisfactory assurances. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I do not understand the point about the Finance Act, which surely applies to the in lieu procedures, whereas I was trying to extend the duty to the trustees in the exercise of their functions. I should have thought that what was sauce for the ministerial goose was sauce for the trustees' gander, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Approval of property for acceptance in satisfaction of tax]:
7.10 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 15, at end insert—
("(d) at the end of sub-paragraph (5) there shall be inserted the words "and, in determining under sub-paragraph (4) above whether an object or collection or group of objects is pre-eminent, regard shall be had to any significant association of the object, collection or group with a particular place,"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No. 27 with this amendment. An amendment along these lines was moved during Committee stage by my noble friend the Duke of Grafton. I said then that it would seem to be a useful clarification, but that I should like to check that the amendment had no adverse effects on another aspect of existing Government policy. I am happy to say that this has been done and I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment, because it is very much what we wanted. It is a tremendous improvement and it covers a great deal of the ground that we have been concerned with regarding the significant associations of objects or collections with a particular place. Therefore, I welcome it with great gratitude.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, I, too, am very glad that the Government themselves have introduced this amendment. It is clear that an object which may be of no outstanding importance in one setting may in another context be entitled to pre-eminent status and that the degree of importance attaching to an object is not in itself absolute.
I will give your Lordships an example. I know of two saddles—they do not belong to me though I have a family interest in them—two 17th century saddles, with their stirrups and bridles, leathers and reins and with associated screw-barrelled horse pistols—that are no doubt of substantial antiquarian interest, though I should doubt whether they are themselves of pre-eminent importance. But when it is known that they are the saddles ridden by King Charles I and Prince Rupert at the Battle of Naseby, they clearly have an historical interest. Whether they would, if they were in the Victoria and Albert Museum, be regarded as pre-eminent among the fine things there,

819
I do not know—perhaps they would. But when it can be added that they are in the house where the King and Prince Rupert left them when they changed horses during their flight to Leicester after the battle (no doubt they were in a hurry and were glad to get rid of their conspicuous trappings), no one can doubt that in that particular place where they were left by the King and Prince Rupert in those circumstances and where they have remained to this day, they have a pre-eminent degree of interest and importance.
That being said, I must say that I prefer my own Amendment No. 25 to that of my noble friend's because it refers specifically to museums and galleries of different kinds. That is important because something which would not be preeminent in the context, say, of the National Gallery or the British Museum, might well be pre-eminent in a local collection. The point, therefore, is of some importance, and I hope that my noble friend may feel able to accept my amendment in place of his.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, If I may speak again with the leave of the House, because I am also now wishing to speak about my noble friend's Amendment No. 25, I should like to take this opportunity of reaffirming for the record what the Government's policy is. We obviously accept that an object can be pre-eminent per se or pre-eminent only by virtue of the setting with which it has been particularly associated. We also accept that when an object is assessed for pre-eminence it should be judged not in relation only to the great national collections but also in relation to collections of local authority and university museums and galleries. That has been Government policy, as your Lordships will know, since 1972 and I hope it is well understood that this is the position.
With regard to my noble friend's amendment, it is very similar to our own, as he said;but I hope he will not press the merits of his amendment beause it is defective in that it does not cover the position of estate duty cases, some of which may arise for a good while to come yet. Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will see the wisdom of accepting the Government's amendment.
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert—
("(13) Any question whether an object or collection or group of objects is pre-eminent shall be determined under the provisions mentioned in section 8(3)(b) or (c) above in the same way as under the said paragraph 17(4).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
Clause 14 [Transfer of Ministerial functions]:
Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9, line 2, leave out ("National").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential on an earlier amendment. I beg to move.
Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 9, line 2, leave out ("Memorial").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
7.16 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 9, line 13, at end insert—
("(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2) above the functions of the Ministers in respect of the acceptance of land may be transferred to the Trustees in isolation from those in respect of other types of property.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the noble Earl and at his request, I desire to move this amendment. It concerns a point he has pursued for some time and it springs from what happened in another place, I think, at column 1434 on 30th January, when Mr. Hector Monro, the Under-Secretary of State, said:

821
" I hope that all those who are concerned with our heritage are clear where we stand on Clause 14. I hope there will be no concern about the way in which it will be implemented in the future".
The fact that this amendment is on the Marshalled List is an indication that not everyone is entirely happy about the way in which Clause 14 is going to be implemented—mainly as a result of a letter which was read in another place by Mr. Andrew Faulds. It contained these words, which were the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy—remembering that this clause empowers the Government to transfer from the respective Ministers, either both or one of them. their functions under Part II of the Act to the trustees. This was said in this letter:
" I will not put forward a draft order for parliamentary approval unless I have the willing consent of the museums".
The words in the clause are "any functions". I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss does not resent the fact that the museums have had this promise given to them, but it brings us back to the meaning of the word, "any". Does this mean that this pledge is going to cover all the functions of the Minister?—because there may be functions that affect the museums and functions that affect other interests. The noble Earl points out in this amendment the land interests, and he suggests that without generality to the powers, this promise should not affect the possibility of transfer of the land interest to the trustees in due course. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I spoke on this in Committee and I want to speak on it again. My belief is that the correct and best course that the National Heritage Act and Fund can pursue is summed up in Clause 14. I wish to see the trustees looking after all affairs to do with both real property and chattels, in lieu and otherwise;but I do not think it is desirable to push this through against the fairly strong opposition of half the customers—that is, the museums. Therefore, I have a certain sympathy with the Minister for the Arts, who wrote this letter, and I have to confess that I think it was a mild indiscretion to put it on paper. I have sympathy with him and if I were in his position I do not think I should want to force this through if one of the beneficiaries was strongly against it. This blocks the
822
desire of the other beneficiaries, the landlords, who are keen to get this put through. The amendment suggests that the Government should undertake one half without the other.
The amendment is not only unnecessary, but a little controversial. If after long discussion with the museums the Minister fails to convince them, it is within his capacity to do this in any event. I cannot see what there is to stop it. If that is the case, it is slightly contentious to accept this amendment, and I would be cautious in agreeing to it.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, my noble friend will appreciate the wording of the letter. The letter said:
" …I will not put forward a draft order for parliamentary approval unless I have the willing consent of the museums".
That virtually gives them a veto over any action which is desired to be taken by the Government.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, it does not appear to me to do that. It means that if there is a situation of deadlock, the Minister will have to solve it in whatever way he thinks best. One way is to say that he will pass this section over and not that section. There is nothing in the Bill to stop him from doing this.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, my sympathies lie with the ex-Minister for the Arts rather than with the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland. On the face of it, the amendment, as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is an attractive one. It would appear to enable us to satisfy both wings of the heritage movement by enabling us to pass to the trustees responsibility for accepting land in lieu of tax while retaining responsibility for acceptances ofworks of art and other items. Nevertheless, the Government must resist the amendment.
Let me make clear that we have no intentions of ever dividing responsibility for acceptance in lieu. This would, I think, be confusing both for those making the offer and those concerned with providing expert advice on quality and value. What would happen, for example, if a house and its contents, or a combination of some land—an historic house and one

823
or two works of art—were offered in satisfaction of one tax bill? Two sets of people would be responsible for decisions, and this would inevitably lead to delays, and possibly to dual standards. I am sure that your Lordships and all who are concerned with preserving the heritage would not wish us to get into that situation.
We recognise that there is a difference of view between the historic houses world and the arts world on this point. The Government promised to retain the in-lieu system in its present form, and to all intents and purposes that is what we have done. However, we have had no choice but to make some changes, and the main one is, of course, that the Arts Departments instead of the Treasury, will be responsible for decisions on acceptance. We hope that this arrangement will work as smoothly as, or even more smoothly than, its predecessor, but we cannot be sure. That is why we have Clause 14 in the Bill.
If the present arrangements do not work as well as we hoped, we have the facility to bring in the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund without recourse to primary legislation. The Government intend to review the workings of the revised acceptance-in-lieu procedures once we have had a chance to see how they work out in practice—perhaps in two years or so—and if, in the light of that review and consultations with representatives of both the historic houses and arts interests, we feel that it would be appropriate to transfer responsibility to the trustees, we shall do so. But it would he unproductive to debate this point any further at this stage.
Again, I think that there was a clear misunderstanding on the part of some of those who studied the terms of the letter which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster sent to Mr. Andrew Faulds on this subject on 30th January, the day of the Report stage of the Bill in another place. When he said in his letter that he would not put forward a draft order for parliamentary approval unless he had the willing consent of the museums, he was not speaking in his capacity as a Minister with responsibility for the management of Government business, as Leader of another place, but as Minister for the
824
Arts. He was limiting himself explicitly to the area within his area of departmental policy responsibility. This must be evident when one considers that my honourable friend Mr. Hector Monro, who has responsibility, with me, for the environment side of the heritage, went on at once to say that the letter put in much more eloquent and clear terms what he had been saying in Committee and that he hoped there would be no concern about the way in which it would be implemented in future. In view of what I have said, and also bearing in mind the need to speed up our consideration of the Bill, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said about a review, and as the Minister intends to keep in touch with both sides—the failure to do so previously was a great mistake-1 shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Commencement]:
7.25 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 31:
Leave out Clause 18.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government have always made it clear that we hoped to set the new fund up and transfer the acceptance-in-lieu provisions to the new Ministers at the start of the financial year 1980–81—that is, on 1st April 1980. When the Bill was originally drafted, we were not sure whether it would make such rapid progress that it would achieve Royal Assent well before 1st April or whether it would suffer delay and not secure Royal Assent until some time later. For this reason we included provision for a commencement order in the Bill. As your Lordships are aware, we have now taken steps to arrange that the Bill may go through its remaining stages in time to meet this deadline, and I am grateful to all those who have curtailed their speeches in order to assist us. A commencement order should therefore no longer be necessary.
We are advised that the grant-in-aid can be paid into the fund as soon as the Act receives Royal Assent and that it can start to earn interest right away.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for the Environment have been actively considering the names of possible trustees, in consultation with the Prime Minister, and I hope that we can announce the name of the chairman very soon. This has been somewhat complicated by the decisions which we took last night.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the Minister's assurances and his promise to enforce this by the beginning of April. If by any unhappy, unlikely and unfortunate chance—not to do with your Lordships' House—there is any delay, do I assume that the interest on the capital will be paid? This amounts to about £100,000 a month, and it would be disastrous if the fund did not get this right from the beginning.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am speaking off the cuff, but I do not think it would be able to earn interest in the Heritage Fund until it is actually paid into that fund.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, does this mean that in another place the Government will accept our amendment?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I have no information on that subject.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, that could cause delay.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the Government have had very strong advice from this House but it is not for me to advise my right honourable friends as to how they will see fit to implement this. A little angel has just wafted me information. I can tell the House that interest will be paid on the capital. I take that to mean that it will be paid as from 1st April, whether it is paid in or not.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, the Minister referred to the further progress of the Bill in this House as well as in another
826
place. Will he give some idea of the opportunity that will be given on Third Reading, including the opportunity to move amendments which appear to me to he necessary and consequential, on what has gone before?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, if I have the leave of the House —we are becoming a little unconstitutional tonight—I think the answer is that one takes a risk in this matter, if we are to have the Bill on the statute book by about 1st April. If noble Lords are going to move amendments which will be heavily contested in another place, then I should have thought that we were putting the Bill at risk, which I am sure is a fate which we all want to avoid.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I ask what possible reason there could be for moving amendments on Third Reading, when they have not been moved tonight? What is the object? Why were they not moved tonight?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it is not for me and I have no amendment. But we have one slight problem. Amendment No. 3 last night, which was purely consequential and totally unimportant, was omitted. It is not shown in Hansard as having been moved. That is the only one. It is so inconsequential that we could rectify that at Third Reading, without any possible let or hindrance. That should never be considered to be a worry. But any major amendment which has not been moved up till now would, I am certain, delay the Bill.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, only so that the House should feel that there would be no possibility of unnecessary delay, having heard the noble Lord say that two Ministers who were named in the previous debate were now consulting with the Prime Minister, and since the only alteration would be that the Prime Minister would have to consult with the Ministers, could they merely rearrange their seats and get on with the job?
Schedule 1 [The Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund]:
7.32 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 13, line 10, at end insert—
(".—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the payment of emoluments to the Chairman of the Trustees out of the Fund.
(2) No Order shall be made under this paragraph unless a draft of the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment arises out of our previous discussion in Committee, when there was a very strong feeling by everybody that there should be a permissive power to enable the chairman of the trustees to be paid, if and when necessary. The amendment was subsequently defeated in a Division, and it seemed to me and to my noble friends that there might be a way of doing what was wanted—hence the amendment before your Lordships tonight—by Order in Council. The advantage of that is that it distances itself even further from what Ministers evidently feel is an unpopular decision.
It means that the power would not be activated at any time, unless the Government wished to activate it. It also means that an order cannot be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. So that it leaves the situation almost as it is now, but with the opportunity to pick up the power if it is needed, without having to go to primary legislation. Since I think we all believe, whichever Government is in power, that there is far too much legislation, this seemed to me to be a very neat way out of the problem and a happy solution which should not offend anyone. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness in this amendment, which is very modest in relation to the one which was pressed in Committee. At the end of the day, it merely provides for the remote possibility, should it prove to be necessary, of remunerating the chairman. I think that the Government would be very unwise to resist this amendment. As I said
828
in Committee and I say it again now, they would be very ill-advised at this stage to do anything which would in any way narrow their choice of the chairman of this very important body. None of us should underestimate the weight of the burden which the chairman will bear, particularly in the initial years of this scheme.
When I spoke in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, replied that he felt there would be no difficulty and that the Government were looking for a cultured generalist. It may well be that they will find one. My fear is that it is possible, at the end of the day, that the noble Lord may find that his choice is limited to a few rich, retired, cultured generalists.
Let me make it quite clear that I have no objection whatever to the riches, particularly if they are self-accumulated. They may be evidence of activity and endeavour;and, indeed, they may have given the person concerned an opportunity to have close familiarity with the kind of things that we are trying to preserve. But I am a little worried about the retired. I am sure that each and every one of us hopes that for this appointment we will have somebody who is extremely vigorous and able, and I feel that to have the maximum possible choice the Government ought to have this last opportunity for remuneration should that prove necessary. It may not prove necessary.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I fully appreciate the sincerity with which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord. Lord Winstanley, have spoken to this amendment, and let me assure them that I fully appreciate the argument which they are putting forward. We have no wish to look around for some man who is so rich that he does not need to have any other succour. As your Lordships are aware, we are providing the normal expenses for travelling and so on, which will be necessary for the job to be done. But once the first few weeks or months are over, we do not expect this to be anything approaching a full-time job. The chairman and the trustees will have a full-time secretariat—not big, but efficient—which will do the job. They will be approached by people;it is not a job where they will have to think about what they are going

829
to do. They will not be there to go looking for things;they will be there to be approached.
We have already debated and divided on this question three times in our two Houses. I appreciate that this is a very ingenious attempt to get around the previous objections, by merely leaving the issue open for a future Government to decide without recourse to primary legislation. However, there is no essential difference between this provision and the one on which we have already voted to give the Government permissive power to pay the chairman. All that this amendment does is to make it a little harder for a Government to do this, by obliging them first to bring in an Order in Council. If they wished to do this, of course they could do so.
The principle at stake is whether we should refer at all, on the face of the Bill, to the idea of paying the chairman of the trustees. We remain of the opinion that it would be totally wrong to countenance this idea. If the noble Baroness presses her amendment, I am very sorry but we shall have to ask your Lordships to vote again on the matter and, as before, to reject the amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I hope that the Prime Minister and Her Majesty the Queen will not appoint somebody who is so rich and so retired that he does not think before he acts, which is what it seemed to me the noble Lord was saying we could expect from the chairman. I think I must have misunderstood him, but that is what he seemed to me to say. At the end of our deliberations, it would be a pity to divide again, as the cohorts which always lurk behind the Front Bench are all having supper, and I cannot see any point in putting to a vote something which we are bound to lose by an enormous amount. So I shall advise my noble friend that I do not think it is worth pursuing, though I think that the Government will be quite wrong, as is often the case.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, by leave of the House, and before the noble Lord sits down I must say that I never said that we were looking for someone who was so rich that he could not do the job. We are not
830
interested in whether he is a rich man or a poor man. All we are interested in is whether he is a man of general culture and common sense.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, as I was the black sheep on the last occasion, and voted with the Opposition on the amendment which they proposed, I should like to express once again my regret that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to accept this amendment, which is even less permissive than the last one. If a proposal was brought forward under the resolution, I should vote against it. It will he quite unnecessary, for a very long time to come, to find someone suitable who needs to be paid—if one may put it in that way, without being too discourteous. So it seems to me, as statutes are usually designed for all time, that you may just as well have this power. I hope that it will not be used for some time, but at least, if there was a change of circumstances, the power would be there.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, I recognise that powerful arguments have been put forward in favour of this amendment: that it is only an enabling amendment and that it can only be brought into effect by an order approved by Parliament. But there is another side to the coin. If it is operated at all, then it will probably become in practice the general rule. The chairman of a public body, in my experience—and I have a little experience—if he is unpaid, has the real advantage that no political pressure from his Minister can interfere with the exercise of his independent judgment of what is in the best interests of the enterprise. That independence of judgment and action has at times real advantages. I think that perhaps the House should consider that, on the other side of the argument.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, if I may add to what has been said, is it contended by those who urge this course that this will be a job demanding, let us say, three days a week? In which case I can think of many people who might otherwise he well suited who might hesitate. I find it difficult to believe that it will make such inroads on time. When I cast my eye round the horizon of museums and similar bodies with which I am connected, I should have thought that the experience of the last quarter of a century showed that people

831
of modest means are willing to accept the position and the honour.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The Amendment is by leave——
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what everybody has said, including the noble Lord the Minister. I am very sorry that the amendment has got this rather dusty reception. I thought it was rather ingenious and I certainly hoped that it would be acceptable. I do not think that there is any point——
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is out of order.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I moved the amendment;it is mine and it has not been withdrawn. I think I am in order and I shall go on until I am proved to be out of order. As the Minister has said, the principle contained in this amendment has now been voted on several times. I agree with my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge that the tramp of the heavy feet of those who had not used their ears but who would march through the Division Lobby would make it a rather wasteful exercise. Therefore I shall, with leave, withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for 16 minutes, after which we will resume the Committee stage of the Education (No. 2) Bill.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.44 p.m. to 8 p.m.]

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
House again in Committee on Clause 6.
8 p.m.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 7, line 15, at end insert—
("(6) Every local education authority shall determine for each school a limit upon the number of pupils —

(a) in the age group at which the pupils normally enter the school, or

(b) if there is more than one age group in each such age group

who are to be admitted to the school in any school year:
Provided that the limit in respect of an aided school or special agreement school shall only be determined following consultation with the Governors of that school.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to help both local authorities and the parents of school children in the situation which local authorities are facing at the moment. and indeed will be increasingly concerned with over the years to come, the problem of falling rolls. It is clear that falling rolls are exacerbating problems relating to admission procedures into schools which local authorities have been experiencing for some years. If local authorities have the support of the law in determining their admission procedures, this will not mean the demise of the parental choice but will prevent shifts of parental preference or the demands of an articulate minority adversely affecting the needs of all the children in the schools of the authority.
In the context of declining school populations several local authorities have pointed out that hitherto successful arrangements for parental preference are now placing in jeopardy the organisation of their education service. In some parts of inner London the decline in school populations and the outcome of parental preference is having a damaging effect on a number of schools, to the point that enforced mergers and closures are being contemplated. The Government and Parliament should ensure that there is the necessary legislation to provide the right balance between schools admissions policies and parental choice. With a legally recognised system of planned admission levels, many education authorities would seek to retain the vast majority of their schools and improve the space ratio per pupil, thus providing additional space for educational activities. I beg to move.
Baroness DENINGTON: I attach particular importance to this Amendment

833
and I do hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will be able to help us on it. My noble friend Lord Brooks has referred to London. The position in London, and particularly in some parts of London where rolls are falling very fast, is exceedingly difficult. It is perfectly true that schools are having to be closed and schools are having to be amalgamated. Of course, the best buildings are being retained, the new post-war buildings, but even then you get into a difficult position. I am thinking, for example, of one school where I was chairman of governors, an eight form entry school. I believe at one point we were pushed up to nine forms when the bulge was going through. That meant that the school was completely overcrowded. Instead of having proper classroom bases the children had to have as a form room the science lab. or the needlework room or "what have you". It was most unsatisfactory. Let me make the point that the school is now being brought down to being a five form entry school, because that is all that will be wanted in the neighbourhood. Indeed, other schools in the neighbourhood are being brought down far below their deemed capacity of a few years ago.
It would be possible for a parent to go to an appeals committee and say "I want my child to go to that school. I have been told that the school is full. The school is now taking five forms, and it is perfectly true that five forms have been taken in and so my child cannot go to that school. But that school a few years ago took eight forms. How can you possibly argue that the school cannot take my child in, when three more forms were taken in a few years ago? "I would have thought this makes great difficulties. Supposing the child was let in. To be quite frank, we have always had appeals and we have squashed in one child or two or three children. I think this Bill will stir parents up. Let me make this point;I believe profoundly, just as much as the noble Baroness does, in parents' choice. If I were a parent, I would fight for it tooth and nail;I strongly believe in it. But it is the interest between the majority in the community and the parent that is worrying me.
The parent argues that the child could get in. You could squeeze in one or two. It produces difficulties, as teachers in the
834
mood they are in today are not prepared to teach 31 children;so you have to rearrange the timetable, to split classes up and all the rest of it. But you can take in one or two or three. But if it is a very popular school, a very sought-after school, you have got a queue. You take in 20. Then you have really got a problem, because you have got to have another teacher and all the timetable has gone awry;the timetable for the first year has to be done all over again. You might have 30 children;that is a whole form. You have taken in another whole form. London is a very big place and the same thing is happening in the same neighbourhood in another school;they have taken in another form. So instead of two five form entry schools you have two six form entry in order to meet parental choice. What will happen in the rest of the neighbourhood?
Suppose you have a school which might not be a bad school—I am not talking about a sink school—a school that is not so popular, maybe its methods are different, maybe it does not wear uniform and people in that area like uniforms;that school is now deprived of two form entries, so that instead of being a reasonable and proper comprehensive school—and, of course, the London system is comprehensive education—it is reduced to a three form entry school. I know there are people who take the view that you can run a proper fully-fledged comprehensive school on three form entries. I have never taken that view, any more than I have liked the overlarge school, which I do not agree with at all. I think a five form or six form is right but not more, and not three. Where is the sixth form? What can you produce out of the three forms. How can you really give the choice that is the essence of a comprehensive school? That is why I attach great importance to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will say on this matter to try to help us.
Would the situation be protected under the clause that we were considering earlier;namely, Clause 6(3)(a) where it mentions that it:
" would prejudice the provision of efficient education".
I would say that it would do so, if that were the situation. Therefore, there must be an end to the number of children who will be admitted above a stated number.

835
The stated number must be produced as a result of proper consideration of the needs of the area and then we must stick by it, otherwise we may have an enormous queue of people for a certain school—indeed there is no reason why there should not be such a queue on occasions. I know of some schools where the pressure has been fantastic. London has a banding system of ability: top ability, A, B and C. I know secondary schools which are very heavily over-subscribed in every one of the three bands. So there might be an enormous queue of people. We cannot just say, "We shall stop at taking 30". Why should the first 30 who come along get their heart's desire and the others be disappointed? It is probably not their fault that they came late in the queue;some administrative matter may have held them up. Where do we stop?
I support the amendment very strongly. A local authority must have a good reason, and not a prejudicial reason, for stating its position. I am thinking of a speech that Dr. Boyson made in the other place where it seemed to me that there was a little prejudice coming into the subject. A local authority must have a good reason, and having stated that reason, and if it is an acceptable reason, then we should say that that is the number who can go into that school, and that is the end of it.
Baroness YOUNG: I find it very difficult to add anything as regards this amendment to what I said when we discussed Amendment No. 55, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. These are a series of linked amendments on planned admission limits. I indicated then that our attitude to planned admission limits was not that of the previous Government. There are only two new points that I can contribute as regards this particular amendment. For us there would be two difficult features of Amendment No. 60. One is that the limits for aided and special agreement schools will be determined by the local education authority—a restriction on their freedom which was rejected last year because, of course, under the terms of our Bill admissions will be determined by the governors. We feel that this is a desirable advance on the matter. The second feature is that limits would apply
836
to primary as well as secondary schools, again a matter which both sides agreed to drop in the former Administration's Bill. I cannot see, therefore, any purpose in attempting to put them back into this Bill. It is for those reasons that we believe that to determine admissions to a school exclusively on numbers is not the right way to proceed. That is why I cannot accept this amendment any more than I accepted the other one.
Baroness DAVID: I should like to ask the Minister a question. We have not really had an answer from her about what she intends to do. Is she worried about the schools which will lose numbers? Will extra funds be given to the local authorities which are experiencing great problems in this regard? I have asked her this question before. She is very interested in the curriculum and mentions it often. Presumably, where numbers are dropping substantially, she would like the schools to have all the necessary staff. Will they be particularly well staffed? Will local authorities be given more money in their rate support grant to help these schools if they are really getting down on numbers? What does she intend to do? What does she think will happen when some schools are over full and others are left empty? What about the education of the children in those schools? Those are the matters about which I do not think that we have had an answer.
Baroness YOUNG: I think that there are two answers to the matters raised by the noble Baroness. The first is that, under the provisions of Clause 8, dealing with information, a school will give the numbers that it expects to admit. That will be one of the characteristics of the school, so that people would know it. It is not an absolute number, because a parent would have the right to go to an appeal committee on such a matter. The local authority will also have to consider the efficient use of resources and theefficient use of education—terms which I am sure will be familiar to the noble Baroness and others because they are after all, taken from the 1944 Act.
Baroness DAVID: But they are very difficult to define.
Baroness YOUNG: Exactly, but many of these matters are difficult to define. I accept the other point that rolls will fall. We all know that there will be a million fewer children in the school population between now and 1984. One of the consequences of that will be that many schools will have to close simply because the numbers inevitably fall. What we are saying as regards this matter is that one cannot say, as is sometimes said as regards these difficult decisions, that if a school is over-subscribed and very popular, we must either close it or split it up and distribute its pupils around a number of other places—an argument that I have heard advanced in some of the school closure programmes—when obviously these are good schools or schools at any rate that are greatly desired by the parents, which suggests that the parents think they are good schools. Therefore I think that we should look at the whole question of closures and all these other matters on their merits. We take into account the official information given about the school and we take into account the authorities' efficient use of resources and efficient use of education. This is not exactly a jigsaw puzzle that we are spelling out, explaining or putting together in a Bill, but we are allowing a certain amount of flexibility.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: It seems to me that the noble Baroness has not really addressed herself to the very serious problem that many local authorities will be facing, on her own admission, fairly shortly as a result of about one million fewer schoolchildren in our schools. She also seemed to be assuming that education authorities are rational beings, not persuaded by pressures and who always behave in a uniform manner. They simply do not do so. Many local authoritities will need the protection of a limit on their entry in order that they will be able to retain some kind of rational system of education within their boundaries.
Perhaps I can give an example from my own authority. It was a sensible authority when the Labour Party were in control, but it has become very stupid since. The example is as follows. In the capital programme there was a proposal that a new comprehensive school be built on a fairly new estate which was close to a council estate. On the fringe of the
838
council estate, very near to the new estate which had recently been built, there was a perfectly good comprehensive school about which there has been no complaint whatever, which has a sixth form, excellent results and so on. As a result of research carried out by the local authority, it was decided to take the new school out of its programme, quite properly in my view. The Director of Education advised it;the chairman of the Education Committee advised it the Leader of the County Council advised it;the chairman of the Finance Committee advised it but the Conservative Group said, "No, we shall go ahead and we are going to build it. "It will not be needed. Everyone knows that it will not be needed, but because of the pressures that were put on the Conservative Group and the collapse of leadership from that group, we shall now be saddled with a new comprehensive school which will not be needed.
If the present Secretary of State is foolish enough to allow this to happen, what will be the consequence for the school on the council estate? We all know what the consequence will be: unless the local authority is allowed to set a limit to its entry, that school will close. I fear not only that that school will close, but there is even talk that one other comprehensive school may also have to close as a result. It has been said from the other side, as well as this side, that one of the great advantages of a school is that it is part of the community. It means that communities already denuded of communal assets will be even more denuded. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to look again very seriously at this amendment. If she resists, I am bound to say that I intend to press it.
Baroness YOUNG: Naturally, we have given a great deal of attention to this clause, and I can assure the noble Lord that it has all been discussed with the local authority associations and that they have accepted it and the way in which it will work. They think that it will enable local education authorities to plan sensibly. It is for that reason that I think it is perfectly possible to give both a chance for a parent to express a preference and for the local authority to plan sensibly. I am not at all sure that I followed the point about the comprehensive school in the

839
noble Lord's local authority and what it was supposed to illustrate. What we say in the Bill is directed at an authority with falling school rolls and at the problem of parental preference. I must tell the noble Lord that I cannot accept his amendment, but we believe that with
840
the information in Clause 8 and the safeguards in Clause 6(3), we have the right balance between these two interests
On Question, Whether the said Amendment, (No. 60) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69;Not-Contents, 128.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Plant, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Grey, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbiede, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Avebury, L.

Hamnett, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Banks, L.

Heycock, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rochester, L.

Birk, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

Hunt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Seear, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacobson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Simon, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Byers, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Strauss, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Swaythling, L.

Darwen, L.

Listowel, E.

Tanlaw, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Denington, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Underhill, L.

Diamond, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Claughton, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Whaddon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wigoder, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ogmore, L.

Willis, L.

Galpern, L.

Oram, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gardiner, L.

Parry, L.

Winstanley, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Derby, Bp.

Hylton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Digby, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Baker, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Balerno, L.

Dundonald, E.

James of Rusholme, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Eccles, V.

Killearn, L.

Barrington, V.

Effingham, E.

Kimberley, E.

Bellwin, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Elton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Berkeley, B.

Exeter, M.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Faithfull, B.

Lothian, M.

Blake, L.

Falkland, V.

Loudoun, C.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Ferrers, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lyell, L.

Bradford, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Galloway, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gibson, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Gisborough, L.

Mansfield, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glendevon, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Burton, L.

Gormanston, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gowrie, E.

Middleton, L.

Carrington, L. (A Principal Secretary of State.)

Gray, L.

Mills, V.

Gridley, L.

Milverton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Haig, E.

Minto, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

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

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Cockfield, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Halsbury, E.

Monson, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hampden, V.

Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Mottistone, L.

Craigton, L.

Harvington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Croft, L.

Hatherton, L.

Moyne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Henley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Hertford, M.

Newall, L.

Davidson, V.

Hives, L.

Norfolk, D.

de Clifford, L.

Holderness, L.

Northchurch, B.

De Freyne, L.

Hood, V.

Nugent of Gulidford, L.

Onslow, E.

Savile, L.

Torphichen, L.

Orkney, E.

Selkirk, E.

Tranmire, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Radnor, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Slim, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Reigate, L.

Smith, L.

Vaizey, L.

Renwick, L.

Spens, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ridley, V.

Stamp, L.

Vernon, L.

Rochdale, V.

Strathspey, L.

Vickers, B.

Rugby, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Vivian, L.

St. Davids, V.

Suffield, L.

Wolverton, L.

St. Just, L.

Swinton, E.

Wynford, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Teviot, L.

Yarborough, E.

Sandford, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Young, B.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gregson, L.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Heycock, L.

Plant, L.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Raglan, L.

Brockway, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacobson, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Jeger, B.

Segal, L.

Darwen, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

David, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewclyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Denington, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strauss, L.

Diamond, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Maelor, L.

Underhill, L.

Galpern, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Parry, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Eccles, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Effingham, E.

Kimberley, E.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Avebury, L.

Elton, L.

Long, V.

Baker, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Lothian, M.

Balerno, L.

Faithfull, B.

Loudoun, C.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Falkland, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falmouth, V.

Lyell, L.

Bellwin, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Galloway, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Berkeley, B.

Gisborough, L.

McNair, L.

Blake, L.

Gormanston, V.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mansfield, E.

Bradford, E.

Gray, L.

Masham of Ikon, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Greenway, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Middleton, L.

Burton, L.

Haig, E.

Milverton, L.

Byers, L.

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

Minto, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hampton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hanworth, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hatherton, L.

Moyne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hertford, M.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hives, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V.

Holderness, L.

Ogmore, L.

de Clifford, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Orkney, E.

De Freyne, L.

Hunt, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Denman, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Reigate, L.

Digby, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Renton, L.

Dormer, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Ridley, V.

Dundonald, E

Killearn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Rochdale, V.

Stamp, L.

Vaizey, L.

Rochester, L.

Strathspey, L.

Vaux of Harrovvden, L.

St. Davids, V.

Suffield, L.

Vernon, L.

St. Just, L.

Swinton, E.

Vickers, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Vivian, L.

Seear, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Torphichen, L.

Windlesham, L.

Simon, V.

Tranmire, L.

Winstanley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wynford, L.

Spens, L.

Trenchard, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 60 disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Appeals against admission decisions]:
8.30 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 7, line 16, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 17 and insert ("establish an appeal committee to which the parent of any child may appeal against")
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which is linked with a number of consequential and allied amendments. The real purpose is to try to make the appeal procedure more simple. Anyone who has read the Bill will agree that, if that can be done, it certainly should be attempted. The way the Government seem to see the appeal procedure is as a series of appeal committees with membership of three, five, or seven persons all acting more or less independently. The way we see it is of one appeal committee large enough to make it possible to draw from it panels, so that they would all be members of one committee. They would presumably be aware of each other's judgments, and after a time certain rules or principles would emerge.
My noble friend Lady David will develop this theme, but I want just to put this first concept before the Committee, that we think of it in terms of a single appeal committee from which panels can be drawn. This would be a less complicated procedure and is more likely to result in uniformity of judgments between appeals relating to one school or one parent, and appeals relating to another.
Baroness YOUNG: I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has
842
said that his intention is that his amendment will make the appeals procedure that we are suggesting simpler than it is now. In fact, we believe that we have established a clear and simple procedure under the Bill. Authorities will set up one or more appeal committees which, apart from various key matters covered in Part II of Schedule 2, will operate according to procedures laid down by local education authorities. The members will he appointed by the local education authority with the opportunity for a majority of them to be councillors or members of the education committee of the authority. It is a statutory delegation of a function now performed (or not, as the case may be in some areas) by the authority to a committee of the authority, with sufficient safeguards built in over the composition and functioning of that committee to ensure that parents can be satisfied that they have had a fair hearing by people other than those who made the original decision. The chairman will be independent.
This in no way takes away from the quite normal procedures of many local education authorities whereby a parent who is dissatisfied with the arrangements that are made would go first of all perhaps to an area education officer, or go to the chief education officer, or go to some official who was responsible for admissions, or might discuss it with a councillor or with anybody at any kind of informal procedures that the council might have. We would assume that all these, where they were in existence, would continue to be in existence. What we are establishing in the appeals committee is a statutory committee whose decision will be binding, but that does not in any way undermine the informal procedures that an authority would have, and we would look on the appeal committee as the last resort and not the first.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I should be interested whether the noble

843
Baroness the Minister could expand a little on that. In particular I think of her statement about the clause in general that parents can be satisfied with the composition, and therefore presumably with the fairness of the appeals committee. As long as there is a majority of the authority on that committee I should like to know how she thinks parents will in fact be satisfied.
I do not go along, at this stage at any rate, with the official Opposition on their amendments, particularly because I see that their fall-back position is to leave out Clause 7, and that would seem to me to be disastrous because that would mean that you do not have any appeals at all. We need as good an appeal machinery as we can have. I am not at all happy about this with its built-in majority of the people who were at any rate associated with the people who made the original decision. We should be grateful if the noble Baroness could expand a little more on that.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER HILL: I hope that the Committee will look carefully at this provision. If this clause stands, a local education authority will necessarily have to set up not one but in many cases a number of appeals committees. They will have to man them. They will have to make appointments of clerks to look after them. They will not know how many appeals there will be. There may be very many, or they may be more limited, but the machinery will have to be established. Having been established, it is not easy to get rid of machinery.
The big purpose of this Bill is economy. In my judgment, this is wasteful. It will involve substantial expenditure. What is the present position, and what is wrong with it? If a parent is not satisfied, including under the provisions of declaring a preference, as the noble Baroness the Minister, has said they can complain. They can go and see the divisional officer, and if necessary up to the level of the chief education officer. If they are still not satisfied they can appeal to the Secretary of State. The department, presumably having all the relevant facts before them, would settle it. I am greatly worried that this will cost a substantial amount of money and will not justify itself in the event.
The Earl of SWINTON: I am very glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has said. I must apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading because I was away. This was a clause that was going to take up a lot of my time. In mitigation, may I say that I wrote at some length to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, both before and after Second Reading about this. I am worried about the cost of these measures. I think, to a large extent, they are unnecessary. Having served myself as chairman of an appeals committee, I know that there are areas in which these appeals committees are working extremely well now. It is nothing whatsoever to do with my chairmanship, but I remember during my time that we even had letters of congratulation from people whose appeals we had refused, that the appeal had been so fairly considered. We did not normally ask the parents to come and appear in front of us. We did on occasions where we thought this was necessary. It was mostly done by writing.
What worries me about this is that in an enormous rural area such as mine you are going to have a number of appeals committees established the length and breadth of the county if only so that the parents themselves can arrive and appeal in front of them. I live only 15 miles away from a county town but it is a day's journey to get there and back by public transport even in that distance, and we are talking of a county which is some 100 miles across and about 60 miles North by South. The cost of these things worries me enormously.
What I would plead with the Government to do is to by all means set up this as a mechanics but use it as a back stop. Is there some way that the Government could produce an amendment—or I would be willing to do it, but it would be much better if they were to draft it themselves—at Report stage to bring these measures in, but to say that the Secretary of State should only introduce them where he thought the authority had not set up a satisfactory appeal committee?
I do not particularly like this. I do not particularly like the idea of a Secretary of State being able to dictate to local education authorities, but it is a great deal better than this, which is a perfectly

845
appalling procedure. I must say again reluctantly that if the Labour Opposition press ahead with amendments on this I shall have to consider seriously whether I go into the Lobbies along with them.
8.40 p.m.
Lord HUNT: I rise very briefly indeed in the same sense as the last two speakers simply to voice once again my grave concern about the effect on parents who will be disappointed in the choice of schools to which their children may go. All over the country there will be innumerable appeals and disappointments, and undoubtedly this will place a very heavy load on the appeal machinery. Together with Lord Alexander, who has greater experience, I would see this creating a very serious practical problem and indeed, a serious social problem.
Baroness DAVID: I have been looking forward to debating this clause because we have been hearing constantly from the Government benches that their whole aim in this Bill is to give local education authorities greater freedom to do what they like and to manage their own affairs. But here we have pages telling them exactly what they have to do and exactly how they have got to set up their appeal committees at enormous expense. As Lord Alexander said, we understand that one of the reasons for this Bill is economy, and I am really amazed at what the Government are doing here.
I hoped very much that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, would be here because he spoke against this in a rather gentle way at the Second Reading. As he is not here, I am going to read what he said. He said that when they were considering the 1944 Act they included one clause giving the parents choice of schools, but only one clause, Clause 76. That clause is not enough. The noble Lord went on:
" It induced some parents to put forward their choice of school and gave a right of appeal to the Minister. But I think it was a very simple clause. Perhaps noble Lords would like to know why. I started discussing the choice for parents early in my time at what was then called the Board of Education. I discussed it with, I think, the greatest Parliamentary draftsman of our century, Sir Granville Ram, who did a beautiful drafting of the Act itself, aided by Mr. Cooke who later became famous as a draftsman. I discussed it with the very intelligent heads of my office.
846
We concluded that if one introduced an appeals procedure it would lead to terrific delays and muddles. We thought it out 36 years ago;and I do not see how I can alter my mind now. That is the conclusion we came to then.
One very important director of education and a legal adviser, has told me that these appeals will be the same as in the industrial appeals courts. I have been assured that this is not the case. They are simple appeals as written in the Bill, but even so if they escape the danger of the industrial appeals courts—and they have upset a lot of people in this country—they are a complicated addition to the Bill which may lead to despondency and misunderstanding and, in the end, disappointment."—[0fficia/ Report, Vol. 405, col. 49.]
I think we should pay attention to that. I am quite sure that we have excellent draftsmen in the Department of Education now, but I think everybody will agree that the way the 1944 Bill was drafted was a good example of its kind. We have the ACC as well and I hope that the noble Viscount is going to rise to his feet again.
I have here a letter from Mr. Hetherington who is the secretary in which he says:
" The Association accepts the principle underlining the clauses on the appeals procedure but takes the view that Schedule 2 is unnecessarily prescriptive and would be likely to lead to delays on hearing parents' appeals on choice of schools and would necessarily establish a large number of local bureaucracies especially in relation to voluntary schools. It would be preferable for Schedule 2 to be removed from the Bill and for the Secretary of State to be empowered to make appropriate regulations after further discussions with those concerned."
I hope that perhaps the Government, who have not listened to very much, will be prepared to listen to that, and I hope that the Viscount will he speaking. think it is asking a very great deal of local authorities to set up this elaborate machinery. Why cannot they do what they say they are going to do in most other parts of the Bill? They have set up their admissions procedure. Let the local authorities deal with them in the way they think most appropriate, and the members who will have to deal with it can be turned out at the next election if the electorate is not pleased with what they do.
I feel very strongly that if we must have an appeals committee—and no doubt your Lordships will have seen we propose to move to leave out the clause—for heavens sake let us have one appeals committee which deals with the whole

847
thing. Let it break up into panels to deal with different geographical areas of the authority, but do not let us have two appeals committees working in double harness not knowing what the other is doing. There will not be any general equality in the decisions. I think it is a most ridiculous and hopeless set of arrangements.
Baroness YOUNG: Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady David, saying that we have gone too far and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, saying that we have gone nothing like far enough, I think we may conclude that somewhere in the centre we have got it about right. May I say that when the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said—and I hope I am quoting him correctly —that the main purpose of this Bill is economy, that is not quite true. One of the purposes of this Bill is to face the reality of our economic situation as a country. To us, the most important parts of the Bill are those on school government and parental preference. These clauses represent Clauses 6, 7 and 8, and it would be quite wrong to think that the Bill is concerned only with economics.
My noble friend Lord Swinton asked about the cost of the measures and I am, of course, grateful to him for letting me know his anxieties on these points. We have been in correspondence in this matter, and perhaps it might be useful if I say that appeal committees will not have to he established unless and until there are appeals to be heard. Prior to that, all an authority will have to do is to establish a panel of names from which appeal committees may be drawn as and when needed. There will be no standing committees of an appeal committee and this means that they will not, as it were, spawn a great many subcommittees. What we are saying is that there will be an appeal committee in each Authority, but in a very large Authority there could easily have to be more than one simply to meet the needs of different areas and people in those areas. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Swinton, said that we see the appeal committees as being a last resort, a sort of back stop instead of a first resort to which parents would go. As I indicated
848
earlier, we see that all the arrangements that a local education authority now makes would keep in being.
I am delighted to hear that North Yorkshire has such a very good system, and I am even more pleased to hear that the noble Lord and his colleagues have received congratulations from parents. What we are aiming to do in Clause 7 is to bring all authorities to the standards of the best and that is clearly a good example of one. I am sure that everyone would agree that in public life you make improvements by taking examples of good practice and trying to persuade others to follow suit. This would be an example of what we are trying to do.
I am sorry I have not convinced the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on these points. I hope he will accept our sincerity in this matter, will understand that parents are very concerned over all these issues of parental preferences, and will accept that we have tried to balance what gives the maximum opportunities for parents with good government at local educational authority level. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment because we could not accept it.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: The Minister has not answered the specific question I asked: how does she think parents can be satisfied with an appeals committee which has a majority representing those who made the original decision?
Baroness YOUNG: The intention regarding the appeals committee, which is under Schedule 2, is that it will have an independent chairman and that those who serve on it will not be councillors who took the original decision, although they could he other members of the education committee or other members of the council. We must recognise that the decision of the appeals committee will be binding on the local authority and, as in so many of these cases, it would he quite wrong, we believe, to set up a committee with those powers which could override the elected authority in circumstances in which they were not in a position, because they had to take ultimate responsibility for the education system, to be a party to that decision. We hope that in the

849
arrangements we have made we have worked out the right compromise. Like all these matters, it is not ideal, and as I said originally the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, feels that we have not gone far enough and the fact that noble Lords opposite feel that we have gone too far, I hope indicates that we have got it about right.
Lord HEYCOCK: Would the appeals committee be a sub-committee of the education committee?
Baroness YOUNG: No, it would not;it would be a separate committee.
Lord HEYCOCK: Made up of whom?
Baroness YOUNG: I would refer the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, to Schedule 2, which we shall be discussing and which sets out the details of this.
Viscount RIDLEY: The noble Baroness, Lady David, has again provoked me, I think deliberately, and I am delighted to respond. I think she is correct in saying that the ACC do not like Schedule 2;they would prefer to see such matters left to reasonable regulations to be published by the Secretary of State after consultation. On the other hand, we do not always trust Secretaries of State, but as your Lordships' House is filled with ex-Secretaries of State I had better be careful. So we are in a dilemma, and I have an amendment to Schedule 2 which may be helpful. The problem of Schedule 2 is one which we have not yet reached, so I prefer to sit on the fence a little longer.
Baroness DAVID: I wish to press the amendment.
8.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82: Not-Contents, 123.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B.

