Lords Sitting of 25 March 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Reverend Lord Sandford.

ZIMBABWE-RHODESIA: COMMONWEALTH FORCES
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: 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 any request has been received from the new Zimbabwean Government for British and other Commonwealth troops to remain in that country and, if so, what answer has been given.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have been asked to provide a continued British training presence to help in the integration of the various forces in Rhodesia. We shall respond positively.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, will the Minister accept my warmest congratulations on the courage of the Government in taking the decision that they have taken since this Question was put down, particularly in view of the fact that the Prime Minister promised her party that British forces would not be deployed in any way in this exercise? Further, may I ask him whether he will consider, when the deployment of British military technicians and trainers is being decided, the very special requirements of this extremely complex situation in Zimbabwe today? It is not, surely, just the conventional Sandhurst type of training which is required. Does the noble Lord agree that what is needed most now are people with imagination and experience in putting together these contending armies, and in reducing the number of the army, which we have seen in Nigeria can be a grave civil danger—
Several noble Lords: Speech!
Lord HATCH of LUSBY:—and will he advise those who are putting together the British team that a great deal of detailed knowledge is required when they are selecting the military advisers?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I appreciate the kind remarks with which the noble Lord opened his supplementary question. I can say that General Perkins has already made a preliminary report to the Government and General Fursdon is now in Rhodesia and will be submitting a further report when he returns shortly. These two reports are likely to lead to the appointment of a British military adviser and training team, who will be ready to discuss this matter in depth with the Rhodesians right away.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I very strongly support what my noble friend Lord Hatch has said on this matter, and the appreciation which he has voiced, which I think is shared throughout the House, of the way in which the new Government and the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe have looked to this country of their own volition for help in the scope and nature of their own security forces, which no doubt Zimbabweans themselves will indicate to our military personnel. Is it not most encouraging that in Zimbabwe, this vital part of Africa, there is this good feeling towards this country which we all wish to reciprocate in every possible way?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is right, but I want to emphasise that the form that the new forces in Rhodesia take, will of course, in the last resort, be a matter for the new Government of Rhodesia themselves.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, in view of the exemplary conduct of the military personnel concerned, from General Ackland downwards, are the Government favourably considering the grant of a Rhodesia medal to all who took part?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are considering it, but a decision has not yet been taken.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, in view of the observations of my noble friend Lord Hatch in deploring

605
the Sandhurst system, is it not a fact that, apart from asking for assistance in what is now Zimbabwe, they have asked to send officers for training to Sandhurst? So far as Africa is concerned, are not Sandhurst graduates very prominent in the later post-electoral development of African States?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think that I want to be drawn into considering the different merits of various systems of officer training, but we shall be ready to provide whatever is appropriate in this case.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, if my noble friend has any recommendations to make, will he insist that both the recruitment and the deployment are done mainly on sound military grounds, and will he not pay too much attention to the prosy observations of politicians, thousands of miles away from the point of action?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not quite sure to which politicians my noble friend is referring, and I sometimes think it is difficult to extricate politicians totally from this kind of situation. But, as I said, we shall be ready to provide whatever training and advice is appropriate.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, while serving in Rhodesia, these British troops will receive any overseas allowances?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we have yet to decide the nature and size of our team, which we will in due course send to Rhodesia. No doubt they will be paid the proper allowances.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one last question? As one who has spent a great deal of time with all sections of the forces in Rhodesia, may I ask him whether he will consider the advisability of helping the new Zimbabwe Government to set up training establishments in its own country, which have normally proved to be of more value than overseas training?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right. It will
606
certainly be our aim that the advisory team, which I think we shall in due course send, shall seek to establish training facilities in Rhodesia itself.

LIBYA: PURCHASE OF KINGSLEY SCHOOL, CHELSEA
2.43 p.m.
Lord CHALFONT: 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 can confirm that the Libyan Government has purchased school premises in Chelsea; whether they are aware of the purposes for which these premises will be used; and whether they are satisfied that this transaction is fully consistent with local and national interests.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the position, as I understand it, is that the Libyan Embassy has bought the old Kingsley School in Glebe Place, Chelsea, and intends to use it for educational purposes. The school was sold by the Inner London Education Authority last year to a third party who in turn sold it to the Libyans. This is a matter of essentially local interest and as such is for the local authority. Her Majesty's Government see no reason to regard the transaction as such as being inconsistent with the national interest.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but may I ask him if he would not agree that this is not simply a matter of local interest? Is he aware that these premises have been bought by a Government which has a certain reputation in international affairs, especially in connection with its support for international terrorism? Is the noble Lord further aware that these premises are suitable for all kinds of users? Is he satisfied with the use that is proposed for them? And, perhaps the most important question of all, can Her Majesty's Government give an assurance that these premises will not be given diplomatic immunity?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, whether or not the premises are suitable for the purpose specified is for the local authority itself to decide. It is for the local authority to decide whether an educational establishment is suitable for education. But if at any time there is evidence to suggest that the premises are being used for improper purposes, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, suggests, then I would agree with him that then, and only then, would be the time for any appropriate action. Beyond that, I think that the Government at this stage cannot go because it is still very much a matter for the local authority at this time.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister, in answering a most responsible Question from a most responsible source, a Question which is echoed in the minds of some of us in this House, said that these educational premises will be deemed to be used for educational purposes, would they not, even though they are to be used for private education, be subject to a form of periodic inspection as to what goes on there?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, in answering the previous question I did not cover one point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. He asked whether or not the premises would be given in effect diplomatic status. The answer is, no, they would not. We do not regard schools as the premises of a diplomatic mission. However, turning to the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts—namely, whether this was something which should be watched—any local authority which grants planning permission or user permission for any purpose presumably always has an obligation to ensure that it is used for that purpose. Should there be any complaint which would lead to there being evidence to the contrary, it would indeed be a matter in the first instance for the authority, and if it were another kind of matter it would then be for the Government to consider.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister say how they define" educational purposes" in Libya? Does it mean indulging in mischief all over the place—causing trouble? Is that what they mean by "educational pur-
608
poses"? Had he not better keep an eye on them?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I do not know how they define "educational purposes" in Libya, but for the purposes of this approval it has to be how we in this country define them. One can understand the concern—one properly does—but one of the penalties which we pay for being the kind of society we are is that in fact we do allow things to be worked equally for whoever is here; and so long as they conform, then we will always go along with them.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, can my noble friend say who sold these premises to the Libyan Government?
Lord BELLWIN: Yes, my Lords. At the end of the day it was the Inner London Education Authority which sold the school.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that emissaries are being sent to this country from those who are practising, encouraging and training people in terrorism, in order to persuade the population here to take up their cause? Is not Libya a place which is well known to be the centre of terrorist organisations? Why do they want a special school? Has the noble Lord inquired? And is it not a national matter rather than a purely local one?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, as I said in answering the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, it would become a national matter if the use were contrary to normal educational standards as we know them. Then it would be something quite else. But for somebody to apply and to be given permission by a local authority to use premises for educational purposes is the way in which our system works, and at the moment we have to go along that way.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, what do the Government understand to be the declared object of this request? Is it to educate the Libyans in London, or what?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, my information is that the premises are to be used as a school. Who is to be taught there and, indeed, if it comes to that, what is

609
to be taught there, I am not in a position to say, and I am sure your Lordships would not expect me to be. It may well be a question which my colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may have to speak about. However, so far as I am concerned, an application was made for the school. Permission has been given for that purpose, and that is as far as I can go.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, speaking as an ex-resident of Chelsea and as one who knows it rather well, would the Minister feel able to give us an assurance not simply that the Government would look after this question after something had happened but that they would arrange in some way to keep an eye on these people, who have a baddish reputation for the kind of things which we fear, so that we are not suddenly told that it is too late?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I should have to say that the responsibility for "keeping an eye on" the use must be that of the local authority. They are the ones who are giving the permission and presumably they are the ones who have ascertained the validity of the application, and theirs is the responsibility.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, the Minister has said that these premises are to be a school. Can we at least have an assurance that at that school there will be no assisted places under Clause 17 of the Education Bill?
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for dealing in the way that he has with an extremely complicated and knotty question. I should also like to thank him for his categorical assurance that these premises will not be given diplomatic immunity. May I ask him one final simple question for information only; namely, as the local education authority has the duty to inspect regularly private educational establishments as well as public educational establishments, can the Government give an assurance that they will discharge their responsibility in respect of this particular school?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I can certainly say that we shall take careful note of the point made by the noble Lord
610
and I am sure it will be passed on to the appropriate authorities.

BUSINESS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening.
It is proposed that the Report stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at about 7 o'clock for approximately an hour. The Second Reading of the Highlands and Islands Air Services (Scotland) Bill will be taken during this adjournment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS (ETHNIC GROUPS) BILL [H.L.]
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to authorise the payment to local authorities in Great Britain of grants towards expenditure attributable to the presence of ethnic groups within their areas and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill he now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Avebary.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
2.52 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 17 [Assisted places at independent schools]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 18, line 10, at end insert—
("; and

611
(c) the Secretary of State reports to Parliament on an annual basis details of—

(i) the number and names of schools participating;

(ii) the total number of pupils and the sex, age and geographical distribution of the intake into the scheme;

(iii) the total cost of the scheme; and

(iv) the details of the fees charged by each school and the average cost per pupil.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the early hours of the morning of 12th March we discussed this matter on the Question that the clause stand part and no amendments to it have yet been discussed. Unfortunately, the clause now stands part of the Bill and we have this scheme, which is certainly abhorrent to me, and not only to my noble friends on this side of the House but to many other noble Lords in all parts of the House, particularly on the Cross-Benches. Also some of the noble friends of members of the Government expressed, during the Committee stage and on Second Reading, their reservations about this, including the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, among others.
What this scheme does is to skim off the cream of our boys and girls at school, so far as that is possible, with the money available; but in so doing that, although the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said during the Committee stage that the scheme would not start until 1981, and £3 million would be allocated for it at that point, the total amount of money which is to be put into the scheme is in the area of £55 million. A great deal was said, and no doubt will be said in future, about how this money could be used to better effect in the maintained part of our education scheme.
What I am concerned about is that this puts an educational bomb into the State system. We still have a ferocious class consciousness and class system in our society. This is debilitating to the country and it affects our economy and our industrial effort. Education should erode class and social divisiveness, but what the assisted places scheme does, although I readily admit that at the moment it is in quite a small way, is to bolster all the things which we have rightly been trying to iron out of the education system.
One point that so much runs through this Bill is the opportunity given for parental choice and parental participation in the education system. But in bringing in this assisted places scheme we are to some degree going hack to the situation where parents and their children are put in a competitive situation as far as education is concerned. The sense of failure among those children who are not "lifted out" to get an assisted place can be very severe and we have the flavour of the old 11-plus. As has been pointed out before, in many ways this is much more iniquitous than a direct grant scheme because it is saying, strongly and specifically, that the maintained sector is not able to cope with children of high ability. This is quite outrageous, and I really believe that it is highly damaging to the maintained sector which everybody should be trying to build up.
One way of getting improvement in the education service, in the National Health Service and in many of our services, is through people who are articulate and are not afraid to state what they feel, and they should participate in the maintained sector. By doing this, one is not just creaming off the children, but undermining the voices of those very parents who could probably stand up and speak and bring a considerable influence to bear on increasing the quality of the State system.
The amendment is directed to people having the right to know the facts of the scheme. Until now we have known very little about it. In another place the Minister, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, the Parliamentary Secretary of State for Education, in reply to a Question for Written Answer on the number of school places for boys and girls which have been provisionally offered by private schools in each of the areas of England and Wales, replied that:
"direct grant grammar schools and independent secondary schools were invited by the Department's letter of 6th December to indicate, on a provisional basis and without commitment, whether they would be likely to be interested in joining the assisted places scheme and, if so, approximately how many assisted places annually they might offer".
In the table which was given as part of his reply, it was shown that 371 schools have so far responded. I think I am right in saying that is about a third of those who were invited to participate; and I should