Ardwick, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Birk,B.

Halsbury, E.

Raglan, L.

Blease, L.

Heycock, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Hunt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacobson, L.

Segal, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Janner, L.

Stamp, L.

Collison, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Darwen, L.

Listowel, E.

Swinton, E.

David, B.

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

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Denington, B.

McCarthy, L.

Underhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mishcon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Galpern, L.

Morris, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Glenamara, L.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Parry, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Bellwin, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Belstead, L.

Byers, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Blake, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Balerno, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Bradford, E.

Cathcart, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Chesham, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Reigate, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hatherton, L.

Renton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Henley, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B

Craigavon, V.

Hives, L.

Rochdale, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Holderness, L.

Rochester, L.

Davidson, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Davids, V.

de Clifford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Just, L.

De Freyne, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Denman, L.

Kimberley, E.

Savile, L.

Digby, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Seear, B.

Dormer, L.

Long, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Simon, V.

Dundonald, E.

Loudoun, C.

Skelmersdale, L.

Eccles, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Spens, L.

Effingham, E.

Lyell, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathspey, L.

Elton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Suffield, L.

Exeter, M.

McNair, L.

Swansea, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mansfield, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Falkland, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Torphichen, L.

Falmouth, V.

Middleton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Minto, E.

Trenchard, V.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Vaizey, L.

Galloway, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gisborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Vernon, L.

Glendevon, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vickers, B.

Gormanston, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vivian, L.

Gowrie, E.

Ogmore, L.

Wigoder, L.

Greenway, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gridley, L.

Orkney, E.

Winstanley, L.

Haig, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Wynford, L.

Hampton, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendments Nos. 62A to 67 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.4 p.m.
Baroness DAVID: What I think of this clause must be quite clear from what I said earlier, and really it is an absolute nonsense, particularly when considered within the philosophy of the party opposite. I should like to say a few words on the reference to tribunals, which think is in subsection (6). I refrained from moving my amendment on this because I intended to speak on leaving out the clause. It is absolutely ridiculous to involve the Tribunals and Inquiries Act and to put the appeal committee under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals This smacks of lawyers, and it seems to me that lawyers who do not have much connection with work on the ground in local authorities must have concocted this clause and the schedule. I feel very strongly that it over-inflates the whole
852
affair, and I simply cannot see it working at all.
When I was considering what to say about leaving out Clause 7 I chanced to look at a copy of Education for 7th March, and found in it an admirable article by Dr. Owens, the chief education officer of North Yorkshire County Council, who is no doubt known to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. Since Dr. Owens said absolutely everything which I believe passionately, and put it much better than I can, I shall read a few extracts from the article. He is talking about the Bill generally, and he says:
" between the controversial and the timely are extensive grey areas, and none more grey than that in which lurk obscurely the elaborate requirements to set up machinery under which parents are not satisfied with the choice of school made by the Authority "—
and they can appeal against it.
" There must be appeal committees and, what is more, the constitution of the committees is set out".
Then he describes how they are set out.
" The idea seems to be that these appeal committees shall be independent '—but independent of what, and how will they work? The objective of ensuring that everything possible shall be done to allow parents to send their children to schools of their choice is obviously meritorious and

853
necessary. It is also an objective which LEA spend much time and effort to attain, with very great success.
" In my own large county Authority, the education committee …set up a small panel of experienced members of the schools subcommittee to consider a variety of appeals against the ordinary execution of the committee's policy—whether on school admission or on other allied matters, such as eligibility for free transport. It was considered essential that the same group of members dealt with all these matters "—
I now refer to my amendment about one appeal committee for the area—
"thus bringing to bear upon them not only experience of a wide variety of individual cases, and understanding of the likely significance of new precedents but also knowledge of the wider responsibilities of the education committee.
" If our existing appeals panel cannot meet a request of parents, the parents are advised of their right to appeal to the Secretary of State. Since the new Authority was formed we have had a matter of five or 10 appeals, and usually for something rather different from this.
" As the number of pupils in the Authority transferring to secondary school each year is approximately 10,000, not to mention all other new admissions to schools, our appeal panel of members can claim considerable, not to say remarkable, success.
"This is not, however, done without effort. In particular, one of my colleagues "—
that is professional colleagues—
" is occupied virtually full-time from May to September in advising parents, and if their requests cannot be met, helping them, if they wish it, to put their case before the panel of members.
" If in future parents are to be invited to appeal before the appeal committee at least some will no doubt do so. One result of this will be that the process will take much longer. If the appellant is represented it will probably take longer still. Further, as my Authority is very large…occupying over two million sparsely populated acres, much travelling will be involved.
" As the Bill (Section 6) puts the emphasis on the LEAs as being obliged to allow a place at the school of choice unless it can show cause why this is impossible, the chances are that more people will appeal than previously. It looks as if a considerable number of appeal committees could he required in my authority, and more officers since one colleague could not be in many places at one time. It also becomes clear that, under such arrangements, it will he much less easy to maintain consistency of treatment over the authority as a whole.
" According to the Bill, ' The new arrangements for school admissions will have some administrative cost but should help local education authorities realise savings as the school population falls '. It is perfectly obvious that complying with these particular proposals of the Bill would indeed involve additional cost, and equally obvious that it would do nothing whatever to realise savings.
" One would have thought that any government in present times would have enough on its plate
854
without taking up the energies of central and local government in elaborate and unnecessary activity…There is much talk—rightly—of priorities, but very few members of LEAs indeed consider that the setting up of the proposed procedure has any priority at all.
" There is a further point which constitutes perhaps the most unacceptable aspect of the whole proposal for appeal committees, and that is the apparent intention that such committees shall be independent '—that is to say, independent of the locally elected councils which constitute the LEAs, and which are responsible to the people of their area, by whom they were democratically elected. One of the avowed purposes of the Royal Commission which inquired a few years ago into the state of local government was to ensure that locally elected authorities had worthwhile work to do, which would in its turn attract members of high calibre. Surely there is nothing to attract present or prospective elected members of ability, energy and integrity in a proposition which seeks to draw away from them the clear and undivided responsibility for decision in a matter which could not be more local than is the choice of school for an individual pupil. Do we really wish to launch 104 sets of Quangos …".
I should have thought that all fair-minded and reasonable people would have recognised that that is a very fair statement of the case against this clause. I will not take up the time of the Committee by saying anything more about my own feelings. They really have been expressed in those words of Dr. Owen.
The Earl of SWINTON: It came as a complete and utter surprise that the noble Baroness was going to quote this article by my own county education officer. There has been no collusion or collaboration. I think she gave a slight misreading where she said that there has been a handful of appeals. I remember that we had several handfuls of appeals to deal with at a time. I think Dr. Owen referred to a handful of dissatisfied customers who felt that they must go on to the DES about it.
I should like to reply to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said to me. The noble Baroness, Lady David, stole my thunder by pressing the amendment before I had a chance to come back. She said that the larger authorities will have to set up more—dare I say it—Quangoes;these appeal committees. This is true, hut, unfortunately, it is not the larger areas who are the richest authorities and it is going to cost us a great deal more money than it is going to cost some richer and smaller authorities. I can see very little merit in this appeal. I did not intend to give the impression—nor does this article—

855
that North Yorkshire has got all the answers and has a wonderful and foolproof appeals procedure. I wanted to point out that it is an appeals procedure which works. I am quite certain that a number of other authorities have appeals procedures which work perfectly well. We are not deluged by swamps of angry parents saying, "You are not giving any sort of choice to our children". It works. It works well. It is not unduly expensive. This thing is going to cost a lot more money, is going to take a lot more time with, so far as I can see, precious little result.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I have now come to the conclusion that in the Government's desire to get rapidly something different before both Houses, a Bill has been badly drafted. First, we are overloaded with possibilities of appeal. There is a bonanza of appeals which will make a bonanza for small-town solicitors and lawyers. Secondly, where does the poor parent stand in the local areas, some of which are remote? How is this marvellous machine going to get cracking? Are we pushing Pelion upon Ossa or Ossa under Pelion? There is no need at all for this elaborate system of appeal. The parent has not been thought about in depth. How much is it going to cost the parent to see that the son or the daughter gets justice? After one appeal is made subsection (6) amends paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Tribunal and Enquiries Act of 1971 to place appeal committees under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. The Council is concerned not with individual cases but with the general operation of the bodies under its supervision.
Then we come to subsection (7), which amends Section 25 of the Local Government Act 1974 to establish beyond doubt that the local commissioners—commissioners now!—can continue to investigate individual cases of alleged maladministration. Cutting it short, when does the poor little schoolboy or schoolgirl get into school? Would it happen when he or she is an old age pensioner because the school of their choice has not been decided by this plethora of appeals committees? The whole thing is ridiculous and I beg the Government to reconsider this. I have spoken long enough. The night is long and the ranks of Tuscany arc looking at Horatios on the bridge.
Viscount HANWORTH: I am surprised——
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: Perhaps the noble Viscount will forgive me. I bow to him, but I would like to put the official Liberal view, which will be very short, and then the noble Viscount can proceed. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, does me an injustice when he says that I would be surprised about the small number of appeals. I know there are any number of really good authorities where the unofficial or official appeal system works extremely well, and I have absolutely no doubt that his is one. Equally, I have no doubt that the Government are absolutely right to establish some kind of formal appeal system which is written into the Bill. There are plenty of things which may be wrong with it, partly because it may be almost impossible to have a Bill which is absolutely right;but I am certain that it is better to have one appeal system, even if it is imperfect, than to have none at all.
I hope I was not discourteous to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who sits on the Cross-Benches, but I rose because I particularly wanted to say that we will not be moving our amendments on this clause and will probably be coming hack to it on Report stage. In the meantime, I know that we support the Government in their efforts to put up an appeal system, so that what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, refers to as the poor, unfortunate parents have someone to go to if and when—and it sometimes happens —their local authorities let them down.
Lord BOYLE of HANDSWORTH: I was never a Secretary of State, but I was the last Minister of Education before the Department of Education and Science was set up in 1964, and I should briefly like to express my sympathy with the view put by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, on this subject. First of all, this will cost something. I believe the total cost of it will not be minimal, and surely this is a time when in the education service, as in the health service, we want to get all the money as near the front as possible, into the schools for capitation grants per head for those who are actually being taught and for improvements in teaching in the schools themselves.

857
Secondly, I ask myself just as seriously, "Will this clause and the whole machinery associated with it result in better local education administration? "I cannot be persuaded that it will. I believe that if one looks at the whole history of the 1944 Act one realises that this country owes more than it appreciates to the devoted efforts of local education administrators and also, as was pointed out by Mr. Owens in his article, to the large number of members of authorities who have achieved a real expertise and feel for the service. One does need a sort of feel for the inwardness of the education service and the maintained schools—what can be done and what cannot be done. Frankly, I am very doubtful whether one is going to have better local education administration when administrators and members of local authorities know that there is this appeal machinery in the background and that they are working, as it were, under the shadow of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. I am very doubtful indeed about this.
My third point is a point that I think has been touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I should always be as keen as anybody that standards of administration in the country should he levelled up. I simply do not believe that one best levels up standards by elaborate clauses and schedules with large numbers of subsections. There are a great many areas where the experience of authorities, the work of the educational Press and, indeed, correspondence between local authorities and the Department of Education can do very much more than elaborate subsections and schedules. As a Minister and, for that matter, as a Parliamentary Secretary a quarter of a century ago, I handled a great deal of correspondence from parents who, for one reason or another, felt aggrieved. One often brought in the local inspectorate. Quite often I asked my office to draft me a letter which would put some pressure on the local authority to think again. I believe one got much further through relatively informal methods of procedure between Ministers and their officials and local education officials who in many cases knew one another personally.
The last point I would make is this. I realise very vividly that there are some clauses of this Bill which are strongly
858
political. I rather hope, frankly, that this need not be one of them. I think that what this Committee has to decide is whether this clause as it is drafted now is really for the best, and is the wisest. Personally, I would be very much happier if the Government felt able to say on this occasion that they would look at these arrangements again.
Viscount HANWORTH: Frankly, I am rather surprised that this suggestion comes from the Opposition, because I had a feeling that they were all for setting up appeals under all conditions. But I think that if we are going to get anywhere in life we have got to realise that there is a limit to how far one can go on the appeals procedure, however much one might possibly, in theory, want to go. I think that from every point of view—and it has been said far better by others—this just is not going to lead to something better. Do not let us forget that in so many cases the people who take advantage of appeals procedures are not really those who ought to;they are so often the smart Alecks, the barrack-room lawyers, and so on. I really would appeal to the Government to withdraw this clause and to think again. There may be a way to provide what they have in mind in a far simpler form, but this clause is simply not on.
Lord SPENS: I should like to support my noble friend in what he has just said. I think this clause is not on as it stands. The Government have been telling us that we must leave as much flexibility as possible to local authorities, and here we have a very detailed procedure laid down which is not going to allow the local authorities any space to manoeuvre at all. I should like to see the first three subsections of the clause left in and the remainder of the clause and the schedule cancelled.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I am very pleased that he and his colleagues recognise that there is a real purpose in this section of the Bill.
A noble Lord: He is your only friend!
Baroness YOUNG: I have many more friends than that, I am glad to say. I hope we are friends, but I have other friends as well. This appeals procedure

859
is central to our Bill, and I really think that some of the comments which have been made about it are very wide of the mark indeed. To begin with, these are not Quangos;they are local authority committees, and if local authority committees are now called that, then they are being misnamed in that connection. They are local authority committees. They are committees which need not be set up until there is an occasion to use them. They will be virtually an extension of what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, already has in North Yorkshire. It is a very good authority, and of course I have read the article which the noble Baroness, Lady David, read out from the chief education officer in North Yorkshire. I agree very much with the sentiments that he expresses;it is a very good authority.
The fact is that not all authorities do as well, and often they do not do as well because, of course, they have immensely complicated problems to deal with, particularly in the urban areas. After all , if you are living in the middle of North Yorkshire—not, I admit, a part of the world I know very well—your choice of school is inevitably fairly limited, because there is probably only one secondary school to which you could conveniently go.
The Earl of SWINTON: I must interrupt. We have Harrogate with five cornprehensives and a free choice for parents.
Baroness YOUNG: I am delighted to hear it. It is obviously a very good system. When we are talking about large conurbations where there are a great many problems with a great deal of choice of opportunity of different types of school to go to, parents feel strongly if they do not get an opportunity to put their case to an appeal committee. I appreciate the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle. When he was Minister, he had to deal with these matters;but he himself has said that that was in 1964. One fact is that as time has gone on more parents have become more involved in the whole question of the schools and when we have the question of a variety of comprehensive schools, that in itself makes the whole issue of choice more important.
860
I suspect that in 1964, when the majority of education authorities were still operating some form of tripartite system, the number of appeals was considerably fewer than it would be today when the majority of the local education authorities are operating under a comprehensive system. We are clearly in an entirely different situation. And it is because we are in a different world that we must have a different system to meet it. I am disappointed that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth and the noble Lord, Lord Spells, should both say that they think that this clause is no good at all. I would respectfully suggest that they are not really facing the kind of problems which confront many parents today and confront a lot of education authorities.
What we have tried to do in all of this is to make an arrangement—and I would not be one to pretend that it is by any means a perfect arrangement;but we are trying hard—to meet quite natural and understandable parental preferences;to do this within the local government system as we know it and to make something which will be seen by parents to be objective. All that they are asking for is an opportunity to have their case heard by people who had not looked at it the first time. We see it as the last court of appeal and not the first. We believe that one of the consequences of this is that standards will rise. Nor do we see it as being enormously expensive. Where there is some system already in operation, it could be adapted quite easily to meet our proposals. We feel that it is a matter of commitment to parental choice to which we were committed and have been committed for some time.
Baroness DAVID: I have many answers for the noble Baroness, but I shall refrain from making them at this hour. I wish to press this to a vote now.
9.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130;Not-Contents, 83.

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Abinger, L.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Airedale, L.

Galloway, E.

Ogmore, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gisborough, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Glendevon, L.

Orkney, E.

Balerno, L.

Gormanston, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Reigate, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gridley, L.

Renton, L.

Belstead, L.

Haig, E.

Ridley, V.

Berkeley, B.

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

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Blake, L.

Rochdale, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rochester, L.

Bradford, E.

Hampden, V.

St. Just, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hampton, L.

Sandford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hatherton, L.

Seear, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Henley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cathcart, E.

Hives, L.

Simon, V.

Chesham, L.

Holderness, L,

Skelmersdale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hood, V.

Stamp, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Stradbroke, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Suffield, L.

Davidson, V.

James of Rusholme, L.

Swansea, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kimberley, E.

Tanlaw, L.

De Freyne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Digby, L.

Lothian, M.

Torphichen, L.

Dormer, L.

Loudoun, C.

Tranmire, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Dundonald, E.

Lyell, L.

Trenchard, V.

Eccles, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Effingham, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vaizey, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McNair, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Elton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vernon, L.

Exeter, M.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Faithfull, B.

Middleton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Falkland, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Windlesliam, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mottistone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Fortescue, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Greenwood of Rossendalc, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Allend of Fallowfield, L.

Gregson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Raglan, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Birk, B.

Headfort, M.

Rochester, Bp.

Blease, L.

Heycock, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Brockway, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jacobson, L.

Spens, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Burton, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Killearn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strauss, L.

D'Arcy de Knayth, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Swinton, E.

Darwen, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McCarthy, L.

Underhill, L.

Denington, B.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Minto, E.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Mishcon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Glenamara, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Oram, L.

Wynford, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Parry, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gray, L.

Peart, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly.
Schedule 2 [School admission appeals]:
[Amendments 68 to 74 not moved.]
9.35 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 39, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
The noble Viscount said: The noble Baroness has just said that these appeal committees are to be local authority committees. I therefore suggest, in moving this Amendment, that they should properly be chaired by an elected member. The subsection which I wish to delete—that is subsection (5)—debars or excludes members of education committees from taking the chair at an appeal committee. I submit that this is not only unduly and quite unnecessarily restrictive on education committees, but in particular you are excluding from the chair, for better or for worse, the people who really know much more about the system than anyone else.
It may well be that they will not be good chairmen. But to make a rule of this kind seems to me to be totally wrong and quite unnecessary. Not only do we have a great deal of talk about the freedom of local authorities on detailed matters, with which I entirely agree, but also I really do not think that the Government, in any Bill, should lay down who may or may not be chairman of a committee of this kind. I think it is wrong, although no doubt there may be good reasons for it, and I would hope that the Government would accept that it could be deleted. I have already said that we in the ACC do not really like Schedule 2 as being far too restrictive, and this is one of the most restrictive subsections of the lot.
I hesitate to mention Wales in this company, as there are many eloquent Welshmen present, but I understand that there is a long-established custom that in Wales every member of the County Council is also, almost automatically, a member of the education committee. I may be wrong but I believe that is the case. We are therefore excluding all elected Welsh county councillors from being chairman of these appeal committees, and I trust that the Welsh, who are never backward in speaking for themselves, will support me in moving this amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, put forward an extremely good reason just now for keeping in this subsection—not that I have anything against Welsh members of county councils, as your Lordships will understand;indeed I would not dare to in the presence of those who are with us tonight !—but I think it would be right that the chairman of the appeal committee should not only not be a member of the education committee but indeed should not be a member of the council.
The noble Baroness the Minister may say that once again she is proved right because she is caught in the middle between two fires, and indeed she may have a considerable point. But I think it is important. I do not know whether this appeal committee can justly be called quasi-judicial but it is going to come under the appeals and tribunals arrangement and, if not quasi-judicial, it is at least a half-cousin to that, and I think it is important that it is seen by the parents to be independent and absolutely fair.
One of the more important things is that the chairman should be someone who is not "Councillor So-and-So "or a colleague of "Councillor this, that or the other "who sat and made the original decision. I think it is very important that parents should be able to have this assurance. Therefore I hope that at this present stage the Government will keep this particular provision in, because it is important.
Lord PARRY: Shy, introverted and reticent though we are as a people, it would be wrong if I did not, on behalf of my colleagues who will join with me, without committing the others, accept the invitation and hope that we have more across-the-floor exchanges.
Lord A LEXAN DER of POTTERHILL: May I ask the Minister a question? As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in answer to an earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, said that these sub-committees would not be sub-committees of the education committee. I should like to ask: is it not a requirement of law that any function of the education authority can only be exercised by the education committee or by a sub-committee of the education

865
committee? That was a ruling given by the Department some time ago.
Lord HYLTON: I hope that the Government will resist this amendment, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I should like to go a stage further and express the hope that the chairmen of these committees will not be teachers employed by the local authority in question. I know that is not written into the Bill but I hope it will become the accepted practice.
9.45 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: Perhaps I should tell the Committee the reasons why the Government decided on these provisions. There were three options open to the Government in pursuing their view of the rightness of providing an appeal procedure for parents. Let me set them out. One could have had a totally independent form of appeal committee;one could have had an appeal committee which was independent but advisory only, or one could have had some other form of committee.
It is fair to say that the Government, having discussed the matter with the local authority associations, were strongly of the view that the first two options were nonstarters. They took the view that if there were a totally independent appeal committee, it would take out of the hands of the democratically-elected local authorities decisions about schools for which they were responsible. One would almost reach the stage where totally independent appeal committees with binding powers would find themselves making policies. It was felt that advisory committees would create more problems than they solved. That was how the Government arrived at the provisions of Clause 7 and Schedule 2.
We consider that the provision that no member of a local authority education committee can be chairman of an appeal committee is, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, an important guarantee to ensure that the appeal committee will not simply be a rubber stamp for the education committee. The noble Lord was right to say that I would agree with my noble friend Lady Young on this matter.
There are two strong points of view expressed in this Committee on both
866
sides of the argument. The Government have gone the way they think right—namely, down the middle. In Committee in another place the Labour Party sought to bar any member of a local authority, not just a member of its education committee, from acting as chairman. There are arguments on both sides, and we feel that we have the balance about right.
Let me seek to answer two specific points that were put to me. I appreciate that there is a problem in regard to Wales, because of the make-up of the education committees, which consist totally of members of county councils. The bar on an appeal committee chairman being drawn from the education committee does not reduce the number of people in the education committee who are allowed to sit on the appeal committee. Schedule 2(4) clearly provides that the education committee or local authority members may outnumber the others on an appeal committee by a bare majority of one. It is true that the other member or members of an appeal committee have to provide the chairman, but that does not mean there needs to be any greater strain in providing the other members from members of the local authority.
The other point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. As I understand it—and if I am wrong I shall correct the matter later—the function of these committees is set out in the Bill. Therefore, in talking of these committees which are not subcommittees of the county council, we are not talking about other law. The composition and function of these committees will be set out in the statute, if Parliament passes this Bill into law.
Viscount RIDLEY: My noble friend Lord Belstead said that the relevant committees were not committees of the county council or of the education authority. However, my noble friend Lady Young said they were. This point is important because these committees will be referred to the ombudsman. If one is not empowered to appoint a chairman, it will be very difficult to deal with the ombudsman. I speak on this point from rather bitter experience.
Baroness YOUNG: If I may clear up a misunderstanding, they are committees of the council: they are not sub-committees

867
of the education committee. They are committees whose decisions are binding on the council. Of course, the ombudsman could, if necessary, be called in on their procedures as on other procedures, because the ombudsman is concerned with maladministration. He is not concerned with the merits or otherwise of the decisions which the committee might take.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether I may ask one of my noble friends a question about interpretation. My noble friend Lord Belstead, referred to sub-paragraph (4) which reads,
" The members of an appeal committee who are members of the authority or of any education committee of the authority shall not outnumber the others by more than one".
The numbers who sit may be three, five or seven. My noble friend then went on to deal with sub-paragraph (5), which reads,
" A person who is a member of an education committee of the authority shall not be chairman of an appeal committee".
Sub-paragraph (3) states that:
"The persons appointed shall comprise—
(a) members of the authority".
Does the plural there include the singular? Is it necessary for there to be a majority of members of the education committee of the authority? All that sub-paragraph (4) says is that the majority shall not he more than one. It does not say that there must be a majority of them. Would it be in order to have only one member of the education committee on a panel of three, or two on a panel of five, or three on a panel of seven? This is not very clear. Are they intended to be in a majority? If so, could not sub-paragraph (4) be a little more clearly worded?
Lord BELSTEAD: I think that the meaning of sub-paragraph (4) is absolutely as the words denote. It states that,
…the authority "—
which means either members of the education committee or members of the whole authority—
"shall not outnumber the others by more than one".
As I understand it, it will be within the discretion of the authority as to whether they interpret that to the full. If my noble friend cares to look at sub-paragraph (2), that states that,
868
" An appeal committee shall consist of three, five or seven members nominated by the authority".
Presumably, the authority, being human and wanting to regulate its own affairs as best it can, will interpret sub-paragraph (4) up to the hilt. Therefore, I come back to that.
My noble friend says that it is put in rather a negative way and is not clear. But I think my noble friend can take it that authorities who are doing the nominating will interpret sub-paragraph (4) so that they do not outnumber others on the committees by more than one, but get that balance absolutely to the full. Certainly, if I were a member of an authority that is the way I would do it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I follow this up? Whatever may be the intention or the anticipation, the fact remains that this sub-paragraph is not clear. Ought it not to be made clear? Would my noble friend take note of that?
Lord BELSTEAD: I will certainly take it away. I am not entirely sure that large parts of the Bill are clear to me. That is no reflection on the draftsman, the department or anybody else. It is simply a reflection upon me and, probably, the time at which your Lordships' Committee is only just starting to sit this evening. Of course, I will ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Department of Education whether this can be looked at again. The difficulty is that sub-paragraph (4) is put in the negative. But, of course, I will ask the Department whether it can be put more clearly and will be ready to reply to my noble friend if he raises the matter again.
Viscount SIMON: Can the noble Lord clarify one point on sub-paragraph (5) which states,
"A person who is a member of an education committee of the authority shall not be chairman of an appeal committee".
Does that mean that a member of the authority, if he is not a member of the education committee, can be chairman?
Lord BELSTEAD: As I understand it the answer is, Yes, in England only.
Viscount RIDLEY: Ovbiously I have no support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 86 not moved.]
9.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall be a schedule to the Bill?
Baroness DAVID: I should like to speak on leaving out Schedule 2, but I do not think that I need to say very much about it. Dislike of the clause, and even more so of the schedule, has probably been made clear, even though we have not moved our amendments.
I should like to make it quite clear that we are not against authorities having an appeal committee;we should like parents to have the opportunity to go to an appeal committee. But we feel that the local authority should have the chance to set it up as it wishes. I thought that the Government considered that local authorities should have the right to make up their minds about this sort of thing.
The schedule goes even farther than the clause in laying down this, that and the other—which I think is quite intolerable. Perhaps, therefore, we shall have the support of some Cross-Benchers and of some of the Government's Back-Benchers. I hope also that the Liberals might come with us this time. Even though they could not approve of what we did on the clause, they might think that the schedule is perhaps going too far in laying down the law to local authorities. Therefore I beg to move that the schedule shall not be a schedule to the Bill.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: Since we have been appealed to, I must say that for various reasons we think that the schedule is imperfect, although the reasons would very often be diametrically opposite to those held by the Labour Front Bench. However, the fact that we think that it is in some ways imperfect will, I think, move us to look more closely at it at the Report stage and not to oppose it in toto now.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am surprised to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady David, says. I know that she is not only very experienced in these matters but that she is always very fair. I have to say to
870
her that to go down the road which she has recommended, of leaving local authorities to set up their own appeal committees in exactly the way that they would wish, would not be fair to them. I am a great believer in local government and I think it would be most unfair——
Baroness DAVID: But most of them have already done it. North Yorkshire has. Cambridge has. It has worked very well. I did not quote Cambridge before because I thought it was a pity to quote the authority which I had served. I preferred to quote North Yorkshire. In the four years during which I served on the appeal committee I think we had one appeal only to the Secretary of State.
Lord BELSTEAD: As my noble friend Lady Young has been at pains to try to say this evening, we are trying to make sure that authorities emulate the best practice of other local authorities. It may well be that some of the local authorities which the noble Baroness has just mentioned are ones that have co-opted members—authorities which have gone to very great pains, as many of them, I know, have done over the years, to try to see that politics do not obtrude too much in their educational affairs locally.
This is something in which Parliament is not involved. Here we are setting up a statutory appeal procedure. To say by statute that the local authorities shall quite clearly have appeal committees that will be dominated by the local authorities I do not consider would be fair to the local authorities themselves. Certainly it would not satisfy parents who increasingly over the years—again as my noble friend has said—have come to want to have a voice in the choice of school for their children. Quite frankly, having heard those words from the Liberal Benches, I do not think that the road which the noble Baroness would want to go down would satisfy Parliament. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will agree that Schedule 2 shall remain a schedule to the Bill.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I think this is very important. Something has been completely omitted. I am only drawing attention to this because in the course of time something should be done.

871
" An appeal committee shall afford the appellant an opportunity of appearing and making oral representations and may allow the appellant to be accompanied by a friend or "—
a representative. As somebody who has had years of experience with appellants in cases of industrial diseases and pneumoconiosis, I know that there is nothing worse than to take a non-litigious person to these set-ups. The mother and father, proud of the scholarship boy, cannot get to the school, to appear before a dignified committee;unless they pay out of their own pocket they do not have the opportunity to have a lawyer or a solicitor —it may be a friend or other representative. That is not good enough. With all the impedimenta that surround the possibilities of an appeal and in the last analysis—I could keep the Committee going for hours on this, but I will stop in one minute—we then see that, above all this, a representative can come along from the Council on Tribunals and he can sit in. To me this kind of set-up is prejudiced against the least privileged in society.
Viscount RIDLEY: I support the noble Baroness, Lady David, in wishing to remove this schedule. I have already said that the ACC dislike it. It is bureaucratic and the more I look at it the more I dislike it. It will be most expensive and by the time we have obeyed all this we shall find that some minor regulation has been broken by one or other of the members of the appeal committee and we shall be back to square one. The whole thing is slower. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady David, will press this point and I shall support it—not that it will make the slightest difference to the result, of course.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to answer the rather narrower point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, about the Council on Tribunals. In fact, this was added to the Bill in another place and as I understand it the Council on Tribunals, which consists only of about 12 people, in fact would be looking at the way the system works and would have nothing whatever to say on the particular merits of the case. Anything that it wished to discuss about any particular appeal committee and system and how it worked, it would discuss through the local authority associations. The chances that any one of its members would be visiting an appeal committee, as there are only about 12 members in all, I should think would he very small indeed. So I do not think one needs to feel that in any way we are setting up great legalistic committees.
When the noble Baroness, Lady David, described the Cambridgeshire appeal committee during her Second Reading speech, I said that this was something very similar to the kind of thing we envisaged. I am sorry that she and my noble friend Lord Ridley feel that they cannot accept Schedule 2, because this is germane and central to the Bill and clearly we could not accept that this should be taken out. This is not a great legalistic series of tribunals and we would be building on the best practice.
10.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall be a Schedule to the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127: Not-Contents, 73.

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dundonald, E.

Abinger, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Airedale, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Eccles, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cathcart, E.

Effingham, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chesham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Elton, L.

Avebury, L.

Cockfield, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Balerno, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Exeter, M.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Bellwin, L.

Craigavon, V.

Faithfull, B.

Belstead, L.

Croft, L.

Falkland, V.

Berkeley, B.

Davidson, V.

Ferrers, E.

Blake, L.

de Freyne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bradford, E.

Digby, L.

Gainford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Galloway, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Lothian, M.

Seear, B.

Gisborough, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sempill, Ly.

Glendevon, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Simon, V.

Gormanston, V.

Lyell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Stamp, L.

Greenway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stradbroke, E.

Gridley, L.

McNair, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Haig, E.

Mansfield, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

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

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Suffield, L.

Middleton, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Halsbury, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Teviot, L.

Hampden, V.

Morris, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hampton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Torphichen, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L,

Tranmire, L.

Hatherton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hives, L.

Orkney, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Holderness, L.

Pender, L.

Vaizey, L.

Hood, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Vernon, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Reigate, L.

Vickers, B.

Hylton, L.

Renton, L.

Vivian, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wigoder, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Rochdale, V.

Windlesham, L.

Kimberiey, E.

Rochester, L.

Wynford, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

St. Just, L.

Young, B.

Long, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ridley, V.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Headfort, M.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Ardwick, L.

Heycock, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hunt, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Janner, L.

Spens, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Killearn, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Collison, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kirkhill, L.

Strauss, L.

Darwen, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Swinton, E.

David, B.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Denington, B.

Minto, E.

Underbill, L.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Galpern, L.

Parry, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peart, L.

Whaddon, L.

Glenamara, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gray, L.

Raglan, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Hale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and schedule agreed to accordingly.
Clause 8 [Information as to schools and admission arrangements]:
10.13 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("other than aided or special agreement schools").
The noble Lord said: Clause 8 concerns the information upon which the parents' preferences described in Clause 6 and their appeals described in Clause 7 are based. I should like to make one remark in passing on Clause 7. I cannot refrain from offering my sympathy to the noble Baroness, who made such a splendid speech against Quangos under the last Administration and whom I have always regarded as the anti-Quango Queen, that she is now to be identified from both sides of the House as spawning an infinite number of little, perhaps rather half-baked Quangos.
The exercise of the rights under Clauses 6 and 7 depends entirely on the information provided. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will remember that he pressed us very much in the old Administration on giving full information to local authorities and from local authorities to parents. We issued a circular, No. 1577, upon which I am glad to say a great deal of this clause is based. So, it will not be as controversial as some others.
The only point that we are rather anxious to assert is that the duty of local education authorities must be to provide information on not only the schools for which they are directly responsible but all schools in their areas. I do not understand why the Government should differ from this, but in any case, we shall test them.
That brings me to my first amendment which wishes to delete aided or special agreement schools from page 8, line 18, which is Clause 8(1)(a). This says that aided or special agreement schools shall not be subject to these arrangements, and we think that this should be deleted so that all schools are treated the same. If the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is able to
876
accept this amendment, then we can delete subsection (2) altogether, which would shorten the Bill in an agreeable way. I have tabled an amendment to do that if I can secure the agreement of the noble Baroness. I do not think I need say any more. The point is a perfectly simple one. We think that the local authority, which is the authority for the whole area, should be responsible for providing the information on all schools within that area. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: I think that it has rather slipped the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that voluntary aided schools are not the same as county schools or, indeed, controlled schools. The governors of aided and special agreement schools are, after all, responsible for admissions. Therefore, I put it to the noble Lord that it seems to be right if we leave the making of appeal arrangements in the hands of the governors of these schools. Clause 8(2) provides for the local education authorities to do what the noble Lord wants done;namely, to publish the details of the arrangements of voluntary aided schools about their admissons procedures, but by mutual agreement.
On the matter of statutory control over what is published and who should publish it, we think that it should rest in the hands of those responsible for the arrangements themselves and only if they want to relinquish the right to do the publishing should it be done by agreement under Clause 8(2). On a more personal basis, I always feel, and always have felt, that so far as the governing of schools is concerned, people take more interest if as much power as possible is left in their hands. It is misguided to take powers away from people if you do not have to do so. On these grounds, I hope that the noble Lord will understand that having thought about this matter quite carefully, I do not believe it would be possible to accept his amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am a little unhappy about this. I am not asking that any power should be taken away from anybody;I am asking that a duty should be put

877
upon the local education authority to inform the people within the local education areas of the educational possibilities within their areas. Some of these are controlled by the local education authority;some of them are not. I simply want to change the word "may "to "shall "in line 32, and perhaps the noble Lord would prefer an amendment along those lines. We feel quite strongly that it should be the duty of the local education authority to inform all parents in its area of what is available to them. Of course, this would be done after discussion with the governors and on information supplied by the governors.
However, the point is a perfectly simple one. I do not feel like dividing the Committee on this;in a way I do not think that it is important enough;but I am sorry that we receive such a very meagre response from the Government whenever we ask for anything to be done which involves action by the local authorities.
Lord AVEBURY: It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has missed something rather than the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. He has missed the perfectly clear distinction which exists between the making of the arrangements for the admission of pupils to a particular school, on the one hand, and the publication of those arrangements so that parents know what they are, on the other hand. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has not said that the arrangements for the admission of the pupils shall be taken away from the governors of aided or special agreement schools, but simply that, when once the governors have come to such an arrangement for the admission of pupils, it will then be the responsibility of the local education authority to publish them.
I should have thought that that was a simpler arrangement than the one contained in the Bill, because you then have the parents going to one single authority for all the information, whether it relates to the schools under the control of the education authority or the aided or special agreement schools. There is only one source of information, even though the authorities which have provided it may not be the same. Therefore, I hope that the
878
noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will consider this matter again because the arrangement proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, seems to me to be a simplification compared with that outlined in the Bill.
Baroness SEEAR: I am not clear what "published "means. Does it mean that the local authority would do the circulation of printed matter prepared by the aided schools, or that they will prepare the printed matter? This seems to he very different indeed. I could well understand that there are aided schools that would want some other body to prepare the words. If what is meant by "published "is that the local authority would prepare what is said, would decide what is said about the aided schools, then I can well see that the aided schools would go along with it. If it is to take what the aided schools have prepared and simply do the physical job of circulating it, the convenience of that seems to be self-evident, but I am not sure what "published "means.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The two speakers from the Liberal Benches have clarified my approach very well. What I want is for it to be the responsibility of the local authority to tell the people living in their area what is available in the way of education in that area. I do not, of course, mean that they have to prepare it themselves. They will get it from the governors, as the noble Baroness said.
10.23 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: I do not think there is very much between the two sides of the Committee. What the noble Lord is asking us to agree to can be done by agreement specifically set out in writing in Clause 8(2). All the Government are saying is that they do not want to make it a draconian measure. Because of the long tradition of voluntary aided school governors being responsible so far as possible for their affairs, we would like to see not only the preparing of the admission procedures remaining in the hands of the governors of voluntary schools but the publication of them as well, unless by agreement the governors of voluntary schools take the same line as Lord Donaldson and they look at Clause 8(2) and say, "Very well, we will get the local education authority to do this for us".