613
be grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Young, could perhaps tell us whether a more up-to-date figure is now available. As to the table which sets out the number of schools, there are already considerable grounds for concern in the variations of the schools responding. For example, 136 schools in the South-East have responded; in the East Midlands 15 have offered places, and in Wales 15 have offered places. In between there is a whole range of numbers, but the South-East is very much in the lead.
We are asking—I think, quite reasonably—that there should be included in the Bill the requirement for an annual report to be given by the Secretary of State to Parliament, giving the number and names of the schools participating, the total number of pupils, their sex, age, and the geographical distribution of the intake into the scheme, the total cost of the scheme, the details of the fees charged by each school and the average cost per pupil. I think this is very important if people are to have any idea of how the scheme is working, who it is affecting, how equitable the distribution is and whether it is working in the way that the Government expect it to work.
At the moment I think many of us feel that the whole thing is rather veiled. We do not know any of the relevant points that we need to know. This is not something to which one wants a once for all answer. I appreciate that it would be impossible for the Minister to give us these details today because the scheme is not under way yet, but it is important that this information should be available so that the parents are aware of it and schools are aware of it. It seems to me that this is an amendment which should be supported by all sides of the House because it is asking for information on an annual basis to which I believe Parliament, the schools and the parents are entitled. My Lords, I beg to move.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, we on these Benches are as deeply opposed to the assisted places scheme as the other noble Lords whom the noble Baroness mentioned. I propose to take the view on this and the following amendments that we should accept the decision of the House to let this scheme go through, just as the Government have accepted the decision of the House about transport charges.
614
I would not want to follow the noble Baroness in what she said at the beginning of her speech which appeared to be attacking the scheme altogether, which I would gladly follow, but I think it is inappropriate at this stage. We on these Benches will look at these amendments on their merits, as to whether they make the working of this scheme, which we dislike so much, more or less effective.
Baroness AIREY of ABINGDON: My Lords, I crave your indulgence; being such a new Member I can only speak from personal experience. I have in mind the faces of three children. A very short time ago I was asked to award prizes to spastic children, and they were absolutely amazing in what they had achieved. I shall never forget the faces of all those children, but particularly the face of the winner. Secondly, I should like to speak about a school that I knew well. It was not perhaps a very intellectual school but it had taken the precaution of having a farm attached to it. I remember that there was a sort of Victor Ludorem for the pupil who did the best; this particular pupil had done especially well in lambing, and he was brilliant at it. Thirdly, I remember the face of a child whose father was an electrician and formed a small business of his own. He happened to have a very brilliant son, and he entered him for the scholarship for Eton from a little remote village. I believe there were in fact 16 places, and it needed this humble and shy man to go with his wife for the interview. This boy, in fact, missed getting a place by one mark. This was a little while ago when schools were still independent, and they put him in for a school which was perhaps more ancient than Eton, an ancient grammar school. He got in and he has done brilliantly. In the intervening time, this child would not have had that opportunity. I know I have diversified a little with my first two children, but their faces are so vivid in my mind. I believe that we are thinking not only about the brilliant children, we are thinking about the others as well. I crave your Lordships' indulgence because I know this afternoon we are speaking about assisted places; this is what I wanted to say, that the brilliant child a few years ago would not have had the chance he has and I hope that in the future another such child will have.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said that he and his colleagues were going to consider the amendments on their merits. I would particularly commend this amendment to him, because whatever view any of us might hold of the merits of the assisted places scheme it must surely be desirable that we should be properly informed about how it works. It may be that some noble Lords will be proved right and some proved wrong, but it will be difficult to ascertain that unless Parliament does know what is happening. It is a good general principle when you are spending public money—and in the end it is going to be quite a lot of public money—that Parliament should know whether on any assumptions you are getting value for money. Moreover, the Act requires that the assisted places should be equitably distributed both with regard to different regions of the country and with regard to the sex of the pupils. What we are asking here is that we shall have an annual report from which we can judge whether these intentions in the Act are or are not being fulfilled.
I feel here again that this really is an amendment that the Government, without any loss of face, could accept. This amendment does not by itself challenge the assisted places scheme. We have made it plain enough from these Benches that we dislike the scheme, but all we are asking in this amendment is that as the scheme proceeds Parliament should know from year to year how it is being administered, whether the requirements of the Act as to equitable distribution are being met, and generally how has the whole thing worked out. I hope the noble Baroness the Minister of State will see her way to accepting this amendment.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords I feel a little doubtful about the amendment, because it only asks about numbers and finance. If I were to go completely along with the speech the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has made, I would want to know how the children were doing, because that is where the good value comes in. My view is the opposite to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk; I do not think this scheme of assisted places is iniquitous, because I think the brilliant child does need education of a particularly high grade. There-
616
fore, I am broadly in sympathy with what my noble friends are doing here. I would fear that this type of amendment, if this was just an annual report giving the number of places and the cost, might help to perpetuate a running campaign of hostility against the scheme which noble Lords opposite feel. I think that would be very damaging. I am interested to see this scheme succeed. I do not feel that it has the implication that comprehensive schools in the State system are inadequate; it is simply an additional complement to the State system to deal with the exceptional child.
When noble Lords opposite feel that this scheme is unfair in that it is giving certain children an advantage, one does have to look at it the other way round. The brilliant child does need something extra in education to what other children need. The brilliant children need extra attention from particularly high powered teachers; they need the extra challenge which they will get in those circumstances, which they will not get normally in a system which has to cater for a much broader range of intellect.
Therefore, in looking at this matter, one must think about the children who have these special talents. They should have the opportunity to develop them to the full, both in their own interests and in the interests of the whole community. Goodness knows! we want them to go through life with their special qualifications and to use their great gifts to the benefit of the whole community. Therefore, it is with those type of feelings at the back of my mind that I say that I am not entirely convinced of to what purpose this amendment would be put if it were placed on the statute book. I am not sure whether it would really be looking at how these children were getting on and whether they were making good progress or simply providing a peg to enable people to have another crack at a system that noble Lords opposite do not like. I shall listen with interest to what my noble friend says. However, I shall look very closely at the amendment before I agree to it.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, I think that I made it perfectly clear during the Second Reading debate that I consider this clause to be the worst part of a very bad Bill. However, like the noble Vis-

617
count, Lord Simon, we have accepted what the House has done as regards the clause as a whole. Although this clause was passed in Committee, we do not know how the scheme will work. We have been told very little about it, and what little we have been told has been rather contradictory.
In the first place, £100 million was mentioned; then it was £50 million; and now we have been told that in the first year, which starts in 1981, the cost will be £3 million. We want to know not only what the scheme will cost, but how many children it will involve and how many children will go to each of the participating schools. What will it mean to the comprehensives and in some cases the local authority grammar schools? How many children is it anticipated will be creamed off from those schools?
What has not been mentioned here this afternoon, but which is very germane to the amendment, is the rumour—I do not know whether it is a fact or a rumour—that some report has been sitting in the offices of the Department of Education and Science which for some reason or other will not be published and made known by the Department until June. If rumour is true, that report shows that bright children do as well, if not better, in the comprehensive schools as they do in selective schools. I hope that this afternoon the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will tell us whether that is true. Is there such a report sitting in the Department of Education and Science? What does that report say? If there is such a report, it is very germane to this particular amendment. All that we are asking for is information. Your Lordships' House has given this Bill a Second Reading and in Committee your Lordships agreed that the clause stand part of the Bill. However, I suggest that we do not know very much about this scheme and this afternoon I ask for more information.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Simon we shall consider each amendment on its merits and not on the basis of whether we are in favour or against the system, to which we have made quite clear we are opposed. We think that if the deed has to be done it should be done well. This proposal improves
618
the scheme and certainly lets people know whether they are getting value for money and helps them to know whether the scheme is working effectively and properly. It would be interesting to see the details of the fees charged and how the average cost per pupil compares with the maintained sector. There were arguments during the introduction of the direct grant system, that, in fact, direct grant places cost less per head, according to one set of statistics, than the cost of places in maintained schools. That is the type of information that everyone should want to have and should be glad to receive, whatever their political views may be about the scheme.
I should like to take up one point with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I see the merits of the point coming, as I do, from an area where there is a very large number of excellent direct grant schools which have now become independent. The noble Baroness said that if we did not have the scheme it would bring back into the maintained sector the articulate concerned parent. That is very true, but is that not an argument that leads us inevitably to the point that, if we abolished the private sector entirely it would bring the top 5 per cent. who are probably the most interested of all in the future of the education of their children, into the maintained system. I do not know whether that is an argument that the Labour Benches would pursue as regards the abolition or otherwise of the private sector. However, it logically follows that, if one takes that view about that section, then the private sector itself is a diminution or a dilution of the effectiveness of the maintained system. Generally speaking, if the system is to be introduced we think that this would assist people to know what they are getting and what the country will have to pay for.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, Sections 51 and 52 of the 1944 Education Act—which was written when Britain historically said that never again would we have such inadequate educational opportunities for our people—said that it should be seen that children who had education were able to take the advantages thereof. In a nutshell, Clause 17 talks about awards and grants to the assisted places at independent schools.

619
I have had experience of children who are able and quite brilliant, but who feel inadequate because their clothing, their maintenance, their pocket money, their rugby kit and so on, are not equal to that of children at independent schools. If noble Lords think that that is not something that hurts the heart of a child, I beg them to think again. It is important that if those "aces" are put into those independent schools where they will have the opportunity of building up their stature, their muscles and the adequacy of their minds, we should ensure that they are properly dressed, have adequate boots, shoes, gear and kit to enter the gymnasium, or use the football and the rugby fields. That is of paramount importance to a child. Those are the matters that he confesses at home to his mother and to his father when given the opportunity. I beg noble Lords to think again about this matter. It was enacted in the 1944 Act that local authorities should ensure that a child has the physical and mental equipment to fit into the milieu of that type of school.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, earlier in the debate I made the point that it ought to be unnecessary at any stage for anyone on either side of the House to assume that his side of the House had a prerogative in wanting to see the education system work and in wanting to see the children of this country have an even brighter future. It is surely unnecessary to introduce that remark or invitation at this stage. A Report stage is always difficult because it leads people to make Second Reading speeches about matters which are really concerned with the clauses to be inserted. As regards this clause, that gives me an opportunity to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether she is now able to answer, in the context of this clause, the question that I put to her on the redistribution of the amount of money available for the provision of education in this country from the public to the private or semi-private sector; and whether she can tell me if the £50 million, of which we have spoken, or indeed the £3 million for the one year of which we have spoken, is in addition to the £60 million-plus already being devoted from the public purse to the support of private education.
3.20 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we all listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, which was, of course, a Second Reading speech, on the assisted places scheme. I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments that we have already heard—not only at Second Reading but also on Committee—a third time round on Report. I should simply like to make three points about the assisted places scheme. The first is that it is intended to replace the old direct grant schools scheme. Whatever the feelings of the House may be about the assisted places scheme—and I have every reason to suppose that a majority of your Lordships support it—when the old direct grant scheme was phased out by the former Labour Government (and I remember the debate well) there were very few noble Lords who did not express their very great regret at the ending of the direct grant schools which had made such a notable contribution to the educational system of this country.
Secondly, the two systems—the direct grant school system and the maintained system—lived side by side very happily for many years. It is extraordinary to talk about creaming off from the maintained system and the ending of the good relationships because we are trying to reintroduce the scheme in a better form without some of the disadvantages that the direct grant schools system had. I was not absolutely sure of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, but if he was implying that only the top 5 per cent. who send their children to independent schools care about their children's education, I would regret that. I think that most parents care very greatly about their children's education.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness, I certainly was not implying that. I was saying that if one advances the argument, as the noble Baroness did, that the parents who formerly sent their children to direct grant schools and who now send them to these schools would be creamed off as the most concerned parents, then it should be remembered that parents in the private sector too, of course, are among the most concerned parents.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am glad to have that point cleared up. The point I want to make is that there are thousands of parents who send their children to the maintained system who care deeply. The provisions in the Bill that we are making both on school governors and on the right of parents to express a choice and the appeal system, which has been so greatly criticised by noble Lords, opposite, are designed to give some of the opportunities to parents who send their children to maintained schools that are currently enjoyed only by those who can afford to send their children to independent schools. It is very important to see the assisted places scheme in relation to other proposals. I have been asked for a great deal of information, and I shall give all the information I can this afternoon.
I turn to the amendment before us. An identical amendment to this was, of course, debated in another place, and the Government believe that it is unnecessary. The Secretary of State is already under an obligation under Section 5 of the Education Act 1944 to:
"make to Parliament an annual report giving an account of the exercise and performance of the powers and duties conferred and imposed upon him by this Act".
That provision applies to this Bill by virtue of Clause 38(3), which provides that this Bill, when it is enacted, is to be construed as one with the Education Act 1944. I believe that this is sufficient safeguard; we have shown already, I believe, that we are willing to be completely open about all aspects of the scheme, and we shall recognise the perfectly valid interest of Members of both Houses in this new scheme when preparing the Secretary of State's annual report to Parliament. Of course, noble Lords can also put questions about the scheme.
I shall give the most up-to-date figures that I have on the scheme. The latest figure for the schools that have expressed an interest in participating is 468. Those figures break down into 120 former direct grant grammar schools, 338 independent schools, one other direct school and nine maintained schools, making a total of 468. In fact, all independent secondary and direct grant schools were sent a letter on 6th December; no attempt was made to select suitable schools at this stage. The letter went to all secondary schools,
622
whether or not they had sixth forms, and the response, which has been about 45 per cent., we believe is very satisfactory in this context.
As for the numbers of places offered—and these are provisional figures and are the latest I have—for the total of boys it is 5,894; for girls, 5,135; for mixed schools, 1,928. Therefore, noble Lords will see that the offers we have are far more than the places we could consider and, quite interestingly, there is almost an even balance as between boys and girls. It is our intention that there should be equal numbers of places for boys and for girls, and that there should be a proper geographical spread of these places.
On the costs of the scheme and how expensive it would be, I would refer those noble Lords who are interested in this matter to the reply given by my honourable friend Dr. Boyson in another place on 12th February 1980 at column 1487 of the Official Report, when he spoke about the
comparative costs of the maintained schools and the independent schools. He said:
"The average recoupment costs for children between the ages of 11 and 16 as between one county and another when real money has to go over and when counties become realistic…is £675. At 16-plus the cost is £1,155. The figures for six ex-direct grant schools in Manchester average £841".
We have, of course, published in full the income scales that will apply. I shall give any noble Lords who are interested the references in Hansard; it would take too long to read out all the details of the scheme this afternoon. I hope I have indicated that we are completely open about our proposals. We believe that they will stand up to public examination. We believe that there will be an opportunity for review of the scheme on this annual report, and I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she answer my question about the report which, according to reports in newspapers, is at the Department of Education and Science and which is not to be published before June? Will she say whether or not the reports in newspapers are correct when they say that, in fact, this report says that bright children do