879
So far as the meaning of the word "published is concerned, may I refer the noble Baroness to subsection (6) of the clause, which reads:
"References in this section to publication arc references to publication in such manner as may be required by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
Not only is no one any the wiser, but I see from my marked copy that we have three amendments later to that subsection, so perhaps I had better not explain it any further.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think that the noble Lord ought to look at this again. I am not going to divide the Committee because I do not think it is of sufficient importance because it is halfway there. But the noble Lord is leaving the ordinary parent—in a particular local authority where no agreement has been made—to search out in different pages in different educational journals to find out what is available. Doubtless they can ask their friends, but what they are entitled to is a comprehensive statement of the whole thing. I cannot understand why there should be any objection to this small duty being given to the local authority. I am entirely unconvinced, but life is very short and I do not think it is worth dividing on it because curiously enough I think if we did we should lose.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: There is a point here. The Minister knows this full well. The Minister was correct in saying that under subsection (2):
"The governors of every aided or special agreement school shall, for each school year, publish particulars or—
arrangements for admission, et cetera.
Then—
"the arrangements made by them under section 7(2) above".
Then it says:
" but the local education authority may, with the agreement of the governors of any such school, publish on their behalf the particulars …".
In other words, the power is still in the hands of the head or the school to decide whether the local authority can publish. They cannot publish without the permission of the aided or special agreement school.
Lord BELSTEAD: That is right. My Lords, surely this exchange has been helpful because the question which the noble Baroness put and the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, persuade me that the regulations are going to have to be put in a clear way. We must consider how the general public can most easily read the published details both for the county schools and for the voluntary schools and understand what the admission arrangements are. I should not like the noble Lord to think that, as a result of this exchange, I and representatives of the department have not been listening. I am sure that to that extent this amendment has been valuable and helpful.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I expect at least to be listened to in this House. I wanted rather more than that. I would hope that what the noble Lord has said is really a promise to include something of this kind in the regulations when they are issued. On the assumption that that is what the noble Lord is promising, I shall not press the amendment.
Lord BELSTEAD: I very rarely use the word promise ", and I have not done so this evening.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I, as an ignorant Scot, ask my noble friend whether the term "aided "in relation to a school means that the pupils at that school are virtually restricted to the people living in the area of that local education authority? If not, the case is not quite so strong for publishing everything together in one volume. I do not know whether that is what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, meant but personally I can see no objection at all to information about aided schools being sent out along with information about maintained schools. If, as I say, there are a substantial number of pupils at an aided school who do not belong to the area. then obviously that school itself would want to send out its own details to possible pupils there.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: The two things go very well together.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think the answer to my noble friend is that

881
pupils at voluntary-aided schools are generally drawn from a wider area than pupils from county schools, and the recoupment arrangements in Clause 33 of this Bill and, of course, the statutory right of parents to choose a school which we have already dealt with in Clause 6 are going to mean that it will be easier for aided schools to draw their pupils from yet wider areas. That, I think, is a factual answer to my noble friend and the interpretation which he therefore put upon the publication matters which are in this clause follows from what I have said.
Lord AVEBURY: May I be helpful and put another suggestion which I think will satisfy the Minister and my noble friend? Why not have a duty to publish laid on the governors of the aided or special agreement schools and on the local authorities? In that case, the governors of the aided schools could, as is suggested, send out the particulars of the arrangements for the admission of pupils to a wider area but they would also be available in the comprehensive document which would be distributed by the local education authority to the parents within the area of the local authority itself thus satisfying both requirements.
The Lord BISHOP of NORWICH: May I ask the noble Minister whether the remark he most helpfully just made—about the fact that children from aided schools are often drawn from a wide geographical area—is the first swallow of a new summer, suggesting perhaps that the question of transport is to be looked at afresh?
Lord BELSTEAD: I would rather not look forward at this stage to forthcoming clauses. I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, before we leave this amendment, that the matter is clearly set out. The responsibility for preparing admission arrangements is upon the governors of aided schools and the local education authority of county and controlled schools, and the responsibility for publication rests in the same places, both on the governors and on the local education authority. We therefore not only believe it will be done, but there is a statutory duty that it shall be done, and we on this side of the Committee believe that the statutory duty rests in the right place in both cases.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 90 not moved.]
10.31 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 8, line 25, at end insert—

("(d) any arrangements made by a local education authority and governors as provided for in section 6(3)(b) above;

(e) any arrangements made by the authority where admission is wholly or partly on selection as provided for in section 6(3)(c) above.").

The noble Lord said: I can deal with this very quickly, and I expect no change. This provision in the Bill refers to:
"the arrangements made by the authority under sections 6(1) and 7(1) above".
I want to add two paragraphs, (d) and (e), one of which refers to the arrangements made under Clause 6(3)(b) and the other of which refers to the arrangements under Clause 6(3)(c). Clause 6(3)(b) says the local education authority's duty to observe parents' preferences does not apply if it is in conflict with any special arrangements in the case of an aided or special agreement school.
All I am asking is that there should be a duty to ensure that any such arrangements are revealed. I cannot believe this will not be agreed because it is perfectly obvious that if there are special arrangements people should be told of them.
The second paragraph I want to add concerns Clause 6(3)(c), which says that parents' preferences may be ignored if the arrangements for admission are wholly or partly based on selection by reference to ability or aptitude and compliance with the preference would be incompatible with selection under these arrangements. On a happier occasion I should have liked to make a very long speech about this, but as we have had a number of very long speeches on the topic already and will have a lot more, all I will say is that this is the main thing we object to in the Bill and of course we want it out. I do not think I need say more because I believe our arguments are well understood.

883
We regard it as totally retrograde to have this sort of thing;but if we are to have selective tests, then at least we must say what they are, and this must be part of the statutory information.
Lord BELSTEAD: I can give the noble Lord an assurance that what he seeks to do by his amendment is already covered in the Bill. Local education authorities and the governors of aided and special agreement schools are required to publish particulars of their admission arrangements, and that is to be found in Clause 8(2)(a). Then, if a school's admission arrangements are based on selection by reference to ability, as is referred to in Clause 6(3)(c), they will still have to publish particulars of these under the clause as it stands, and that is to be found in Clause 8(1)(a). Therefore what the noble Lord wants to do in his amendment is already to be found in two different places in Clause 8.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I have to confess that that was a more satisfactory answer than I usually get to my questions. I thank the Minister very much and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I should explain that if Amendment No. 92 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 93.
[Amendments Nos. 92 to 95 not moved.]
10.35 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 9, line 1, at end insert ("which shall include giving preference to siblings of children already attending the schools, and preference to children enjoying greatest accessibility to the schools;").
The noble Baroness said: May I suggest that we should bear in mind that not all parents would wish their second or third child to go to the school which a brother or sister of the child attends, but many parents would undoubtedly do so. If they did so, it would be because they had, so far as they could, assessed the value of the school from the point of view of their elder son, and no doubt they would also
884
have borne in mind the relationship between the two boys and other factors. If the parents wish to send their sons to the same school, I can think of no reasons why they should not do so. It would obviously be in the interests of both family solidarity and convenience. I suggest without further argument that we would all take that for granted. I should be interested to know whether that is so.
I also support the proposal that preference should be given to parents living nearest the schools. Not only would this reduce transport problems, but it would be in the educational interests of schools as a whole. A school cannot fulfil its educational duties without close contact with the parents of its pupils. A school can achieve this through its parent-teacher association, its open days, and the accessibility of the headmaster or headmistress to parents. A school many of whose pupils live near has a greater chance of success than one whose pupils have long distances to travel. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: As I understand it, the amendment seeks to require local education authorities and governors to give preference in their published policy to siblings and to those children who can most easily get to the school. With reference in particular to the first part of the amendment, dealing with siblings, as a generality where there is already one child at a school, schools tend to look favourably upon other members of the family. This is a general rule with which I think we would all agree.
The difficulty over the amendment arises in writing into statute a requirement that schools should always give preference in this way. After all, other circumstances might arise. For example, if the eldest child is attending a particular school and the family move from the area of that school to another area, they may not want to move that child from the school, but they may not necessarily want to send any younger children to the same school. Under the amendment the school would be required to give a preference to such children. We think it better not to write this into statute, because it is difficult to say that all cases would he exactly the same, although I accept the generality of the principle.

885
With regard to the other part of the amendment, which would require local authorities to grant admissions to children who can most easily get to the school, since of course this applies not only to county schools, but to aided schools as well, I think that it would not result in a very happy decision. Voluntary aided schools in particular often admit children from a wide area and would expect to be able to give priority to the children of the appropriate denomination, who might not be the children who lived nearest to the school. We could not accept the second part of the amendment because the circumstances between the county and the voluntary schools would be quite different.
In the matter of drafting it would be very difficult to say what we mean by "nearest to the school". This could mean a lot of different things, whether it is walking distance, by bus or actual proximity to the school. It would have to be defined if this were to be written into the statute.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: If this amendment became law would the school always be compelled to take the younger children in a family if the older one attended? I am not a lawyer and I do not know.
Baroness YOUNG: My advice is that this amendment seeks to require local authorities to give preference. They would not, in those circumstances, be compelled always to do this. We are asking schools, both county and voluntary, to give information about themselves to parents. What would be required would be information about their admissions policy. It is not for us to lay down in statute what that policy should be. This amendment is seeking to give information to the parents. Clearly the information would be different in the case of county schools and voluntary schools. Parents are interested in the variety of the schools and in the differences between them. It is necessary that there should be a statement about admissions policy, although not what that policy should be.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: The noble Baroness made a criticism of the drafting of the amendment. I must say that the Government are very hard to
886
please. We put down first Amendment No. 95 containing the phrase "children living nearest the school," which she criticised. That was put down in Committee in another place and Dr. Rhodes Boyson criticised it on much the same lines as the noble Baroness, but said that if we had used the phrase "enjoying greatest accessibility to the school "he would have looked on it more favourably. We have gone to the trouble to put that down. It is Amendment No. 96 which is actually being moved. It should he possible to make a reasonable assessment about greatest accessibility to the school. Here again, it is not suggested that greatest accessibility should be an overriding factor, but that the local authority should give a degree of preference. If other factors are equal, the child with greatest accessibility to the school should have preference. In view of the opinion of the learned Dr. Rhodes Boyson, I implore the noble Baroness to reconsider this amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I always listen with great care to my honourable friend Dr. Boyson. I do not think the serious point about this amendment is the drafting and for tonight's purposes we could leave that argument aside. I put it in because I thought it was only right to give the noble Baroness, Lady Stewart, all the arguments that we were adducing about this amendment, but I do not think the importance is in the drafting. The important thing is the matter of principle.
We are talking in Clause 8 about schools publishing information about themselves. It is not for us to lay down in statute what that information should be, because it would be saying that throughout the educational system schools should publish their admissions procedure and that that procedure should give preference to children who are siblings or living nearest to the school. This is going much further than we are suggesting, because we cannot say that in every circumstance this would be right, although I accept that in many circumstances that would be the case and it would be the right thing to do. Schools could do this if they wished, but it is not for us to tell all schools to do so. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will accept that we could not accept this amendment because it would be going far further than the information provisions under Clause 8.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: From what the noble Baroness has said it seems to me that it is still wholly to the advantage of both the school and the parents that, where possible, the children should attend the local school. I can see no objection to that.
10.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 96) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54;Not-Contents, 147.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jacobson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Segal, L.

Blease, L.

Jeger, B.

Shackleton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Strauss, L.

David, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Parry, L.

Underhill, L.

Denington, B.

Peart, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gardiner, L.

Raglan, L.

Willis, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Effingham, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Abinger, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kimberley, E.

Airedale, L.

Elton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Exeter, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Alport, L.

Faithfull, B.

Long, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falkland, V.

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Falmouth, V.

Loudoun, C.

Avebury, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lyell, L.

Bellwin, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mackay of Chalsfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Nacleod of Borve, B.

Berkeley, B.

Galloway, E.

McNair, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Mansfield, E.

Blake, L.

Gisborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Glendevon, L.

Middleton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Minto, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Gormanston, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gowrie, E.

Morris, L.

Burton, L.

Gray, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Greenway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gridley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cathcart, E.

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

Newall, L.

Chesham, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Halsbury, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hampden, V.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hampton, L.

Pender, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Croft, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hatherton, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V.

Headfort, M.

Ridley, V.

de Clifford, L.

Henley, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

De Freyne, L.

Hives, L.

Rochdale, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Holderness, L.

Rochester, L.

Digby, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Just, L.

Dormer, L.

Hunt, L.

Sandford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Dudley, E.

Hylton, L.

Savile, L.

Dundonald, E.

James of Rusholme, L.

Seear, B.

Eccles, V.

Killanin, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Simon, V.

Swinton, E.

Vaizey, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Spens, L.

Teviot, L.

Vernon, L.

Stamp, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Vickers, B.

Stradbroke, E.

Torphichen, L.

Vivian, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Tranmire, L.

Wigoder, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Windlesham, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Trenchard, V.

Wynford, L.

Suffield, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Young, B.

Swansea, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 not moved.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEESI should explain that if Amendment No. 99 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 100.
[Amendment Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
10.50 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 9, leave out lines 14 and 15.
The noble Baroness said: What we do not like about these two lines,
"such information as may be required by regulations made by the Secretary of State",
is that we really do not know what they are letting us in for;and this happens in a good many places in this Bill. We hear about regulations which are to be made, but we do not know what they are going to be and we do not know when we are going to see them. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether we are going to see these before we get to Report stage, because we are acting in the dark unless we do.
What I fear is that we may be going to be asked to agree to having examination results published. If the regulations are going to follow the recommendations made in the DES Circular 15/77, that will not be so bad. They ask for the names of the head teacher, senior staff and governors;for details of examinations and subjects offered, and for the teaching organisation of the schools and arrangements for pastoral care and discipline, and similar things, to be published. Those would be acceptable. But the notes on clauses to the Bill add to these the publication of school examination results. We are strongly opposed to that. The Green Paper Education in Schools (Cmnd 6869) says:
890
"While LEAs needed to be able to assess the relative performance of their schools to reach decisions about such matters as the allocation of resources and staffing, the preparation of league table of schools' performances based on examination results would be seriously misleading in failing to take account of other important factors such as the wide differences between school catchment areas".
There are a lot of other reasons, too. Different schools have different policies about entering pupils for examinations. Some put them in for GCE and CSE, some for either one or the other;some schools put pupils in early to have a go;some play safe and put them in when they are older and when they think they will do well and will do the school credit;others let nearly everyone have a go, so that there may be 5th year and 6th year pupils taking examinations;some may not have a chemistry or crafts teacher and cannot put pupils in for those subjects. The whole thing is impossible to assess and extremely misleading, and a lot of misrepresentation can go on. I have a lot of authorities here which would back up what I have said, but the hour is late and I will not give the Committee the benefit of those. The point is that we do not know what is wanted and we do not like signing a blank cheque. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Viscount RIDLEY: May I say in the interests of brevity that my own amendment, No. 103, is very much on the same point that the noble Baroness has made. That particular clause is frightening to local authorities because it is askingabout almost any matter relating to education which may be required. Examination results are very much in the minds of local authorities;so in speaking in support I hope I can save the Committee some time. This matter should not be too open-ended.
Lord AVEBURY: May I say how useful it is to have the Notes on Clauses and to thank the Government for providing them.

891
They give us an enormous amount of information which otherwise would have to take up the time of the Committee in the form of speeches. The Government have saved themselves time and greatly assisted the Committee in giving this information in a readily accessible form.
If I could pursue the point made by the noble Baroness on what is said in the Notes on Clauses regarding the information which has been published, the items that she referred to were only examples. The publication of information, according to the Notes on Clauses, will enforce some of the recommendations made in Circular 15/77, and the ones mentioned by the noble Baroness, are given in this publication.
This indicates to me that the Government have given the question some fairly thorough thought, and they have been through the recommendations in DES Circular 15/77. They have outlined certain information there and examples have been given. Why cannot the Government go a little further and give us a comprehensive list at this stage? Indeed, if they were all decided, why could they not be written into the Bill? Surely, that would be better than leaving the discretion to future Secretaries of State, unless, as the noble Baroness says, the arguments will change and that from time to time it may be desirable to have the publication of information of a different kind.
If that is the argument, I should have thought there were certain pieces of "core "information which would he required as far ahead as one could see. Those could be written into the Bill without prejudice to the powers of the Secretary of State to prescribe any additional information that might be required in the future.
Baroness YOUNG: The amendment is seeking to find out what it is that we are proposing to put in the regulations, and to debate generally the whole question of information that schools would produce. What we are seeking in this clause is that information will be given to parents as a basis for their choice of schools in which their children will have to be educated, and this should not be left entirely to the discretion of LEAs or governors in the case of voluntary schools. At the present time, this is in fact the situation. The situation is not entirely satisfactory. The
892
subsection is similar in every essential respect except one to the comparable provision (Clause 10(5)) of the last Government's Education Bill.
The Government consider, as did the last Labour Government, that parental choice can only be exercised effectively on a proper basis of information. It will be essential for that information to be presented in a common format for schools within each authority, and to he available equally widely to all parents wherever they happen to live. Our aim in making regulations will be to specify a basic minimum of essential information which should be available to all parents about the school in which they are interested. What this should be will not be settled until after the fullest of consultations.
I trust that my noble friend Lord Ridley will recognise that the fears that may have been expressed by local authorities we hope will be met in this consultative process about what will go on. I hope that that will also answer the noble Baroness, who asked whether we will be able to publish a draft regulation before we reach Report. I am afraid that the answer is, no. We have to go through these consultations and we clearly could not do so in the next two or three weeks. We propose to use the Department's Circular 15/77, which the noble Baroness quoted, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to. The circular lists some 20 points ranging from the simplest factual information about schools, like the address and how many pupils it has, to matters of fundamental importance such as details of special facilities offered, examinations prepared for (which will of course include the types of examination, whether they are O-levels, CSE or both), pastoral arrangements, and so on.
This is likely to form the basis of the proposals which we shall put forward in the consultative process, but in preparing these proposals clearly we would consider any points that will come up in the debate today. The difference is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady David, has herself mentioned, that we have a requirement about examination results. The Government's intention is to require the publication of results by regulation under the provisions of Clause 8, again after the necessary consultations have taken place with all those concerned.

893
I believe this is an issue in which parents are very interested, and I think that in authorities which have decided to publish examination results this is possible to do in a way which will not detail the individual child's results, which 1 accept would be undesirable;but it can help not only the school, but the authority to see rather clearly the strengths and the weaknesses of its educational provision over a number of schools. This has been pointed out to me certainly by members of an authority where examination results have been published.
As I indicated on the general provisions on information, we shall be consulting with the local authority associations over this matter, and naturally we shall want to seek agreement with them, and over the matter of examination results.
Baroness DAVID: If the Minister thinks that the examination results are to he published, will this be the job of the local education authorities, because that would be more acceptable than if it were done by individual schools, and heads, and so on?
Baroness YOUNG: The exact details of how it will be done will be still subject to consultation. Whether or not it was done by the local education authority, or by individual schools, I think would be a matter for discussion, and the exact form is something we have not yet determined upon. Clearly we would need to discuss it. Certainly we have not ruled out that the publication would be by the local education authority.
Lord AVEBURY: It would be unpopular to enter into a discussion on the minefield of examination results at this late hour, because so much has been said and written about the interpretation of examination results that very long speeches would be made if we were to embark on that subject. But may I put one thought to the noble Baroness for her to take on board during the consultations which she said will cover this subject as well as all the rest. If I may say in passing, it seems a little peculiar to me that at this stage the Government have such definite ideas about the publication of examination results when, as the noble Baroness has told us, she has not yet even started on the process
894
of consultation. It does not seem to be a bargain between the Government and the local authorities if you are starting to consult with them, and you are saying: "Here are some matters which the Government have already decided upon, so although you are free to express your views on them you will not alter the final shape of this Bill."
Leaving that aside, ask the noble Baroness to go into the question of how these exam results are to be interpreted. I think that she will concede at least this, that if one looks at the statistics by themselves they tell you very little, and parents will need considerable guidance when they are looking at one school as compared with another as to what factors they should take into consideration in evaluating the differences between those schools, their intake, their catchment area, and so on, and the quality of the teaching, so that they are not misguided into making choices simply on the basis of the statistics as they are published, and that they do receive proper and careful guidance on how those are to be interpreted.
Lord SHINWELL: Can we establish that one who is asked to attend these debates should not be regarded merely as an interested spectator or listener hut, because we are discussing an Education Bill, it might he appropriate to hear something about education'? So far I have not heard a word about it. We have been spending a great deal of our time—probably too much of it, but I shall not make a complaint about that—discussing the mechanics of education—but of the substance and content of education not a single word has been said. One might assume that that is because those who are present are incapable of discussing the subject, although many of them, from their contributions, to which I have listened with my usual interest in such matters, are, if not professors or philosophers, at any rate headmasters or ex-headmasters or ex-headmistresses and the like, who are assumed to have a thorough-going knowledge about education per se.
I use the term "per se" showing off a bit because I myself have had a very limited education. Indeed that is true—I had to leave school before I was 12, so I had no education. But there is a vast difference between education and intelli-

895
gence: one can claim the latter while knowing very little about the former. But about this matter of the transfer of a child or pupil from one kind of school to another—I hope that my assumption is right and that what we are debating is the machinery and the method that is to be used for transfer, and if I am wrong 1 shall cease from—
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My noble friend is not wrong: he is just at the wrong place. If I may, I shall say to him: you are absolutely scintillating;we are not discussing that at the moment, but carry on!
Lord SHINWELL: It is not the first time that I have been informed that I am in the wrong place: in fact when I came here first that is what I was told. But I shrugged that aside, recognising it just as bias, jealousy and the like. It may be that I am misinformed and incapable of interpretation—indeed you would not expect me to be otherwise—but perhaps I could be informed what we are actually discussing. If we happen to be discussing anything in the nature of transfer of a pupil. from one school to another, then I want to know what are to be the criteria—I have got it at last—which will justify the transformation.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. In fact what we are discussing is Clause 8 of the Bill, which makes the important proposal that schools must publish information about themselves, and the amendment that has just been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, is asking for information about what will be contained in the regulations which will govern the type of information which the schools must produce about themselves.
Lord SHINWELL: It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding that derives not so much from what I have ventured to say, but from the reluctance on the part of our leaders on the Front Bench to deal with an earlier amendment, Amendment No. 98, which refers to,
"the nature and basis of criteria used in any process of allocation of pupils to selective secondary schools "
When that amendment was suggested, nobody on the Opposition Front Bench
896
ventured to offer any opinion, but that amendment certainly relates to the subject with which I am endeavouring to deal. Perhaps, as I have said, I am in the wrong place, but may I be told when we shall get on to something interesting?
Baroness DAVID: Perhaps my noble friend would like to come in when we reach Clause 17. I think he will want to talk on that topic.
Lord SHINWELL: Is my noble friend suggesting that when we reach Clause 17 I can repeat the speech I have already made? There would certainly be nothing wrong in my doing that, because everybody else in these discussions has repeated arguments over and over again.
I must confess that I have been a little bored by this debate. However, having joined this assembly, I must, as one always has to when one belongs to a club, accept the rules, however objectionable or repugnant they happen to be. I apologise to the committee. I know that I should not use the word "repugnant". I know from the document that is handed to noble Lords when they join this place that that word is completely out of order. This is just a digression, but I understand that the governors who are to be appointed do not require to have any information of that kind. Apparently, they know all the answers before they even start. I am content to leave the matter there——
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord SHINWELL:—except to ask whether it is possible for anybody in this place, from whatever part of the Committee he or she comes, to inject a sense of humour into this discussion. Frankly, I do not think the whole thing is worth tuppence. It reminds me of what Voltaire said more than once when he was asked for his opinion of Homer. He said Homer made the mistake of always repeating battles one after the other. When asked for his view of Seneca, another philosopher and a rival of his, he said that he just indulged in a load of rubbish. I do not want that to be said of what has been happening here, but if it goes on as it has been, I may be forced to say it.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: We are pleased to have the contribution of

897
Lord Shinwell, and we hope that he will be here when we discuss Clause 17. Indeed, we hope that the Prime Minister will still be standing at the Bar when the time comes to debate that clause.
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord SEGAL: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will avoid all future reference to Seneca, because he was an expert on old age, and that is the last subject which the noble Lord is qualified to speak on.
Baroness DAVID: I am not altogether happy but I will, at any rate for the moment, beg leave to withdraw the amendment and think about it possibly for Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Viscount RIDLEY had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 103:
Page 9, line 18, leave out from ("relate") to end of line 22.
The noble Viscount said: I am very happy with the noble Baroness's statement about consultation, and I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
11.21 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 9, line 22, at end insert ("which shall include a schedule of capitation and all other recurring financial allocations and staffing quotas in respect of each type of secondary school or each secondary school maintained by that authority").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is extremely simple and important. It is well-known that the same local authority can spend more per child in some of its secondary schools than in others, and this is perfectly true of authorities that practice the separatist system of education based on the 11-plus examination. It is a common device. First, you arrange the 11-plus so that, in the main, children of better-off parents will get into the
898
grammar schools. You then spend more per child in the gammar school and say "Look at what splendid results the grammar school produces! "
If noble Lords suggest that I am not giving a fair picture, my amendment will put that to the test, because what it suggests is that among the information which a local authority should be required to give to the public is how much it spends per child in each different type of secondary school that it runs. The Government have told us that they have already, before any consultations with local authorities, made up their minds that they are going to require schools to publish exam results. If they are going to do that, but conceal from the public that they are spending a good deal more per child in one kind of school than another, they are practising a fraud on the public.
The public ought to be able to assess, among all the other things they are told about the schools, how much a local authority is spending on each child in the schools. I should have thought that that was one of the most important pieces of information. If the Government cannot see their way to accepting this amendment and putting it into the statute, then, since they have been quite clear that they are going to see to it that exam results are published, I hope they will make it equally clear that this important piece of information, without which a fair assessment of the schools cannot be made, is also published. I beg to move.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: If the exam results require a good deal of interpretation—as I entirely agree they do;1 do not like raw exam results or league tables of schools—it is no less true that the per capita allowance requires a very great deal of interpretation. If you have a school with a great deal of advanced work and laboratory work, the amount required for that and for very expensive textbooks needs to be taken into account. If you take a very good sixth form and think of the amount they write and the amount that has to be marked, which has an effect on the staffing ratio, that needs to he taken into account and interpreted with a fairly knowledgeable eye. So that you must not just give raw figures. If you do not give raw exam results, you must not give raw per capita expenditure either.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: As I understand it, the Government are going to ask for raw exam results. All I am saying is that if they do that, then they ought to do this as well.
Lord AVEBURY: I think that the noble Baroness, was diverted by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, so that she was not able to give an answer to the question I asked earlier on. I do not want to risk trespassing on the rules of order by going back to an amendment which has been disposed of. But since the point has been raised in connection with the capitation fee, I think I may properly say that I entirely agree with the remarks to which your Lordships have listened. There can be perfectly valid differences in the expenditure between one school and another, and I can very well picture that in a school with substantial laboratory facilities the amount that would be properly spent per child would be very much higher than in a school where the main subjects are in the field of the arts. If, therefore, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, were to be accepted, the parents would need certain additional information.
I do not know quite how one would put this into the regulations. They would certainly want to know what number of pupils in the sixth forms at every one of the schools to which these figures relate were doing science subjects as compared with arts subjects. That, if I may say so, is a piece of information which parents could quite properly demand from the local education authority or from the governors.
When the noble Baroness replies to this amendment, perhaps she would deal with the general point of how parents are going to be able to interpret the bare figures given to them, whether it be in the form of the capitation amounts or the examination results, and whether the regulations will go into sufficient detail to ensure that parents are able to get the sort of advice and guidance which they need from the local education authority or from the governors, as the case may be, as to how to interpret these figures.
Viscount ECCLES: I am entirely against this amendment. If its purpose is to give parents some guidance about examina-
900
tion results and then to tell them that the amount of money that is spent in one school as against another is a really serious factor, when everybody knows that the real factor is the quality of the teachers, how are you going to justify telling them that 50 per cent. more per child has been spent in one school rather than another when the real reason that their children are not getting on is that the staff is not so good as the staff in another school? This would be to mislead parents as to what is the important point.
Lord PARRY: The point should be made, and I think it is very important. A distinguished educational figure, the noble Viscount who has just spoken, has drawn attention to it, but from the wrong side of the argument. Teachers are deeply concerned, and have been for a very long time, under successive Ministers, that their role in teaching is one which has been diminished rather than strengthened. They have argued for a long time that parity of esteem among schools is essential. Under various governments and ministers, every single piece of reporting on the education process—we are speaking here about education, not about the mechanics—that has been published has had one central point of agreement: that the biggest single factor influencing the education of a child is the attitude of the parent to the school in which that child is taught.
As we have discussed various amendments and proposals here, we have taken it for granted that this is an issue. I state again that it is absolutely essential that there should be full knowledge of the schools grant procedures so that parents know all the factors which relate to the staffing of those schools. If a school is badly staffed. it might be because it has an indifferent capitation level in relation to other schools.
I have always felt that we have wasted too much time on arguing. I have total sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, here—who must be patient with us, because if he is still here when we have reached the age that he has reached we may be as wise as he sometimes is. It seems to me that in this amendment it is essential to do precisely other than what the former Minister of Education has suggested we might do.
Baroness YOUNG: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I answered the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on a former amendment, because we did not conclude that discussion as the Committee would have wished. We are not suggesting the term "raw results "—a term which was used by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, and the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme. We have not yet reached any final conclusion on the form which the publication will take. However, we should like to do two things. I entirely agree with the point which has been made on all sides of the Committee that parents need to be informed about the staff of a school and the things which it feels it does well. A school may have a member of staff who is particularly good at music, or at drama, or at sports. If that is so, it should say so. That is the sort of information that parents like to have. It should certainly provide information about the staff;and we are over-emphasising examination results. That is just a part of the whole, and it would be quite wrong to think that that is the one thing that will be decisive.
As I have said, we shall be consulting about it, but it would certainly be my wish, and I believe that of my colleagues, that all of this should be seen in the context of the whole school. Education is about a great many things: it is about the intellectual development, the spiritual development and the physical development of children, and it is very important that all aspects of school life should be set out and that a school should feel that it was worth putting these out for the benefit and information of parents.
I was indeed very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Parry said, and I think I am quoting him correctly. He said that the attitude of the parent to the school was all-important. It is precisely because we agree with that that we have all these arrangements in Clauses 6, 7 and 8, including this one on information.
In this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, is suggesting that we ought also to publish information about the details of the capitation going to each school. In fact most of the information specified in the amendment is of a kind
902
which is already published in one form or another, and probably would be available locally to a parent who wished to find out about it. What I think we should not be justified in doing is to require local education authorities to publish this information, because if it were published in the way suggested in the amendment this would in a sense be raw material and, as the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, quite rightly said, schools vary.
If there is a big sixth form it is a much more expensive school than if it is an 11 to 16 school without a sixth form. That is not to say that the 11 to 16 school is not a very good school indeed, but in fact the capitation in it could be less, and one would have to compare the various schools. There are some schools which start at 13 and run to 18, others run from 11 to 16. It would be difficult to compare like with like. Indeed, a school which is on more than one site can often he more expensive to run and require more money to get itself to the same position.
I think we would all subscribe to the important point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about the quality of the teaching. I never fail to be impressed. My husband is a don, and I have often asked his pupils why they have chosen to read chemistry. The reply is almost invariably: "You see, I had the most marvellous teacher and that is what got me interested". That is a very common experience in life. The teachers are all-important and a good teacher is the greatest possible asset that any school could have;it is far more important than anything else.
What I am saying is that I do not think it would be particularly helpful to have this information. It is available and there are a lot of statistics about capitation;but I do not think it would contribute to the information that would be particularly helpful to parents, and put out in that way it might give a misleading impression. At any rate it is not something that we really want to require local education authorities to produce in this context. I hope I have said enough to make the Committee feel that the way in which we are looking at this information is positive, and is to help parents in the context of the whole life of the school.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: From the reply she has given it is quite clear that, in some form or other, the noble Baroness wants the examination results published, and also she is quite definite that she does not want the information mentioned in this amendment published.
Baroness YOUNG: Much of this information is in fact already published.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: That makes the refusal of the noble Baroness all the more remarkable. It means that schools are to publish information by virtue of which they might be judged, without the very important qualification that the public ought to know before they can reach a decision. We are told in fact that the parents would not be bright enough to understand this information. If that is the attitude that is going to be taken, why publish information at all? Exactly the same objection can be raised to the publication of examination results. If, as the noble Baroness alleges, this information is already available, then it ought to be included in what she is going to require. To require them to publish their examination results, and not to require them to say whether they are spending more per child in one kind of school than in another, is a fraud.
As to the good teacher being important, we all know that well enough;but one of the attributes of a good teacher is that he has some ability to pick and choose where he will work. Good teachers are not frightfully keen on working in schools which the local authority itself shows it does not think very much of by the amount of money it spends on them. It is schools the local authority favour which are most likely to attract the good teachers. There is really no excuse at all for this refusal.
Lord PARRY: If I may ask one factual question—the situation may have changed since my day: Does capitation allowance have anything to do with the building in which it is allocated?
Baroness YOUNG: My understanding is that the building would be a capital cost. The capitation allowance is an annual sum which is allowable through the rate-support grant and partly through the rates, for books and equipment;equipment is quite widely defined as the sort of
904
things used in science and crafts and so on.
Lord PARRY: That is as 1 understood it, and therefore it would not be confusing to a parent to know the capitation allowance because the site of the school was spread out as the Minister indicated.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: The Marshalled List is in the wrong order. I must call Amendment No. 109 next.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 9, line 25, at end insert—
("Provided that no charges may be made for such publications.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment. I assume there will be no charge for this information. I am just asking for confirmation.
Lord BELSTEAD: I can give the assurance that the regulations determining the manner in which publication should take place will ensure what the noble Lord is asking, while leaving open the possibility of authorities charging for supplying information for other purposes;for instance, someone wanting to do research. With that proviso, I give the noble Lord the assurance he requires.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Once again I have a very satisfactory answer for which I am extremely grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Nursery Schools and Special Schools.]:
11.38 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 9, line 26, leave out ("7 and 8") and insert ("and 7").
The noble Baroness said: We think the information should be published for nursery schools and special schools, so we wish section 8 to be removed. I think that is extremely straightforward, although I may not have put it very well. I beg to move.
Baroness FAITHFULL: May I clarify something? I do not wish to refer to special schools but to nursery schools. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that she does not want information or that she does want information as to the schools?
Baroness DAVID: I do want the information to be published.
Baroness FAITHFULL: Could I just say, with regard to nursery schools, that in a number of areas there are not nursery schools to cover the whole of the nursery population? A number of parents do not want their children at nursery schools: a number do. Those of us who are social workers do try to get the children most at risk, the single parent family children, the children who come from very difficult home backgrounds, into the nursery schools. I for one would not want it specifically published that the nursery would be for those children. It might be understood and it might be well known, hut I am not sure that that would he a very happy state of affairs.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for making this point because I entirely accept from the noble Baroness, Lady David, that it does seem unexpected that, having asked for the publication of information about other schools, we should have excluded nursery schools. We have clone so because we have considered whether information about nursery schools should be published in some different form. However, we concluded, after considering the matter, that the balance of advantage would lie in not requiring local authorities to publish this information and we would take that view, precisely for the reasons given by my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
Local admissions policy, where there are nursery schools, frequently give priority to children from disadvantaged families or from families well known to the social service departments of local authorities, and officials frequently recommend
906
children known to those departments for consideration for places in nursery schools. The schools themselves are fairly small and in many localities only a few children in the non-priority category can be admitted. Under those circumstances, we do not feel that it would necessarily be in the best interests of everybody to publish this type of information, and we therefore find ourselves in great difficulties about what we would say on this matter. We have concluded, on balance, that it is better not to require the provisions of Clause 8 to apply to nursery schools. I hope that noble Lords opposite will understand our reasons for taking that view.
Baroness DAVID: I shall agree to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: If Amendment No. 111 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 112.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 111:
Page 9, line 27, leave out ("nursery schools").
The noble Lord said: The last amendment dealt with this particular point. We should like to consider what the noble Baroness has said and maybe come back with an amendment at the Report stage. For the present, I do not wish to move the amendment.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I should like to raise a point of order and indicate that the clock has not functioned for at least half an hour. It might be helpful for the proceedings later on.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I thank the noble and learned Lord. Attention has been called to the matter. Progress is still being made.
Baroness YOUNG: I must say that I had not noticed that the clock had not moved. No doubt time has stood still during the Committee proceedings on this Bill. We have all been so engrossed in what we are doing that at least we have not been watching the clock.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 9, line 27, after first ("schools") insert ("or to children who will not have attained the age of five years at the time of their proposed admission except that where the arrangements for the admission of pupils to a school maintained by a local education authority provide for the admission of children who will attain that age within six months after their admission those sections shall have effect in relation to the admission of such pupils to that school.
( ) None of the provisions of those sections have effect in relation to").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 112, which will limit the application of Clauses 6, 7 and 8 in respect of "under fives "to those cases where an authority has made arrangements for the admission of "rising fives "to its primary schools. This will exclude most nursery class admissions.
It became clear during discussion in Committee in another place that there was likely to be considerable confusion about the way in which the provisions of Clauses 6 to 8 would apply to the admission of pupils below compulsory school age.
What the Government intend—and I imagine that noble Lords opposite would support this—is that these provisions should apply to the admission of "rising fives "where that is the normal point of entry to a primary school. However, it is I think, arguable that the provisions as they stand may be regarded as allowing parents to appeal even where the authority does not admit any "rising fives "as a matter of policy. In practice a decision not to provide a place for a child below compulsory school age is not entirely to be susceptible of appeal, as appeals are against:
"decisions of the authority as to the school at which education is to be provided ",
but there is still the possibility of some confusion in this matter.
The purpose of this amendment is to preclude this possibility. Local education authorities have no statutory duty to admit "rising fives ", and we want to make clear that the possibility of appeal against a school admissions decision applies only to children of compulsory school age and where the authority or the governors are prepared to admit children below that age. The amendment provides that where an authority adopts
908
a policy of admitting "rising fives "—for this purpose defined as pupils within six months of their fifth birthday—the provisions of Clauses 6, 7 and 8 will apply. But where it does not have arrangements for the admission of such children, one of the rights and duties contained in those clauses will be applicable. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should explain that if this amendment is agreed to, Amendment No. 113 cannot be called.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I should like to support this amendment. It is a good amendment and I am very grateful that the Minister has decided to take it in this way, because I think that it is very important for it to be taken in this way. Being a very young grandfather and knowing what goes on, I think it is first-class that the Minister has decided to do this.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
11.46 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY Lord VAIZEY moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 9, line 27, leave out ("special schools or children in need of special educational treatment.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. Clauses 6 to 8 are about parental choice, which is something which the Committee has accepted and of which it strongly approves. I find it very peculiar that children in special schools or children in need of special educational treatment are excluded. Unless we can find some very cogent reasons for not doing it. the idea of withholding parental choice from parents of handicapped children represents discrimination against the handicapped of the grossest and most unacceptable form.
Of course, it might well be argued that the reasons are delicate;that they should not be given to the parents;that they might cause embarrassment. Quite frankly, I would refute arguments of that kind;I would find them unacceptable. I should need very strong arguments indeed from my noble friend on the Front Bench before I accepted them. I am quite sure that parents of handicapped children of

909
all kinds are not less anxious than parents of children who are not in need of special education to exercise choice;and it is even more important that parents of handicapped children should feel that they have the power and the right to exercise choice with parents of children who are not similarly afflicted, because in the end it is parental support which determines whether or not special education is successful.
I believe that in this area the tendency to authoritarianism on the part of people who are doing good and know that they are doing good is immensely tempting;the temptation to exercise power on behalf of others is one of the most subtle and corrupt temptations that can exist. I believe that the righting of the balance of the ordinary parent against the expert is something for which we must stand up in all circumstances.
I am quite sure that the argument which will he advanced by my noble friend Lady Young—or, if it is not advanced by her, which will ultimately be advanced by someone else—is that these children have needs which have been carefully assessed;that the provision is very specialised and that, therefore, the decision has to be taken by an expert. Quite candidly, 1 find that utterly unacceptable. When the parents are educated, well-informed and well-off they find it difficult enough to exercise choice, but at least they feel that they are able to make a choice. It is parents of that kind who form the great motive power behind the specialised societies which have done so much to improve provision for the handicapped in education. I am claiming that the rights of parents who are less well-informed, who are less articulate and who are less well-off are a concern of Parliament to defend.
I feel very strongly that there is no excuse at all for excluding all parents from the operation of this Bill. Therefore, because I support Clauses 6, 7 and 8 in their entirety as enlarging freedom of choice on the part of the ordinary citizen, I can see no reason at all why children in need of special education are excluded.
Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH: I should like to support my noble friend's amendment very warmly indeed. I am going to go into this matter in some detail
910
because I think it is crucial, and it raises some very important points. As my noble friend has said, all parents naturally want to choose what they believe is right for their child, and if the child is handicapped it is particularly important that they should have the opportunity to do so. It is vital if a child is disadvantaged in any way to ensure that he develops himself as much as possible in every single aspect, mentally, physically, emotionally, socially.
Parents of handicapped children often have very difficult arguments to face with local education authorities to secure what they believe is right for their child. It may be that they are trying to get him into an "ordinary "local school or to get him into a special nursery school a year or so earlier than would be the case in an ordinary school;or perhaps it is a special school specialising in a particular disability.
At present under Clause 38(2) of the Education Act 1944 a parent has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State in relation to continued attendance in a special school. Parents also appeal at the moment to local education authorities on an informal basis. It is a time-consuming business, and parents often have a very difficult time. Of course it operates in favour of the more intelligent, the more articulate and the more determined parents.
The tribunals that will be set up under Clause 7 would relieve parents of the strain of the mainly ad hoc representations to local authorities, and would particularly help the less articulate. Furthermore, I think that the formal procedures would relieve the local authority officers and councillors of the pressure that they are often under from parents. There are many examples among members of the Association of Disabled Professionals of parents who have disagreed with expert advice about the education of their handicapped child, and they have fought and secured what they believe to be right and have been proved right by subsequent events, because very many of the very severely disabled members of the Association attribute their success in life to the fact that their parents stood up to the so-called experts.
I should like to quote from a couple of letters to the Association of Disabled Professionals from the mother of a spina

911
bifida child. Admittedly this is a child of nursery school age but it is important because it illustrates the struggle that can go on and the good results that can be had if you are successful in this struggle. In April 1979 the mother wrote:
"Our daughter has spina bifida and hydrocephalus and is at present only 2½years old but we have encountered considerable opposition to our decision to send her at 3 to an ordinary but excellent nursery group. We have felt a great deal of pressure, some subtle, some overt, to send her to a local authority handicapped nursery from 2½.
"We believe very strongly in the integration of handicapped children (and adults) in the community and in schools in particular. Nothing will ever make our daughter physically normal but we feel we can at least give her the gift of a normal outlook and knowledge of being a part of a normal community. The pressure we have encountered at this very early age has shown us what an emotive subject this is to parents and professionals alike".
With the help of the medical social worker, the parents managed to get this child into this ordinary nursery school, and seven months later the mother wrote that her daughter had,
"settled happily and constructively into normal nursery school. She looks forward to going, talks about it at home and is well liked by the other children".
Again, she says,
"Normal nursery has been a tremendous success with no problems at all and she has made very rapid progress indeed. In addition, several of the mothers have remarked that she gives far more than she receives".
I think this also is an important point—that the non-handicapped children benefit from the presence of the handicapped child in their midst. Finally she says,
" I thought I should also tell you that there arc [other] mothers of pre-school spina bifida children in this area who have similar attitudes to nursery [and] have had the same upset and worry and subtle pressure".
The Warnock Report repeatedly stressed the importance of parents' involvement in all events and decisions affecting their children, and the chapter entitled "Parents and partners "begins:
" We have insisted throughout this report that the successful education of children with special educational need is dependent upon the full involvement of their parents. Indeed, unless the parents are seen as equal partners in the educational process, the purpose of our report will be frustrated".
It has been suggested that handicapped children's parents have been excluded from the provisions of Clauses 6, 7 and 8 because the needs of such children need
912
careful assessment and the supervision required is very specialised, and the procedures cannot be the same for ordinary children. Surely, the parents' expression of choice of a school for a handicapped child is in no way incompatible with a careful assessment of that child's needs and the provision of what is required. Indeed, the Warnock Report states (paragraph 4.29):
"No assessment of a child's needs can be complete without the information his parents can supply and no educational programme prescribed to meet his needs can be complete without their co-operation".
Furthermore, I would argue that the provisions are often not all that specialised. It may simply be a question of providing physical access to school buildings. In the case of a not substantially handicapped child, decisions about the right school are not very different in kind or degree from decisions made in respect of non-handicapped children. The spectrum of disabilities of all kinds runs from the very disabled at one end to the non-disabled at the other, and I cannot see that there is a clear dividing line between the two that could justify treating the parents of handicapped children differently from those of non-handicapped children.
I feel very strongly that the rights of both handicapped and non-handicapped children should be dealt with in the same Bill. If a separate Bill is introduced we shall be driving in the wedge of discrimination still further. We shall have more segregation. We shall be moving away from integration. Last night, speaking to Amendment No. 27A, in columns 688 and 689 (I am sure the noble Baroness remembers well) she said, talking about representation on maintained special schools:
" We are treating maintained special schools in precisely the same way as all other schools.…We have done this not because there is some trick, because we are trying to do something different or peculiar, or because of something that we have suddenly thought of, or 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. …If there is one point which has come through very clearly on every occasion, it is that they should not be treated …"
—that is the disabled—
"…in so far as is humanly possible in any way other than the way in which everybody else is treated. In order to make this point, the Government has written into the Bill that special schools should be treated in precisely the same way as others.…"

913
I am absolutely delighted that the noble Baroness has got the message and that her aim is also our aim. We feel that they should be treated exactly the same. It is only on questions of detail that such special provisions sometimes have to he made. For example, we want the disabled to be able to have the same work opportunities, the same educational opportunities, the opportunity to visit the theatre, to take part in sport;but sometimes, because a ramp or lift may be necessary, one has to write in special extra provisions. In the case of Amendment No. 27A, my noble friend's amendment, it was suggested to be desirable that someone with special experience of handicap or being handicapped himself, should be a governor of a special school. This was a detail.
If it is the wish of the noble Baroness and, indeed, the Government's aim, to treat the handicapped the same as everyone else, why a separate Bill? At this stage we have no guarantee that parents of handicapped children will have the same rights as those of other children. We do not know precisely what the arrangements will be. The Secretary of State's Statement on Monday, 3rd March, said:
" The legislation will also define and protect the rights of parents to adequate information and consultation about the education offered for their children, taking account of the relevant recommendations of the report and in the spirit of the provisions about information and parental preference embodied in the Education (No. 2) Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/80, cols. 42–3.]
"Adequate information and consultation ", he said. How are we to know what will be deemed adequate? How will it compare with the provision for parents of non-handicapped children? And if it will compare favourably, why can it not be in the same Bill? Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of the parliamentary draftsmen to write something appropriate into this Bill.
If this amendment is successful, and I very much hope it will be, I think consequential amendments may be needed to Clause 10(5) and Clause 11(3), where we might have to delete the words:
" do not apply to children who are in need of special educational treatment but, except in relation to such children …".
Perhaps the Minister will tell me whether that is so. I fully support this amendment and I beg your Lordships to do likewise.
12.3 a.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I wish at the outset to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I was not here for the Second Reading;I was in Sri Lanka. If the Government do not accept this amendment, we shall have to divide the Committee, if the good sense of your Lordships commends us so to do. If the amendment is not carried, it will mean that your Lordships will be depriving parents who have children attending special schools and children in need of special educational treatment of the rights that will be available to all other parents who have children at school when the Bill becomes law. These rights, which the Government are trying to leave out of the Bill for the parents of handicapped children, are parental preferences as regards schools, appeals against admission decisions and information as to schools and admission arrangements.
When I put my name to this amendment I telephoned some paediatricians who work day and night with handicapped children and their parents. They thought that these advantages were even more desirable for the parents of handicapped children than for those of children without handicap. I cannot imagine what the Government are trying to do. In the Notes on Clauses, the Government say:
"Any provisions which may be thought necessary in relation to such children will be best included in any more general legislation relating to such schools and such children which the Government may bring forward following consultation on the Warnock Report".
"May is very vague. The Government have given us no assurance that this legislation will take place in the near future. It would be very sad for these people who sat on the Warnock Committee if the theme for handicapped children and their parents becomes, "Waiting for Warnock". To leave handicapped children and parents' rights out of this Bill is not in the spirit of Warnock. Reports such as Warnock can be very useful instruments for Governments as delaying procedures. On many occasions I heard the Court Report used in this way: we were often told, "Let us wait for the Court Report ", but then little happened. The Warnock Report has been out for two years now. Are these parents to be left in limbo, waiting for another Bill? We have no assurance when that Bill will come.

915
Is the rush for this Education (No. 2) Bill because 10 months ago the Government said they would provide for assisted places at independent schools? Let the Government have their assisted places if they think them so important, but surely they can give these simple advantages for which we are now pleading to these poor unfortunate families and their handicapped children. On the first day of the Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said the Government were treating maintained special schools in precisely the same way as all other schools. She went on to say:
" 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 is humanly possible, in any way other than the way in which everybody else is treated."—[Official Report, 10/3/80;cols. 688–9.]
It is very easy to do justice now by accepting our amendment. I know several special schools well. I have officially opened several in the last few years. One particular school I remember in Leeds is for rubella-affected children who are blind, deaf and dumb;the school and the people who work in it are splendid. Why should information about these schools not be given out? Also, the children we are talking about in special schools are these children, suffering from leukaemia, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, spina bifida, and so on. Why deny the parents information about schools? They want the best for their children, the same as any other parents. Many of these children arc not going to live long, which is even more reason to give parents as much help as possible.
The Warnock Report recommends that where possible handicapped children should go to normal schools, if the facilities are available, and when they can cope. Are some handicapped children to benefit from this Bill, and some others to be catered for in some future Bill? Some local authorities have normal schools which can cope, others do not. This seems a very untidy arrangement.
In a family there may be several children, some able bodied, some disabled. Are the parents of some children going to relate to this Bill, and find that their disabled child does not come under it? What are they to do then? I can understand the Secretary of State, a busy
916
man, who may be frightened of the thought of a handicapped child, brushing this important matter to one side. I cannot believe that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, does not understand the feelings and wishes of the many people who understand handicap. The Minister is a woman and a mother. Can she not accept this amendment, which would please many people, and show that at least the Government are trying to understand that integration means the inclusion of the handicapped in this Bill?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: After those two very moving and entirely convincing speeches from the noble Baronesses, any other speech would he quite unnecessary. Let me say merely that I was not wholly convinced by the reason of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for leaving out nursery schools, but we accepted that. I can think of no reason for the other omissions, and we on this side will be in full support of the amendment.
Viscount ECCLES: I think the whole Committee would agree that the case put by the two noble Baronesses in front of me—I am sorry that I have to address them from behind—is one with which we have the greatest sympathy. I do not think there is any doubt about the issue;we should all like to have information about special schools, and an admission procedure which was at least as good for the parents as that relating to ordinary maintained schools. But there is a second issue here, and it is a practical one;namely, whether the arrangements in Clauses 6 to 8 should here and now be extended to special schools. The suggestion looks extremely attractive at first sight, as the two noble Baronesses have said, but when one looks into it one sees that the administrative difficulties are so great that they really ought to be considered before the legislation is brought forward.
No one wants to check the momentum, which is very remarkable, that there has been in the advance of special schools. If I remember aright, 10 years ago Government expenditure on special schools was £26 million. Last year it was £252 million —almost 10 times as much, and twice the increase in the education budget as a whole. That is a very good record, and

917
we do not in any way want to leave these schools behind, or to check the momentum. But we do have the Warnock Report. I have read only the summary, but it is quite obvious from that that there is a great deal of material in that report which demands legislation.
Take as an example one matter that we are discussing on this amendment, the admission procedures to special schools. What would happen if you extended Clauses 6 to 8 to special schools? There would be chaos. The noble Baroness, Lady David, will have to vote against this amendment, because if anyone described the chaos in respect of the ordinary schools of this procedure, how much worse would it be in the special schools? Until you settle the definition of what is a special school and what are the qualifications for entry to a special school, the parent has no rights against which you can set up an appeal court. Until other parts of Warnock have been accepted, modified or rejected, we shall not really know what would be the framework within which an appeal procedure, which we all want, could be successfully set up for special schools.
I quite understand the feelings of my two noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. We know perfectly well that they do not trust the Government to turn Warnock, without delays, into a legislative form, and, having done that, to draft a Bill and bring it forward. We are all parliamentarians and we know quite well that that is a common trap into which we can fall. It has happened over and over again. If the acceptance of this amendment means giving the special schools, the parents and the children, half a loaf, very well then, half a loaf would be better, than no bread. But that would not be the result. The result would be administrative chaos, and that would add to the anxieties of the parents of handicapped children which are already great enough.
We can use this amendment and this debate to get from the Minister the assurances for which we have already asked on a previous occasion, namely, that the consultations which are essential over Warnock will be undertaken without delay. The White Paper will then be published without delay. The Bill will be drawn up on the White Paper without delay and will be brought forward. If, as a result of this
918
amendment, we can get those assurances, I am convinced we shall be doing the best we can at this moment for the special schools for which we all have the very greatest concern.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: Before the noble Viscount sits down, may I just ask him this: Why should it be any more difficult for a parent of a handicapped child to appeal than the parent of a normal child?
Viscount ECCLES: Because the parent of the handicapped child will not know where the rights of the appeal are unless there is a definition of both what is a special school and what are the qualifications for entry to that school.
Lord PARRY: Nothing in itself is good or had, but there is no more abominable word in the English language than the word "but ", used as it was constantly by the last speaker, throughout his speech. To interpose that preposition after the careful preparation of his case, as though he were accepting exactly what the noble Baronesses were saying and what Lord Vaizey had put before the Committee, and then to come in with the "but "and at the same time to seek to convince himself before the Committee—because it was very evident that he was seeking for arguments to support a contention—is unworthy of him and of his record in education.
I want to be charitable. I believe the Government do take the view that the Warnock Report covers the very things which we are anxious to write into this Bill, but it has taken two years. The Government have their hands full in all directions, in all aspects of their policy. If they continue in office until the end of their term they will be unlikely to implement the Warnock Report. Here is an opportunity to accept an amendment and to show the graciousness which is professed. Let us have more possession than profession. It is time we came to the crunch on this issue.
12.15 a.m.
Lord RENTON: I beg to differ from my noble friend Lord Eccles. In doing so I speak as chairman of the National Society for the Mentally Handicapped, in which so many Members on both sides of this Committee have taken an active and helpful part. I do

919
not think my noble friend is right when he says that there would be administrative chaos or any chaos at all if we were to allow the parents of the handicapped, whether physically or mentally handicapped, or parents of children in special need to have the advantages of information, in the first place, and the right to parental choice and to appeal.
The Government are, of course, fully justified in not attempting in general or in any big way to implement the Warnock Report using this Bill as the vehicle for doing so. But I must point out that the Warnock Report does not contain any specific recommendations about the right to parental choice or about an appeals procedure such as we have in Clause 7, and there are only allusions—no specific recommendations—to the giving of information. Surely it would not be right or reasonable to deprive the parents of handicapped children of the rights we are giving in this Bill to the parents of other children.
As I understand it, the earliest date when the Warnock Bill may come before us will be some time early next Session —perhaps in January. It might receive the Royal Assent by Easter and be implemented in the autumn, at the beginning of the 1981 school year. But that is the most optimistic view that we can take. I should think it just as likely that 1982 will be the effective date. Why should the parents of handicapped children have to wait all that time when we have this splendid opportunity of establishing under this Bill, as we can so easily do by accepting this amendment, that we acknowledge that they should have those rights?
I am sure it was inadvertence on the part of my noble friend Lord Eccles when he said that there was no definition of a special school. That is not so. We know what special schools are. Fortunately there are an increasing number of them in the country. We know also, from the wording of Clause 9, what, under the present law, is a child in need of special educational treatment. There are a great many of them. Admittedly, when the Warnock proposals come along, this particular proposal could be dropped by a simple amendment in the Warnock Bill, but surely it is best that we should
920
make sure that meanwhile we are protecting the rights of those concerned. No harm will be done.
So far as I can see, the arguments my noble friend the Minister of State can put forward in answer to the persuasive speeches we have heard are two-fold. First, in the application to special schools and to children in need of special treatment these provisions would be temporary —transitional, if you like. But that is not an unusual situation. We have often had to do that in our legislation to cover an interim period. Secondly, I suppose that my noble friend might say that this will be administratively inconvenient. I hope she will not say that. We are dealing here with basic human rights;and surely the Government should welcome with open arms this opportunity to give to the thousands of parents in this country who arc afflicted in this way, and whose children are afflicted in this way, the assurance that, at any rate for the time being and pending Warnock, we acknowledge that they are to have these rights.
I think the only other point I would wish to add is this. The year 1981, which is going to be a very important year in the implementation of this Bill and which is going to be an important year because by then we hope to have the Warnock Bill on the statute book, has already been chosen as the International Year of the Disabled. I think it would he a very great pity if, with this Bill before us, we had somehow, in a rather niggardly way, held back from doing this good, even if it be good only to the morale of so many parents and of the children that they have.
I think the information part of this is perhaps the most important of all, and your Lordships may know of many cases where there has been difficulty in placing a handicapped child. I have had that experience myself, not only as a parent but when I served in another place;and so have many others. The very thought that the greatest possible information is made available on the basis of the present law and administration would be of great help. Very well;it is going to be changed. I do not think it is going to be changed to such an enormous extent, incidentally, when we get Warnock, but it is going to be changed. When it is changed we can have the fresh information, but do not let us lose this opportunity meanwhile.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: May I add my support to the last speaker and say how much I disagree with my noble friend Lord Eccles. I work for two separate weeks each year with the handicapped, and I know how their parents feel. This is an occasion when we should take no notice of Government spokesmen or experts. This is an occasion when we should vote with our hearts and for our conscience, and for no other reason. I hope your Lordships will support this amendment.
Lord NOEL-BAKER: May I, in two or three sentences, support what has been said by the two noble Lords who have just spoken;and may I express my absolute conviction, founded on a great deal of experience, while I was a Member of another place, with handicapped children and their parents, that there would not be the administrative difficulties foreseen by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I hope most sincerely that this amendment will be accepted.
Lord MORRIS: It is with very great trepidation that I speak of very serious reservations with regard to this amendment. I speak to this amendment as the father of a handicapped child;and I seriously believe that this amendment really is "pie in the sky ", because I know from bitter experience that there are very few special schools and very few special educational establishments in the country. This is a fact of life. So when those who have spoken to this amendment speak of parental preferences, or of the hope of parental preferences, there are none.
When there are appeals against admission decisions they must fail;because what happens is that the parents of handicapped children move to where the schools are. There are very few schools in the country that can handle special cases. By definition, as special schools, with special educational treatment, they are, and must necessarily be, specially treated. I feel that to try to draw a parallel with the ordinary, established, educational establishments in the country is unrealistic. It is a very sad fact of life;but that is it. It is not the function of this Bill to try to right what is the sad situation that there are very few special educational establishments in this country.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Would the noble Lord at least agree that Clause 8 is as applicable to one as to the other on the question of information? I do not see why information should be denied even if there may be a case (which I do not for a moment accept) on the other two clauses.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: Before the noble Baroness replies I should like to ask her—and she can find out this information—how many special schools there are in this country. I have visited very many of them.
Lord MORRIS: I should answer the noble Lord opposite. The point that he made is a fair one. I found that the help one gets from the special schools in terms of information and in every single way is enormous. They go to tremendous lengths to consult with parents so far as the decisions on the schooling of their children are concerned, so far as information is concerned, and so far as what is best for the child is concerned;and they do so to a greater extent than happens with the parents of children who are in a more fortunate position.
Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH: May I point out that we are not only talking about the choice between one special school and another but between special schools and the ordinary schools to which in many cases, the less severely disabled may be able to go?
Lord SEGAL: Perhaps the noble Lords have been able to hear so many intensely moving speeches from both sides of the Committee that it seems scarcely necessary for any further plea to be made on behalf of this particular amendment. But noble Lords will recall that during the Second Reading a great deal of warmth was generated over this issue of Clause 9. I did not speak as a parent of a mentally-handicapped child at all. I am very fortunate in having children who are normal in every way. But I served for 13 years as the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in the capacity of chairman of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children.
I deplore any trace of a suggestion that the parents themselves are not the best judges of what is in the interests of their

923
children. We must remember, in deciding this issue, that it is not the wishes of the parents that should be the main consideration;the welfare of the children is paramount. However, I regard as absolutely infinitesimal the number of instances where that can conflict with the wishes of the parents. In most instances, the parents are best able to judge what is best for their children.
What we are often apt to fall into is the error of lumping mentally-handicapped children into a category by themselves, as incapable of benefiting to the utmost extent from integration with normal children in a normal school. There are a minority of cases of very severely mentally handicapped children—and parents are the first to recognise this—who need special schools, who need special welfare, special care and special training. But there are a vast number, almost the majority, of mentally handicapped children who arc almost borderline cases, who have an intelligence quotient of 70 or over;and who would benefit by being able to take advantage of mixing with normal children in normal surroundings. There arc the instances of autistic children, often with a very high intelligence quotient, well above that of the normal child, who may need special treatment but who will in some cases benefit enormously by being in an environment of normal, healthy children.
I stress once again that what we have to consider is the welfare of the children themselves rather more than the interests of the parents. We have no right to discriminate against the parents. They include all classes of society. Some of the parents are exceptionally gifted and certainly best able to judge what is in the best interests of their children. Although one tries to look at things from the point of view of the Government, I am putting in a special plea that these parents have already been harshly dealt with in the past and they have been kept waiting for some implementation of the Warnock report. In accepting this amendment, the Government would be doing a gracious act, not least on behalf of many of their keenest and most ardent supporters.
12.31 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG: May I say at the outset of my reply that I feel a great
924
concern at the distress that this clause has obviously caused to a number of the Committee. I recognised this when we debated this matter at Second Reading. In the meantime, I have tried to find the greatest amount of information I can about the whole complexities of this subject, and to see whether there is any way in which we can meet the points that were raised at Second Reading.
I should like to assure the Committee—and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, will accept this—that I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State care very much about handicapped children. It does not contribute to our ability to legislate on this matter if we are going to start out in an attitude of distrust of our motives and a feeling that we are not trying to do the best that we can. I may not succeed, but I can assure the Committee that it will not be for want of trying. This is a serious matter, and the same applies for my right honourable friend.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: Of course, I and everybody in the Committee know that the noble Baroness cares and works exceedingly hard. But it is for the very many people outside who do not know and who are worried. Many of us have had a lot of notification from people who are worried about leaving handicapped people out of this Bill.
Baroness YOUNG: I absolutely take that point. I will try to explain in as much detail as I can why it is that we are in this particular position. There are three parts of the 1944 Education Act, which apply to special schools and special education. They are Sections 8(2) (c) and Sections 33, 34 and 38. Section 34 of the 1944 Act requires local education authorities to identify which children in their area require special educational treatment and to provide that treatment for any such child. Section 33 lays down requirements as to where special educational treatment is to be provided. These are current statu ory responsibilities laid on a local education authority which they must fulfil. The consequence is that, as Members of the Committee who have spoken will know, no doubt far better than I, children are assessed by LEAs. As a result, they go to certain special schools.

925
We as a Government have accepted in principle the proposals of the Warnock Report. If I might refer to the Statement, we have in that accepted the principle of the new concept, the concept so well enunciated by the noble Baroness, Baroness Darcy de Knayth, when she said that, of course, there is not just a series of categories of handicap, there is in fact this continuum—from the child that is very severely handicapped with a multiplicity of handicaps, to the one the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has just described, who may be only partially deaf and perfectly well able to manage in a normal school. There are a great many graduations in between. There are a number of children now who are emotionally disturbed, who may spend a period of time in a special school and go out again. We have accepted the concept of Warnock. We have said we will be publishing shortly a White Paper, and we have said —and if I may quote once again from the Statement—that we intend to legislate in the near future on the Warnock Report.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has said that I accepted, and I meant it when we had that previous amendment, that we want as far as possible to treat handicapped children in precisely the same way as other children are treated. For the legal reasons that I have given that we do have, in fact, to devise, we would have to repeal parts of the 1944 Education Act and we have to establish, we believe, the new Warnock framework which will require legislation. The repeal of parts of the 1944 Act and the new legislation will apply not only to Governments but also particularly to local education authorities.
We have said in our Statement that we intend within that situation, as far as is humanly possible to make Clauses 6 to 8 apply to special schools as they do to ordinary schools. In saying that, we now come immediately to the timetable. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, enunciated what he saw as a timetable for a Warnock Bill. While I cannot promise to the House—I am not myself, nor is my right honourable friend, responsible for writing the Queen's Speech—if it is possible to have early legislation we would look forward to legislation next year;and we would hope, if all goes well, that we might be able to look forward to a Warnock
926
Bill on the statute book in approximately the timetable that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, spoke of. I cannot promise this, and it would not be right for me to promise it to the House, but broadly this is what we would like to see achieved.
Let us look at Clauses 6 to 8 in the Bill. Assuming, as I confidently will, that this Bill is on the statute book, it is unlikely that all the provisions of Clauses 6 to 8 will apply this coming September, for the reasons—when we discussed Clause 7—that my noble friend Lord Ridley explained, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, did as well: that local authorities have to go through a number of procedures. It is, therefore, in the nature of things likely that most of what is in Clauses 6 to 8 will not come into effect until September 1981, and we are therefore talking approximately on the same kind of timetable if all went well.
Certainly so far as this Bill is concerned it would be very difficult, I think, to envisage these particular clauses coming into effect very much before then.
If—and I understand the feelings in the House on this matter—this amendment or the succeeding one to leave out this clause altogether is pressed to a Division, the actual effect of it will be to place contradictory duties on local education authorities. They will still have their duties under the 1944 Act because these will not have been repealed, but they will at the same time have the duties placed on them by Clauses 6 to 8 which the House has just agreed to, assuming of course that the Bill goes on to the Statute Book. If you read the sections of the 1944 Education Act that I have mentioned and you read Clauses 6 to 8 here, you will see that local authorities would, in fact, be required to do two quite contradictory things. I genuinely believe that if this amendment were enacted the net result would be that no one would benefit from Clauses 6 to 8 because local authorities would he unable to do anything under them: the confusion would be so great.
I hope your Lordships will accept that, in saying that, I am not talking about administrative difficulties—I would not use those as an argument in this matter —and I would not say that reasons cannot be given to parents, because I would not accept that as an argument.

927
But I have looked at the 1944 Act;I have looked at the provisions of this Bill;I have taken all the advice that I can to see if it is possible to meet the points that have been made, and it does not seem to me that within the text of this Bill this is possible. I have given an assurance as best I can on Warnock. The only further offer I can make to the Committee is, although I recognise that it falls far short of what my noble friend Lord Vaizey is asking for, that I will look yet again at the information provisions and see whether I can put down an amendment on Report. That would not, of course, apply the whole of Clauses 6, 7 and 8 to the special schools, but I think it might be possible to do something as regards Clause 8 on the information provisions, and I would give an assurance that I would do that.
I recognise that this is a matter on which the Committee feels very strongly and very deeply. I can only assure your Lordships that had it been possible to meet the requests that have been made to us we would have tried our best to do it. I was asked earlier on: "Why do we not do it? "Nothing, I can assure your Lordships, gives Ministers, or indeed anybody, greater pleasure than being able to do for people what they would like to have done;and 1 can assure the Committee that it is much easier in public life to come to this Chamber and say: "You will be pleased to hear that I have just the amendments that you want". I should like to be able to do that.
I have gone as far as I can and I hope the Committee will understand the reasons why I cannot accept the amendment as it stands and will accept that I have offered as much as I can under this Bill. I hope your Lordships will take this in the context of the statement that has been made on the Warnock Report, and our assurances of our recognition and understanding of the problems of handicapped pupils and their parents.
12.44 a.m.
Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH: Before my noble friend replies, may I ask the Minister whether she agrees that if Section 10 of the 1976 Act had been implemented—something for which we have been waiting for 3½years already—
928
that would have relieved the local authorities of quite a few of the dilemmas that have been mentioned as resulting from the dual situation under the 1944 Act?
Baroness YOUNG: My understanding, and again I must be very frank with the Committee over this matter, is that Section 10 of the 1976 Act was inserted into that Bill at precisely this kind of stage of the proceedings of the 1976 Act. It has led to a number of complications and, as the noble Baroness, Lady D'Arcy de Knayth, rightly says, it has not been implemented. That is because the Warnock Committee has been sitting, and furthermore, as it stands it raises the legal complications I have outlined. Those remain with us, and in fact putting that into the Bill has not had the effect that was desired. Now that we have had this debate and everyone recognises the strength of feeling here and the points that have been made, these will all be taken into consideration and I hope it will not be too long before the House is able to debate a White Paper on the Warnock Report. But the Section 10 proposals show the kind of difficulties one gets into by taking an amendment at a particular stage without going into all the consequences of it. It is for that reason that I have tried to explain as fully as I can to the Committee the situation as I understand it.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has raised objection to this amendment on the ground that it puts two conflicting sets of duties on local authorities, those under this legislation and those under the 1944 Act. Surely it would be easy to include in the repeals schedule of the Bill repeal of the relevant sections of the 1944 Act? The conflict between the two sets of duties would then be resolved.
Baroness YOUNG: It is not as easy as that. It sounds as though it should be straightforward, but if we took that course we would ignore entirely the conceptual framework of the Warnock Report.
My understanding, and the understanding of others who are far more experienced than I on this topic, is that the concept of the care of handicapped children is a new one under Warnock. If we were to repeal the sections of the 1944 Act which apply

929
to special schools, all that would be left would be Clauses 6 to 8 of this Bill, and there would be nothing else about handicapped children.
One of the provisions of Warnock which is quite unlike the 1944 Act is that there would be a multi-disciplinary assessment of the child, which I am sure would be welcomed by those who are knowledgeable about handicapped children. There would be the involvement of the parent in the whole concept embracing this subject. If there were to be a repeal, those features would not apply at all. There would be no assessment of the children because, by repealing those provisions in the 1944 Act, we should simply be left with the legislation as it is. That would put local education authorities in great difficulty—and also, I suspect, the children themselves.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I wonder whether the great difficulties of administration are fully appreciated. Under the 1944 Act handicapped children are divided into ten categories, and we have always been against the division of the ten categories. Nevertheless, that is how the matter now stands, whereas under Warnock the ten categories can be done away with and the emphasis is on children's needs being met according to their capabilities and requirements. They are two completely different definitions. To which would the local authorities stick if this were to go through?
The Earl of SWINTON: 1 must say that at this hour I find myself confused by all the legal argument. Earlier my noble friend Baroness Young paid a tribute to my authority—not that it does us much good. That authority produces for prospective parents, literature on special schools, and we also have a procedure involving a panel to which parents can appeal. Am I to understand that, if this legislation goes through, we shall not be able to take such action and indeed will be breaking the law if we do so in future?
Baroness YOUNG: Of course not. It is quite possible for the local authority in the area of my noble friend Lord Swinton to undertake all these matters. It is possible for an authority to produce information and to have the non-statutory appeals system. That is permissible. We
930
are here talking of Clauses 6 to 8 as they apply to special schools. That is not what my noble friend has in North Yorkshire. That is not to denigrate what he has or suggesting that other local authorities could not do likewise. What we are discussing is the application of Clauses 6 to 8 to special schools, which is quite a different matter.
Lord RENTON: I am sure that all your Lordships have been impressed, as I have, by the sincerity of my noble friend Lady Young and her desire to help. One particularly welcomes her undertaking to give further thought to Clause 8 relating to information. However, to the extent that the crux of my noble friend's argument is that the effect of accepting this amendment would be to place contradictory duties on local education authorities, I wish to take up the point made by Lord Stewart. It seems to me that there will be no simultaneous contradiction if the job is properly carried out. In other words, in this Bill we are assuming that the provisions with regard to special education and handicapped people in the 1944 Act are to remain until the Warnock legislation comes on to the statute book.
Therefore, up to that moment, education authorities will continue to do as they have done for years, which is to turn to the 1944 Act. But when the Warnock Bill comes on to the statute book, they will find those provisions repealed and the Warnock provisions put in their place. Therefore, there will not he a situation—with deep respect to my noble friend, if I have understood her properly —in which local education authorities will find themselves at one moment in a contradictory position. They will have one situation up to one moment and then later on, in perhaps two years' time, they will have a fresh situation. So to that extent, I find it difficult to accept what really is the crux of my noble friend's speech.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very sorry it' I have not made myself clear to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. What I am saying is that, if this amendment is carried, we shall he placing on local education authorities the requirements under Clauses 6 to 8 in this Bill, at the same time as they also have a statutory requirement under the 1944 Education Act. If,

931
on the other hand, we do not pass this amendment tonight, we leave this Bill as it is, we enact the Warnock provisions and then, in the context of Warnock, we repeal the provisions in the 1944 Education Act and bring in the Warnock provisions. The local education authorities would, therefore, not be under two contradictory provisions. The difficulty is that if this amendment is carried we shall, in fact, be asking local education authorities to do two contradictory things at the same time.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a question? In his first speech he so eloquently told us that the provisions that we are now talking about are not in the Warnock Report.
Lord RENTON: All I can say is that I have been through this report, 400 pages of it, but I have not read every word. However, I have been through—as one does—the summary of recommendations, and I cannot find anything in that summary which deals with parental choice as a specific recommendation, or parental right of appeal. I cannot find the equivalent, in other words, of Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill. It is implied in the discussion in various parts of the Warnock Report, that parents should be consulted and properly informed. To that extent, the provisions of Clause 8 are anticipated by Warnock.
Baroness YOUNG: It is not at all surprising that the report of Mrs. Warnock did not include the proposals that we have put into our Bill in Clauses 6 to 8. Mrs. Warnock's report was concerned with the provision for handicapped children, but she could not possibly have anticipated what we were going to put into our Bill.
A noble Lord: Nobody could.
Baroness YOUNG: And, if I may say so, to noble Lords opposite, they have just been very critical of them. So I really do not think that they are in a position to criticise what I am saying at the moment. In what I have called the Warnock Bill, we shall be talking about the new conceptual framework of Mrs. Warnock, and we shall, as I have already indicated in the Statement that
932
I repeated on 3rd March, expect at the same time to bring within the context of that the provisions of Clauses 6 to 8. Perhaps it would be as well if I read out what was said:
"The legislation will also define and protect the rights of parents to adequate information and consultation about the education offered for their children, taking account of the relevant recommendations of the report and in the spirit of the provisions about information and parental preference embodied in the Education (No. 2) Bill".
Lord VAIZEY: We have had a long and useful debate, and I apologise to the Committee for having it at one o'clock in the morning. I think, with great respect, that the Minister is making slightly heavy weather of this. I do not really mind contradictory duties being imposed on a local authority. Whenever I have served on a local authority, I have thought many of the duties contradictory. Most of the difficulties will be met if the noble Baroness looks at Clause 39(2) of the Bill. That clause states that the Act can come into force on different dates and that she can make such transitional provisions as she may think fit. So, if the difficulties prove to be insuperable, then she can easily do it by orders under Section 39.
It seems to me to be quite clear that, on the issues of parental choice, information and appeal, the Minister agrees with us. What the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said about repealing the bits of the 1944 Act which appear to be in conflict with these all-important provisions seems to be very sensible. Unless the Minister can give me an assurance that she will look at this matter very, very seriously between now and Report stage, I shall be obliged, I am afraid, to press it.
Baroness YOUNG: May I say two things to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey? So far as the introduction is concerned, he said that one could solve the problem of the contradictions by the date upon which the Bill is introduced. The fact is that so long as there are two contradictory requirements on local education authorities no one will benefit from Clauses 6 to 8, whether in ordinary schools or in special schools. That will be the effect of pressing this amendment. I have given as much of an assurance to the Committee on the Warnock proposals as I can, and I have said that I will look

933
at the information proposals and bring forward an amendment on Report. That is as far as I can go.
I hope that the Committee will accept what I say about the consequences of pressing this amendment. I am afraid I could not advise my noble friends to accept it. I believe that at the end of the day no one would benefit by pressing it. We have taken note of the feelings of the Committee on this subject.
Lord VAIZEY: In the circumstances, I will not press the amendment tonight, but I will bring it up again on Report, because quite clearly there are lawyers and lawyers. I cannot help feeling that if I got this kind of advice I should change solicitors.
Baroness DARCY de KNAYTH: I am not quite so convinced as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I am full of misgivings. I would take issue with the noble Baroness first of all about Section 10 of the 1976 Act. I suggest that it was not brought in in the circumstances which she suggested, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will bear me out. It was a Government amendment at Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, brought in an amendment at Committee and the
noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, substituted what she said was a tidying-up amendment;it had been carefully consulted about. She then brought in subsection (3) which specified that it should not come into force until such day as the Secretary of State appointed. With that, she hastened to say that that was not a prescription for delay. That was 3½years ago, and we are still waiting for it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said, the very earliest that we could get this new legislation is 1981. If that is so, it will be eight years since the Warnock Committee was set up in 1973. That is almost the entire school life of a handicapped school child. I feel that we have waited too long and, with my noble friend's permission, I should like to press this amendment, which also stands in my name.
Lord MISHCON: I wonder whether I may add—
Several noble Lords: No.!
12.59 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 114) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86;Not-Contents, 107.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Hampden, V.

Renton, L.[Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ridley, V.

Auckland, L.

Hertford, M.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Barrington, V.

Hunt, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Birk,B.

Hylton, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Blease, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Jeger, B.

St. Just, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Segal, L.

Bullock, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Shackleton, L.

Craigavon, V.

London, Bp.

Shinwell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Longford, E.

Spens, L.

Croft, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

McNair, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Swinton, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Dormer, L.

Monson, L.

Teviot, I.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Underhill, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Vaizey, L.

Gardiner, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Parry, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gray, L.

Peart, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Greenway, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hacking, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Halsbury, E.[Teller.]

Raglan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Forester, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Morris, L.

Alport, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mottistone, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gainford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ave bury, L.

Galloway, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Avon, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Newall, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Bellwin, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Pender, L.

Belstead, L.

Gormanston, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gowrie, E.

Rawlinson of Ewcll, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Blake, L.

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

Rochester, L.

Boyd of Morton, V.

Sandford, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Hampton, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Savile, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Harvington, L.

Seear, B.

Cathcart, E.

Hatherton, L.

Simon, V.

Chesham, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hives, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Davidson, V.

James of Rusholme, L.

Suffield, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kimberley, E.

Swansea, L.

De Freyne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Denham, L.[Teller,]

Kinnoull, E.

Torphichen, L.

Digby, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Trenchard, V.

Dudley, E.

Lothian, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dundonald, E.

Loudoun, C.

Vaux of Harrowdcn, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vickers, B.

Eccles, V.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Effingham, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Westbury, L.

Elton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wynford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mansfield, E.

Yarborough, E.

Falmouth, V.

Middleton, L.

Young, B.

Ferrers, E.