623
as well, if not better, in comprehensive schools as in selective schools?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the particular question is, of course, totally irrelevant to the amendment before us. However, I assume as the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, has not named the report to which she is referring, that she is referring to the report of the National Children's Bureau. I would refer her to the answer that my right honourable and learned friend gave in another place on 18th March, at column 164 of the Official Report, in which he said:
"There is no truth whatsoever in the suggestion that I have withheld publication of this report by the National Children's Bureau. This research was carried out by the NCB and it is for it to publish the report".
The answer continues but I shall not quote the rest.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, during the Second Reading debate the noble Baroness promised that she would give me an answer to the specific question which I have again asked today. Yet again she seems not to have answered it.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am not at all clear what figures the noble Lord, Lord Parry, wants. We have given the cost, assuming that the assisted places scheme starts in September 1981, of £3.5 million. I gave him the current cost of sixth-form pupils in direct grant schools, and all these are figures which are known. I am not clear what other figure he wishes to have which is relevant to the assisted places scheme.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, perhaps the House will forgive me for reminding the noble Baroness of the specific question I asked. It was whether the overall cost, however assessed—as has been said, the assessment has varied, but the most constant figure is £50 million—or, if you like, the related cost of £3 million in the first year of operation is additional to the sum of money which both she and I know is at present, rightly and properly, spent within the constitution on assisted places.
Baroness YOUNG: The amount that has been put into the financial memorandum at the start of the Bill—£3½million
624
in September 1981—and which we have accepted, will, when the scheme is in full operation, build up to £50 million, but this will not be until about 1989. The sum is in addition to the discretionary award which local authorities can now pay to send children to independent schools where they regard that as appropriate.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I hate to question the noble Baroness again, but I think it is important. I would like to know whether, if children wanting these places do not have adequate facilities at home to take part in gymnastics and games at the same standard as those from better-off places, there are opportunities and grants which will be available as they were under the 1944 Education Act?
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, we are not at the Committee stage now.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, whether we are not at the Committee stage, an answer to the question is courteously requested.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, one is only allowed to speak once on the Report stage.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, the noble Baroness has said that the report of the National Children's Bureau is a matter for them to publish, but, irrespective of that point, will the noble Baroness confirm that the statement made by my noble friend Baroness Bacon is in that report, because travelling to the House today I heard on Radio 4 that very statement which was made by my noble friend?
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: My Lords, I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, comes to read the report of the National Children's Bureau he will find that the research concerned finished in 1974 or 1975, I am not quite sure which, while the direct grant schools were still in operation and before the comprehensive schools had really got under way and when their second year sixth forms were virtually grammar school sixth forms. The figures he is quoting or misquoting—I would not know—will when they are published need a great deal of interpretation and examination in a fairly expert way.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question? I sympathise with the noble Lords who want full information about the working of the assisted places schemes. I believe also that my noble friend is right that the place in which to do that is in the annual review of the Secretary of State. But I think that what we want is an assurance that it will not be a perfunctory paragraph about this scheme. It is a new scheme, people are very interested in it. Can we have an assurance that the noble Baroness will ask the Secretary of State to give us full details, at any rate in the early years?
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the question I wish to ask has relevance to what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has just said. If I understand it properly, this clause does not apply to Scotland and if the Scotland Act had not been repealed I could be accused of asking a "West Lothian" type of question and interfering in English education while the English could not do anything about Scots education. My reason for asking the question is that I was rather surprised when the Minister said that the giving of information would be in relation to this general report which the Secretary of State makes. I therefore wonder exactly what was meant when we look at subsection (6) of the clause. This deals with the making of regulations and includes in paragraph (d) an obligation on the authorities concerned to furnish information to the Secretary of State. This would seem to be in addition to what is being done in these other Acts.
What is the sort of information which is referred to which is intended to be obtained, particularly from these regulations? To what extent do the items covered in the amendment proposed by my noble friends fall within this information sought under the regulations?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think we should remind ourselves that we are on Report and that this is not the Committee stage of the Bill.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I have, I hope, already given an assurance to my noble friend Viscount Eccles and to the House that when the Secretary of State's
626
annual review of the education service is presented to Parliament there will be full information about the working of the scheme and the information that is required. In the meantime, there is nothing to prevent any noble Lord asking questions about it and seeking the information that he or she requires. I shall do my best to answer the other questions that have been asked.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, about the expenditure on equipment for pupils. Under Clause 18, the Secretary of State may make grants for clothing, et cetera. Of course, local education authorities will also be free to help by using their general powers under Section 81 of the 1944 Act. That is precisely to avoid the kind of situation that he has described.
So far as the regulating powers are concerned, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, under subsection (6) is, I believe, quite clear. There will have to be various regulations which prescribe the particular conditions that are set down. Of course, we shall be writing to the local education authorities notifying them and working with them on the schools that are selected for the scheme, the methods of selection and so on within their area. There will obviously be information which they will want to give us and we shall want from them. These are all matters that are covered in regulations, and the Bill makes that quite clear, I believe.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in view of the assurance which the Minister has given in reply to both the question I raised and the amendment moved, and in view also of her answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who was pursuing the same path, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.37 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 18, line 15, after ("scheme") insert ("after the completion of a satisfactory report on a participating school by Her Majesty's Inspectors").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, together with Amendments

627
Nos. 44 and 47, are concerned with the maintenance of standards at schools at which assisted places are to be taken up. Amendment No. 41 requires in the first place that it should be a condition of becoming a participating school that there should be a satisfactory report on it from Her Majesty's Inspectors. Amendment No. 44 prescribes the exclusion of a school on which an unsatisfactory report has been received, and Amendment No. 47 gives definition to the term "standards" which appears in the relevant schedule.
I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is no longer with us because I am encouraged, in moving this amendment, by something he said on the last one. He argued in favour of the assisted places scheme on the ground that maintained schools were all very well for many children but that there were gifted children who required exceptionally high quality teachers and a special kind of school. I do not accept that argument at all, but if the assisted places scheme is going to be justified on the ground these schools at which assisted places will be taken up are of an exceptionally high quality, we are entitled to ask for some verification of it.
One understands, of course, that assisted places would not be taken up at, say, the kind of school attended by H. G. Wells's hero, Mr. Polly, of whom it was said that at that school the studies of French and bookkeeping were pursued but never effectively overtaken. What is asked of these schools is something far more than that; that they should be so exceptional that they can give to the exceptionally gifted child something it cannot obtain elsewhere.
At the outset of our argument on this matter, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, expressed doubt as to whether there were all that number of such superlative schools to be found anywhere. Let us put it to the test. What we are suggesting in these amendments is that a school at which assisted places are to be provided should be subject in the first instance to reports by Her Majesty's Inspectors; that they should not remain on the list of participating schools if there is an unsatisfactory report, and that the
628
reference to standards in the schedule should be standards as defined by Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
I do not know what the Minister will be able to say today about the state of the inspection of schools outside the maintained system. It certainly was the original intention that such schools should be inspected, and that indeed final registration of the school should depend on a satisfactory report, but I am not sure how far that has worked out in practice. Is the noble Baroness perhaps going to tell us that this amendment would be impossible because there are not the resources in the Inspectorate? If that is so, then might it not be better to leave over the assisted places scheme until we can be sure of adequate reporting? Contrarywise, if it is practically possible for the Inspectorate to do the work we are imposing on them in these amendments, surely it should be done. I beg to move.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, it would be impertinent to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, is unaware of Section 77 of the Education Act 1944 whereby Her Majesty's Inspectorate have a bounden duty to inspect all schools. As he knows far better than 1, this scheme has been going on for many years. In the light of this fact, purely on the ground of necessity I cannot see, as the information is already with the Secretary of State for Education, the point of this amendment, and what it would contribute to the Bill.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER HILL: My Lords, I think that this amendment should be looked at carefully. We are not dealing with the ordinary issue of inspection of independent schools or of any schools to see whether it is providing satisfactory education. We are dealing here with the issue of whether a particular school is capable of fully stretching a child who is certainly in the top 2 per cent. of ability, probably even more than that, in the top 1 per cent. This is a very special job. I gather that about 400 schools have offered to co-operate. The idea that there are 400 schools capable of fully stretching these children I would totally reject as not a practical proposition.
I have no doubt that under the clause there are circumstances whereby the

629
Secretary of State can require whatever information he thinks necessary from schools before he enters into an agreement with them. Whether an actual inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate is necessary is for him to decide, but I would hope he would take great care to ensure that the schools invited to participate would be such schools as could fully educate children who have a very high level of ability and who need special provision.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I hope that I can give the House the assurances that are required on all the points that have been raised over this amendment. I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, was also speaking to Amendments Nos. 44 and 47. En selecting schools for the scheme, the Secretary of State will certainly seek and have regard to the advice of Her Majesty's Inspectorate. But in general we should be able to rely on the detailed information given by schools in support of their applications and on what Her Majesty's Inspectorate know of them already.
Schools will be required to provide detailed information on such matters as their sixth form provision, provision for 0-level and A-level examinations, and other academic courses, so that we shall know what they can offer. We therefore believe that it will neither be necessary nor practicable to arrange for Her Majesty's Inspectorate to carry out an inspection and render a report on every school with which it is proposed to make an agreement. Many schools are already well-known to the Inspectorate and this would be a misuse of Inspectorate manpower and a time-consuming and delaying task. As I have said, the advice of the Inspectorate will be taken and will be based on a special visit where in their judgment this is necessary. May I say as well that all independent schools are inspected before final registration, so that I think this is an important safeguard. Final registration always depends on a satisfactory report, except as provided under Clause 34 of the Bill.
I think therefore that it will be recognised that just as we wish the scheme to succeed—and after all we have no possible interest in having unsatisfactory schools in the scheme—if there is one
630
thing we shall be able to measure it is the results. If the results are unsatisfactory we shall know at once if the school is unsatisfactory, because of course the scheme can be measured in terms of money that is put in and the qualifications that the children get at the end. As we all know about qualifications, they measure not only those taking the examination but those who are teaching for the examinations. So I think we have in a real sense a measure which we would all accept is important.
On the further amendments I think it would be difficult, for example, on Amendment No. 44, to define what exactly is meant by an unsatisfactory report on the school. It presumably applies to the general conduct or achievement of the school. But what about a critical report of a particular member of the staff who might leave, and then the school continues to be all right? I do not think that we could accept an amendment that is couched in those terms. On Amendment No. 47, the Secretary of State will always take the advice on whether or not a school has fallen below the standards considered appropriate for participation in the scheme, and he must have power to terminate a school's agreement if its standards fall off.
In the last analysis the Secretary of State must always act on his own judgment and not be bound to accept the advice of any of the officials; and this must be the way that public life works. The Secretary of State makes the agreement and must take the responsibility for deciding to terminate it. But it seems to me that the real assurance is the point I made earlier: we wish the scheme to be a success. If it is not a success then this would measure the schools as well as the pupils, and I suggest that those of us who support the scheme have an interest—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, does—in ensuring that the schools that are chosen can in fact do for the children what we would all like.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords. I am not altogether reassured by that. The noble Baroness tells us that we shall find out after the children have been to the school whether the school was all right or not, but it would be rather late in the day. I would not have pressed

631
this so much were it not for the point argued by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. We are not being asked to list schools as reasonably all right. These are supposed to be schools that have the superlative quality of doing justice by the top 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the population measured by intelligence. Personally I think that all this stuff about measuring intelligence and top 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. is largely a load of rubbish, but the trouble is that it is on this load of rubbish that a great deal of this scheme depends. It really ought to live up to its own convictions. I am afraid that I must ask my noble friends to press this amendment.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, may I just say one word. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Alexander of Potter-hill. In my opinion this scheme is needed not only for people who can be stretched to the very full but for those children, for instance, who cannot get good mathematics teaching. I suppose they will be selected to go to direct schools which have received this grant and where there is good mathematics teaching. We all know that in a great many of the secondary schools today you cannot get to A-level in maths. Therefore if the child appears to have a good chance to get to A-level in maths I hope that the Minister will say that that will be a reason for finding a school under this scheme.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, before the Question is put, may I ask the noble Baroness to tell us what she has in mind as to how the scheme will work in these sort of circumstances? Suppose a school is chosen, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, because there is a very brilliant young mathematician and this is a school with very good mathematics teaching. But suppose the head mathematics teacher, who is the boss of the whole thing, leaves that school. It may be difficult to find an equally good teacher to take his place. What, then, is the position in relation to the child who is at that school? My second question is the reverse of that coin: what happens to the pupil who has been sent to one of these schools and who, half way through his course, is found by the school not to be keeping up to the mark? Will he be removed from that
632
school and put back into the maintained system?
Baroness BACON: My Lords, it is assumed that all these 464 schools cater for children of high academic ability. It may be that among those schools there are some of that kind, but surely a lot of them do not cater for children of high academic ability but for the children of parents who can afford to pay the fees.
Baroness YOUNG: By the leave of the House, my Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Eccles for the point he made. Clearly, the assisted places scheme would be valuable in circumstances where, for one reason or another, a particular course was not available in the maintained system, and we have always accepted that this is one reason for the assisted places scheme. I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that clearly a school would not be chosen just because there was one good teacher. I hope I have said enough to indicate that, in order to be registered, it would have to be a school inspected by the inspectors; that it would need to have a full range of courses on offer, including a sixth form; that it would need to have enough pupils in the sixth form courses so there would be the correct stimulus for them; and that it would need to have a whole range of academic attributes before it would be considered. As for a pupil who is unable for one reason or another to keep up, clearly the scheme must be flexible as regards arrangements; if the child is unhappy at a particular school, no one would wish the child to continue at that school. This must be a matter which can be dealt with by the head of the school and the parents in the way that is regarded appropriate.
I would remind the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, that I gave the figures of the numbers of schools that had indicated an interest. Please do not interpret that as meaning the numbers of schools that will be selected, because we have not yet chosen those numbers of schools. The House asked for the information we had at the present time, and that is the total numbers of schools that have expressed an interest. As I have already indicated to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, we shall be choosing schools of an academic character and we are particularly interested

633
in those schools that were former direct grant schools that have now gone independent. I think everyone will have recognised that they were academic schools. That is the characteristic we are looking for and I do not think it contributes to the argument to make denigrating remarks about parents who may choose to pay to send their children to one of these
schools. That does not help the scheme, the parents or the children.
3.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 142.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Phillips, B.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Amherst, E.

Gosford, E.

Rochester, L.

Amulree, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henderson, L.

Seear, B.

Bacon, B.

Hughes, L.

Shinwell, L.

Banks, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Simon, V.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Blease, L. [Teller.]

Janner, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stone, L.

Bowden, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Brimelow, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strauss, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Byers, L.

Leonard, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Chitnis, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Underhill, L.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McNair, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Milford, L.

White, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wigoder, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Northfield, L.

Willis, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Oram, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Galpern, L.

Parry, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Peart, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gladwyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Derwent, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hives, L.

Allerton, L.

Dundee, E.

Hylton, L.

Alport, L.

Dundonald, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Amory, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ampthill, L.

Eccles, V.

James of Risholme, L.

Armstrong, L.

Effingham, E.

Jessel, L.

Balerno, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Kimberley, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Barnby, L.

Elton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bellwin, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Kintore, E.

Belstead, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Berkeley, B.

Faithfull, B.

Long, V.

Bolton, L.

Falkland, V.

Loudoun, C.

Brookeborough, V.

Ferrers, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caccia, L.

Forester, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fortescue, E.

McFadzean, L.

Chesham, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Clancarty, E.

Gage, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Galloway, E.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Glasgow, E.

Mancroft, L.

Clwyd, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gormanston, V.

Margadale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gowrie, E.

Marley, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Gridley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Middleton, L.

Daventry, V.

Halsbury, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Davidson, V.

Hanworth, V.

Morris, L.

de Clifford, L.

Harvington, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Moyne, L.

St. Just, L.

Strathspey, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Swansea, L.

Newall, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Swinton, E.

Northchurch, B.

Sandford, L.

Tranmire, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Trenchard, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trumpington, B.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sharples, B.

Vaizey, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Sligo, M.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Porritt, L.

Smith, L.

Vickers, B.

Reigate, L.

Snow, L.

Vivian, L.

Renton, L.

Somers, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ridley, V.

Spens, L.

Westbury, L.

Roberthall, L.

Stamp, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Rochdale, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Wolverton, L.