Minto, E.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 120 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Determination of school to be named in order]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
1.10 a.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: We have not moved the amendments that we had in mind for this clause, but there are one or two matters that I should like to raise, and I hope that the Government will bear them in mind and perhaps be able to do something about them at the Report stage.
Clause 10 and the one that follows really spring from the arrangements concerning appeals, parental preference and so on. They concern the enforcement of the law in the case where the parent, at first, does not send the child to school.
936
On the whole we agree with the general purpose of these clauses, which is to remove from the Secretary of State the onerous and tiresome business—and one for which the Secretary of State is not really appropriate—of dealing with these orders. But I would ask the Government to consider again whether all of the procedure in Clauses 6, 7 and 8 is really appropriate for primary schools. I think that on consideration they may decide that it is not. The real question of preference arises at the secondary stage. I think that the machinery provided in these clauses is altogether too heavy and cumbrous to apply to primary schools.
The Government may find it easier to accept the other point that I should like to make. Let us suppose that a parent refuses to send his child to a school. He does not use the appeal procedure, but simply refuses to send his child to a school. An amendment order has to be served and the parent then fills in the school to which he would like his child to go. What is the position if the parent has not made any use of the appeal

937
procedure? I should have thought that the legal result for which we want to aim is as follows. If the parent uses the appeal procedure and in the end the decision of the appeal committee is refusal to admit the child to one school and the requirement that the child should attend another, then that should be the end of the matter. The local authority ought not to be put to all the labour involved in the use of attendance orders, if the parent has failed to use the appeal procedure. After all, we have been told as regards an earlier clause, that the decision of the appeal committee is binding on the local authority. I should have thought, by equal justice, that it ought to be binding on the parent.
I confess that I do not know how to produce that result by detailed amendments to the Bill, but the Government have resources, that the rest of us do not have, for answering such questions. I ask the Government, before the Report stage, to consider the position of a parent who, dissatisfied with the first decision of a local authority, does not use the appeal procedure and still does not send his child to school. I think that there is an important point to be considered here, and I hope that the Government will give it thought before we reach the Report stage.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord for the two points that he has made. As regards the first point, I realise that, in another place, concern has been expressed about the use of the procedures in Clauses 6 to 10, so far as primary schoolchildren are concerned. I point out to the noble Lord that certainly we shall look at it again before the Report stage. I give the noble Lord that assurance. However, I should like to make two points. First, I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that the primary stage is no less important than the secondary stage. Indeed, he in no way suggested that that was not the case. His case was that the machinery was too cumbersome for the primary stage;but if one accepts the premise that the two stages of education are of equal importance, then it is difficult to get away from the fact that they should therefore, be treated in the same way from the point of view of appeals.
938
The other concomitant point I was going to put is that there are occasions—sometimes especially, I should have thought, with aided schools—where the pressure on the school is particularly great. I say particularly with aided schools "because the aided school may be in isolation, as it were, and many people may be wanting it. Here again, I think that there would be problems from parents if they then discovered that this legislation had gone through, and it was surprising but there was no appeals procedure for the primary stage. So I give the noble Lord the assurance. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will look at the point that he has made, but I raise those two markers.
On the second question which the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, asked about the parent who finally does not respond to the school attendance procedure, speaking entirely for myself—and if the information I am giving to the noble Lord is wrong, I shall try to correct it soon—the parent will be in dereliction of the duty which at the moment is laid upon the parent by Section 37 of the 1944 Act, and which will now be laid upon the parent under Clauses 10 and 11 of the present Bill. Not to put too fine a point on it, the parent will be in very hot water indeed. If by any chance any of the Committee have in mind the situation where the parent may bypass the appeals procedure by, in the middle of it, suddenly choosing a school for the child in a perfectly proper manner, that situation is dealt with in both Clauses 10 and 11.
I hope that that reply which I have given to the noble Lord is accurate. If it is not, I shall try to: put it right as our proceedings wend their way through the night. With that explanation, I hope that your Lordships may now agree to the passage of Clause 10.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Amendment of order]:
[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Establishment, discontinuance and alteration of schools by local education authorities]:
1.17 a.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 12, line 2, after ("premises") insert ("or change in the nature and size of annual intake of pupils").
The noble Lord said: Clause 12 of the Bill deals with the establishment, discontinuance amd alteration of schools by local education authorities and the procedure by which such proposals can take place. Having regard to the applause which my last attempt to speak received from the whole Committee, I shall be extremely brief.
By this Amendment I seek to insert into the circumstances in which these proposals have to be made, publicised, notice given, and so on, not only the reference—as there is in this clause—to buildings and to money, but the reference to pupils, which is sucha vital one;namely, the change in the nature and size of annual intake of pupils. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am glad that the noble Lord has drawn attention to the nature and size of the annual intake of pupils because it brings pupils into Clause 12, which otherwise seems to deal only with capital expenditure matters. However, with regard to the nature of the annual intake of pupils, I think that this is covered, because as the Section 13 process under the Education Act 1944 stands at the moment, if an authority wishes to make a significant change in the character of a school—and that means, for instance, changing a school from being mixed to single-sex;from being an 8 to 11 to a 9 to 12 school;or from, of course, being selective to comprehensive—then such changes are normally effected by changing the annual intake. That is how matters will continue to stand under Clause 12 if this Bill becomes law. So far as the second part of the amendment is concerned, the Section 13 process already catches any proposal to enlarge a school significantly. Indeed Clause 15 will catch any significant reduction in admissions. Thus an increase of 25 per cent. or more is already regarded under the law as it stands as being sufficiently significant to require the Section 13 proposals, and if an increase in admissions was such as to require a significant enlargement of a school's premises, that,
940
too, is already covered by Section 13. Once again that is how matters will continue to stand under Clause 12 if this Bill becomes law.
However, we are also introducing, and asking the Committee to agree to, Clause 15 to give parents and others the right to know of proposals, and to object, if they wish, in respect of significant reductions in admissions. From what I have said, I do not think anything else is required. If the noble Lord's amendment was agreed to, we should be adding unnecessary words to the clause which I have tried to show will already be covered if Clause 12 is agreed to, because Clause 12 will be carrying on the law as it stands under Section 13 of the 1944 Act.
Lord MISHCON: May my riposte be as brief as the speech I made in moving the amendment. It is wonderful for legislators to be able to refer back to other clauses and subsequent clauses and procedures under other Acts;but those who have to carry out this Act, and those who wish to read and know what their rights are, want to look at a section which is a comprehensive section. If this happens to be covered either directly or indirectly by other sections, or other legislation, is there any harm at all if it be repeated in this clause in order to make the matter transparently clear?
Lord BELSTEAD: That is a matter for the parliamentary draftsman.
Lord PEART: No.
Lord BELSTEAD: Yes, that is a matter for the parliamentary draftsman. I think I have begun to learn enough about legislation to know that words are not put into legislation if the parliamentary draftsman takes the view that they would be otiose. Often I would be only too ready to agree with noble Lords when they say they would like to put words into a Bill, and then I am generally told that the parliamentary draftsman will not agree, because what Parliament has to do is to produce legislation which is as effective as possible.
May I repeat to the noble Lord that the effect of what he is putting to the Government really is covered in Clause 12

941
as it stands? If the noble Lord feels that I am wrong in any way, perhaps rather than pressing it now he would like to have a look at what I have said and return to it on Report.
Lord MISHCON: May I put it the other way and then withdraw the amendment, unless anybody else wishes to address the Committee? If the noble Lord would be good enough to take this back between now and Report stage, and if he is convinced by the reasoning of the parliamentary draftsman that this is otiose and comes back at Report stage and says so, I shall naturally have to give serious consideration to what he then says.
Lord BELSTEAD: Without any hesitation I give the noble Lord that assurance.
Lord MISHCON: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.24 a.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No 124:
Page 12, line 4, after ("school") insert ("or nursery class or unit in a primary school.").
The noble Lord said: I shall endeavour to be almost as brief as I was on the last occasion, but this is a little difficult because it is such an important provision that we seek to include by this amendment. It was thought—and this emerged in the course of the debates in another place—that the provision of nursery schools up to the time when this Bill becomes an enactment was a legal duty on local education authorities. This Bill seeks to take away that legal duty and merely to give a discretion to local authorities to provide nursery schools. do not have to tell your Lordships of the degree of anxiety that has been spread throughout the Kingdom in regard to this matter. One of the ways in which the Government sought to answer whether this meant that even the nursery schools that exist at present might be closed down was to say that there was a provision in this Bill—indeed, we are looking at it now—which says that if there is a proposal to close down a nursery school this must go through what I may now call a Section 12 procedure. The Committee will find that exempted from this are nursery classes or
942
nursery units. Those of us who have been
dealing with schools know how important those nursery classes and units are as a substitute for nursery schools. I would ask the Committee to say that in these circumstances it is absolutely vital that before there can be a proposal to close a nursery class or unit the Section 12 procedure has got to be gone through.
Tribute has been paid to the notes which have accompanied this Bill in order to explain it. In those notes your Lordships will find what may be the answer which will be given to me today—namely, that this is an intrusion into the internal administration of the schools because, in fact, it is dealing with part of an already existing school. I do not think it will be difficult to find that any such objection, especially in these circumstances, is spurious.
I want to close my speech in moving this amendment by quoting what my noble friend, Lord Stewart of Fulham, was kind enough to give me—a letter from the secretary of the Cornwall Group of Nursery Parents. This matter is of great interest to those in rural areas, where nursery schools are all too few. Having regard to the hour, I quote from only one paragraph:
"Is it really too much to ask that the nursery class units also be given this additional safeguard? "
She is talking in this letter about the Section 12 procedure and the two months for objections.
" In Cornwall we have two nursery schools and 24 nursery class units so you can just imagine how many children would be at risk should the local authority decide to axe next year. Throughout the country there are more units than schools, so this intended safeguard will not, in fact, safeguard many children."
I beg to move.
Baroness SEEAR: We on these benches would like to support this amendment very strongly indeed. The provision for under-fives is grossly inadequate now. It gives the greatest possible help to many families and early education for children. It is a preventive measure against all manner of subsequent problems which can arise and it is a very great help to many families. It is a very false economy to cut down a provision of this kind. We very much hope that the Committee will agree to this amendment.
1.29 a.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: Might I first of all repeat—because the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was generous enough to mention it in moving the amendment—that the Government have written into the Bill the requirement that if a nursery school is to be closed, then the Section 12 procedure, as we will call it, must be gone through. If I may say so, without going into detail, I think it is a very considerable advance on the situation which we find ourselves in today. Your Lordships who took part in the Second Reading of this Bill will know better than I do that the Government's contention is that the duty which it was thought had been laid on local authorities by the 1944 Education Act, had not really been a duty at all. Indeed, what had been happening, as anyone who had been taking an interest in nursery education over the years knows, is that the duty had been regulated by successive Governments by circular, and so we do not stand today finding all our under-fives in school, more is the pity;we find only a proportion of them in school.
Therefore I think I can, first of all, reasonably claim that when we write into the Bill the requirement that nursery schools cannot be closed unless an authority goes through the new Section 12 procedure, that is a considerable advance on the situation in which we find ourselves now. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that, looking at the Notes on Clauses, the Government might say that this amendment would be an unwarrantable intrusion into the running of a school. I would not say that at all. I would say that one has to look very carefully at whether one should, or indeed could, pull out nursery classes and say they shall be treated in a special way compared with all other classes in all other schools.
What I am saying is that if one looks at the Bill—I think I have this right—and at Clause 15, which we will be debating soon, one there finds a new procedure about what happens in these difficult days, when the child population of the country is falling, if the local authority wants to reduce the size of the school;and Clause 15 provides a machinery for this, with which I will not weary the Committee because we will be dealing with that shortly. But it might be helpful if I say that a proposal to close a nursery class might in any case
944
become the subject of Clause 12 procedures if it fell within the terms of Clause 12(1) (d) —that is to say, if the closure made a significant change in the character of a county school and, as I understand the Bill, if, paying regard to Clause 15, it significantly reduced the size of a school. Therefore, if the taking away of a nursery class or classes from a total school were to change significantly the character or size of the school, then it would be perfectly possible for the Section 12 procedure to be referred to in Clause 12.
But that is not what the noble Lord is asking in his amendment. He is asking that all proposals to close a nursery class or nursery unit in a primary school should become subject to a Clause 12 procedure. In answer to that I must say that a nursery class is a class within a primary school, and I do not think it would be reasonable to make the discontinuance of one class, which did not change the character of the school significantly, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. Indeed, I would go further and say I am doubtful whether such a statutory step would be in the long-term interests of increasing nursery education provision. Local authorities might well be discouraged from starting nursery classes in primary schools, in surplus primary school accommodation, if there was likely to be opposition to putting the accommodation back to its original use if circumstances later required that.
If that sounds very much like an excuse, I would remind the noble Lord that one of the few silver linings there are to the fall in the child school population is the fact that it provides flexibility for local authorities suddenly to use available space for nursery teaching. Anything which might frighten off an authority from doing that would be detrimental. Having, I fear, taken rather longer than I should have taken to deal with this matter, I feel that it would be wrong to accept the amendment. I am not in the least surprised that it was tabled, and I hope that the noble Lord can accept the explanation I have given him.
Lord AVEBURY: The noble Lord may not be surprised that the amendment was tabled, nor, I suspect, will he be surprised that his explanation has failed to satisfy the Committee. It leads to a

945
number of contradictions and illogicalities, which I am sure the noble Lord would have seen had he pursued his own arguments a little further. First, the noble Lord persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to withdraw the previous amendment, which dealt with
"change in the nature and size of annual intake of pupils"
He said that that was already taken into account by the existing meaning of the clause. But now he is telling us, referring forward to Clause 15, that there has to be a reduction of more than a certain size before this kind of change is dealt with in the procedures which he has outlined. In fact, looking at Clause 15 one sees that the reduction in the size of the school has to be
"to a number which is four-fifths or less than four-fifths of the standard number …".
So, as the noble Lord put it at one point in his speech, it is a significant change in the size or character of the school, not "any" change in the size or character of the school. But this leads to the illogical result that if the nursery class is withdrawn, the reduction is to a number which is four-fifths or less than the size of the school, and then it will be the subject of all the procedures which the noble Lord has rightly said are quite valuable. But if the school is a large one, and elimination of the nursery class does not reduce its total size to four-fifths or less, then it will not be the subject of an inquiry.
I must say that this strikes me as an absolutely ludicrous position to get ourselves into—that irrespective of the need for nursery education in the area, or the size of the particular nursery class, only on the basis of the relationship of the nursery class to the total size of the school will it be possible to decide whether or not this procedure comes into play. If the noble Lord considers this again I believe that he can only agree that this is an utterly unsatisfactory position to be in.
Let us consider the case of Cornwall—and I dare say that we have all heard from the Cornish parents and have treated their representations with the seriousness which they deserve. It would be quite possible to have in neighbouring villages two schools, both of them with nursery classes, and in one case the nursery
946
class might represent more than one-fifth of the total while in the other case it might not. Therefore, if the local education authority was minded to close both, it would be faced with going through the procedures in one case, but being exempt from them in the other case, even if there were exactly the same size of classes in the two different schools. We really ought to consider this point very carefully; and, whether or not the noble Lord wishes to press this amendment to a Division, we cannot allow this ridiculous state of affairs to persist in the Bill.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I believe that the Minister was suggesting to us that since Clause 12 requires the Secretary of State's approval for the closing of nursery schools, he was conferring on nursery education a great benefit—
Lord BELSTEAD: No, a great advance.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: A great advance that it had not had before. But this is done in the context of a Bill, Clause 26 of which no longer makes it a duty of local authorities to provide nursery education at all. So what has happened is that in Clause 26 the Government have poured a steady torrent of discouragement on nursery education, by making it no longer a duty of local authorities. The Minister now tells us that in Clause 12 the Government have provided a modest umbrella against that torrent. We are now pointing out to the noble Lord that there is a large hole in this umbrella, and we are suggesting that that at least might be rectified.
Lord MISHCON: One of the great advantages of listening to two speeches which make your points far better than you are able to do is that you can then sit down and say, "I propose to divide the Committee"—and I do.
Lord BELSTEAD: Before the noble Lord does so, may I reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, about the point he made regarding Clause 26. I think I am right in saying that until 1973, when the then Secretary of State for Education withdrew the circular, all Secretaries of State for Education—among whom the noble Lord opposite was a very distinguished one—operated under what was called Circular 8/60. If

947
my memory serves me right, that circular told local authorities that, whatever the duty imposed upon them by the 1944 Education Act, they were not to accept more children into their nursery schools than they had had at the very end of the 1950s. It was because of that circular—I hope I have got the number of it right—that, despite the duty contained in the 1944 Education Act, the numbers of children to be found in nursery schools during the 1960s and at the beginning of the 1970s hardly rose at all, except for those who found their way into these very important nursery classes.
Therefore, if I may say so, the noble Lord can make nothing of Clause 26 of this Bill. I, on the other hand, can make quite a lot, as I am proposing to do yet again, of the fact that into the new Clause 12 is being written a stop on any local authority which wants to close its nursery schools. I genuinely say to noble Lords opposite that I think that is an advance, and a helpful one. Once again, in the spirit of this difficult part of the Bill, which is fairly technical, we will look very carefully at what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury has said. I attach just as much importance to the value of nursery classes as he does, but there are difficulties in this. There is the genuine difficulty which I tried to put to noble Lords about scaring off local authorities from actually opening nursery classes if they are then going to be told that they may have to go through an extremely difficult procedure should they find they have to close them.
There is also a difficulty about definition. I was interested that none of your Lordships has tried to help the Government. I am not saying this in any tone of criticism, but no help has come from
across the Floor as to how one identifies what is meant by the expression "nursery class". I know nursery classes can include rising-fives who one may find in one local authority area are taken in as of right into primary schools but in another local authority area are put into nursery schools. I am prepared to look at what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon and other noble Lords have said on this amendment. Perhaps they will look at what I have said about the difficulties of the amendment. With that, I leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord NIISHCON: If for any reason this amendment is defeated—I hope it will not be—I hope the Minister will consult with the learned parliamentary draftsman who is so much against otiose words that he will obviously, in his ingenuity, be able to find a definition for a nursery class or unit without using any otiose words. We shall all be delighted to see it at the Report stage. Quite apart from that point, when we are told that there is a danger of local authorities being discouraged from having nursery classes because they may have to go through this procedure, does the Committee not think that there is a far greater danger that, without this procedure with regard to nursery classes and with the economies forced upon local education authorities by the Government, there will be a temptation to close existing nursery classes? That is a far greater danger.
1.45 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 124) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57;Not-Contents, 123.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Avebury, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Barrington, V.

Elwyn Jones, L.

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

Birk, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Blease, L.

Gardiner, L.

McCarthy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Hacking, L.

McNair, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hampton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hunt, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Janner, L.

Peart, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jeger, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Simon, V.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Raglan, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Whaddon, L.

Rochester, L.

Stone, L.

White, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Winstanley, L.

Seear, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Forester, L.

Morris, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Fortescue, E.

Mottistone, L.

Alport, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gainford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Auckland, L.

Galloway, E.

Newall, L.

Avon, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Norfolk, D.

Bellwin, L.

Gisborough, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Belstead, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Orkney, E.

Berkeley, B.

Gormanston, V.

Pender, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gowrie, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Blake, L.

Gray, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gridley, L.

Ridley, V.

Bullock, L.

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

Rochdale, V.

Burton, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hampden, V.

St. Just, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sandford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Harvington, L.

Savile, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hatherton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hives, L.

Spens, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Croft, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Davidson, V.

Kimberley, E.

Suffield, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swansea, L.

De Freyne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Swinton, E.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Teviot, L.

Digby, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Dormer, L.

Long, V.

Torphichen, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Dudley, E.

Loudoun, C.

Trenchard, V.

Dundonald, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Eccles, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vickers, B.

Effingham, E.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Westbury, L.

Faithfull, B.

Middleton, L.

Wynford, L.

Falmouth, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Monson. L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

1.53 a.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 12, line 5, at end insert—
("(F) to make any significant change in the manner or area of recruitment of any school maintained by a local education authority,").
The noble Lord said: At this time in the morning I think it might be helpful if I tried, 1 hope successfully, the mental gymnastics of speaking to all the rest of the amendments in this batch in one speech—those numbered 125 to 128,
950
inclusive—and then, with your Lordships' permission, I will move each of them formally. These are all amendments which affect the Clause 12 procedure of which we have just spoken, and the first of these amendments is to add to the occasions upon which this procedure has to be gone through, where a local education authority has a certain intention, another set of circumstances;namely,
"to make any significant change in the manner or area of recruitment of any school maintained by a local education authority "
The Minister may think that in some ways he has already dealt with that in the reply which he gave me earlier, but I respectfully suggest, as I did before, that clarity

951
is required, a comprehensive clause is useful;and I ask for that to be put into the Bill as the new paragraph (f).
Turning immediately to Amendment No. 126, we are now dealing with the question of notice. Again, notice and publication are very vague in the Bill. They are obviously necessary, because these proposals are of such importance from an educational point of view, and are so important to the parents concerned, and to others who may wish to raise objection, that again it must be very clear that there should be a public notice in the area (not just a notice of certain proposals, with vague words used, but a public notice) which will clearly show precisely what the nature of the proposal is and what are the rights in regard to any objection.
Moving swiftly on to Amendment No. 127, it is a proposal to insert at page 12, line 7—and at that stage one reaches the publication of the proposals;and I have already dealt with the public notice—for that purpose, "by public notice "(if my previous amendment is accepted) in such manner as—then one includes the words of this amendment:
"shall include the manner in which they conform to the authority's general proposals for securing that there shall be sufficient primary and secondary schools available for the area…".
In other words, the proposal must be related to that specific and obvious requirement that the proposals carry out the educational purpose of providing sufficient primary and secondary schools.
Amendment No. 129 puts an addition at the end of line 9 on page 12, where one reaches the stage of the submission to the Secretary of State of the published proposals on one or other of the matters mentioned in subsection (1). There, the insertion that is required is that there should be a consultation with
"the governing bodies of all schools which the authority considers to be likely to be effected "—
and I trust that your Lordships will accept that this is a typographical error and the word should be "affected "—
"by the proposed changes and after replies have been received from such governing bodies".
That amendment, I think, speaks for itself. Where other schools are affected they should have the right of being consulted in regard to these proposals.
I reach the last of these amendments, No. 128, which inserts at the end of line 9, but it will be after the other amendment to line 9, if that be accepted:
"In order to secure the objective set out in subsection (1) above "—
and that is the subsection to which I have already referred;namely, the publication of the proposals in certain circumstances—
"local education authorities shall, at such times and in such form as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct, prepare and submit …a plan of primary and secondary education in their area."
which will
" make provision for no smaller proportion of county schools in the area of each local education authority than existed before their preparation".
I beg to move the various amendments seriatim but I have made the speech which covers them all.
Lord BELSTEAD: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has moved Amendment No. 125 and has spoken to that amendment and to Amendments Nos. 126, 127, 128 and 129. Perhaps I may reply in the order in which he dealt with them. As far as Amendment No. 125 is concerned, the effect of this being to widen the grounds for a Clause 12 procedure to include a significant change in an authority's recruitment policy for an individual school, the noble Lord will appreciate that the drawing of catchment areas has never been a statutory requirement. It has never had statutory authority. Although I realise that local education authorities will wish to continue to have school catchment areas, Clause 6—let us not forget—gives the parent the statutory right to choose a school regardless of where the family home is.
I do not think it would be right to introduce a further procedure under which the Secretary of State would become involved in more detailed matters of local authority administration—which is what this amendment seeks to achieve. It would mean that each time an LEA wanted to alter the catchment area of a school they would he obliged to go through the Clause 12 procedure. This would have very considerable implications for local authority work, and also for the appeals which would be coming up to the Secretary of State.

953
The noble Lord moved Amendment No. 126, which is unnecessary. I would give the noble Lord an assurance that the regulations to which reference is made in Clause 12(1) will be very similar to the County and Voluntary Schools (Notices) Regulations 1968. They will lay down where proposals shall be published. If the noble Lord wants earnest of the truth of what I am saying, he will, if he cares to glance at subsection (2) of Clause 12, see there the requirement that the published proposals shall contain various things that have never been in this procedure before—namely, a statement about the times when the proposals are to be implemented; a statement of the Bill's provisions for making objections; and a statement about the number of pupils to be admitted to the school in the first school year when the proposals are implemented. That shows that the intentions of the Government are absolutely firm so far as the publication of proposals is concerned.
The third amendment to which the noble Lord spoke, Amendment No. 127, goes with Amendment No. 128. Taken together, as I understood the noble Lord, these amendments require local education authorities to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State plans for primary and secondary education and to say in their published proposals how these proposals conform to the overall plan.
May I say two things on this amendment? The situation today is very different from what it was in 1944 when that Act called for local plans. Nearly all authorities now have decided how their schools should be organised, and have enough of them. In fact, many authorities will be finding that, because of falling rolls, they have too many school places and will be considering which schools they, with great reluctance, have to close. However good the intentions, I can think of nothing more calculated to cause loss of morale than to publish a plan, perhaps during a decade in which schools have to he closed, especially if circumstances change and the authority suddenly finds that the school need not be closed. The threat of closure hanging over a school for many years is the most effective way of making parents send their children to other schools. On those grounds, I would be worried about the idea of a plan.
954
The other thing that worries me is that the noble Lord's amendment calls for the plan to show the same proportion of county schools as existed before the plan was proposed. I would expect that to be the situation in the majority of cases. In other words, I do not expect a local authority to reduce the proportion of its county schools whatever the authorities are having to do by way of school closures or establishing schools. I say most seriously that I would resist this part of the amendment to the extent that it is designed to prevent the establishment of new voluntary schools, either in new premises or in existing county school premises, even where this was agreed between the local education authority and the voluntary body, and the proposal had strong local support.
On amendment No. 129, I do not think that consultation need be written into legislation. I say this not because I do not want to see changes made in legislation but because, so far as the Education Acts are concerned, consultation has always been secured by local authorities by way of circulars from the DHSS. As we all know in the House of Lords, woe betide the local authority which puts forward proposals and does not carry out proper local consultation. On those grounds, I should have thought that Amendment No. 129 (which really goes with Amendment No. 131) should not be written into the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: In supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, argued against the publication amendments, saying that these were covered anyhow? It sounded a complicated way. I could not see then why it should not be clarified in the way these amendments clarify it. The noble Lord spoke of the local authority not making public their intention because it might worry people, but if rumours are going round anyhow people are going to hear about it. The local authority is not going to be able to keep this quiet. In any case, I cannot see why it should not report on the adequacy of the schools in the area when making changes; and, when we are talking about preventing local authorities from reducing the pro-

955
portion of county schools in their area, I really do not think that the noble Lord really put up an answer that was very valid on that.
I do not think it is our intention to press these amendments;they really are for clarification, but I should have thought they would certainly have improved the Bill. I am definitely rather unhappy about the way the question of publication of intentions was left, which does not seem to me to be clear enough at all.
Lord BELSTEAD: The only thing I would add, if I may, is that so far as the first amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, moved is concerned—that is, Amendment No. 125, to make any significant change in the manner of the area of recruitment of any school part of the Section 12 procedure—I would just like to draw the noble Baroness's and the noble Lord's attention to the fact that Clause 8 of the Bill provides for the annual publication of details of admission arrangements, including the policy followed in deciding admissions. That means that parents should be in no doubt as to the prevailing arrangements and the catchment areas, if any, that are being used. If I may say so, that is a better way of getting across to the general public what the catchment areas for schools are, bearing in mind that catchment areas are a non—statutory procedure.
So far as the other points which the noble Baroness made are concerned, if I could just pick out the one about the general plan, the noble Baroness was asking, "Isn't it as well for people to know what is going on anyway? "What I was trying to suggest to the Committee was that, if you have a plan for the whole local authority area, it can have one of two effects: it can either kill certain schools because in the plan there will be at a time of falling school rolls a prediction that certain schools could close;and, possibly even more mischievous, there can he the possibility that one will be on the way to killing certain schools, and then suddenly finding that the school population is rising and wishing that those schools were able to continue.
The occasion in 1944 when my noble friend Lord Butler called for plans in local authority areas was at a time when plans
956
for local authority areas were needed because nothing existed in the rubble of 1945. Matters are very different today. I must say I did not divine from what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said—possibly because of the pressures of time—the need for local authority plans, and that was why I resisted that particular amendment.
Lord MISHCON: The Minister has behaved with his usual courtesy. Indeed, I am inspired, looking at the Right Reverend Prelates opposite, to quote the prayer "Blessed be the Lord by day and blessed be the Lord by night "at this time, but obviously, having heard his explanations, though they have not, if I may say so, quite satisfied me, I will not at this stage press these Amendments.
Amendment 125, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 126 to 129 not moved.]
2.10 a.m.
Lord BULLOCK Lord BULLOCK moved Amendments Nos. 129A to 129E:
Page 12, line 18, leave out ("ten") and insert ("hundred").
Page 12, line 18, at end insert ("or fifty per
cent. of the parents of the children in the school")
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("local education
authority") and insert ("Secretary of State")
Page 12, line 22, leave out ("to the Authority")
Page 12, line 24, leave out from ("concerned") to end of line 29.
The noble Lord said: These five amendments are directed to the procedure proposed in the Act related to the closure of schools. The procedure under the 1944 Education Act which is now to be replaced provided that where it is proposed to close a school any tenant or local government elector for the area may submit objections to the Secretary of State. Under the procedure which is now proposed, this right of direct access or appeal is removed. Instead, it is the authority whose proposal is being called in question who will transmit copies of any objections to the Secretary of State. together with its own observations on the objections. Those who oppose the authority's proposal will then have no way of knowing precisely what has been forwarded to the Secretary of State, of seeing the observations by which it is accompanied or of rebutting them. In short, the right of objection, although formally preserved, is substantially reduced

957
by requiring that it shall be channelled through the authority to whose proposals objection is takein. These proposals, if they were accepted, would retain the existing right of direct appeal to the Secretary of State, as it has been exercised since 1944.
Of course, the Committee will anticipate that in the period ahead inevitably there will be more closures of schools proposed than in any other period, and one would need to make sure that the right of objection, if it were retained, direct to the Secretary of State should only be exercised where there is really strong local opposition to a proposed closure. For this reason the amendments would include raising the number of local government electors required for an objection to 100 in place of 10, or 50 per cent. of the parents with children at the school. Raising the threshold in this way would reduce the chances of the procedure being abused, but would avoid the emasculation of the right of objection which is proposed in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: The effect of the noble Lord's last three amendments, Nos. 129C, D and E, would be that all objections relating to proposals affecting county schools should be sent to the Secretary of State and not to the local authority concerned. I can only say from my own brief experience many years ago that I know from working at the Department of Education that the procedure as it is at the moment is expensive, time consuming and leads to delays. At present all those entitled to do so submit their objections direct to the Secretary of State and then are referred back by the department to the local authority concerned for their observations, since without these comments the Secretary of State cannot give due weight to the objections when he considers whether to approve the proposals. It is to try to get round this that the new procedure in Clause 12, which the noble Lord is criticising, has been put in.
May I just assure the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, that in drafting Clause 12 as it is at the moment, great care has been taken to provide that authorities, when they receive objections, will be under a duty to forward all objections they receive, together with their comments
958
on them, to the Secretary of State within a month of the end of the statutory period. We have already amended the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State decides all proposals to which there are objections. This ensures that the Secretary of State will consider any objections that are received. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord to ensure that all objections will be considered by the Secretary of State but, as I have said, the Bill now requires this to be done.
Amendments Nos. 129A and 129B, in a somewhat contradictory way, will change the number of people who can object from a minimum of 10 to a minimum of 100, or 50 per cent. of the parents of children in the school. At a time when everybody is worried about rural school closures, I believe this could be difficult in respect of country schools.
On those grounds alone, I ask the noble Lord to think again. The present rule relating to a figure of 10 people as the minimum number in respect of objections has existed in legislation for the last 35 years and, so far as I know, has worked well. It leads me to think that the balance is about right. On those grounds resist the amendments.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGs—BRIDGE: We have complained throughout proceedings on this Bill that there has been a tendency to under—value the local authority and to allow the Secretary of State to interfere too much. Lord Bullock's suggestion is sound—namely, that if the matter goes to the Secretary of State the figure should be 100, but, on the whole, it must be better—particularly as there are certain to be more closures in the next three or four years than there have been in the last three or four years—for the general rule to be that the objection should go first to the local authority, which under subsection (3) has a duty to pass it on. On the whole, I regard this as the better course, but I do not feel very strongly about it.
Lord BULLOCK: I do not wish to introduce the higher threshold of 100, except where one retains direct access to the Secretary of State. It was to safeguard that right—which I still feel it is important to retain—against abuse that I introduced these proposals. If the suggestion about direct access to the

959
Secretary of State is not pressed, then the other provision drops. It was an alternative way of trying to defeat abuse. I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
2.18 a.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 13, line 14, at end insert ("and shall publish their conclusions and decisions.").
The noble Lord said: I shall follow the pattern which seems to have emerged of making one speech on more than one amendment. With your Lordships' permission, having moved Amendment No. 130, I shall speak at the same time, though on a slightly different matter, on Amendment No. 131.
Clause 12(7) deals with the situation where proposals do not require the approval of the Secretary of State and where the decision is made by the local education authority. Under subsection (8) the local authority in those circumstances notifies the Secretary of State of any determination made under subsection (7). The amendment calls for the local authority to publish its conclusions and decisions, it already having been publicised that it was proposing to undertake various educational duties of an important nature.
The excuse is made—properly so, because it is a tradition—that Ministers do not publish their decisions. I have often wondered whether that was due to the fact that they could not think of sufficient reasons for their decisions. But the normal reason—this is a bipartisan policy and tradition—is that it leads only to a continuation of objections which may go on for ever. But this should not apply to a local authority, which has a duty to the local electors to supply the reasons that they advance and the decisions that they come to.
Amendment No. 131 seeks to cut out the last three lines of subsection (9). May I quickly say that those last three lines say—and we are now dealing with matters where the Secretary of State is the party making the decision, after all the procedure under Clause 12 has been gone through, such as publication of the proposals, the objections, the hearing
960
and so on—
" but the Secretary of State may, at the request of the authority, modify any proposals which they are required to implement by virtue of this subsection".
This is, if anything, a probing amendment in this sense. 1 am sure your Lordships will realise that there are occasions when it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to modify a decision come to, because of new circumstances which arise. If the last three lines had included words to that effect, I should have felt very much happier and would possibly not have moved this amendment. But there is absolutely no limitation. The whole of this procedure having been gone through, if a local authority goes by the backdoor—and I do not use that term disrespectfully—to the Minister, and persuades him to modify his decision, he can do that without giving any reason. That is my reason for pressing that these lines be deleted, pending the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: If a proposal attracts no objections and is therefore decided under Clause 12 (7), I think we may reasonably assume that it is in accordance with local needs and wishes;in other words, there have not been any objections. Therefore, I do not see why it is necessary to place on the authority a duty to do more than is expected of the Secretary of State in the case of proposals which are opposed.
As the noble Lord quite rightly reminded the Committee, what the Secretary of State does is announce his decision and he does not give his reasons. 1 say this to your Lordships, bearing in mind that the authority will have to notify the Secretary of State of their determination under subsection (8). I have no doubt that they will also notify the school or schools concerned, as well as the relevant local authority committees. Their decision will thus be made public at an early stage.
The reasons which give rise to the proposals will have been made public at an earlier time as part of consultation procedures, and need not be rehearsed again at this point. Moreover, having made their determination, the authority are under a duty to implement the proposal and that duty cannot then be challenged by objections. So I should be surprised to find this requirement being

961
written into the Bill so far as local authorities are concerned, but not being written into the Bill so far as the Secretary of State is concerned.
So far as the second amendment is concerned, this question of modification by the Secretary of State is a practical matter. We envisage that the main use of this power will be in relation to the proposed date of implementation of a proposal. For example, when building work is involved and it is delayed, an authority might not, with the best will in the world, be able to meet the requirement placed upon them. It would then seem reasonable for them to be able to approach the Secretary of State to seek his agreement to implementation at a later date.
I had exactly the same apprehension as the noble Lord. When I read the Bill and saw that the Secretary of State could modify a proposal at the tail—end of the procedure, I had my suspicions in exactly the same way as the noble Lord. Therefore I looked very carefully at the advice with which 1 was furnished by the department. In essence, it contains a reassurance that the Secretary of State cannot modify any proposal in such a way as to change it into a totally different proposal;he may only make minor modifications that leave the substance unchanged.
Perhaps I could add this on my own account. If your Lordships still think that a change in the political control of a local education authority might result in getting proposals changed, may I direct the Committee's attention to Clause 12(1) (a) and (b) which lay a duty on a local education authority to implement approved proposals. The lines which this Amendment seeks to delete merely refer to "modification". As a practical safeguard may I ask your Lordships to accept that this is genuine: that a modification can only mean what it says—that the modification of proposals is not changing proposals—and that the apprehensions which the noble Lord has, and which I had when I first read the Bill, are in fact unfounded.
Lord MISHCON: I am grateful for the comments of the Minister on the first amendment and I do not propose to carry that discussion any further. With regard to the second, I feel comforted that he, too, shared the same apprehensions. It there
962
fore means that many intelligent people—I am taking that as a description of the noble Lord and not of me—will also have apprehensions when they read the last three lines of this clause.
Bearing in mind the apprehension which the Minister has talked about and the way in which his answer depended upon the definition of "modification "which was given to him within his department by the advisers, may I ask him to consider before the Report stage either some words defining modification "or some limitation, so that it is clear to the whole world when reading this clause what is now clear to the Minister, having received his private advice?
Lord BELSTEAD: I am not speaking with advice now. Most certainly we will look at it, but my assumption is that it is not inconceivable, if this Bill becomes law, that at some stage there may well be an accompanying circular, or some form of advice which will flow from my right honourable friend's department to local authorities. I should have thought that that would be the appropriate way in which "modification "could be interpreted. I know that does not satisfy the point that the noble Lord has put to me, and we will certainly look at the wording of the clause in the light of what he has said. In the meanwhile, may I leave him with the assurance which I gave to him when I gave my first reply.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON: Because of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 130, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Establishment and alteration of voluntary schools]:
2.29 a.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 13, line 34, after ("authority") insert ("which shall in turn consult the governing bodies of every school the authority deems likely to be affected in any way by any of the changes proposed and where replies have been received from these governing bodies").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 132. Perhaps I may

963
speak also to Amendments Nos. 133, 134 and 135 at the same time, because they are similar to the group of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Nlishcon, on Clause 12. These apply to the establishment and alteration of voluntary schools.
Amendment No. 132 makes sure that the authority shall consult the governing bodies of every school that the authority deems likely to be affected in any way by any of the changes proposed and where replies have been received from these governing bodies. Again it is spelling out and making it absolutely clear beyond doubt that this procedure of consultation shall take place.
Amendment No. 133 is similar to the amendment that has already been discussed and moved—Amendment No. 129. Then we come to Amendment No. 134. Again this stresses the need for the Secretary of State to publish his conclusions and decisions. Amendment No. 135 makes it clear beyond doubt that the majority of schools which were consulted signified their agreement by a majority vote of the majority of their governing bodies and, where an existing county school is the object of the proposals, the agreement of the majority of that school's governors. Again the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, may say that this is there by implication, but we should prefer to see these matters spelt out rather more clearly and in more detail. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: I wonder whether this is not really consultation taken to rather extreme lengths? I feel that the amendments do less than justice to the close co—operation between the statutory and voluntary bodies in the education service and do not really take note of the high degree of consultation that is written into the existing Act. No voluntary body can propose a new school or the alteration of a school without the fullest consultations with the local education authority. The law requires as it stands, and as it is reiterated in this clause, consultations with the local education authority and agreement with the Secretary of State. I really wonder whether perhaps all that would be involved would be detailed conversations with 10 or 20 schools with which the local education authority
964
would already be in close touch and would not have given its agreement to the proposal until it had consulted them. I wonder whether this is not pushing things a little too far.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for what he has said, because I think that Amendments Nos. 132 and 135 are not reasonable. Amendment No. 132 would place a duty on authorities to consult with the governors of all county schools as well as with governors of voluntary schools that might be affected by a proposal relating to a voluntary school. Frankly, 1 do not think that is reasonable. I do not want to rehearse the arguments at this late hour, but I think that what the right reverend Prelate has said about this pushing consultation further than was reasonable fills the bill.
Amendment No. 135 is very much on the same lines. This amendment would give a power of veto to the governors of county schools over proposals relating to voluntary schools which had already been approved by the Secretary of State—a quite extraordinary procedure. Indeed it would be unprecedented and completely unacceptable. It would be wrong, should the authority's proposals have gone through all the proper processes which we have been discussing for the past 35 minutes or so, should the Secretary of State have carefully considered them and the objections that had been made and he have given his approval, for that to be overturned by the governors of a county or a voluntary school acting at a later stage. This would be after a period of consultation had been gone through while the Section 12 procedure (as we are calling it now) was being gone through.
So far as Amendment No. 133 which was sandwiched between those two amendments, is concerned, may I just say that the point which the noble Baroness is seeking to make in that amendment is covered by the words "and the local education authority "which appear in line 11 on page 14? That leaves Amendment No. 134. First, this requires the Secretary of State to publish his decision. It has been the practice of successive Secretaries of State to write to the authority or, where appropriate, to the voluntary body, to let them know his decision. That will of

965
course continue to be the procedure in cases decided by my right honourable friend. I think that adequate provision is made in this way to ensure that those who make or oppose the proposal are properly informed about the outcome.
The other question which this last amendment raises is a much more difficult point. This relates to the other part of the amendment, which deals with the publication of the Secretary of State's conclusion, as opposed to his decision. All I would say is this: the proposals come up to the Secretary of State;he sends them back to the local authority;they make their comments on the objections received. While this is going on, members of Her Majesty's inspectorate are also giving their advice to the Secretary of State. At the end of that, the Secretary of State sifts all the evidence and he tells the authority or voluntary body and the objectors that he has concluded that in his view the balance of advantage lies in favour of approval or rejection. That is the truth.
If the Secretary of State went further, he would have to publish all the evidence in all its detail, and those involved would be quick to point out any omission of the smallest kind, including assessments made to him by HMI and his departmental advisers. That would be a tremendous administrative task, and would still leave the final decision as a matter of judgment which people applauded or deplored according to their point of view. We have in the Committee this evening, even at this hour, former Ministers and Secretaries of State who have operated this procedure, and I am sure they would be the first to tell me that the best way to operate this difficult procedure, which pleases some people and saddens others according to the decision, is as a clear cut decision given in the way I have described. So on those last grounds I would resist the final amendment which the noble Baroness had put to me.
Baroness BIRK:I thank the noble Lord for that very full and courteous reply. 1 do not intend to press the amendments now. I should like to have the opportunity to read carefully what the noble Lord has said and decide between now and Report stage what action to take. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 133 to 135 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BOYLE of HANDSWORTH: May I just ask one question before we part with this clause? I feel that this part of the Bill, while evoking infinitely less controversy than it would have done only 25 years ago, should not pass without careful consideration on the part of your Lordships' House. Indeed we have the advantage for this debate of the presence of two right reverend Prelates. May I ask one specific question? Am I right in thinking that the effect of Clauses 12 and 13, taken together, is that local opinion will have the same opportunity to express itself as at present if there should be any significant shift in the balance between county schools and voluntary schools in a particular area? I think it is important to be reassured about that because there are still parts of the country where this is felt to be a matter of real concern.
Lord BELSTEAD: The answer to the noble Lord's question is, yes.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Approval of school premises]:
2.39 a.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 14, line 44, leave out ("consult") and insert ("secure the agreement of").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment, and the following one, No. 137, which is alternative, is to make sure that "consult "is not just to go through the motions or get the views of the local education authority, but "to secure the agreement of ", under Amendment No. 136, or "obtain the approval of ", under Amendment No. 137. It is really strengthening the word "consult". I think the amendments speak for themselves. I beg to move.
Lord MISHCON: I rise briefly to supplement what my noble friend has said in summarised form. The clause deals with premises, and many of us who have been connected with voluntary

967
schools and who so much admire their work, know that the fervent people who become governors of those schools have some rather peculiar ideas at times as regards suitable premises. We have all had that experience and we have all had to try to explain to them that certain standards have to be observed. Very often the Secretary of State's time can be wasted by premises being submitted for approval which just could not get by. The result is that governors have taken the following view as regards voluntary schools: "It may be a very good idea to consult with the local education authority. They have expressed doubts;they have expressed grave reservations, but let's hope that the Secretary of State can be moved to accept these premises as being of the proper standard."
As regards the amendment, it is thought that, in order to save everybody's time, it would be so much more convenient to ensure that at least the local authority, which must obviously have the last word in regard to these standards, has approved of the premises before the matter goes to the Secretary of State. That, I should have thought, was a very practical amendment and from this side I am praying that before the dawn rises at least one member of the Front Bench opposite will get up and say: "What a sensible amendment that is! We accept it". I hope that at least we have reached that stage with Amendments Nos. 136 or 137. 1, personally, will be satisfied with whichever wording is employed, and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Birk feels the same.
Lord BELSTEAD: What a sensible wording of an amendment! However, I am afraid that I cannot possibly accept it. The truth of the matter is that local education authorities bear a share of the maintenance costs of the premises of voluntary aided schools and it is plainly right that they should be consulted about building projects designed by architects employed by promoters or governors. To that extent I genuinely agree abso—, lutely with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that there must be consultation for the reason given.
But, do not let us forget that the injection into the education system, by
968
the governors and the supporters of voluntary schools, of capital expenditure is something which, over the years, has been of very great advantage to the education system in this country. Therefore, I think that the word "consult "which has worked well over a period of 40 years, is better than the words in either of the two amendments which call for obtaining "the approval of "or securing "the agreement of".
However, 1 have a piece of news for noble Lords. Under the building control scheme, which the Department of Education and Science now proposes to adopt, a certificate will be sought from the education authority that a voluntary school project will comply with the statutory regulations. That will give considerable force to the consultation required under Clause 14(2), and will enable authorities to carry out their duty under Section 10 of the 1944 Act to ensure that premises comply with statutory standards. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, feel that that goes some way to meet the spirit of the amendments which they are moving.
Baroness BIRK: I agree that that explanation goes some way to meet these amendments and I do not think that we should pursue the matter further at this stage. I thank the noble Lord for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 137 not moved.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Reduction of school places]:
2.45 a.m.
Viscount RIDLEY Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 15, line 17, at end insert ("except in the case of a primary school where the standard number is less than twenty pupils in that year and age group.").
The noble Viscount said: Like all my amendments, this is designed to keep down the cost in administration of education and the cost to local authorities. We should be very grateful to the Government for the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. The ACC asked for local

969
education authorities to have the power to set admission limits, and it is a very good thing that we have them. It will help authorities to provide education more effectively where numbers are falling and when resources are limited. But it seems unfortunate that this subsection should oblige local education authorities to go through a similar procedure for the larger schools where a reduction of one—fifth could affect the character of the school, and for the smaller schools—mainly rural primary schools—where a reduction of this order could come about simply as a consequence of one or two families leaving the area.
I commend the amendment which, as I said, is to try to simplify the procedures and which would exclude from the very complex procedures the very large number of small and middle—sized primary schools with up to 140 on the roll. Nothing in the amendment will make it any easier for a local education authority to close any school, which is not what we are talking about. I beg to move.
The EARL of SWINTON: I hope that the Government might feel able to accept this amendment. There are, as my noble friend Lord Ridley has said, a number of schools in my area where, just by one or two families moving out in the course of their occupations, numbers attending the school can reduce drastically the high percentages of the school turnover. I hope that this fairly simple amendment might be the one that we have been waiting for all evening, when one of my noble friends on the Front Bench leaps up with glee and says, "We accept it".
Baroness DAVID: We too should like to support this amendment. There are a number of very small schools where the 20 per cent. figure would cause difficulty, and I shall be surprised if we do not have one of our Welsh noble friends speaking because I understand that there are more of these really small primary schools in Wales than elsewhere in the country. I also hope that in this case the Government might feel that they can give way.
Baroness YOUNG:: This amendment, which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Ridley, would provide that the process of publishing proposals,
970
considering objections and taking a decision would not be used if an authority wished to reduce admissions to a small primary school by more than 20 per cent. of the standard number. I know that the local authority associations would like to see the Bill amended in this way, and I can understand their reasons. If one considers that a reduction of 20 per cent. on an intake of 20 is only four, it is reasonable to argue that the full force of Clause 15 should not be applied to anything so small. I can tell my noble friend that we are prepared to consider this amendment in principle, and we shall either come forward with this in the Bill or in some other form on Report.
Viscount RIDLEY: I am deeply grateful to my noble friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Segal): I have to notify the Committee that if Amendment No. 139 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 140.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 15, line 19, leave out from ("proposals") to end of line 20.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 139, at the same time perhaps I could speak to Amendments Nos. 140 and 141, as they are all concerned with the reduction of school places. Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 aim to say that where there is a question of reduction of school places, it should not just be left to the Secretary of State, but it should be, as in Amendment No. 140:
"subject to approval by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament".
I must be frank and say that the only reason I can think of why "him "has been left out and "the Secretary of State "has been inserted in Amendment No. 141 is in case it is a "her". Apart from that, and to be perfectly honest, I cannot see any reason for that amendment. Therefore, it is either on purely sexist grounds, or it does not have much validity.
However, the main point lies in Amendments Nos. 139 and 140, since we think that there is a little too much restriction and that both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity to

971
comment on and look at any restriction of this sort. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: So far as Amendment No. 139 is concerned the deletion proposed by this amendment would remove the duty on authorities and governors to publish their proposals in such a manner as required by regulations made by the Secretary of State. I should assure noble Lords that it is intended that the regulations referred to in this clause should be on the same lines as the County and Voluntary Schools (Notices) Regulations 1968. They will lay down where the proposals should be published;that is, in one local newspaper, at or near any main entrance to the school concerned, and in at least one other conspicuous place within the area. That, of course, is the minimum.
The main objective of the regulations is to ensure that all those who are entitled to object are aware of the proposals. I am sure that nobody would wish to see this right curtailed in any way. It is essential that everyone should know what is proposed for the educational provision for an area. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this should continue to be the case, and will accept my assurance that this is the way the regulations will be drawn.
So far as the second amendment is concerned, the regulations, which incidentally must be made by statutory instrument under Clause 37(1), and the regulations referred to in Clauses 12 and 13, will be similar to the County and Voluntary Schools (Notices) Regulations 1968. There is no intention of a significant change in present practice, and I therefore see no need for such regulations to occupy parliamentary time by requiring debate on affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. So far as the third amendment is concerned. I think that that is consequential on the one the noble Baroness has moved.
Baroness BIRK:I thank the noble Lord. If Amendment No. 139 were carried then we would lose the reference to the Secretary of State, so it would need to be put in. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 not moved.]
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 15, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) The published proposals shall be accompanied by a statement of the effect of section 12(3) or, as the case may be, section 13(3) as applied by subsection (2) above.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment simply ensures that the rights of objectors are published when proposals are made to restrict admissions to a school. Clauses 12 and 13 already provide that this shall be done in relation to all other kinds of proposals: this clarifies the position vis—ci—vis proposals under Clause 15. The provision is important because the Bill changes the familiar procedure for dealing with objections. Those relating to county schools will now be sent direct to the local education authority;those for voluntary schools to the Secretary of State. As Clause 15 introduces an entirely new category of proposal, it seems to us that it is particularly necessary to ensure that people know how and to whom to object. We think the amendment will prove helpful, and I hope that noble Lords will give it their support. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 143 to 146 not moved.]
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Provisions supplementary to sections 12 to 15]:
2.55 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 17, line 13, at end insert—
("(6) Section 14(1), (2) and (4) above shall apply and subsection (6) of the said section 13 shall not apply. in relation to proposals for the matters referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 14(1) above—

(a) which arc approved under the said section 13 on or after the date on which this subsection comes into force;or

(b) which have then already been approved under that section but in respect of which specifications and plans have not yet been submitted under subsection (6) of that section;

973
and, in relation to any such proposals, subsection (7) of the said section 13 shall apply as if references to specifications and plans being approved or not required under that section were references to particulars being approved or not required under section 14 above.
(7) In subsection (6) above references to subsections (6) and (7) of the said section 13 include references to those subsections as applied by subsection (9) of that section.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this amendment, which allows the department's new building control procedures derived from Clause 14 to be operated immediately in respect of proposals involving building work approved under Section 13 of the 1944 Act before Clauses 12 and 13 come into operation or already approved under Section 13 but for which specifications and plans have not yet been submitted to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 148:
After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause:
("Local education plans and orders

—(1)(a) It shall be the duty of each local education authority to prepare and maintain a local education plan for primary and secondary schools, hereafter referred to as an education plan, which shall estimate the immediate and prospective needs of the area in respect of primary and secondary education and which shall have regard to the provisions of this and former Acts and any Regulations made thereunder relating to primary and secondary education;

(b) Each local education authority shall publish and submit to the Secretary of State all such education plans, or proposals for amendments thereto, in such form as he may direct or by Regulation require;

(c) All education plans, together with any proposals for amendments thereto, shall show: the action taken by that authority, and any action that the authority proposes to take, to ensure that there shall be sufficient primary and secondary schools available in the area to fulfil the duties of the authority, and in particular those duties prescribed by section 8 of the Act of 1944;that such schools together provide efficient education and ensure the efficient use of resources and;successive measures by which it is proposed to accomplish those purposes.

(2) A local authority before submitting to the Secretary of State an education plan, or proposed amendment thereto, shall

(a) specify which of the said schools the authority propose should be county primary schools, county secondary schools, voluntary primary schools, and voluntary
974
secondary schools, respectively, and, in relation to every such school, give particulars of the proposals of the authority as to the nature of the education to be provided in the school and as to the ages of the pupils to be taught therein;

(b) specify what alterations are required in the premises of any school either a county school or a voluntary school;

(c) specify what additional county schools and voluntary schools, if any, will be required for their area;

(d) include information as to any arrangements proposed to be made with respect to schools not to be maintained by the authority;

(e) give particulars of the arrangements made and proposed to be made by the authority for meeting the needs of pupils who have not attained the age of five years and of pupils who require special educational treatment;

(f) give particulars of the arrangements made and proposed to be made by the authority for the provision of boarding schools maintained by them;

(g) include information as to any other measures which the authority propose to take in fulfilment of their duty to secure the provision of primary and secondary education, such as the making of general arrangements for the transport of pupils to and from school;and arrangements made with other local education authorities in respect of admission to schools in their respective areas;

(h) contain such other particulars of the proposals of the authority with respect to schools for providing primary and secondary education for their area as the authority think necessary, or as the Secretary of State may require.

(3) A local education authority shall, before submitting their education plan to the Secretary of State, consult the governors, or persons representing the governors, of all schools other than county schools, whether within or without the area of the authority, which would in the opinion of the authority be affected by the execution of the plan, and shall, after submitting the plan to the Secretary of State, forthwith furnish to the governors of every school such particulars relating to the plan as are sufficient to show the manner in which the school would be affected by the execution thereof.
Where an education plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State under this section he shall, if he is of opinion that no particulars or insufficient particulars of the plan have been furnished to any person who, in his opinion, would be affected by the execution of the plan, give such directions as he considers expedient for securing that sufficient particulars are so furnished.
(4) After considering any objections to an education plan made to him within the period of two months after the date on which he is satisfied that all necessary particulars have been furnished in accordance with the last foregoing subsection, and after making in the plan such modifications, if ally, as after consultation

975
with the local education authority he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing that the plan makes proper provision for the immediate and prospective needs of the area with respect to primary and secondary schools, the Secretary of State shall approve the plan, and shall give such directions to the local education authority as he considers desirable for the purpose of giving to the governors of every voluntary school affected by the plan notice of the approval thereof, and otherwise for giving publicity to the plan as approved by him.
(5) The approval of the education plan submitted by a local education authority shall not, of itself, affect the duties of the authority, but in so far as the Minister considers it expedient to impose duties upon the authority for the purpose of securing that effect will be given to the plan as approved by him, those duties shall he imposed by the local education order for the area made under the following subsections.
(6) After approving the education plan for the area of any local education authority, or any amendment thereto, the Secretary of State shall make a local education order for that area designating the local education plan, or any amendment together with any plan already approved, as the authorised education plan for the area, or he may, to such extent as the Minister considers desirable, define the duties of the authority with respect to the measures to be taken by that authority in the discharge of their duties in respect of primary and secondary education.
(7) Where the Secretary of State has made a local education order, other than that approving, or approving an amendment to, an education plan the local education order for that area shall continue to regulate the duties of the local education authority in respect of the matters therein mentioned and shall be amended by the Secretary of State whenever, in his opinion, the amendment thereof is expedient by reason of any change or proposed change of circumstances.
(8) Provided that, before amending the local education order for any area in such manner as to vary the duties of a local education authority in any respect not either provided for by the development plan approved for the area or by proposals approved by him or occasioned by the discontinuance of a voluntary school under the provisions hereinafter contained relating to those matters respectively, the Secretary of State shall give to the local education authority, and to the governors or other proprietor of any school which, in his opinion, would be affected by the amendment, notice of the amendment proposed to be made and shall consider any objections made to him by the authority or by such governors or proprietor within two months after the service of the notice.
(9) If a local education authority informs the Secretary of State that they are aggrieved by an order or by an amendment of an order made under this section, the order or amendment shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be thereafter, and if either House of Parliament within the period of forty days beginning with
976
the day on which any such order or amendment is laid before it resolves that the order or amendment be annulled, the order or amendment shall cease to have effect, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new order or amendment.
(10) In reckoning any such period of forty days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.").
The noble Lord said: I may wish to refer to this matter on Report, but would rather not move the amendment at this stage.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have to advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 149 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 150.
[Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Assisted places at independent schools]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGs—BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGs—BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 17, line 15, after ("pupils") insert ("from maintained schools whose parents are in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement")
The noble Lord said: After some fairly non—controversial interludes, we now come to the disagreeable centre of this Bill. I am not going to make the fourth or fifth speech explaining to the Committee how totally we object to Clause 17. I shall leave my noble friend Lord Stewart, who does it somewhat better than I do, to make such political remarks as are necessary when we discuss whether the clause should stand part. I do not, however, want anybody to think that if we discuss this clause we accept any part of it. We feel that the clause will, in the end, be passed, and therefore if we can improve it in any way it is our business to try to. That does not imply any approval of it.
The purpose of the first amendment is to find out just how the Government are prepared to make sure that the assisted places scheme does, as they promised, assist those bright children whose parents cannot afford the best education for them. The insufferable implication here is that the best education is not available in the comprehensives. Clearly, it is not avail

977
able in all comprehensives but, equally clearly, it is not available in all voluntary schools. We know that 50 per cent. of these places are planned to go to the bright children of middle class parents to help them move from a poor independent school to a good one. We suggest that the other 50 per cent. should be devoted to the bright children of the least well—off section of the community in preference to all others. Otherwise, we feel the Government will find itself devoting most of its £50,000,000 to the rather, the fairly, or sometimes the very rich.
This is a probing amendment, in that I do not suppose the Government will accept the actual class of people that I have suggested, but I should like to know how they think this is going to work and I await their answer with great interest. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: We accept that there is a great divide between both sides of the Committee on the assisted places scheme. Perhaps I may correct what I think are clearly two misunderstandings about the scheme. It is not that I expect to convince the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, but I think it is right that it should go down on the record. He first asked how this scheme would apply. We have in fact published our proposals on the income scale, and assisted places will be available only to parents who qualify for the income scale, and there can be no question of anybody who does not qualify on the income scale having an assisted place.
The money is not going to the school, so it is unlike the direct grant system—those who could well afford to pay the full fee were able to get the benefit of the direct grant. That will not apply in the assisted places scheme. Because we have published our income scale, there is no need for us to say it will apply to people on supplementary benefit and family income supplement alone. It is of course true that families who were on FIS or supplementary benefit would almost certainly qualify because they would be within the income bracket, but they are not exclusive to that;the income bracket is very modest and I have no doubt that those who take an interest in this matter will have looked at the Press statement which sets it all out.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGs—BRIDGE: The Minister is quite right in that she has gone an absolutely minimum distance in satisfying either me or my colleagues. I do not know there is a great deal to be gained at the moment in discussing this further. I am unable to understand the procedure—by which the school is being approached by a Green Paper, so I understand from what I have read of the discussions in the other place—by which, first of all, the schools are invited to say whether they would like to participate, and then some regulations will be issued, which nobody has seen, so we do not know in the least on what basis these schools will be chosen;and we have an amendment later about Her Majesty's inspectors which 1 think will help us some way. But if the Minister would give some introductory explanation of how this scheme, which we do not believe in at all, will work, that would be helpful, because it is not clear from anything I have been able to find in the Bill.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry for not giving the noble Lord that information, but it was not clear from his amendment that that was what he required. We see the scheme working in this way: at present a number of schools have applied to join the scheme;they will be subject to approval by the inspectorate as having the right facilities and able to offer the kind of education we are talking about. We expect the parents will apply when the schools are approved, the list is published and the information is known;that they will be subject to an income scale;that they will be subject to the test applied by the school to make sure we are talking about academically qualified children.
We intend that the schools should have a reasonable geographical spread and should have a reasonable balance between boys and girls. The income scale, as I say, is very modest, and we therefore expect that it will have this objective of helping boys and girls from modest homes, who might have gone to former direct grant schools, to have this opportunity of an academic education. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingshridge, has himself said, although there are many very good comprehensive schools, there are areas where children are at a disadvantage, and we believe it is right to give them this

979
opportunity which the assisted places scheme affords.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGs—BRIDGE: I would only add to the noble Baroness's very helpful remarks that I also said that exactly the same thing applied to the voluntary schools, so I hope that the selection of them, which we will he discussing next, will be very rigidly done.
Lord YOUNG of DARTINGTON: May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to expand a little on what she said about academic qualifications? She said pm—vision would be made that only academically qualified children would be considered for assisted places or that is what I took her to say. If I am right about that, may I ask her to explain how it is proposed to ensure that the children are academically qualified in the way that will be required? May I also ask whether any estimate has been made of the additional staff that would he required in the Department of Education and Science to administer the scheme,as well as the additional staff that would be required in the inspectorate for the duties that it will have when the scheme comes into effect—if it ever does?
3.5 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord has asked me how we see children being selected for this scheme, and how it would be known whether they were academically suitable. We see the selection taking place through the school itself and its selection procedures. We would recognise that its selection procedures were of a sufficiently rigorous standard, because for the purposes of the scheme the school itself would have had to be approved by the department, and in that sense it would mean the inspectorate. Clearly if, for example, a school did not have a sixth form, it would not qualify. Similarly, it might not have a good academic record, it might not offer a good spread of subjects at A—level, it might not be the kind of school that offered what would be accepted as a high academic standard as measured by its examination results, the A—level subjects that it could teach, and its record. All these facts are available, and can be sought. Attributes along those lines would be the kind we would he looking for.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGs—BRIDGE: May I ask the Minister to expand on that? There used to be a common entrance examination for a number of public schools. Is there going to be something like that, or is each school to have its own quite different series of examination questions at 11–plus or whatever the age is to be?
Baroness YOUNG: I do not think that we see there being in any sense a kind of national 11–plus in this instance. I think it would he found that the schools we are thinking of are not schools which are scratching around for pupils to go to them. On the whole, they are schools which are already well subscribed;people think highly of them, and they are therefore in a position to command a reasonably high entrance requirement. We would see them as setting their own entrance requirements;and in this way we see the entrants being taken at the level of the school.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: The noble Baroness is really saying that it is the same system as the direct grant schools used to run, in which they chose their own pupils, and chose them with considerable success, as I believe the record shows. do not think that there is any difficulty about an approved school choosing its entry.
Lord HUNT: May I ask the noble Baroness a question, following immediately upon the point made by my noble friend Lord James of Rusholme? It is only for clarification;I am not on the offensive at this stage. Where does the noble Baroness see the initiative lying in this matter of selection? Going back to an earlier point, is it likely to be the parents who will have an idea, which may be a grandiose and unrealistic idea, that they should like to see their child go to an independent school, selected from a very few schools, at any rate in the first instance, and therefore probably in some distant part of the country;or is the initiative to lie with the school to do the selection, and then discuss the matter with the parent?
Baroness YOUNG: I see the scheme working in the following way. The schools will be selected, and a very large proportion of those that have expressed an

981
interest are former direct grant grammar schools. Clearly the parents would have to indicate that they wished their child to apply to the school, and then the child would have to sit the entrance exam. Provided the applicants qualified in regard to the income level, they would be eligible for consideration for an assisted place. So there would be two requirements for an assisted place: one would he the income level, and the other would be the academic ability. The school itself would have to he selected.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to support the scheme, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, that the direct grant scheme should be used as an example. However, in Plymouth the schools selected the pupils, and then consulted the parents. I should like to give an example in this respect. A woman wrote to me. She had nine children, and lived in a very poor type of flat. Her husband was in prison. She had a very intelligent son, who was going to Plymouth College. I did not know that when I went to visit her and 1 happened to see this poor child struggling to get his exercise books out in the room while all the children were playing round. I wrote to the headmaster asking if some of these children who did not have room to work at home could do their preparation work in the college. This was agreed. The boy went on to university. I know of another boy whose circumstances were similar hut perhaps a little bit better. He has recently been president of the Oxford Union. This scheme does work and we should give young people who have these qualifications every chance. The first boy I mentioned turned out to be a brilliant mathematician. That is the kind of thing we want to encourage.
Lord PARRY: Would the Minister agree that the significant difference here which hinges on all the points made by earlier speakers is the size of the funding involved and the transfer at this particular time of a capital sum which I have seen estimated at between £50 million and £60 million in total, in addition to the sum of £41½million or so which is at present spent on the funding of places in the system? That amount of money, transferred at a time when there are cuts taking place in the public sector, would o affect the disposition of places in the
982
public sector and the ability of those schools to educate the pupils that the chances of a school qualifying under the profile laid out in the clauses explained in the Notes on Clauses booklet might be altered significantly.
Baroness YOUNG: We really ought to get the financing of this scheme straight. The proposal under the Bill is that it will start not before September 1981, which would he the earliest possible time, at a level of £3 million. Within the whole of the context of the public expenditure we have been discussing and within the whole of the context of the public expenditure in the Bill, this scheme is not operating at all. I quoted in my Second Reading speech that this year we are spending £6 million on those pupils who are still in the sixth form of the direct grant schools I am not sure that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Parry's last question, but it is important to recognise that, while we still have pupils in the sixth forms of direct grant schools, no maintained school is currently being affected in any way by the fact that those pupils are still there and are being paid for. Therefore the whole question of whether or not these schools can exist side by side does not arise. They are existing side by side perfectly happily.
Lord PARRY: It is fair to say that I put the last part of my question badly if the Minister misunderstood it to that extent. What I was saying was that if there is a significant change in the distribution of funds and if one is enriched at the expense of the other, even though they have for a long time existed side by side, then the ability of a sixth form in a school which has been able to compete in the past might be adversely affected in the future.
Baroness YOUNG: I am not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Parry, means by a school being enriched by the scheme. The most the school would gain by the scheme would be to have one pupil or more pupils as the case might he. Suppose for the sake of argument the school decided—and it would he for the school to determine how many places it would take up—that it would take up 10 pupils, it would then have 10 pupils paid for as assisted places. The sort of schools which would he considered under

983
this scheme would not have difficulty filling up the places and if the Government were not paying for them as assisted places they or the local education authority would be paying for them in the maintained system in any event.
Lord PARRY: If the 10 students were of high ability, which is the aim of the legislation, they would then be enriching the sixth form of the school at the expense of the school in the area from which they were recruited. There is enrichment in human ability as well as in finance.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I really cannot follow that argument at all. What is education all about? Is it about children or is it about schools? Surely the object of the exercise is to get the best education one possibly can for a particular child in a particular place at a particular time.
Viscount SIMON: May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a question arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said? I am not quite clear about the point at which somebody is deciding that a child should go to one of these schools with an assisted place. The noble Baroness said it was the receiving school that vetted whether he or she was fitted to go there, but who starts the process? Presumably the child is at another school now. Is it the school which the child is attending at present which says to the Secretary of State, "We have a very bright child here. We think he or she ought to go through this scheme "? Who makes the initial move?
Baroness YOUNG: Almost certainly the child who is going to be eligible for the assisted place will be in a primary school. It could well be, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has suggested, that the school itself might suggest that the child should qualify for one, or it could be the parent. Either route would be perfectly acceptable under the scheme.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGs—BRIDGE: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has answered a lot of questions under this probing amendment, and we are grateful to her. We have one or two other significant amendments and I think we should move on. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 152 to 161 not moved.]
3.18 a.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 17, line 23, after ("fees") insert 1" which shall not be more than the average expenditure on pupils of that age group in schools maintained by the local education authority in whose area the school is situated").
The noble Lord said: We prefer to move Amendment No. 162 rather than No. 161. In substance they are the same. The principle behind them is that there should not be paid more in fees for a particular pupil under this scheme than the average expenditure on pupils of that age group in schools maintained by the local education authority in whose area the school is situated. The figure of £525 mentioned in Amendment No. 161 was the average figure for the year before last. That is how that figure comes to be there. The noble Lord opposite said just now that we ought to think of children rather than schools and the best education for each particular child. Fair enough. If we can be assured that the amount paid in fees will not exceed the average amount that is spent on other secondary children then we can say that we are doing something for this particular child without taking money away from the education of other children.
I rather think that what we are being asked to do here is to make a special donation to the education of this particular child. I do not know whether the noble Baroness will be able to assure me that there will not be spent in fees more than the average that is spent on a secondary school child. In a recent answer she said that the Secretary of State for Education and Science had no fixed upper limit on fees in mind but would be considering the responses from schools individually. Perhaps by now he may have a figure in mind, but I think it very likely that the amounts handed out in fees under this scheme will be substantially above the average. If I am wrong about that then the noble Baroness will have no difficulty in accepting this amendment.
An article in The Times recently suggested that it was actually going to be

985
cheaper to educate children in this way. I am very anxious to see whether the Government confirm that. Is the amount that is going to be paid in respect of a child under this scheme going to be less than the figure of about £525 per year, which is roughly the average of expenditure on each secondary school child?
Unless the noble Baroness assures me that what our amendment is trying to do will in fact be done, in which case she can accept it, what we are being asked to do is to make a special and more expensive provision for certain children. It is rather like the principle of the queen bee. I understand that in the hive is taken a female bee which at that stage does not differ from other female bees, and then it is fed on royal jelly and so develops into a queen. We have an example here of the queen bee theory of education. But, you see, nobody really wants human society to be organised like a hive;and the idea that you can pick out those who ought to be so specially favoured, and that it would be a desirable thing to do, I do not believe will stand up, because, whether the Government admit it or not, what you do for these pupils is going to be done at the expense of somebody else.
We are told that in the end this scheme is going to cost £55 million. The noble Baroness has told us that by September of next year they will have got as far as only £3 million;but, again, another organ of the Press assures us that in time this scheme will cater for 100,000 pupils, in which case it will cost a good deal more than £3 million and, I suspect, more than £55 million.
Lord AVEBURY: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? If it is 100,000 pupils and £55 million, that means £550 per pupil, which is slightly above his figure.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: Yes, but I have a suspicion that by that time the cost of an average secondary school pupil will be rather higher than £550, and I do not think they will cater for 100,000 pupils on £55 million. So we are in a little of a fog as to quite how many children and how much money will ultimately be involved in this scheme.
986
Where is the £55 million coming from? We are assured that it is not coming from education, it is not going to damage education in other respects;it is coming on a separate fund. I think one is entitled to ask, even although your Lordships' House is not so closely concerned with public accounts as is another place: On what Minister's Vote will it be carried? Will it be on the education Vote? I would presume it would be. If not, it could be argued that this is not being spent at the expense of, say, school transport or milk and meals. In that case, it is possibly being spent at the expense of old—age pensioners, whose pensions are not to be raised fully to keep in line with inflation, or at the expense of hospital patients; or at the expense of some other group who have been hit by the Government's cuts.
We have to ask ourselves: Is it really justifiable, at a time when the Government are assuring us that we must save money in every possible direction, to spend £55 million on a scheme which really is of such doubtful validity? Is it justifiable to pick out particular pupils—and later on in the debate I shall have a little more to say on how they are picked out—and to say that they are to have this exceptional amount of money spent on them? Of course, I may be quite wrong. The noble Baroness may be able to say, "We are not going to spend any more on these children than the State system spends on a secondary school child."
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: May I ask the noble Lord for clarification, while he is on that? If he is so much opposed to spending extra amounts of money (supposing they are extra) on individual gifted pupils, why in his time did he support large grants for the education of children gifted in music and ballet?
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I do not think I was ever very keen on that myself, I must say, but, as the noble Lord knows, it has always been argued that that was a special case. I am myself very doubtful of it;but even if one accepts the principle—and 1 accept it unwillingly—I do not wish to see it extended. I think it is a bad principle. As 1 say, the noble Baroness may be able to assure me that I am all wrong and that they are not going t spend more than

987
round about £500 or £550, in which case, surely, she should be able to accept the amendment. I bea to move.
3.25 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, is clearly determined to bring us back to the central matter of principle about the assisted places scheme. He has explained why he dislikes it. May I illustrate from my personal experience one reason why I think we should support it. He will perhaps know that I indicated earlier that my husband was a don. Recently, his college has spent a lot of time meeting heads of comprehensive schools in order to attract more children from comprehensive schools to his college. At a recent meeting, one head teacher said, "I am sorry;we cannot teach the children to the entrance requirements. In order for them to be sent there, you must lower your standards." The outcome is of no concern to us. I am saying that there are comprehensive schools which cannot meet these kinds of standards. It does not matter;we are not concerned about the schools but about the opportunities for the child. This does not happen all over the country. I do not tell this to score points off comprehensive schools. They have great difficulties which I am prepared to accept. We are concerned about able children who are not getting always the opportunities that they should get. I think it right at a time when we need to develop the best brains of our country that we should give everybody these kinds of opportunity.
Now, coming down to costs, the noble Lord quoted in his amendment a cost of (1 think he said) £525. The average cost of school fees at these schools is probably higher than that. But the average cost that he is using there is also probably higher than that. Costs of local authorities for secondary education vary, depending upon whether you include sixth form costs—and for all the schools we are talking about they would include the sixth form, which is always the most expensive part of it. If the noble Lord will consider what an authority must pay on recoupment costs for another authority, they are invariably higher than the costs that are given for schools in the authority's own area. He will find that the recoupment costs—a point well made by my
988
honourable friend Dr. Rhodes Boyson in another place—and the costs of an independent day school fee are approximately the same.
Interestingly enough, the number of pupils and the costs of the whole scheme will depend on whether all the pupils who go into it are from the poorest families;because if they are from the poorest families, they will get the full fee paid. As they go up the income scale to the cut off limit at the top, the amount contributed by the Government will taper off and the parents will contribute more. So that the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is that it is difficult to forecast how many people will come into the scheme. If we put an upper limit of £55 million on it, it will depend on the proportion that will be paid fully for it and the proportion whose families will pay part of the fees. Therefore, it is difficult to say how many pupils there would be at any one point as the scheme came into effect. We could not give that figure.
All we have said is that it will start with £3 million in September 1981 (assuming that it begins in September 1981) and we would expect, when it is complete, over a period of six years, that it would build up to a cost of about £55 million. But the rate of implementation will depend on the take—up. The full cost will depend on how many parents pay for it and whether the Secretary of State feels it right to start in 1981 and to continue it at a certain level.
Lord PARRY: I accept that the noble Baroness has taken my point of the £50 million and has come hack to agreement with me.
Baroness YOUNG: I have never denied it. We have said consistently that when the scheme is fully operational, we expect it will cost something like that. But I was not prepared to accept from the noble Lord, Lord Parry, that it was going to cost £50 million next year.
Lord PARRY: I never thought that.
3.30 a.m.
Lord HUNT: May I come in briefly? I find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and diametric

989
ally in disagreement with my noble friend I Lord James, which is a very good thing because it shows from the Independent Benches how independent we are. I am no less enthusiastic than anybody else that the most able children should be selected and be given every possible opportunity to develop their full potential and talents. It is germane to this amendment to make the point that there are some—[am one of them—who believe passionately that this should be done within and not outwith the State system, by, where they exist, giving further resources to build up the sixth form colleges and the quality of the sixth forms in comprehensive schools;by reducing the student/teacher ratio in those forms and, where one comprehensive cannot provide the needs of particularly able students, transferring them to a neighbouring comprehensive school that can. I believe precisely the wrong way to do this is to transfer from the State sector to the private sector. With the few schools there will be, it will be a far removal in many cases, a removal from a way of life to which they are accustomed and from an environment to which they are accustomed to a totally different way of life, a removal from their friends and neighbours. I believe that is the wrong way to do this. It is germane to this amendment, although it does not accord with Lord Stewart's idea of not spending any more money on able students than on the general run of other students.
Lord AVEBURY: The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right since the noble Baroness said that some comprehensives—I am sure that she did not mean all of them—have to tell the colleges that they will be forced to lower their standards because they have not enough gifted pupils in the sixth forms. Well, why is that?
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. The point that was being made was that the school was unable to teach up to the standard that was required.
Lord AVEBURY: The noble Baroness did not say that.
Several noble Lords: Yes she did.
Lord AVEBURY: She said that inorder that the entrance requirements of the colleges should he met, it was necessary for the colleges to lower their requirements so that the comprehensives could provide the pupils to the standard that was required for admission. If Lord Hunt's argument is followed, it will be even more difficult for the comprehensives to attain the standards that are required for admission to the colleges. None of the students who are coming up to these colleges will come from the comprehensive sector;they will all come from these special schools to which the noble Baroness and her colleagues wish to divert the more able pupils. Then we shall be dividing society in a manner which I should not have thought anybody wanted, into classes according to which school they had been to. Dividing children up in that way is going back 50 years, I should have thought. We are going back to the rigid divisions we had immediately after the 1944 Act came into operation.
I want to pursue this question of cost. The noble Baroness said something which alarmed me: that if we put an upper limit on the amount of money available —and then she talked about building up a cost of about £55 million—it would depend on the number of students who took advantage of these provisions, and the means of the parents which would then determine the amount of grants given. If one looks at the financial memorandum to the Bill it says that when the scheme is in full operation the cost will be up to £55 million. Now the noble Baroness is saying that this is a round figure for the purposes of illustration, and the actual figure, when we come to the implementation of the scheme, may be somewhat more than £55 million. So it is open—ended. It is not predictable. There are going to be no cash limits applied to this scheme. Everything else is going to be rigidly controlled within a fixed maximum, but the noble Baroness has just told us that this scheme, when it comes into its full operation, is going to be exempt from the sort of restrictions on public spending that are applied in every other sector of Government. It is going to be entirely indeterminate according to the number of pupils who will come forward to apply for the places and qualify for admission to the schools taking part in the scheme,

991
and according to the means of the parents. These are matters which are absolutely unpredictable. The cost may go soaring way over the £55 million which is laid down in the Financial Memorandum.
roness YOUNGI am sorry if I have in any way given the impression that it is an open—ended commitment. What the Financial Memorandum says is, of course, correct. I am sorry if at this hour in the morning I have put something less clearly than I should have done, but, as the Financial Memorandum makes clear, it is up to £55 million, and I am sorry if I did not make that clear.
Lord AVEBURY: I am delighted to hear that, and I am sorry to have detained your Lordships with a speech the latter part of which was largely unnecessary, hut it will have been valuable to get on record a reassurance from the noble Baroness on the upper limit of £55 million, which presumably is in cash terms and not in 1980 pounds. In other words, the £55 million is not going to be adjusted when we come to 1982 to take account of inflation. It is important to have got this assurance on record from the noble Baroness to underline what is not seen once the Bill passes through your Lordships' House and becomes an Act. The Financial Memorandum gets forgotten. To have these words on record is a very valuable assurance, and satisfies me that the speech I have just made is not a complete waste of time.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: May I take up one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He produced an argument which is so attractive: What we must do is to spend any money we have on raising the standards of the maintained sector, bringing all comprehensive schools up to the standards of the best comprehensive school. I tried to deal with that particular fallacy in my Second Reading speech. I am not sure whether the noble Lord heard it, but I will repeat the argument because it is a very simple one. You cannot do it because there are not enough teachers. There are not enough able teachers in a number of subjects who are prepared to teach. Therefore, it is mathematically impossible to do it. This point was brought out very well by the noble Baroness,
992
Baroness David, this evening, I think inadvertently. She was talking about the fact that you must not publish examination results. She said they could be misleading, as indeed they can. She said: "Suppose a school has no chemistry teacher. It will get bad chemistry results."
Baroness DAVID: If the noble Lord will allow me, I did not say it would get bad chemistry results;I said they probably would not be able to teach chemistry.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: It is the same thing. The important thing, though, is the words "suppose the school has no chemistry teacher." Alas! she is only too right in supposing such a thing. There are schools which, if they advertised for a chemistry teacher tomorrow, would get no applications or one application from someone who has a degree in something else or no degree. There are schools where you cannot teach chemistry properly. What does that mean? Suppose you have a child in that school who wants to qualify for medicine, suppose you have a child in that school like me, who misguidedly perhaps found his fulfilment in learning chemistry, what does he do? Here we are back at this misguided attitude of forgetting individuals and thinking of institutions. That, of course, is inevitable in a debate like this. That was what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was getting at. He said, "You do not talk about education, you take about institutions." So you do;it is inevitable, but behind all our talk of governing bodies, and so on, do let us remember the actual kid in the school who wants to learn chemistry and cannot. It is no use saying "You must raise the standard of that school ";he is there. If you had all the money in the world to give, you could not get a chemistry, mathematics or physics master.
A noble Lord: Why not
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: They are not available. That is the simple truth about the staffing position.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: That is exactly the point. According to the department, there are 4,000 maths teachers needed now: 2,000 in science

993
and 1,500 in languages. That would also apply to the schools that the noble Lord knows so much about.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLMEYou see, the point is this: where you have a thing in short supply and you have able children who want to learn a subject, surely what you have to do is to take the children to the teacher and not talk about raising the standards of schools—because it is eyewash;you cannot do it. That is really what 1 tried to say, and I will try to bring your Lordships back to the question I asked on Second Reading. It is a perfectly simple one, and it is to ask noble Lords who do not like this: what do you propose to do with Bill Jones, Tom Smith and Rebecca Something? There they are, sitting there wanting to learn mathematics and no one is there to teach them. What do you propose to do?
Lord PARRY: We can take the noble Lord to many schools in the country where children of infant and primary school age are being taught in three classes in one school dining room for part of the morning because the table has yet to come. There should be no need of simplistic questions as to whether we believe that the bright children should be aided to reach their full potential. This is surely below the level of the debate.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: With respect—
Lord PARRY: What we are talking about here is the transfer of resources. I should like to ask the Minister a question, because when I asked a factual question earlier it turned out to be the right question and I finally got the right answer. Is it true that in 1977–78 the local authorities spent a sum of some £41.7 million on buying places anyway in grant—aided schools? Is the sum of money we are now talking about—£55 million—in addition to that £41.7 million?
Baroness YOUNG: Perhaps I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, that I have not those figures with me. There are two separate figures he is asking for: one is what the Government paid to the direct grant schools, and the other is what the local authorities paid through the pooling arrangements for the take-up
994
of places in independent schools. I do not have those figures with me, but I will try to let the noble Lord have them, if he would like them, at some later stage.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Arc we not getting somewhat out of order? I understood that a speech had been interrupted and the noble Lord, Lord James, had given way.
Lord MISHCON: That is exactly the point I was trying to make, if the noble Lord, Lord James, would permit a further intervention, so that he could deal with the matter. I was going to ask him whether he felt he was on a rather dangerous course, bearing in mind the views that I know he so sincerely holds. If it be a fact that in the private sector of education there are sufficient teachers to whom the bright pupils can be sent, whether it be to learn chemistry, because in the schools in which they are no chemistry is taught, or mathematics or whatever, is not the logical end to the course which he is pursuing one which I should have thought he would not advocate?—namely. that in order to get proper education for the nation, the private sector which has these teachers should be incorporated in the public sector, and then there would presumably be places and teachers available in order to satisfy the needs of the brighter pupils. I must say that I should have thought that was not a course in logic that the noble Lord was advocating, but is not that the logical conclusion of his argument?
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: No, I do not think it is. Let me deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parry. He talked of my concern for a handful of able boys as being below the standard of debate. I do not think that a certain compassion for any disadvantaged group of people—and these people are disadvantaged—is below the level of any debate.
Lord PARRY: Nor do I. What I said was that an earlier intervention, which implied that we were not concerned with the education of bright children, was below the standard of debate. I was not referring to any point made by Lord James.
3.46 a.m.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: Let me turn to what was said by Lord Mishcon —which was not necessarily true. There are within the State system a number of schools—comprehensive schools and surviving grammar schools—that can offer an education as good as any independent school, and a staff just as good. There would be more such schools if it had not been for the abolition of the direct grant system. That was a course of action which I believe many of my friends on the Opposition Benches will live to regret, if they are not regretting it already. Academically, some of the best schools in England were within the State system —namely, direct grant schools. They have now been driven into independence. They are the independent schools that we shall use.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke somewhat curiously about taking boys away from their natural environment. I do not like the idea of a "natural environment". Because a boy is born in the slums of Manchester, I do not think he should live in them for the rest of his life. It was suggested that if a boy were removed from his natural environment it would be alien. It is wholly misconceived to suggest to anybody who knows the direct grant grammar schools that I know so well—Leeds, Bradford, Bolton, Bristol, Manchester, or some of the London schools, such as Godolphin and Latymer—that it is alien to take children away from their natural environment.
The picture of Manchester grammar school boys as sheltered little flowers in a hothouse bears little relation to the truth. We are not producing a nation of hothouse plants. We are trying to take a child with certain needs—just as we spoke earlier of handicapped children with certain needs—and are saying that there are certain people who can satisfy those needs. Some of them are in independent schools. If they are in such schools, one may have to pay fees. If they are not, one may have to move them into schools within the State system.
Lord AVEBURY: Would not the noble Lord agree that when we were talking earlier of handicapped children, the point was made very strongly that, unless there were strong indications to
996
the contraty they should be educated within the state system?
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: Yes, indeed, but if they are to be integrated within the State system, one would need to spend a great deal of money on staffing ratios and so on.
Baroness DAVID: We have—
Viscount ECCLES: I have not had a chance.
Baroness DAVID: I have not either. We have strayed into the clause stand part debate already, and we should try to bring ourselves back to the amendment. What I want to do is to ask the Minister a specific question about fees. Is it true that the Government have not yet decided the maximum fee that they are going to pay per year for these children? I ask that because at this stage, after the Bill has been through the other place and we are now at the Committee stage, if they have not yet decided on the figure they really ought to have done. So I should like to know what it is and, if they have not decided, when they are going to do so.
Viscount ECCLES: I wanted to continue the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord James, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We are talking about a minority of children who, in the judgment of those who know their abilities, cannot get the education they need within the maintained system, nor have their parents enough money to pay the full independent fees. Why is that the situation? Why is it that we have reached a point, after all these years since the end of the war, where we do not have a secondary school system that can cater for those children within the maintained system? I am as disappointed—and I have a little responsibility—as any Member of this House that our secondary schools are, over a very large proportion of our secondary school system, so weak in their sixth forms.
When the 1944 Act first came into operation, my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, the late Lord ChuterEde and Sir Ronald Gould—all the great educationists—were agreed that we had a good chance to raise the educational standards in the maintained secondary

997
schools, so steadily and so effectively that, quite soon, on educational grounds, parents would find no choice between the maintained system and the independent schools. We all believed that we could do it. It did not happen. We failed and it is very important to see why we failed. We failed for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with politics, but one has.
First, after the war we had to recruit an enormous number of extra teachers at a very unusually high rate. At the same time as we were doing that, the competition for sixth form leavers—competition from industry and commerce, competition from the Civil Service, competition from the social services and all kinds of new jobs, particularly for the girls—increased enormously. Therefore, it came about that as the teacher training colleges were increased the quality of the students going into those colleges had to decline. It was nobody's fault. It was just that we were going so fast and the competition was so fierce.
The third reason was that, by bad luck at that time, new ways of learning were introduced which, in the event, proved unsuccessful except in the hands of very expert teachers. There just were not those expert teachers to handle those new ways of teaching—reading, mathematics and so on. The teacher training colleges were turning out very large numbers of teachers who were not capable of handling those methods. Very often, in many colleges those teachers were allowed to take the soft option, with the result that now in our primary schools half the teachers teaching mathematics never even got an A-level.
The fourth reason, which was a very serious one, was that after the war—we did not expect it—society became very permissive. What that means in educational terms is that it is much harder to maintain discipline in the schools, because what is right and wrong at home and what is right and wrong in school get all mixed up, and when you have a lot of very young teachers this loosening of moral restraints makes it extremely hard for them to teach effectively.
On top of all that—I do not consider any of those political reasons—is the situation that we are in today. There was one political reason, which was the rate
998
at which the party opposite wanted to introduce, and did in many cases introduce, the comprehensive schools. That rate proved administratively impossible. The very big schools were too big to manage, the staffs were out of proportion, there were far too many young teachers in proportion to the total and things went wrong. The doctrine was then changed by the noble Lords opposite. They said it was possible to have a good enough sixth form inside a comprehensive school with less than a thousand pupils. That was not true;it never could have been true, and now we realise that it is not true.
Therefore we are now faced with a situation where the maintained system contains a few excellent secondary schools. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether it would be possible to raise the others to the level of the very good ones in time to save one, two or three school generations of very clever pupils from never getting the education that they want. It is not possible. It is not possible for the reason which was given by my noble friend Lord James of Rusholme. The graduate teachers required for a full range of sixth form subjects do not exist. The best way to get them is to send more clever boys and girls to the direct grant schools where at any rate a proportion of them will then go on and teach. If they remain in secondary schools without having adequate teaching, especially in subjects like mathematics, we shall never breed the next generation of teachers.
I plead earnestly with the party opposite to think hard about whether, for the sake of a doctrine, we ought to deprive two or three school generations of really clever children. We have got a situation which we cannot cure within any reasonable time—10, 20 or 30 years. It does not mean that having the assisted places scheme we should then relax our efforts to try to get the sixth forms in the maintained secondary schools much better as quickly as we can. But the key to that is not money;it is graduates who wish to teach. Therefore we must try to breed these people and encourage them to come in. And that is going to take 20 years.
Baroness YOUNG: I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the