Romney, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Young, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.3 p.m.
Baroness BACON Baroness BACON moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 18, line 19, at end insert ("and of ensuring that no pupil will have to travel further than 20 miles").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which would ensure that no pupil who is selected for one of the assisted places will have to travel more than 20 miles. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness towards the end of the discussion on the last amendment when she said that although there are figures for schools that wish to participate in the scheme, these schools are not necessarily the schools which will participate or the schools that will be selected. It may be that these figures will vary slightly, but the latest information we have about geographical distribution was given in reply to a Question for Written Answer in another place on 4th February, as reported at columns 81 and 82 of the Official Report. Those figures show that the different regions of the country vary considerably in regard to the number of schools that wish to participate in the scheme. For example, in the East Midlands 15 schools have applied; in Wales, too, 15 have applied; in Northern England 19 have applied; but in the North West of England the figure was 50, and in the South East 136.
As I say. I appreciate that these figures might not represent the proportions of the schools that will be selected. Nevertheless, the figures show that it seems inevitable that if there is to be a proper geographical distribution, as the noble Baroness im-
636
plied, in some areas some children will have to travel a long way. I should like to ask what are the catchment areas to be? Is there to be any limit whatsoever on the number of miles which children will have to travel? More importantly, I should like to know who is to pay for the transport, because at the moment there is an anomalous position, in that the local authority will have no say whatsoever in the numbers of children who will be selected for the assisted places scheme. The local authority will be completely out of the matter. There will be applications from parents of children, and these applications will be accepted, or otherwise dealt with, by the schools concerned. Therefore, the local authorities will have no say whatsoever in the numbers of children going to the schools, nor in the distances to be covered, yet it appears that, according to law, the local authorities are responsible for the transporting of the children from their homes to the schools which they are attending.
I see the noble Baroness shaking her head, but perhaps she could clear up the question of who will pay for the transporting of the children to the schools where the assisted places are offered. I should like to know from the noble Baroness what the position will be. Will there be any limit whatsoever to the number of miles to be travelled? Will there be any limit at all in regard to those schools to which the parents can apply for their children to attend? And there is the important question, who is going to pay for the transport? I beg to move.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I take this amendment to be a probing amendment, and I assume that the

637
noble Baroness does not literally mean 20 miles, because the effect of a 20-mile limit would vary very considerably according to the locality and the means of public transport, if it exists. The noble Baroness put a number of questions, some of which I shall endeavour to answer, and others of which, as she will no doubt appreciate, can be answered only when the assisted places scheme comes into effect.
Schools offering assisted places will often have to serve wide areas. One expects that children who live in urban areas will, numerically speaking, be in the vast majority in this respect, simply because these days more people live in towns and conurbations than in the country. However, putting that to one side, children who live in rural areas and who attend these schools will have to have an increased expectation in regard to travelling, but one hopes that few assisted place holders will be involved in journeys of more than 20 miles or so, and that for the great majority the travelling distances will be considerably shorter.
The difficulty—and I think the noble Baroness touched upon this—will arise in those parts of the country where there are not likely to be a great number of assisted places because there will not be a very large number of schools that can offer them. It would be idle of me to pretend that there will be a completely even distribution of assisted places around the country. There is no doubt that in some rural areas—perhaps in the North-East of England, for example—there will be an under-provision of places if there are not schools within striking distance of the homes of the pupils who wish to go to them. However, I can say at this stage that it is hoped that the main urban concentrations will be adequately provided for, and that if choices are to be made, it is perhaps right that priority be given to these areas. After all, the old direct grant scheme tended to be concentrated upon such areas as the North-West, parts of the South-West, and I think the London area. While we hope to achieve nationally a more even distribution than this, it will never be completely satisfactory.
The noble Baroness put some questions to me as to who is going to pay, and for what. Clause 17 of the Bill imposes a number of mandatory duties upon the Secretary of State. Clause 18—this is
638
in fact outside the scope of this amendment, but as there are no amendments down to Clause 18 perhaps I may be forgiven for touching on it—which refers to incidental expenses of pupils holding assisted places, contains the power given to the Secretary of State, when he comes to make his regulations, to make grants, in effect, in respect of this kind of expense; and there is no doubt about it that in certain instances travelling expenses will be covered under the regulations in Clause 18.
Perhaps I can postulate this rhetorical question: Would one expect a Government who are setting up a scheme like this to provide the places for children to receive this type of education and then, if their parents cannot afford to send them, not to provide the transport to get them there? Answering my own rhetorical question, the answer is, "Of course not". It would, would it not, make a nonsense of the whole scheme?—and that I am quite sure my right honourable and learned friend does not intend to do. But I cannot go into great detail, as I have said, at this stage, because we do not even know which schools are going to come forward, the areas in which they will be situated and the distances which will be involved. But the discretionary duty on the Secretary of State is in fact laid down in Clause 18. The local education authorities will not have to assist holders of assisted places. That is the point I want to drive home to the noble Baroness, if I may. What the Secretary of State will do, in fact, is to provide such arrangements as he thinks are necessary under Clause 18. I hope that helps the noble Baroness.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the North-East of England. I think I am right in saying that if the noble Baroness's amendment were carried it would rule out vast chunks of the North-East of England which cannot be within reach of any of these schools. Therefore, it seems to me that the rural lobby, which was fairly effective at our Committee stage, should spring to the defence of the Government on this one, and I hope it will do so.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I come from the North-East of England, from a very rural area, and I, too, can assure the noble Baroness that

639
many of the children there have no choice at all. The only school that the local children in my part of the world go to is a rather moderate comprehensive school without a sixth-form. Do you think that the Secretary of State, when he makes these regulations, might think of giving grants for weekly boarders? This would then give the children from rural areas a chance.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: My Lords, I come from an area even more rural still than that of the noble Baroness, because I am just up the road. There are in fact in the North-East two schools which were direct grant schools, one Barnard Castle and the other Pocklington, and both of them have boarding houses. Boarding (in my view, probably rightly) is specifically excluded, but I think that can be got round because when the direct grant schools were abolished they all had quite successful appeals so that they could continue to carry on their specific historic task of helping poor boys. If this scheme goes through and they are accepted, they will not need all the money for that purpose; and I imagine that some of those schools (the ones I have anything to do with, certainly) would use some of that money to assist boys from very rural areas, like that of the noble Baroness and my own, to go there as at any rate weekly boarders. After all, under the old direct grant system the fees to day boys were graded on an incomes scale, but the boarding fees were not. So we should really be going back to something like that, except that the State would not be providing the boarding fee. I think we can get over this; but, of course, any limitation such as 20 miles must be probing, because it would be silly. A number of York parents in fact send their children to Pocklington by chartered bus every day. I think that is slightly more than 20 miles, so that will not do. At any rate, I think these difficulties of geography can be got over.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, I wonder whether we are moving on to Amendment No. 43. It looks very like it to me. If the Minister is making any reference to that under this amendment, perhaps she would make it clear whether or not the effect of the clause excludes boarding education from
640
the scheme. I would be most grateful if that were clarified before we come to Amendment No. 43.
Lord WOLVERTON: My Lords, I should like one thing cleared up. I thought that under the Bill local authorities were allowed to pay only for the day hoarding of these brilliant children, and not for their boarding as boarders for the week—only per day. Perhaps the Minister would answer that, because I do not think it is in the Bill that they should be allowed to pay for anything else but the day boarding.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will answer, although I am conscious that I am jolly nearly trespassing on Amendment No. 43, and it is not my intention so to do. May I take up the point about boarding fees. If we look at Clause 17(3)(a), we see that in fact the scheme specifically rules out boarding fees, and that answers both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. But, like everything else in life, there are exceptions. It would I think be possible—in fact, I know it would be possible—that in a very small number of cases, if a child was in effect the recipient of a place under the scheme on a day basis and then either won or obtained a scholarship, or obtained the favour (if I may so term it) of other funds in order to, as it were, take up the boarding element of a boarding school, then there is no reason why that child should not attend a boarding school as a boarder. But I want to emphasise that the fees in respect of boarding cannot come from the assisted places scheme. That is barred.
The other point which I think is in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham—it applies in fact to all education, but even more so to this—is that the more money that is spent on what I might call the infrastructure of the scheme (in other words, the more money which is spent on the incidentals under Clause 18) the less money there will be under the scheme for the education of the children under Clause 17.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, was quite correct when he said at the beginning that he assumed this was a probing