999
Committee if we had a clause stand part debate on this matter? It seems to me that that is really what the Committee wants. We are getting a bit out of order, and I think it would help if we had a debate of that kind, provided that course is agreeable to everyone. This is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. I f he would withdraw it, perhaps we could have a clause stand part debate.
Baroness DAVID: I wonder whether the Minister would answer my specific question before we do that?
Baroness YOUNG: Yes, I do apologise. The answer is that we have not yet fixed an upper limit for the fee per year. I hope the noble Baroness will understand when I say that of course the amount which would have to be paid for an assisted place would depend upon the income of the parents.
Baroness DAVID: Yes, I understand that.
Baroness YOUNG: So it would not he the poorest who would have to pay the full fee. But the answer is no, we have not yet settled it.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): May I ask for guidance as to whether it is the intention of your Lordships to go into clause stand part after we have taken Lord Spens's amendment?
Several noble Lords: Yes.
[Amendment No. 163 not toured.]
3.58 a.m.
Lord SPENS Lord SPENS moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 17, line 25, at end insert ("and to certain schools providing primary").
The noble Lord said: My amendment is on a completely different subject and I hope it will be one which is not controversial. At the moment, Clause 17(2) reads as follows:
1000
"In this section references to a participating school are references to any independent school providing secondary education with which the Secretary of State makes an agreement (a ' participation agreement ') for the purposes of the scheme;…".
My amendment would alter that sentence to read:
"In this section references to a participating school are references to any independent school providing secondary and to certain schools …"—
there is a misprint on the Marshalled List;the word "school" should be "schools "—
"…providing primary education…".
Those "certain schools" are intended to cover a cri de Coeur which has come to me about choir schools. They, as your Lordships know, are mostly concerned with young children who go into them at the age of seven or eight. lf, of course, they are boys, by the time they are ready for secondary education their voices are starting to break and they are in need of support.
Under legislation which was introduced by the last Government—and I think the noble Lord, Lord James, mentioned this when he was speaking just now—the local authorities were enabled to pay fees for choristers in choir schools as part of the music and drama special arrangements that were made. This was done without reference to the Department of Education and it worked very well. Now this concession has disappeared and they are worried that there is nothing in this Bill to enable them to get similar finances.
I do not know whether I am right in putting my amendment in this place. I wrote to the noble Baroness the Minister and warned her of the reason for my amendment and I sent her the papers that I had received on the subject. I hope that something can he done in the case of choir schools, and I suppose it could be broadened to include schools of music and dancing and drama where the children of primary education need assistance, and that they might be included under this assisted education scheme. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-;BRIDGE: There is only one kind of assisted places scheme I can imagine supporting and that is for choirs!
Baroness YOUNG: As the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has said, he was good enough to write to me on this subject and tell me that he would in fact be raising this matter on this clause in the Bill. The difficulty about this proposal is that the scheme that we have in mind is for children of high academic ability who would in fact benefit from the sort of academic education which the former direct grant grammar schools and other good non-maintained schools could provide. The fact is that the direct grant scheme did not provide for pupils receiving primary education, and much as I sympathise with the aims and achievements particularly of choir schools without which the whole country would be greatly impoverished, I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of the scheme at this point being extended to choir schools. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, does not support this in principle because of course his Government have kept the direct grant scheme for the Yehudi Menuhin School and the Royal Ballet School. So it is not in fact that he disapproves of it in principle, but that he does not agree with applying it for academic talents;only for music and dancing.
I should like to be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Spens, but at this stage we cannot extend it to choir schools. However, he will know that under this Bill we arc relaxing the requirements on local education authorities to have the approval of the Secretary of State if they wish to take up places at independent schools, and there would be nothing to prevent them, if they wished, with a very musically gifted child, from taking up a place for him at a choir school.
Lord SPENS: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that information. I understand why she cannot relax this clause, and I hope that the local authorities will be able to continue to make the arrangements for the choir schools. I think there are about 37 of them involved, with a total of about 700 pupils, of whom probably only about 100 would be in need of assistance. So it is a fairly small operation and I hope they will be able to carry on as they have in the past. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 165 to 189 not moved.]
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 18, line 28, leave out ("it") and insert ("the scheme").
The noble Baroness said: This is simply a grammatical correction to correct the drafting, to make it clear that, when we refer to schools eligible to participate in "it "in subsection (8), we mean schools eligible to participate in the scheme. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 191 to 195 not moved.]
4.5 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 17, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: 1 should like to deal first with what seems to me the one argument of substance advanced in favour of this scheme, which can be put thus: "There are only a limited number of people who can teach certain subjects—chemistry was mentioned particularly, but there are other subjects to which it applies—and there are only a limited number of people who can teach these subjects really well. Unless, therefore, we have an assisted places scheme a number of bright children will fail to get the teaching they need".
It is obviously true that the number of people who can teach any given subject really well is going to be limited, but the question is, are we to assume that that limited number must always he found outside the State system of education, because that is what we are being asked to assume here? It would clearly be impossible to arrange that all secondary schools within the State system could give first-class teaching in every subject in the sixth form. You could not do that with the independent schools either. It is a very great mistake to suppose that the general level of teaching in the upper forms of independent schools, if you take them all into consideration, is all that much better than in the State schools. You could not do this either in the public or the independent sector. But the State system is finding its way of dealing with this;when children reach sixth form level it is not necessary for them to stay in the same school. Even before the war in the

1003
school I was teaching in we had boys coming in from other schools at sixth form level because there were subjects they could learn there which they could not learn in their own schools. The process was reciprocated. This is being further developed now by the formation of sixth form colleges, and I believe that that is probably the right answer.
The trouble with the solution of trying to find help outside the State system is that not only do you say there are not enough first class teachers inside the State system now, but you say, "And what is more we are going to take steps to ensure there never will be". That is the evil of it. You are reconciling yourself to the fact that the State system is not all we would wish it to be in every respect, and then adding an insult and saying it is bound to be inferior to what can be provided in the independent schools. That is not true. I remember very well one young man in whose future I was particularly interested whom it was found wise to remove from an independent school of quite considerable pretensions, and he got on very much better inside the State system. This would be true of far more pupils than we imagine.
I invite noble Lords to have a look at today's Guardian and read an article containing essays by the boys of Radley School about what they imagined their fellow citizens who went to other kinds of school to be like. It is a horrifying picture. I did not realise until I read it that that kind of nonsense was still prevalent today; I thought it had disappeared some 15 or 20 years ago. This is one of the great evils of not merely having an independent system—that would not matter so much—but of worshipping it and assuming that it must always produce better results than the nation's own schools do. That is why it is right, at the present time in the nation's history particularly, that we should say that our primary objective must be to improve the nation's own schools. They can find the answer to the common sense fact that you cannot have first-class teachers in every subject in the sixth form of every school: the sixth form college and other ways of doing it can meet that problem. But to say that we must for ever have a private sector of education and to start by saying that we believe that it is better
1004
and then, by expenditure of money, to do our best to see that it is better, excluding from it, despite all the assisted places schemes, the great majority of our people, and to make it clear from the start that the State system is to be treated as inferior and regarded as inferior to the private sector, is not the way, either, to get the best developments of talent or to produce a united nation.
One matter as regards which our nation is criticised today—and the criticisms come from quarters that are too well-intentioned towards us (and they come too often) to be disregarded—is that one reason why we do not do so well industrially is the lack of proper relations between those who manage and give instructions in industry, and those who have to carry out those instructions. That is partly related to the habit that we have for so long had of assuming that from school upwards we are two nations. It is time that we took the matter seriously, instead of tinkering around with trying to pick out our brightest pupils, and making sure that as a special reward for being bright they shall not be in the public sector of education. We shall never get a decent public sector of education if we go about it in that way, and we shall produce a private sector which, although it will be better in some respects, in the sense that it will spend more money on the children—there will be more books, better equipment, better qualified teachers and more teachers per so many pupils—it will have the one great defect: that it is teaching the pupils to regard themselves as something set apart from the mass of their fellow citizens. Sometimes that injury can outdo all the material advantages of education at an expensive school.
The English upper classes have for a long time enjoyed a privileged education system, privileged in the sense that I was describing just now—namely, that, by material standards, the number of teachers, the qualifications of teachers, the buildings and equipment, their schools were superior to the schools in which most of their fellow citizens were educated. In that sense it was a privileged education and it had the very important practical advantage that it enormously improved one's chances of getting into a better-paid job and into a job where one was more likely to be giving orders than having to

1005
carry them out. The public schools were to preserve that advantage for people who could pay for it.
But at least the reason why the English upper class, compared with some of their counterparts in other nations, always remained fairly tolerable was that they knew that the fact that they had these advantages was a bit of luck. If we are now going to produce a race of people who not only enjoy these advantages, but who are encouraged to believe that they have got their just deserts, they will be a quite intolerable set of people.
In fact, it will not work in the way in which it is intended to for poor, bright children. l wonder how many of them will be really poor? I am sure that the noble Baroness will come across this problem. There will always be some gap between what the Government will pay to meet the school fees and the incidental expenses, and what the father and mother will find they actually have to pay out in order to keep the boy at the school, particularly if it is to include—and we are not clear about this—boarding schools, in any sense at all.
Baroness YOUNG: 1 wish to make it clear that boarding fees are not included in the scheme at all.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: Yes, I understand that boarding fees are not included, but does that mean that a boarding school could not be a participating school?
Baroness YOUNG: I see that it would be difficult in these circumstances, because the assisted place would be paid for on the day fees: it would only be paid for a person who had qualified on the incomes scale and it would seem to be difficult for a person qualifying on the incomes scale to afford the boarding fees.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: I notice that it is not said explicitly in the Bill that no boarding schools will participate, and that is rather important.
Baroness YOUNG: No, we have not said that.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: If boarding schools participate, this is just
1006
what I was describing would happen. There would be a gap between what the Government are ready to pay out and what the parents, in fact, will have to find out of their pockets, which will mean that the only people who could take up such places would be those right at the top level of the Government's income scale. We would not find that it was the really poor who would benefit from this.
What will be the ultimate test of acceptability? It will be whether the headmaster or the headmistress will let them in. Admittedly, the headmaster or the headmistress will be quite glad to take reasonable steps to ensure that the children arc bright, which means that at the age of 11—because it was said that it was the approach in the primary school—they are likely to do better at some kind of examination than most of their fellows. We have already discussed how fallible a test that is. But that is what it will mean.
Headmasters being human, the other qualification is whether the child is likely to be well—behaved;will he or she fit in well to the kind of school they have? This means that it will again be the poor old State system of education that has to deal with the child who is bright and whose behaviour is extremely tiresome. I am not talking of children who are so ill—adjusted that they ought to be in some kind of special school;I am talking of those who are just badly behaved—at any rate, in certain periods of their lives. Those who have taught know that a child's behaviour can sometimes vary enormously between what he is like when he is 11 years old, what he is like when he is 13 years old and what he is like when he is 15 years old. The really difficult children will not get to such schools;the headmasters and headmistresses will not accept them.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: Does the noble Lord seriously believe that when we were recruiting for direct grant schools we chose nice little yes-men?
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: The noble Lord has always had a habit of turning what was said into something rather different. He makes a very telling reply, destroying what he represents as having been said. I am not suggesting that they always took little yes-men, but I quite certainly say that neither the direct

1007
grant schools nor this scheme will, if it can, take the people who obviously are going to be really difficult. That will be quite as powerful a criterion as their intellectual achievement.
This is a great injustice to the State system; it is an injustice that exists all the time, because the independent schools always have the weapon of expulsion. It is true that one school in the public sector can get rid of a very tiresome pupil, but it can be done only by arranging for the child to go to another school in the public sector. The independent school can take the difficult boy or girl and just turn him or her out, and the State system has to meet the need and fill the gap. It will not apply to the really poor. "Bright" will mean those who did better than average at some exam taken at primary age,and those whose behaviour came up to standard. Can that really be right?
have suggested that the one real problem—the fact that we cannot have the best teachers of every subject in every school—can be met and ought to be met within the State system of education. I have suggested that in practice this will not achieve the number or budding geniuses that it is imagined, any more than the direct grants system did. I am suggesting also that this is a way of ensuring that any defects there are in the State's own system of education will never be healed indeed, they are likely to become worse as time goes by —and that this will produce within our nation the kind of social division which is the very last thing we need at the present time. For all these injuries we are being asked to pay a sum of £55 million. If the Government are looking for something to spend £55 million on, there are 101 better answers than this.
Lord KILMARNOCK: Might I suggest to the Government a further defect in their proposals? It is one which has not been touched on yet this evening. It is the question of the distribution of the ex—direct grant and independent schools over the country. If the Government were able to guarantee to promising children an equal chance at these schools all over the country there might be something in their proposals, but it must be incontestable that the State school network is far more evenly and fairly distributed
1008
throughout the country. That therefore is the network that should be used to give equal opportunity to our more able children. I should like to hear the noble Baroness's views on that.
4.21 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: 1 listened with the greatest of care to all that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has said. We are in his debt because he speaks as a very senior and experienced educationalist. But as a general practitioner who has entrance to all sorts of schools, State, former direct grant, and independent, and special schools as well, I do not recognise the atmosphere within schools in the 1980s that Lord Stewart is speaking about in his carefully
phrased speech tonight.
I do not find as much doctrinaire atmosphere among the boys and girls of the schools I visit as he appears to find in the ones he visits. It may be that we go into different parts of the country. My knowledge of schools covers North London for ten years in Islington, and at the moment in Norfolk and in Norwich. There is one major defect running right through Lord Stewart's speech, and it is that he appears not to be willing to accept responsibility for—and I choose my word carefully—the grievous harm which the Opposition Front Bench has done to the educational fabric of our nation concerning their dealings with direct grant schools.
Our large family has six children. If I may for a moment he autobiographical, we have had children in all schools;even in the notorious William Tyndall School, because one of the floors of that school housed our church day school at Islington and one or two of our children from our own home were there, and we have been in State grammar schools and in independent schools. We have been in most of the schools because of our children, and so one has some knowledge of them. I believe that the blow to the direct grant school, for which the party on the Opposition Front Bench at the moment must take major responsibility, has broken the bridge schools, which the direct grant schools were in their relationship both to the State schools and the independent schools.
There are many difficulties in the scheme adumbrated in Clause 17, and I think

1009
that it will be some time before, through the proper parliamentary processes in which we are engaged throughout this night, we shall get it right. But at least it is an attempt—although I think there are difficulties in it—to salvage something from the situation that the nation has had to inherit through the grievous harm done to the direct grant situation. I have knowledge of two outstandingly good former direct grant schools in Norwich and one outstandingly good State comprehensive school in Norwich: three of the best schools that one could look at in terms of the State system of comprehensives.
One of our comprehensives in Norwich could, I believe, hold its own anywhere in the country, as could the two former direct grant schools which are now a political issue through the fact that education has become a political issue. It should not be a political issue, and I believe it proper for those of us who are independent of the major parties in the country to try to see things broadly, and not to look at them in terms of party politics but in terms of national interest.
I believe that the narrowing of the former direct grant schools has been so affected by the decisions of the last Administration that now they are in danger of becoming slightly elitist when they do not want to be, because the financial implication comes in. Although, as Lord Stewart of Fulham has said, he desires first-class teaching in all subjects, so long as there is no change of heart in the setting up of a truly bi—partisan educational view of the three major parties seeking rigorously to take the educational decisions out of the party political stivation, we shall not get, I believe, this unity of education so that each form of school may hold up its head and seek to be the best of its own sort and to be friends with and honour and recognise the importance of each other. I hope that at least Clause 17 will make some small attempt to redress what I believe to be the very grevious wounds on the unity of our educational patterns in the country through the direct grant system
4.27 a.m.
Lord YOUNG of DARTINGTON: I doubt whether any one of us is going to
1010
change his mind on this very contentious and difficult question at this hour of the night, and I doubt whether even the eloquence of the noble Baroness is going to persuade me that there is a way out of what I see as the central difficulty that the Government are in in putting forward this assisted places scheme. The central difficulty, as I see it, is that the Government who are dedicated to cutting public expenditure—we are told about this every day—should be prepared in this measure to increase public spending out of the taxpayers' money which is now supposed to be so very sacred. It is all the more strange becuase these two philosophies are riding against each other in this very Bill.
The proposals which we will be discussing later in the week about school transport and meals are to save public expenditure and this proposal is to add to public expenditure. Would it not be better—I am asking, I realise, a rhetorical question —to try for consistency? Then those of us who want to vote to save free school transport would not be in such difficulty as we might otherwise be. Those who will vote this way are bound to be asked how they would save the money if they vote against transport charges, and the answer is surely to be found, at least in some part, within the Bill itself, even if the sums do not exactly balance. By voting against the assisted places scheme, some contribution would be made so that it would be easier to maintain free transport without sacrificing anything else, for instance, in the way of the number of teachers. It seems to me that the conjunction in timing of these two proposals could hardly be more unfortunate.
Many people who may suffer if things go against some of us later in the week so far as transport charges are concerned and about school meals, will say with some measure of justice that what is happening to them, their suffering, will pay for a privileged few to have a subsidised education in private schools. One could understand this—and I am only reinforcing what my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham said—if this measure would create more unity not only in the country but in the education system. But it clearly will not, as one can see by the reaction to this proposal of the teaching profession in the maintained schools and the educational officers.

1011
Their fear is, generally, that this will not create closer links between the maintained and independent sectors but will create more disunity between them.
As we know, many teachers see as a threat the fact that some of the brightest children in the maintained schools will be taken away, and without the kind of consultation with them that the headmaster of Westminster School has urged should be the case. There is also widespread fear that their own maintained schools, from which the brightest children may be abstracted, will, by this measure, be in the eyes of large numbers of parents branded as somewhat second-rate. Thus, the fear is that this whole scheme, if it goes through, will only cause discord in the education system, and do so at what seems to be an extraordinarily unfortunate moment so far as timing is concerned.
4.32 a.m.
Viscount SIMON: We on these Benches entirely agree with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, in his splendid speech, that this scheme is deplorable, and we would wish to join with him and his colleagues in seeking to get Clause 17 removed from the Bill. Before I come to the merits—I would rather say the demerits—of the clause, I will, as briefly as I can, go back to the little dispute I have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the financing of the scheme because some loose ends have been left which we should try to tie up.
I remind your Lordships who were present on Second Reading that in her winding-up speech the noble Baroness pointed out, speaking of the transport clauses, that if we did not make savings on school transport we would inevitably have to make savings somewhere else, and she went on to challenge particularly noble Lords on the Liberal Benches to say how they suggested that should be done. I replied that we should withdraw Clause 17, and then find the savings that were needed. The noble Baroness said that if we withdrew Clause 17, there would not be a single penny for the education system because it came from a different fund. I was so staggered by that that I did not know what else to say. I recalled that earlier in the Second
1012
Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, had made precisely the same suggestion; namely, that abandoning Clause 17 would help to pay for the transport;and I wish I had remembered in time to pray him in aid because I could not have had a betterally.
Well, I was not prepared to let the matterrest there, and last week I asked the noble Baroness a Starred Question: from what fund was this money to be obtained? The noble Baroness's Answer was that the Government intend—and I noticed the word "intend ", which suggested that it had not already been finalized—to finance the assisted places scheme from funds which Parliament would be invited to vote in the usual way. That seemed perfectly normal and right, but it did not suggest to me a special fund.
I followed up that Answer by asking the noble Baroness whether it was correct that if Parliament then elected not to vote the funds required for this purpose, would that sum of money not be available for other purposes? The noble Baroness's reply staggered me even more than the original one, because she said that the Treasury allowed for additional expenditure on this scheme because it was a commitment in the party manifesto. I simply cannot understand this. That reply suggests to me—though I am sure that the noble Baroness had no intention of suggesting it—that the Treasury is in some way under the control of the Conservative Party. The Treasury is a Department of State. The Prime Minister is the First Lord of the Treasury, as we all know.
Of course the Government are entitled to bring forward to Parliament a proposal, whether or not it was in their manifesto, and if the Government persuade Parliament to accept the proposal, and the money is voted, the Treasury provides it either out of taxes or borrowings. However, this is true of all Government expenditure. So I humbly suggest to the noble Baroness that if the Government were to withdraw Clause 17, even at this stage, there would in fact be a corresponding amount of money available for other purposes. Of course Parliament might not vote it for the other purposes that we had in mind, such as easing the burden

1013
of the transport clauses. But I would respectfully ask the noble Baroness to correct her original statement, which seems to me to have some very curious constitutional undertones.
May I now turn very briefly to the demerits of this scheme. I listened to much that was said earlier, when various clauses were discussed, and in particular I always listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, has to say. Of course, I agree that it will be difficult—and indeed to someone like the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, it may seem impossible—to make the State comprehensive system equal in its quality of teaching to that of the best possible independent school. But surely we must go on trying.
One way in which we should try is to avoid creaming off the best people from the State system and putting them into the private system. If I were a benevolent dictator (which I am very unlikely to be), I should feel that rather than send bright pupils from the State system to be forced—I do not want to use the word "hothouse ", because it is not thought to be quite apposite—in a very efficient private school, it would be better to take the bright teachers and put them in the comprehensive schools. Although we cannot do that, becaue we do not at all have a dictatorship, surely we must do something which will encourage the bright teachers, the best teachers, to go into the comprehensive system.
The only other comment that I wish to make is this. We have heard a little about how these pupils are to be selected. But what reason is there to suppose that if boys and girls are selected at about 12 or 13—I do not say 11-plus, because that has rather unpleasant connotations for some people—we can be sure that they will be suitable for the type of education into which it is proposed to move them? I wonder whether the Government propose to follow the careers of the pupils in the schools into which they have been moved. They may have been very bright and well trained for an examination, but when they are 15 they might start falling behind. Will they then be removed from the schools to which they have been sent, because they are not going to turn out to be the high-fliers that they were thought to be?
1014
During the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, told us about two boys who were awarded scholarships at Trinity College, Cambridge, at the age of 16. Those boys were obviously quite exceptional and if any such boy turned up I should have thought he would be recognisable, but the ordinary people whom I see being put into this scheme are not going to be all that recognisable. If they are, then I would suggest that they are just the people who, whatever the handicaps, will rise to the top of the State scheme and from there will get scholarships to the universities, where they will have the full opportunity of developing their potential.
The scheme seems to be much too like a lottery. Relatively few boys are going to have these opportunities. I am wondering whether more than a quarter of them will really turn out in the end to be all that bright. I have no means of knowing, but it would be interesting to go through some of the very high academic schools, such as Eton, Winchester and Westminster, in order to discover how many of their scholars have really become anything very remarkable. I should have thought that the proportion was probably very small. I can see that the noble Lord, Viscount Eccles, is looking at me, but then he was not a scholar at Winchester. To pick people out at that age, to put them through this rather forced system of education and then to find that you have saved somebody who is going to make an enormous contribution to this country, is not a really sound proposition. I would much rather see the State system improved, and improved, in the ways which have been suggested. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, has said, I am sure that in time we would do it.
Lord MONSON: I should like to reply to the argument employed by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, when introducing Amendment No. 162, which was essentially concerned with the cost of this scheme and which is, therefore, entirely germane to what we are now discussing, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, reminded us. Would the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, perhaps agree upon reflection that the analogy he used then, which had to do with queen bees being plucked from the hive

1015
and fed upon royal jelly at the expense of others, applies with equal force to university students? After all, they, too, are selected from the population at large and substantial amounts of money are expended on their education and maintenance at the expense of the taxpayer. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, would not for one moment suggest that university grants be abolished on the grounds that only a few favoured people benefited from them. It seems a little bit illogical therefore that he should object to this scheme on much the same sort of grounds.
Lord WEDDERBUN of CHARLTON: My noble friend, Lord Stewart, has surely disclosed that this is the core, in some ways, of this Bill. We are two nations in our educational system, a 6 per cent. who can buy education and the rest who cannot. The right reverend Prelate talked about the grievous harm done by establishing comprehensive schools—
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: I said the comprehensive schools were very good. The grievous harm related to the destruction of the direct grant schools.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: I take the point, to which I was coming. I was going to say, which involved the ending of the direct grant school. However, it also involved the abolition of the 11-plus examination. I remember the time when someone came into the room and said, "The following people stand on their seats". When I looked around, among those who were not chosen was the best inside left in the south of London. I have often wondered what happened to him and what would have happened to him if we had had a proper system of comprehensive education. As for the direct grant schools, they had very many merits, but their worst vice was to pretend that the two nations did not exist in education.
That was the floor on which they had to build, and they often built very well. Why is it that these talented, highly intelligent children cannot be provided for by the State system of education? Only one explanation comes through this debate and that is lack of resources and lack of funds, lack of national will to create a proper
1016
system of comprehensive education with sixth form colleges, which my noble friend referred to, as part of it. The independent sector has better equipment and better resources. Whenever it is challenged it manages to leap ahead again. It was challenged in the 1950s because the State system was beginning to provide science laboratories which could parallel the independent sector, which immediately went to industry and raised millions of pounds, quite properly, in order to equip itself the better.
This is the situation which the Government ask us to face in terms of Clause 17 of this Bill, entering the 1980s when we shall enter a siege economy. In times of desperation which may come in the 1980s people wish that essential commodities should be fairly and properly distributed in their society, just as in time of war they expect essential commodities to be distributed fairly. In the 1980s ordinary people will know that the increasingly essential commodity of education will be increasingly scarce in the State system to which they have no option but to send their children.
What is the message of this Bill to them? It is that if their children are really talented we will take them away. We will pay £55 million to take a few away. As my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington said, we will pay for it partly out of the charges that we make to the others. We will do this, which of course will have the effect of depriving some schools of an adequate sixth form, by sending them to educational establishments which, as subsection (11) makes clear, must be independent charitable purpose organisations enjoying a tax concession which—and I speak to my noble friends on the Front Bench—the next Labour Administration would do well to look at as a method of financing independent education for 6 per cent. of the country.
This Bill says that we will generously take them into the bosom of the privileged 6 per cent. and will educate them in what is not only a two-nation separate sector but a caste system which we quite unnecessarily add to the other divisions in our society. In that kind of situation people will begin not to tolerate an educational system of this kind. The Government have made a deplorable

1017
mistake in advancing this as the answer to the central class problem of the British educational system.
4.47 a.m.
Lord BOYLE of HANDSWORTH: I know the hour is late. I regret that I was not able to attend the Second Reading. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Darlington, that it is not very likely that any of us will influence many votes at this hour of the morning. Even so, having listened to the whole of this debate, I would rather make two or three points than simply be enumerated in the Division Lobby. Therefore I hope I shall be forgiven if I make not more than three comments.
I would say particularly to noble Lords on the Government Benches that, whatever one's instinctive political sympathies, I hope no noble Lord will ignore the possible effect of the scheme we are discussing in this clause on maintained secondary schools, particularly in certain parts of the country. Here I should like to refer to one or two figures that seem to me very relevant. They were given by Mr. Peter Newsam, chief officer of the ILEA, in an article which appeared in the weekly journal Education some months ago. Mr. Newsam pointed out in that article that just over 10 per cent. of an age group in this country goes on to take two A-levels within the maintained system. The assisted place-holders will, one guesses, be overwhelmingly drawn from this top 10 percent., and if the number of places proposed under the scheme in its final stage is broadly related to the presence of independent schools throughout the country—and I take the point which was well made earlier that the distribution of these schools is very different in different areas of the country —this could mean in some areas that no fewer than 20 per cent. of potential two A-level candidates could move from the maintained sector to the independent sector. In fact, that figure could even be a bit higher. It could be higher if transfers develop at the sixth-form level, as the Government's own consultative paper has suggested, and also if assisted place schemes by one or two local authorities which are not local education authorities come into effect.
I ask noble Lords to reflect on what the
1018
effect of that could be on standards in the maintained schools, particularly the sixth forms of the maintained schools, not just immediately but for years to come. I have a feeling that this scheme we are discussing tonight could be a very good example of what that great academic Sir Karl Popper often says about social studies, when he claims that the real purpose of social studies is to consider the unintended consequences of our own actions. I would ask noble Lords to consider carefully what could be the unintended consequences for the maintained system of this proposal that we are debating tonight.
The second point I make—and this is a point which was referred to in the Second Reading debate, but I think it bears repetition—is that if there is one thing which seems to be fully established by educational research, it is the point made recently in a very important report by Professor Rutter that the existence of bright children in a school raises the achievement, not just of the other potentially bright pupils but of all the pupils. I hope that we shall consider tonight the implications of this proposal, not just for the very ablest but also for what I would call the upper median category of children as well, because I believe the political as well as the economic future of this country is very much bound up with their educational achievements.
All I want to say as my third point is that I cannot help agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, when he says that basically this proposal is a public declaration by a Government that the national system of education is incapable of providing education for our mostable children. It is also a decision to have a new form of absolutely specific grant from the Government at a time when, as we know, expenditure on public services—and I am not questioning this tonight—is being curtailed in many directions. That is the situation. I hope I have given clearly to your Lordships' Committee the reasons why, quite frankly, I for one feel unable to vote for this clause tonight.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Before the noble Baroness replies, I should like to raise one very short point. If this scheme is so wonderful, if it is going to

1019
be of tremendous benefit to the nation, can we be told why it is not being applied to Scotland? Is it that we have traditionally had more comprehensive schools in Scotland;and is it the fact that, from these comprehensive schools, we are able to send a higher proportion of our pupils to university? We even send them to English universities, so I can excuse the noble Lord's feeling that we send them all there and so the standard is lower. Is it also the fact, which aggravates the point made by Lord Kilmarnock, that we have very few independent schools? Thank heavens !—because we have not got the divisiveness in education and socially that is fairly obvious from the kind of debate we have had here tonight.
4.54 a.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): Perhaps I could answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. If he can contain himself for about a year, Scotland will have its own scheme. The reason why we are a little behind the Sassenachs here is for this reason, that a consultative paper was issued at the end of last year to all independent and grant-aided secondary schools, and to a number of interested bodies, such as the main teaching associations, the Scottish Council of Independent Schools, CoSLA and the STUC. The consultation period does not end until 31st March, the end of this month, and therefore the details of the scheme cannot be fully considered until later in the year. But the plan is that a separate scheme on similar lines to the English one is being planned, and it is hoped that it will commence simultaneously in August or September 1981.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: Before the noble Earl sits down, will be he kind enough to tell me how much this particular scheme is estimated to cost? He must have some idea.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am trying to do some sums. I am not finding it very easy at 4.56 a.m. The draft scheme—
Lord MISHCON: May I—
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am on my feet. I am trying to think. Perhaps
1020
the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will keep his seat until I sit down. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced recently that the English scheme was to be halved in order to reduce public expenditure. Therefore, the corresponding scheme in Scotland is going to match that praiseworthy plan—that is, the division by 2, which has been occupying my mind. Originally, the cost would have been £1 million in the first year, building up to £5 million. All these figures are now being halved and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, can do the necessary sums.
Baroness YOUNG: I feel that we have had one of these debates calculated even at 5 a.m. to stimulate the entire committee. It is something about which we all feel strongly. The assisted places scheme, to which, as I indicated at Second Reading, we attach great importance, was a commitment in our manifesto, was repeated in the Queen's Speech and is now translated into legislation. I have listened with interest to all the speeches made about it. I am very grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morison, and grateful, too, for the remarks by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich who speaks from a great deal of experience in these matters and is very knowledgeable from his own personal experience of the maintained system, the direct grant system and the independent schools.
I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has said about it. I should like to reply to one point. I simply will not accept the statement either from him or (I regret to say) from the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, to whose remarks I also listened, that somehow to introduce this scheme is a calculated insult to the maintained schools. As I wrote down the remarks of Lord Stewart, he said that we would be taking steps to see that the State system is inferior. That is not true and I will not accept it.
I will tell him on the very point raised by the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, in his speech about what makes a good school, that I and my colleagues have spent a great deal of time on the whole problem of teachers of shortage of subjects (which is a key issue in the maintained system), the whole of the curriculum, the whole discussions we have had on the primary and secondary survey and on

1021
Circular 14/77 on local authority arrangements for the curriculum. All are matters concerned with the maintained schools. The most important issue before education today is the content of education in the maintained schools. This is what we regard as the most important;and the proposals under the assisted places scheme are ones which go in parallel with this and as an extension of parental choice. But to suggest that we are somehow denigrating the State system is a most unworthy thing to do.
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said in the course of his remarks about people who had been to public schools, and so on, that they tended, as a result of all this, to get the best jobs. I was therefore very interested to hear the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon —rather, if I may say so to him, illiberal on this occasion;but, nevertheless, I am sure sincere—that, on the contrary, everybody he had ever known who was a scholar at a public school had not in fact done very well. I was not quite clear how much this applied to Members of the House, but as I was never a scholar at a public school I know quite well where I stand in the pecking order.
Viscount SIMON: I am sure I did not say that. I asked a rhetorical question: What proportion of scholars would be found to have come out right at the top? I think the proportion would be pretty small. I said I did not know the answer.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry if I have not quite answered the noble Viscount precisely. At this hour it is sometimes a little difficult to have all the points correctly. However, what he is saying—which I am sure is true—is that whereas some inevitably do very well, others do not do as well. What we are attempting to do in this scheme is in fact to extend opportunity. It is completely ironic when the noble Lord Wedderburn talks about class distinctions and divisive monopoly, and all this, particularly in the House of Lords. After all, both he and I are Life Peers, and no doubt some years ago never expected to find ourselves in this circumstance at all.
It is an extraordinary fact that one of the consequences of the abolition of the direct grant schools by his Government
1022
was that 119 out of 170 former direct grant schools have become independent. In fact, the last Labour Government created more independent schools than at any time in our history since the Reformation.
What we are saying in all this is that the assisted places scheme has the distinct advantage over the direct grant scheme of directing help to those who need it most, and it restored the principle of the direct grant in a more equitable way. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich, that the great virtue of the direct grant schools, apart from their academic excellence, which was without question, was that they did form a link between the two sectors. It is regrettable that we should have broken this link. This was not anything that we wished on this side of the Committee;we would have much preferred to keep the direct grant schools. As this is not possible, this is the best substitute that we can make.
I would refer those who say spend the money on the maintained system, the £3 million out of a budget of £8,000 million, to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord James, on Second Reading, when he explained the fallacy of this argument. I for one enjoyed watching a good many noble Lords walk straight into the trap that he had set for them. He was good enough not to say: "I told you so "at the end of the debate. But in fact this was precisely what he did because one cannot simply raise the standards of all schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that the distribution of the direct grant schools was not really very satisfactory. I think I am right in saying that he comes from Buckinghamshire. He is perhaps in a very fortunate position where the schools are in fact extremely good. There are other parts of the country where children are at a disadvantage, and he and I would both recognise that not all schools are as good as the best comprehensive schools. It is for those children that the assisted places scheme is particularly designed.
Lord KILMARNOCK: I am only a temporary resident in Buckinghamshire. It would be extremely interesting to see a map of the distribution of the schools to which these proposals apply, and the

1023
general network of secondary and comprehensive schools throughout the country. I think that would be very revealing.
Baroness YOUNG: As the scheme becomes known, we shall of course publish the list of schools, so the noble Lord will be able to sec where they all are. It is our intention that we should get a good geographical spread, and that it will apply to both boys and girls.
Perhaps I might conclude by trying to answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle. I much regret, I may say, that he does not feel able to support this scheme. I had always believed that he supported the direct grant school principle, but perhaps I was mistaken. I hope that he will accept from me that the introduction of this scheme is a way of returning to the old direct grant scheme, but we hope in a better form.
He quoted, I think, figures given by Peter Newsome, the Director of Education of ILEA, that up to 20 per cent. would be creamed off. I cannot accept this. As I have already indicated, we have currently sixth forms of all the former direct grant schools;those pupils are still in the sixth form of former direct grant schools. They will leave, I think I am right in saying, in 18 months' time. Nobody is suggesting that there are no adequate people in sixth forms in the maintained system, and all our scheme would do would be to replace those currently in the direct grant schools by another lot, not
even as many, in the assisted places. They would not even be in sixth forms;they would start off at the age of 11 or 12, and so it would be some time before they even got to the sixth forms.
I think this is grossly exaggerated, and I cannot quite understand how those figures can ever have been arrived at. I do not think it will contribute to the general understanding of the situation if we exaggerate something like this. For many years the direct grant school and the maintained schools existed side by side, and I see no reason for thinking that they will not continue to do so. We believe that this is a substitution for a scheme of the direct grant schools, which existed satisfactorily for many years. I commend it to the Committee. I believe it will make a contribution.
May I in conclusion say that on the question of whether or not by giving up the £3 million for this scheme we could pay for school transport, the savings we expect from school transport are in the financial year 1980–1981, which is before this scheme ever begins. I commend this scheme to the Committee. I think it will prove to be of great benefit to a number of children from poor homes of modest means who would not otherwise have these opportunities.
5.8 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 17, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:
Contents, 108;Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Gowrie, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Digby, L.

Gray, L.

Alport, L.

Dormer, L.

Greenway, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Gridley, L.

Auckland, L.

Dudley, E.

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

Avon, E.

Dundonald, E.

Bellwin, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Hampden, V.

Belstead, L.

Eccles, V.

Hanworth, V.

Berkeley, B.

Elton, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Bessborough, E.

Faithfull, B.

Harvington, L.

Blake, L.

Falkland, V.

Hives, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Falmouth, V.

Holderness, L.

Burton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fortescue, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Cathcart, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Chesham, L.

Gainford, L.

Kimberley, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Galloway, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Croft, L.

Gisborough, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Davidson, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

Long, V.

de Clifford, L.

Gormanston, V.

Lothian, M.

Loudoun, C.

Pender, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Lyell, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Suffield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Teviot, L.

Mansfield, E.

Renton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ridley, V.

Torphichen, L.

Middleton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

St. Just, L.

Trenchard, V.

Monson, L.

Sandford, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Morris, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mottistone, L.

Savile, L.

Vickers, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Westbury, L.

Newall, L.

Spens, L.

Wynford, L.

Norfolk, D.

Strathcarron, L.

Yarborough, E.

Orkney, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, L.

Avebury, L.

Henley, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Birk, B.

Hunt, L.

Seear, B.

Blease, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Jeger, B.

Simon, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

David, B.[Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Underhill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Parry, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Diamond, L.

Peart, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Effingham, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Whaddon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

White, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Raglan, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 17, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Schedule 4 [Termination of participation agreements]:
[Amendments Nos. 196 to 199 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Incidental expenses of pupils holding assisted places]:
[Amendments Nos. 198 and 200 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Awards for further and higher education]:
5.18 a.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL Baroness FAITHFULL moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 19, line 21, after ("certain") insert ("other").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 are paving amendments to Amendment No. 207 in the fifth schedule. I was encouraged to table these amendments because when a similar amendment was put forward in another place, the Minister, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, said that he regarded this matter with sympathy and looked forward to hearing the views of your Lordships.
These amendments concern the provision of training for mature people seeking to take a course and requiring a grant, which at present is not mandatory. I believe that it would help if it were mandatory. I am thinking particularly of training for social work of suitable men and women in, say, their mid-thirties. Social work requires trained people of maturity and with experience of life.
In the world of social work we are moving into a new era of trying to help those in our society who are most vulnerable to remain in the community. I have particularly in mind the Jay Report, whose recommendations aim at getting mental hospital

1027
into the community. There are other areas, such as the battered child, adoption, court work and dealing with juvenile delinquents in the community, which require the services of older, more mature and experienced people. This is not to say that the newly trained young people are not good—they are. But they need support and we require older people to deal with the extremely difficult cases.
There are a number of older people who seek to come into social work—for example, men coming out of the Services seek to have a trade, while women whose children are in their mid-teens or grown up and who have much to offer seek social work training. These people are valuable to the social work field. There have been complaints and difficulties throughout the service, particularly where magistrates are concerned, because too much responsibility has been put on to too young shoulders, however good they may be. I move these amendments in the hope that it may be possible for the Government to consider giving mandatory awards to non-graduates, so that they may train at a later stage. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I wonder whether I may make an administrative point, as it were. Would it be for the convenience of the Committee if we took Amendments Nos. 201, 202, 204, 205, 206 and 207 together? They are all linked to the same point.
Baroness SEEAR: I should very much like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The importance of mandatory grants for older people returning to take training of this kind cannot be over-emphasised, particularly in relation to older women who have had inadequate training in their younger years, but who, as the noble Baroness said, are returning to the labour market and need training in order to do an effective job. Mandatory grants for courses of this kind would be of great assistance to a very important section of the community, who have a very great deal to offer, particularly in the field of social work.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: In the intervals between being concerned with a direct grant school, I have been chairman
1028
of the Social Services Council and picked up, rather improbably, a certain knowledge of the social work field. It is very obvious that one of the greatest problems is the very rapid expansion of that field, following the Seebohm reorganisation. This has led, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said, to the introduction of a lot of very young people into jobs carrying great responsibilities. So what has happened, very often, is that there have been breakdowns and the kind of tragedies that are over-publicised, because we are short of mature social workers. Therefore, anything that can be done to encourage people in middle life, with some knowledge of the world and with some weight, to enter the social work field is worth encouragement.
Lady KINLOSS: I support this amendment. It is very important to have as a social worker the older man or woman who has experience of life and the world in general. The older person is more likely to stay in one place, which is important when he or she has got to know the area and its problems. Such people can also give encouragement and support to the young social worker, who is of the greatest importance to the social service.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: Am I right in thinking that the noble Baroness is suggesting that, in addition to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, we should take Amendments Nos. 204 to 208? Did she go as far as that?
Baroness YOUNG: No, to No. 207.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: I am very tired and I am sure that she is, but I should like to be sure before I speak to the wrong amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: Not No. 208.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: But including No. 204? May I say very briefly, partly to show that I am still awake at this hour, that we on these Benches feel very strongly that students taking a course of education leading to qualification as a solicitor or barrister, whether they take it after university degree or without a university degree, should have a mandatory right to a grant.
Admittedly the course at the Law Society schools is comparatively short,

1029
but I have personal experience of a number of authorities which do not give grants to students taking courses leading to the Law Society's final or the Bar final. My experience is that young trainee solicitors or barristers already have a hard enough furrow to plough through having a very inadequate income when they are articled clerks or during their pupillage. Anything which can be done to enable everyone, from whatever financial background, to enter the profession of solicitor or barrister should be done. Therefore we are trying to ensure, as we arc moving Amendment No. 204, that during their training period trainee solicitors or barristers should not be impeded by the lack of a grant from their local education authority.
5.26 a.m.
Lord MISHCON: It may be convenient, in view of what the Minister has said, if I now move Amendment No. 206 which stands in my name. Through the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—neither of whose faces, however tired, I see before me—it was arranged that my amendment should come first. The reason for it is that mine is an omnibus amendment, in the sense that it deals with professional grants and does not single out either solicitors or barristers. May I at once state an interest in at least one of those professions.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: We are in a state of total confusion.
Lord MISHCON: We are!
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I think that we must take the first group of amendments which was given to us. The noble Lord's amendment must come afterwards.
Lord MISHCON: I recognise the lateness of the hour, but I thought I was asked to deal with Amendment No. 206 as it is in the group of amendments.
Several noble Lords: That is right.
Lord MISHCON: And I am trying to do that. It would save a great deal of time if I were not interrupted needlessly. During the early hours of this morning we heard a great deal about the need to encourage bright pupils. Some people
1030
think that at the age of 11 it is a little early to judge the brightness and the contribution that they can make to national life. We have heard the Government's view, and it is a very understandable one. We are now dealing with the need to see that our national life is serviced by those who are capable of doing so in the learned professions, in engineering and otherwise. We are dealing with those who have gone through their student days at school or university and who arc now able to take their part in professional training and in the professional life of our country, but who do not have adequate means to do so.
The exact wording of Amendment No. 206 was contained in the Education Bill of the previous Government as a mandatory provision. This was because of the unfortunate experience that people who were applying for grants had and the completely different treatment they met with, depending upon the local education authority in which they happened to live.
Perhaps I may quote—I hope this will not be deemed to be a political debate by either side of this Committee—what Mr. Mark Carlisle, now of course the Secretary of State for Education, said when he saw this precise paragraph in the previous Administration's Bill. This is what he said on 5th December 1978 during the Second Reading:
"We support the extension of mandatory awards. The sharp cuts in local authority spending over the last few years have hit all local education authorities hard and have meant that the provision of discretionary awards has been amongst the first areas to suffer. This has led to substantial discrepancies in the approach to this matter in different parts of the country. As a result many highly qualified young people have been unable to pursue their professional training because the local education authority cannot find the funds to support a discretionary award. We have in the past urged "—
he was speaking on behalf of his party—
'that some of those awards should be made mandatory. I am glad that the Bill does this and I hope that the awards will be used to fund courses which include such subjects as accountancy, law, nursing and social training."
I could not have put the case any better than Mr. Mark Carlisle put it as recently as December of 1978.
In order to try to do something for the future of our professional life in this country, I want to be as reasonable as I

1031
possibly can and to help the Front Bench opposite to concede this amendment. I realise fully the economic constraints that exist at this time. Despite the views that were expressed in this Committee about the matter upon which we last divided, I recognise that it may be very difficult at this particular moment to make this provision mandatory. I only wish that I thought otherwise.
What I am trying hard to do is to ask the Government to make this a power for the Government to have, to issue regulations in the future, making this mandatory when the financial climate so allows. I cannot be more reasonable than to do that in order to embody here a principle which I hope is bipartisan, indeed a complete unanimity of view on whichever Benches noble Lords may sit.
I am strengthened in the hope that this is the stage when we can do it because at the Committee stage in another place, when Standing Committee D was considering this matter, Dr. Boyson, when dealing with this precise amendment—it may have been worded slightly differently but the whole purport of the amendment was the same—said this:
"I have taken careful note of the arguments in Committee and elsewhere. There have been plenty of arguments elsewhere, as we know, and we will pay careful attention to the views expressed, in the later stages of the Bill's progress."
He said that in regard to this Bill, and we are now considering a later stage in the Bill's progress.
I am hoping so much that I can avoid having to divide the Committee by getting an agreement from the Front Bench opposite (whoever may be dealing with this particular amendment) that the principle is conceded as it has been conceded by both parties in the past, and that this amendment will be accepted on the basis—and I am quite prepared to accept it on that basis—that it may have to wait some period of time before the Government will make such a regulation, by virtue of the fact that the finance will have to be available to do so. Having made all those concessions in reasonableness, I hope that at long last one may hear from a Minister opposite that an amendment can be conceded.
Lord DIGBY: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. In my
1032
own authority we find that there is an anomaly here: students becoming teachers and doctors get their mandatory award right through, whereas in the law and one or two other professions there is only a discretionary grant after the first degree course, and I am afraid that my authority is among many others who find that they cannot produce all the discretionary grants that they would like. I do trust that the Government can do something on this.
The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: I think many of us have experience of mature students, as they are called. They have brought an enrichment to many of the professions and they are particularly needed in the areas that Lady Faithfull mentioned, where the need for older and more experienced persons is a very real one. I hope we shall not have the lottery of where you happen to live dictating whether or not you are eligible, but that this will be mandatory.
5.36 a.m.
Lord SHINWELL: Earlier I ventured, in my ignorance of the subject, to ask when were we going to explain what we meant by education. I was told I was addressing your Lordships' in the wrong place: so I was told by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek. That was due to my ignorance.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: It was meant in a helpful way.
Lord SHINWELL: Yes, I am quite sure all my friends—the very few I have—are very anxious to render the assistance I am very much in need of;otherwise I do not know how I should manage to survive at all. However, so far I have learned nothing about the substance and content of education. I am not going to explain my view about it because this is not the appropriate occasion, but at last I have discovered that in the opinion of two or three Members of your Lordships' Committee education of the higher quality should be specialised and explicitly directed towards certain qualifications which would enable a student to become an accountant or maybe a lawyer or a doctor or something of that sort. Well, I do not know what might have happened when I was quite

1033
young, attending school for a very few odd years until I had to leave before I was 12, if I had been directed specially towards a particular profession;I do not know how far I might have gone. I would really have become a superior person;I would be able to match some of the noble Lords on the other side of your Lordships' House. But misfortune came my way.
But now at last I understand what is meant by a certain aspect of education. I hope we are going to have nothing to do with it. I hope that if we have any money to spend we will spend it on education as such, providing boys and girls at whatever age with knowledge so as to enable them to play their part in society intelligently, not boasting of their education, whether high or low, but making their contribution in a civilised fashion towards a civilised society. I hope that is what we mean, putting it in the broadest possible sense, without any specification or qualification. Now that I understnad what is meant by some, I hope we are going to knock it on the head at once.
If people want to become associated with a particular profession, first they must get the rudiments of education: the three Rs;some Latin and perhaps even Greek; mathematics, of course;physics;physiology;pathology;osteology and all the rest of the "ologies". I have read the language about them, but I do not know anything about them. However, when it comes to providing them with the type of education which would qualify them for a particular profession, and to make profit out of it, I am against it. I am surprised to find that there are any members of your Lordships' Committee who are in favour of such a proposition. It is a ludicrous, ridiculous and absurd proposition, and I hope that it will be knocked on the head without hesitation.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I must reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. It seems to me that education has two facets: the first, to enrich each individual person;and the second, to enable each person to be of service to their community and, therefore, to enrich the community.
There are certain professions of which we have heard—and my own profession of social worker is certainly one where not only must one enrich oneself, but one
1034
must have knowledge in order to be able to help other people wisely and rightly. For that reason one seeks a mandatory grant which, at the end of the day, might well prove cheaper for the community, because if the work is well done then more people are helped to help themselves—which is what we want. For that reason I would with the utmost diffidence disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell.
Lord RENTON: I should like to remind my noble friends on the Front Bench that the Royal Commission on Legal Services, in its report last year, recommended that there should be mandatory grants for those who wish to study for the vocational training for the Bar or the solicitors' branch of our profession. I am sure that the desirability of having a broad social spread of entry to both branches of the profession is one which would commend itself to your Lordships in the public interest. I am glad to say that for many years we have had a fairly broad social spread and some of our very distinguished judges in the higher judiciary have come from fairly humble social backgrounds. Nevertheless, recent times have shown that it is not easy for all those who might do well in the profession, and ultimately make fine judges, to find the wherewithal to go through with the professional training which necessarily lasts some years.
Therefore, having reminded my noble friends of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, I should hope that in replying to this valuable debate we might have some enlightenment as to whether the Government accept that recommendation.
Baroness YOUNG: I feel that at this hour of the morning I cannot give these important amendments perhaps the full attention that they deserve. I understand, in a very real way, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on behalf of social workers, and the importance of having social workers who have had some experience of life and who have been trained. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, regarding barristers, solicitors and other professional people, including accountants.

1035
These are obviously very important steps. Anyone having had a grant for a university or for a three-year course should be able to enjoy a mandatory award for these subjects, particularly law which will probably follow upon a three-year university course or a course at a polytechnic. In the light of what was said in another place, the Government have looked very carefully at this issue.
We have, indeed, considered the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made about writing the mandatory awards into the Bill and allowing them to be brought in as resources allow, which is the point of his amendment. It is because we understand the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Digby and Lord Renton, that we have looked at this matter very carefully. The difficulty about the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is that even though the economic situation, in fact, rules out any early prospect of designating additional courses for mandatory awards, if we took such a power we would find that this would represent a commitment to substantial public expenditure, not necessarily for next year but certainly in the near future.
The cost of extending mandatory awards to all full-time advanced courses of professional or vocational training has been estimated to be upwards of £10 million a year. The difficulty about this is that if we put it into the Bill, there would be constant pressure to bring it in. We all know, for the reasons that have been advanced, that nobody is against it in principle. I, myself, very much support it, and I am particularly taken by the idea about the advantage of women for retraining and by the point made about social workers, although, of course, I recognised the other points made about the professions.
If we did, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, write this into the Bill, we would find ourselves under great pressure. In view of all that I have said, we cannot commit ourselves to increased public expenditure of £10 million. Therefore, I do not think that it would be right to put something into the Bill which, in the next few years, we could not introduce. It is for that reason that I cannot accept these amendments. I regret that this should be the case, but
1036
at this stage it would be quite wrong to commit the Government to spending this extra money.
Lord MISHCON: I cannot say how disappointed I am at that reply, especially in view of what Dr. Boyson said during the Committee stage in another place. It is so surprising, because when we were discussing the question of handicapped children and special schools—about which so many of us felt so deeply, and I am sure she did too—I can remember the Minister saying that it was really impossible to put a provision in a Bill which would last for many years and make it only a transitional item. Now we hear that although this is going into a Bill which is supposed to last for very many years, the noble Baroness is not prepared to include a provision, even though it may only have to take effect in a few years.
If the forecast by the noble Baroness of the economic future of this country is such that not for so many, many years can this be carried into effect, in spite of what we heard in the last debate in regard to the money that is being expended in order to deal with assisted places, this seems to be a complete illogicality and does not take into account the real need to strengthen the professions in the country (as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said) from all spheres of our national life. It is so much a question of national enrichment.
I ask the noble Baroness whether she will not at least confer with her colleagues again between now and the Report stage in the hope that something can be done on the basis merely that this is a power that the Government take. The Government can resist pressure; the noble Baroness is a very formidable lady, and I know that she will be able to resist pressure if the country's funds do not allow it. But at least the principle will be advanced and she will stop me from having to divide the Committee on something on which I do not think it is necessary to divide the Committee, if only she would yield one little bit.
Baroness YOUNG: I have discussed this matter at considerable length with my colleagues, and it would not be right for me to pretend to the Committee that I could take this back and bring something forward on Report. I regret it for the

1037
reasons that I have given, but it would be a commitment to an extra £10 million to which it would not be right for me to agree at this stage. I regret to say that I therefore have to resist these amendments.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID: had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 203:
After Clause 19 insert the following new clause:
"Awards for continuing or resuming full-time education.
—(1) A local education authority to whom this subsection is applied by an order made by the Secretary of State—

(a) shall be under a duty, subject to and in accordance with regulations so made, to bestow on persons who belong to the area of the authority, or to any part of it specified by the order, awards in respect of their attendance at courses to which this subsection applies and which are specified for the purposes of this paragraph by or under the regulations;and

(b) shall have power, subject to and in accordance with the regulations, to bestow awards on such persons in respect of their attendance at courses to which this subsection applies and which are not so specified.

(2) Subsection (1) above applies to any course of full-time education provided by a school, establishment for further education or other institution in the United Kingdom, not being a course designated by or under regulations made for the purposes of section 1 or section 3 of the Education Act 1962 (awards for further and higher education);and for the purposes of that subsection it is immaterial—

(a) whether an award is designated by that name or as a scholarship, studentship, exhibition or bursary or by any similar description;or

(b) in what terms the bestowal of an award is expressed.

(3) Subsection (1) above shall not require or authorise a local education authority to bestow an award on any person who, before the beginning of the academic year in which he first attends the course in question, attains the age of nineteen years or such lower age as may be specified in relation to that year by the regulations;and regulations made for the purposes of that subsection shall not require or authorise a local education authority to make payments, in pursuance of an award bestowed on any person, in respect of any period—
1038

(a) before he ceases to be of compulsory school age;or

(b) after he attains the age of twenty-one years.

In this subsection "academic year "means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st September.
(4) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) above shall prescribe the conditions and exceptions subject to which the duty imposed and the power conferred by that subsection are to have effect, and the descriptions of payments to be made in pursuance of awards bestowed thereunder and, with respect to each description of payments, shall—

(a) make provision for determining, by or under the regulations, the circumstances in which, the period in respect of which and the person to whom it is to be payable;

(b) prescribe the amount of the payment or the scales or other provisions by reference
to which that amount is to be determined;and

(c) indicate whether the payment is to be obligatory or is to be at the discretion of the authority bestowing the award;

and, subject to the exercise of any power conferred by the regulations to suspend or terminate awards, a local education authority by whom an award has been bestowed under subsection (1) above shall be under a duty, or shall have power, as the case may be, to make such payments as they are required or authorised to make in accordance with the regulations.
(5) In section 1(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1974 (items excluded from relevant expenditure for purposes of rate support grants) after the words "Education Act 1962 "there shall be inserted the words "or section [Awards for continuing or resuming full-time education] of the Education Act 1980 (awards for continuing or resuming full-time education)".
(6) After section 8(2) of that Act (specific grants for purposes not covered by rate support grants) there shall be inserted—
"(2A)For the year 1979–80 and each subsequent year the Secretary of State shall pay to each local education authority a grant equal to 90 per cent. of the aggregate amount paid in that year by the authority in pursuance of awards bestowed under section [Awards for continuing or resuming full-time education] of the Education Act 1980 (awards for continuing or resuming full-time education ";
and in section 8(3) of that Act for the words "or subsection (2) "there shall be substituted the words "subsection (2) or subsection (2A)"."
The noble Baroness said: I should like not to move this now but to move it at Report stage.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Amherst of Hackney): I have it in my instructions to call Amendment No. 206 at this stage, and that I shall now do. Amendment No. 206.
Schedule 5 [Provisions Substituted in the Education Act 1962]:
5.51 a.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 44, line 44, at end insert—
("(e) full-time courses of higher education leading to a qualification which is required
for or facilitates the pursuit of a particular profession or vocation").
The noble Lord said: I am afraid I cannot withdraw this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 206) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54;Not-Contents, 108.

CONTENTS

Airedale. L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Avebury, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, Bp.

Barrington, V.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Rochester, L.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Blease, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alverchutch, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

McNair, L.

Stone, L.

David, B.[Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Underhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Digby, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Parry, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peart, L.

Whaddon, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Young of Dartington, L.

Gardiner, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Raglan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Galloway, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Newall, L.

Alport, L.

Gisborough, L.

Norfolk, D.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Glendevon, L.

Orkney, E.

Auckland, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Pender, L.

Avon, E.

Gormanston, V.

Penryn, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

Ridley, V.

Berkeley, B.

Greenway, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

St. Just, L.

Blake, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.(. Chancellor)

Sandford, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller]

Bridgeman, V.

Hampden, V.

Savile, L.

Burton, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harvington, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cathcart, E.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Chesham, L.

Hives, L.

Spens, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Suffield, L.

Croft, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Swansea, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Swinton, E.

Davidson, V.

Kimberley, E.

Teviot, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Torphichen, L.

Dormer, L.

Long, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Trenchard, V.

Dundonald, E.

Loudon, C.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Effingham, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vickers, B.

Elton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Faithfull, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Westbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Middleton, L.

Wynford, L.

Falmouth, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mottistone, L.

Gninford. T..

Mowhrav and Stourton. L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendments Nos. 204, 205, 207, 208, 209 and 209A not moved.]
6.2 a.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 209B:
Page 46, line 31, leave out ("or (c)") and insert ("(c) or (d)")
The noble Lord said: This amendment takes us from the lawyers and social workers, who have occupied us for some time, to the problem of the engineer, a subject which was discussed recently in your Lordships' House on the Finniston Report. While obviously we want to strengthen all the professions, the engineering profession in particular is more likely to lead to the national enrichment which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke about than all the rest of the professions that have been mentioned and which, if I may say so, are in the nature of overheads on our national wealth, whereas the engineers are those who actually produce it. I know that not all your Lordships agree with me there, in particular my noble friends who are lawyers, but I think it is generally recognised that the low estimation in which engineering has been held has been one of the reasons for the poor performance of this country in the past. That situation now needs to be rectified by paying attention to what Sir Monty Finniston, in his outstanding report, called "the engineering dimension".
One method of doing that which I suggested in our debate on the Finniston Report was that if someone became redundant in, say, the steel industry and chose to take a course in engineering leading to any technician qualification, such as Higher National Diploma, Higher National Certificate or one of the Tech. qualifications, for the period while he was undergoing that course of training he should be paid an amount equal to his average earnings for the six months immediately prior to the date on which he became redundant.
My suggestion was that that would take some people off the unemployment register and put them back into the colleges;but secondly, and probably most important from the point of view of getting this engineering dimension taken care of, it would help to alleviate, and perhaps in the end cure, the severe
1042
shortage of technicians in the engineering industry which is hampering the proper use by industry of the engineers themselves. Sir Monty Finniston mentioned that many professional engineers were employed in technician jobs because the firms concerned were unable to recruit technicians. With a view to taking care of that problem, which is a very serious one facing industry and is imposing restraints on our output, I venture to put forward this small suggestion which I hope will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: The amendment which the noble Lord has moved is concerned with educational and training opportunities and financial support for those who have the misfortune to be made redundant and who may wish, or indeed, need, to retrain for a new occupation. The amendment impinges not only on the Student Award System but also on the special provisions made by the Manpower Services Commission. The noble Lord said, in moving the amendment, that he hoped it would commend itself to the Government. I do not think that anything that the noble Lord said would not commend itself to Members of the Committee, but in this country we live in a real and, at the moment, a harsh economic world, and in view of the provision which is already made by local education authorities, and in particular by the Manpower Services Commission, I do not feel that it would be possible to create a further scheme to enable the Secretary of State for Education and Science to bestow grants in the way that the noble Lord would wish. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord AVEBURY: It is because we live in a harsh economic environment that I had hoped that this scheme would commend itself to the Government as an improvement and as one which would enable us to get back on our feet. However, at this late hour I shall not press the Amendment but instead I shall withdraw it, in the hope that perhaps we can return to it at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Grants for education in Welsh]:
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I could not let this clause pass without saying a few words. Most Welsh people will be delighted to see this clause. I shall be very brief—only a minute or two—and I am grateful to the Government for the notes that have been provided. The clause enables the Secretary of State to pay grants in respect of expenditure in, or in connection with, the teaching of Welsh, or the teaching of subjects in Welsh, which is a further extension. However, there are points here that need explanation. Especially in view of the phrase "and other persons "in relation to teaching, I can see that perhaps any person could get a grant under this clause. I hope that it is made certain that any person receiving a grant has the qualification to teach the language. There are too many people around who claim that they can do these things, when in fact they cannot. I hope that sufficient regard will be taken back home to ensure that the tutors, or others taking on this teaching, have the necessary ability.
I wish to make one other point. I think it is time that your Lordships knew that you are surrounded by the Queen's Beasts. There are nine of them. Up until 1603 the Welsh Dragon was part of the Royal Standard. I do not know why they did it for Scotsmen, but after 1603 that fellow with a horn on his head—the Unicorn—was incorporated in the Royal Coat of Arms. Until then the Red Dragon of Wales was there. Nevertheless, I am delighted to see that the Dragon of Cadwallader is embellished on this marvellous woodwork, which is a testimony to the old craftsmen, and I hope to see that craft living on in the future—
Several noble Lords: Only another minute.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am counting the time;I always do. Before I sit down, may I say, without any joking, that I
1044
hope that the greatest care will be taken to see that the people who receive grants are able to teach the language properly.
Lord BELSTEAD: The clause to which the noble Lord has drawn attention will make it possible for my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Wales, to pay specific grants towards the costs of teaching the Welsh language and the use of Welsh as a medium for teaching other subjects. Your Lordships will be delighted to hear that it is identical in terms with a clause in the Education Bill introduced by the last Administration in 1978 and lost with the election of last year.
The noble Lord asked me a direct question, which was: who is going to get the money? I ought to answer that and say that as I understand it, any identifiable item of expenditure related to the Welsh language provision would technically qualify for consideration. However, it is unlikely that the available resources will enable grants to be made to provide general support for teachers' salaries. The more likely expenditure to be supported would be such things as books, other teaching aids and materials, courses for teachers and intensive Welsh language courses for pupils and adults. Local education authorities are likely to be the main recipients of the grant aid.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: What about television?
Lord BELSTEAD: That is not in my brief. What is in my brief are these words: Wales enjoys a rich and ancient culture, distinct from England's. Its cornerstone is the Welsh language.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [School meals: England and Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 not moved.]
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 211A:
Page 20, line 24, leave out from ("such") to end of line 26 and insert ("facilities as the authority consider appropriate for the consumption of any meals or other refreshment brought to the school by such pupils.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting amendment which I have put down in response to representations made by the local authority associations. It lays down that it is for the local education authority to decide what are to be provided as facilities for pupils to eat their own food on the school premises. Without this clarification, it could be open to dispute how far an authority could be required to provide facilities. It would certainly be required to provide facilities that were adequate, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and her noble friends in the first part of their Amendment No. 219. Thus facilities would certainly embrace suitable accommodation. But they would not embrace cooking facilities. In certain circumstances they might embrace arrangements for storing food, as proposed by the noble Baroness, but this would be for the authority to decide in the light of those circumstances.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 212 to 225 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 22, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
6.15 a.m.
Baroness JEGER: At this early hour Iwill not detain your Lordships on the general principles of this mean clause, but I have to raise one or two points with the Minister. The first question I wish to ask is whether it is with her knowledge and with her authority that Conservative local authorities are already pre-empting the decisions of the House by sending out circulars to parents in anticipation and taking it for granted that your Lordships' House and another place will pass the Bill as it is before us.
I have in my hand a letter from the East Sussex County Council—it is a Conservative County Council, of course—which has been sent to every parent in East Sussex, setting out the new arrangements for school milk, school meals and school transport. It is true that the letter says:
"These new arrangements are in accordance with the Education Bill which is at present going through Parliament and which is expected to become law shortly".
1046
This seems to me an extraordinary presumption. In all my experience on local authorities I have never known such anticipation, even of the Royal Assent being given to a set of proposals.
Having put in that slight caveat about the regulations being expected to become law shortly, the letter then goes on to lay down what will happen. It says:
"The County Council will no longer provide free milk in schools …"
This letter is dated February. It seems to me most extraordinary and improper, to say nothing of its being highly injudicious. We have very controversial clauses in this Bill. In regard to transport, I understand there is to be an amendment which will alter the provisions of the Bill as it was passed in another place. But East Sussex does not wait for that. East Sussex has informed parents that there will be a termly rate of £22.16 per child for transport. I do not wish to get myself out of order. I realise that we are on Clause 22 and not Clause 23, but I felt it was right, as the reference to transport was in the same letter, to inform your Lordships of this other excess.
On school meals, this brutal, mean letter says:
" From the beginning of next term, the charge for a school meal is to be increased to 40p per day …"
The unkindest cut of all is where the letter says:
"The new income scale is less generous than the present …scale, and a number of children who now receive free meals will not be entitled to them next term "
If these children are in need this term, how much more are they going to be in need next term? Next term the parents will have to find the transport charges as well for the children. The income scale on which entitlement to free meals has been based has been drastically reduced, so that while at present parents with a remaining income of £46 a week, with one child, were entitled to free meals, that £46 is being reduced to £39.75. Making some allowance for inflation, I guess that brings the figure down to about £32.
It seems to me that there is a very serious point involved here. Not only is there going to be considerable hardship on these families but there is the disturbance to parents of receiving a letter like this, presuming that legislation is going

1047
to go through in certain forms. I hesitate to use the word, but it sounds to me almost tantamount to a contempt of Parliament that when a Bill is still going through its various processes some local authority should make these presumptions. I have to ask the Minister whether this has happened with her knowledge and with her encouragement. I also want to know whether the letter I have had from East Sussex is typical. Are any other authorities expressing such disdain for your Lordships' House that they are sending out similar letters to their parents? I am wondering who is paying for these letters. I imagine it is the unfortunate ratepayers who are being asked to pay for letters which are informing them that some more money is going to be taken off them to carry out these provisions. I should have liked to speak at greater length about the content of the clause, but I will content myself, for the convenience of your Lordships, with the points I have raised, and I look forward with interest to an answer from the Minister.
Lord RENTON: I wish to ascertain the Government's intentions with regard to the provisions of milk in special schools. At present, under the Education (Milk) Act 1971, all children at special schools get free milk, whether they are in maintained or non-maintained schools, and so do children under 8 years of age. I think there is some confused and sometimes rather political thinking about the supply of free milk in schools. A few children, including some handicapped children, have an obesity problem and may be better without milk. Then there are some other children who are allergic to milk;they simply do not like it and will not take it. But most children, including handicapped children, do need milk, and benefit from it. I am concerned to see that all those children who are at special schools get it if they need it.
There is a drafting point which I was going to raise on subsection (5), but I understand that my noble friend Lord Mansfield is seized of it. I raised it the other night on another Bill, and I therefore do not proposed to trouble the Committee with it now.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I very much regret that this Bill has now taken out
1048
completely, or has endeavoured to do so, the purpose of the famous 1944 Act. There was a feeling after the war that never again should we see the destitution and the poverty. Even here in London during the last war we knew that we had soldiers who really were unfit and who had to be trained and well fed. In World War I our Army was probably one of the most underfed armies that went into the war. The statistics are all available in that famous book called Metropolitan Man about the condition of our forces. That is why we introduced the Bantams;it was because most of our working people were underfed and undersized. But the Butler Act and the Coalition Government—and that means noble Lords on both sides of your Lordships' House, and Members in the other place—resolved that it should then be the duty of the local education authorities to provide milk, meals and other refreshments at schools and colleges. I will not quote them because of the time factor, but Sections 42, 35, 38, 48 and 49 of the Education Act were those parts of the Act which have now, by one slash, been changed. In other words, the law has been revoked and, as we have heard, some authorities have anticipated and sent out documents which I would consider illegal.
The principal changes with which we are now confronted, as the Notes on Clauses say, are:
"first, the powers and duties of authorities are set out in the clause itself (and not in regulations);and…secondly subject to certain safeguards for children from low income families ",—
and they must be very low—
"authorities are given discretion as to what is to be provided and as to what charges to make "
What does that discretion amount to? We find, as far as discretion is concerned, that we have had charges on and cuts in school meals and, eventually, milk and, ultimately, transport;and that these are possible because the Government are using the law to enforce their policy, as is indicated in every other sentence in this particular clause of this Education (No. 2) Bill.
I regret that this policy has been foisted on us at one of the most difficult transitional periods, as the noble Baroness who has just spoken has said. We are anticipating a very difficult period ahead. I hope that it is not true. I said in a speech the other day in the House that we, our-

1049
selves, are denigrating and running down our own country. If we want to educate these children, they must be healthy and fit. If we want to regain our place as a great nation then, as Ruskin said, "Our greatest wealth is our children". Our children can only be able if they are fit. Therefore, I regret and deprecate this Part of the Bill completely.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I wonder if the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who first spoke on "clause stand part "are serious. When the average industrial wage in this country is now over £4,000 a year, surely parents are prepared to pay 40 pence to provide a meal for their children. It is absurd if that is not so. And the children of the poorer families, the families receiving supplementary benefit, are protected against this. I do not think that noble Lords opposite have a strong argument at all. We have heard that we must save money. Your Lordships may not remember, but, when the Butler Act came in in 1944, the total amount expended on education by the Government and the local authorities was under £200 million. Today, as your Lordships know, it is £8,500 million. The average person finds it hard to understand what £100 million is, let alone thousands of millions of pounds. We must cut down somewhere;and it is better to cut down on things like milk than on education.
Before I sit down, I should like to say that I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, did not move her amendment. I was interested in paragraph (b) of that Amendment 219. In her amendment, she said——
Several noble Lords: It was not moved.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: But I may speak on it, may I not?
Several noble Lords: No.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I was just going to say how much I agreed that at school there must be supervision at the midday break. I am sure that when I was young we did not have vandalism as we do today, because at school there was supervision at midday.
Lord JANNER: I have listened to the last speaker and I cannot understand how an attitude of that sort still prevails. We are, as a nation, now doing what for many years was being done in the district which I had the privilege to represent, by people who insisted that any child should not be deprived of the necessities of life. I remember some of the schools in which that principle was practised very, very considerably. Now, on the principles that we in this party have been observing for years, we dare not and should not, in any circumstances, leave any child at all deprived of the necessities for building up its own strength. Consequently, regard it as a national duty for us to ensure that no child suffers and that provision for these meals is maintained.
6.30 a.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I come from a rural area and last winter we had exceedingly cold weather. Many children had to travel long distances. If they have no chance of being provided with food or milk, can the Government not encourage local authorities to install machines so that children can at least buy a hot drink, maybe Bovril, cocoa or some such thing'? Everbody knows of the increase in alcoholics among women;many children do not have the chance to take food with them. I think that the Government ought to look to the health of our children.
Baroness YOUNG: I must begin by answering the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, about the information that East Sussex has been sending out. I was not aware of it. There is nothing illegal in local authorities preparing for the legislation that might come. If the legislation does not come—and your Lordships are perfectly entitled to vote as you think to be right in the course of dealing with this legislation—then I recognise that it would be wasted. We have said to local authorities that we are asking for economies this year, and, at their request, giving them these powers over the non-educational parts of the budget;that is, school meals, milk and transport. So far as school meals are concerned, which was the point of the circular which the noble Baroness mentioned, parents would rightly complain if they had not been warned that the price of the school dinner

1051
was going up;and the LEA was acting wisely in giving this warning. lf, however, the legislation does not go on the statute book, the matter would remain presumably as it was, unless the Secretary of State decided to put the price up again, as of course the price went up in February. This is a sensible warning.
The noble Baroness may be quite right: perhaps the money could have been spent better than on the circulars. After all, we can all make suggestions about how money might have been saved by past Governments. Her Government spent quite a lot of money on Assemblies for Scotland and Wales which, for better or for worse, did not come to pass. Everybody looks ahead on matters of Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, asked about the discretion. The discretion for local authorities to remit the charges remains as wide as it was before this Bill. The only difference is that the local authorities now have the power to charge, and they must remit the charges for families on family incomes supplement and supplementary benefit. But they have powers to remit the charges for those over that limit, and of course to remit the charges for children in special schools. Indeed, all the evidence we have is that local authorities will, in fact, continue to do that.
On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised, what we have said is that local authorities must provide the circumstances for children to bring sandwiches to school. What further arrangements they make, of course, would be up to them. We are setting minimum standards in all this.
I would remind noble Lords opposite, when we talk about economies, that their Government made much greater cuts in the education system than we are doing. We are faced with difficulties, and we are having to make our economies on top of the other economies that have been made. We have all been through difficult times, and I think that the important thing now is to spend the money that we have in the
classroom, at the chalk face in education. This seems to me the most important part, and that is why we are making the economics in these parts, on meals, milk and transport.
Lord RENTON: Would my noble friend be so good as to answer the point I made about special schools?
Baroness YOUNG: I would have been prepared to answer the point. But the amendment that covered this point was not moved and I thought there was an anxiety to get on, so it would be right to leave it. I will let the noble Lord know privately before Report stage.
Lord RENTON: It was not on the drafting point, it was on the question of what is to be the future of supplied milk to special schools;that was what I was asking.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: With the indulgence of the Committee, I will answer because my noble friend was good enough to tell me about it and I had it looked up. Section 1(3) of the Education Milk Act 1971 limits an authority's power to provide milk for children at non-maintained schools to children at special schools and to other children under eight years. Clause 22(5) of the Bill simply removes that limitation, restoring the position to that in Section 78 of the 1944 Act as amended, leaving authorities free to supply milk, meals and so on to non-maintained schools as they think appropriate. There is at present no duty to provide milk at non-maintained special schools. The power of authorities to do so is not affected by this clause, so that the words which the amendment proposed to leave out are in any case only consequential on the substance of the provision in the preceding words of the subsection. I hope that meets his point.
6.38 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 22, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108;Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Bellwin, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Auckland, L.

Belstead, L.

Alport, L.

Avon, E.

Berkeley, B.

Bessborough, E.

Gowrie, E.

Norfolk, D.

Blake, L.

Gray, L.

Orkney, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Gridley, L.

Pender, L.

Burton, L.

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

Penrhyn, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hampden, V.

Renton, L.

Chesham, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Ridley, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Harvington, L.

Rochdale, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Headfort, M.

St. Just, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Croft, L.

Hives, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Holderness, L.

Savilc, L.

de Clifford, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Digby, L.

Kimberley, E.

Spens, L.

Dormer, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcarron, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Dundonald, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Suffield, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Long, V.

Swansea, L.

Effingham, E.

Lothian, M.

Swinfen, L.

Elton, L.

Loudoun, C.

Swinton, E.

Faithfull, B.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mansfield, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trenchard, V.

Fortescue, E.

Middleton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gainford. L.

Morris, L.

Vickers, B.

Galloway, E.

Mottistone, L.

Vivian, L.

Gibson, Watt, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Westbury, L.

Gisborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Wynford, L.

Glendevon, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Yarborough, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Newall, L.

Young, B.

Gormanston, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Avebury, L.

Janner, L.

Seear, B.

Barrington, V.

Jeger, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Birk,B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

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

Simon, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Stone, L.

D'Arcy de Knayth, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mishcon, L.

Underhill, L.

Diamond, L.

Parry, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peart, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

White, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Rochester, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Hampton, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 22, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 24 [School meals: Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 226 not moved.]
6.48 a.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 226A:
Page 23, line 10, leave out ("facilities") and insert ("such facilities as the authority consider appropriate").
The noble Earl said: My noble friend has already spoken to a similar amendment, Amendment No. 221A, which has the same effect in England as is desired there should be in Scotland.
[Amendments Nos. 227 to 238 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 24, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: I have sat and listened to most of this debate

1055
right through from Clause 1 to Clause 24. Not a single word of the rest of the earlier discussion was related to Scotland. A great many amendments have not been moved, and I assure the Committee that I had powerful speeches on each one. However, there seems to be some idea of finishing the "milk run "tonight.
It was a pity, but I thought that in the early stages some of the matters dealt with in these proceedings were trivial. We know that the other place operates a guillotine. In this place we guillotine ourselves. In common with most all-night sittings, this one has pretty well ended in farce.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Yes, because we have dropped some amendments and not moved others which were worthy of consideration. It is over 40 years since I, as a young teacher in the Gorbals in Glasgow, as part of my duties handed out free milk. In fact, it was not free milk because in those days a third of a pint of milk cost a halfpenny. Most of the class got it for nothing, but many of the children were not all that happy to say that they got their milk free because it designated their parents as unemployed and thus unable to pay that sum. But since that time it has been the duty of the local authority to provide milk or to make provision for it.
I heard the noble Baroness the Minister say that the provisions in respect of exceptions were as wide in this Bill as in the original section. That is the kind of thing which we should have been discussing, because I would argue the very opposite, certainly so far as Section 53 of the Scottish Act is concerned. I had to deal with that for quite a long time. Indeed, the Minister of State may remember a certain local authority in Scotland which decided, when certain changes were made in, I think, 1971, that come what may, they were going to provide milk to all the people, and they did. Believe it or not, the party that talked about Clay Cross did nothing about Dundee.
We could have raised these matters. I think it has been a retrograde step. It might be nice from the point of view of the Government. They can say, "It is a
1056
matter for the discretion of the local authority". But remember that at the present time all the regulations dealing with what charges will be made, how they will be made, to whom they will be made and how they will be remitted rest with the Secretary of State for Scotland. But he steps right out of it and leaves it to the local authorities. It is up to them.
We are not likely to get uniformity of treatment. It could be very unfair, because of what the Government are doing. I am sorry that we are giving ourselves so little time in respect of this matter. I am sorry that it has been taken at such a time as this. But I sincerely hope that we shall return to some of the important points in respect of milk and meals.
I heard the noble Baroness talk about the rural areas. I wonder whether the Government really appreciate just how dependent some of our schools are on these provisions. I have a daughter who teaches in a school at Auchinleck. She once had the misfortune to say to someone that he would never know where it was. It was a God forsaken spot at the end of nowhere. The gentleman to whom she was talking said "My mother lives there ", and it happened to be the Marquess of Bute.
The point is that, apart from those people who live within that village, the rest of the people are bussed in. They must have a decent meal. But what are they going to get now? The noble Baroness will appreciate that it is not even a meal. The words she sticks to are:
…to ensure that such provision is made for him in the middle of the day as appears to the authority to be requisite".
What do we know about what an authority in straitened circumstances will consider is "requisite "?
I remember the time when local authorities thought that the provision of a plate of soup from the soup kitchens—we had them in the schools—was enough. Are we going to get back to that? Here we are in Scotland providing all these billions from oil in relation to our balance of payments and keeping Britain alive, and we do this to kids. Is it not disgraceful? I sincerely hope that certain of my noble friends on this side, and I hope some on the other side, will make a final protest now by joining me in the Lobby against this clause.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Ross, down the highways and byways of the Highlands and Islands, but—
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: You never mentioned them.
The Earl of MANSFIELD:——stick to a pre-breakfast remark or two. I start with this premise, that we on this side consider that it is indefensible, in the present economic situation, to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a subsidy to school meals, most of which goes to families who are in no need of such a subsidy. If I may come from that straight to Scotland, the low demand for school meals in Scotland shows that the present type of meal is far from popular and is unwanted. Fewer than half of the pupils presently take the meal at all and fewer than one-third are prepared to pay for it. On the other hand, there is evidence of an unsatisfied demand, especially in secondary schools, for a more informal type of snack school meal, such as is proposed in the Bill.
Your Lordships will know from looking at the Bill that lower income families are safeguarded by the duty to provide pupils from families in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement with whatever is requisite in the middle of the day. In addition, authorities have a duty to remit the whole or part of the
charge if, in particular circumstances, they consider it appropriate to do so.
We on this side of the Committee have a much greater faith and a greater trust in the way in which we hope local authorities are going to carry out their duty under this Bill when it becomes an Act than have perhaps noble Lords opposite. The low uptake figures which I have already illustrated mean that more than half of the pupils either will be totally unaffected by the new arrangements or will he better off since they will be able to obtain the kind of meal that they want.
My last thought, a purely political one which I will leave with the Committee, is this. The biggest single increase in the price of the school meal, an increase from 15p to 25p—that is to say, an increase of 66⅔per cent.—was made in 1977 by a Labour Government. So on that hypocritical note, I invite those noble Lords opposite to desert the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and come with us where sanity and sense prevail.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Inflation was much less then.
6.57 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 24, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110;Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hanworth, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Dundonald, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Alport, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Harvington, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Effingham, E.

Headfort, M.

Auckland, L.

Elton, L.

Henley, L.

Avon, E.

Faithfull, B.

Hives, L.

Bellwin, L.

Falkland, V.

Holderness, L.

Belstead, L.

Falmouth, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Berkeley, B.

Ferrers, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Kimberley, E.

Blake, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bridgeman, V.

Gainford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Burton, L.

Galloway, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Long, V.

Cathcart, E.

Gisborough, L.

Lothian, M.

Chesham. L.

Glendevon, L.

Loudoun, C.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Lyell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gormanston, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mansfield, E.

Croft, L.

Gray, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

Middleton, L.

Davidson, V.

Gridley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

de Clifford, L.

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

Morris, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Digby, L.

Hampden, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Moyne, L.

Sandford, L.

Teviot, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Thorneycroft, L.

Newall, L.

Savile, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Norfolk, D.

Sempill, Ly.

Trenchard, V.

Orkney, E.

Skelmersdale. L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Pender, L.

Spens, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Penrhyn,L.

Strathcarron, L.

Vickers, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vivian, L.

Renton, L.

Suffield, L.

Westbury, L.

Ridley, V.

Swansea, L.

Wynford, L.

Rochdale, V.

Swinfen, L.

Yarborough, E.

St. Just, L.

Swinton, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Birk, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Rochester, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

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

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

D'Arcy de Knayth, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McNair, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Diamond, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Underhill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Parry, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Peart, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Raglan, L.

Whaddon, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

BEES BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
PROTECTION OF TRADING INTERESTS BILL
Returned from the Commons with amendments agreed to.
POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment;the said amendment considered and agreed to.