641
amendment and that, of course, we did not mean an exact 20-mile limit. However, there was certain information which we had to have, and, in part, that information has been given. I particularly appreciate the fact that the noble Earl said that the travelling expenses would not fall on the local authority. He has referred me to Clause 18. Of course I was aware of Clause 18, but it was what Clause 18 said that made me unsure of what was going to happen. Clause 18 says at the beginning:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring or enabling schools participating ",
et cetera. There is a very great difference between requiring a school to do something and enabling it to do something: one is mandatory and the other is not. However, we have had the assurance from the noble Earl that the travelling expenses will not fall on the local authority, and in view of that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 18, line 23, leave out from ("school") to ("and") in line 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last amendment was a probing amendment and it probed something out of the Government. If I understood the noble Earl correctly, he was saying that travel expenses certainly could be, and probably would be, dealt with under Clause 18 of the Bill. I do not think that that is an unfair paraphrase of what he said.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I interrupt merely to the extent of saying that it is not the Government's intention that the public should pay fees by way of travelling expenses in respect of children whose parents are perfectly able to afford them.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, perhaps I should amend what I said just now. The noble Earl seems to be saying that, where parents who cannot afford them get an assisted place for a child and there are necessary travelling expenses, those expenses could be dealt with, and probably would be dealt with, under Clause 18. We are saddled with
642
another means test, another aspect of this generally tiresome Bill.
The amendment also probed out a bit of information about boarding education. As I understand it, it ruled beyond any doubt that the State cannot afford to pay boarding fees. That appears to be certain. I would assume, in view of the wording of Clause 17, that one could not bring in boarding fees by the back door under Clause 18 as an incidental expense. But I think that I am right in saying that nowhere does the Bill state that a boarding school, or a school with boarding facilities, cannot be a participating school. There does not appear to be anything to that effect. From the argument that we have just had, it seems possible that a school in a thinly-populated neighbourhood (where, if you were to attend it at all it might be desirable or necessary to be a weekly boarder), could be a participating school. There is nothing in the Act which forbids that. If that is not so and it is explicitly stated that no boarding school can be a participating school, or, if you prefer, no child who has an assisted place can be a boarder, I hope that it will be stated clearly.
If that is so, it would seem to me to be rather unfortunate if one grants the premises of the scheme because it has been pointed out in the previous argument that there might be a case where it would be desirable, and this worries me. If you have a child who has an assisted place and who, because it is a thinly-populated neighbourhood or for any other valid reason, ought to be a boarder or a weekly boarder, what is to happen? The local authority cannot pay the boarding fees or, at least, you could not be certain that it would. The State definitely cannot by virtue of Clause 17. What is to happen? Possibly, as the noble Earl has said, the child might earn some other scholarship or bursary to cover it. But suppose that he does not. What is to happen?
There is no use in saying: "The parent can afford to pay boarding fees because he will not have to keep the child at home." It is perfectly well-known that the fees for a child at boarding school are bound to be substantially more than what it costs to keep the child at home. You might get a situation where a child gets an assisted place (and it is an assisted place that it can take up only if it becomes

643
a boarder or weekly boarder) where the parents cannot afford to pay boarding fees; the local authority almost certainly will not and the State cannot. This is going to mean that a parent of that kind will find his child excluded for financial reasons. The picture of the poor, bright children flocking to the assisted places, is going to be somewhat tarnished in this regard. I think I am on to a real point and I hope that the Government will sort it out.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment strongly and I hope that the Government will look at it—and not because I expect that there will be a wide demand for places in boarding school. Perhaps I should begin by making it clear that at Second Reading I opposed this scheme altogether. I still do so. But if it is to operate, then it must surely be enabled to fulfil its purpose. There are two aspects, as I see it. First, I do not believe that, if you are really picking with care the schools that are adequate to do this job, you will find a school which can cover the whole of the country to be attended by day pupils. There will be areas where boarding is necessary, whether weekly boarding or not. This is true. More importantly, if you are concerned to give an opportunity to the very bright child from a home of limited means—and it may be a home of very limited means—then providing a good school as a day school may not be the right answer. The right answer might be to send it to a boarding school, so that the child can have the full opportunity that the boarding school offers. It may not have the adequate support at home for studying. If there is substantial travelling, the child's opportunities will be reduced.
If this amendment were accepted, the arrangements, which, after all, are in the hands of the Secretary of State, will enable the number—which could be quite limited—of cases of this kind to be dealt with. There may be no more than a dozen or 20 cases where this is necessary in the country. But it would enable them to be dealt with. The Minister may say that, where there is a need for boarding education, the local education authority can provide it. That is true, although I do not think that many authorities these days would provide it
644
solely on the ground of the high ability of a child. In 1946 I did a report hoping that that might happen, but it did not work.
I therefore hope that the Government might consider accepting the amendment—which would still leave the control completely in the hands of the Secretary of State as to the limited numbers where this would apply; but where boarding can be provided and the boarding costs borne. If this is not done, there will be cases where a child, whom the assisted places scheme was designed to serve, cannot be assisted because of the limitation which the Government have imposed upon themselves.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this amendment. As noble Lords know, I am 100 per cent. behind this scheme; but if I am 100 per cent. behind it, it must apply to all gifted children. Living where I do, I know well that the really gifted child in Wensleydale could not get the kind of education it needs—it simply could not—in mathematics, science, Greek or whatever. The only way it could do so would be by weekly boarding somewhere. As I indicated in my few remarks on the last amendment, it may be that the receiving schools may have some funds to help out. Where they have not, it seems to me that the door must be left open if this scheme is to be made a reality for help towards boarding for the child who is fortunate or unfortunate enough to live in a very sparsely populated area. I would support what Lord Alexander has said.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this amendment. I personally know a boy who is absolutely brilliant at music and singing. The North Yorkshire County Council sent him to Ampleforth College as there was no other place where he could follow his vocation. This boy is now in the sixth form and is going to take up music as a profession. There are lots of other children who could benefit from such places.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, may I be counted among those who would support this? What I said just now about the urban areas very much applies to this. I will not accept, like the noble Lord, Lord James, that Yorkshire is the North-

645
East of England. It is very much the Midlands, where I come from. We have greater problems than in Wensleydale. I think the noble Lord, Lord James, was right in saying that if the scheme is to apply, it must be consistent and apply as far as possible. I hope the Government will find a way round this difficult problem.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I have great sympathy with those who support this amendment even when—in the case of noble Lords and Baronesses opposite—I am not sure that they do it with the purest of motives. May I clear up the position, first of all? Under the Bill, assisted places are in respect of fees for education. It is not envisaged—at least at the moment—that it would extend to boarding fees. At the same time, there is no reason why boarding schools under this Bill cannot become, as it were, under the terms of the schedule participating schools. As I said in regard to the last amendment, in certain circumstances a child qualifies (if I may use the term) under this scheme for an assisted place; and if the money can be provided in some other way for that child to become a boarder, then it could become (I do not wish to be patronising) the recipient of what I might call the hybrid largesse.
Having said that, may I now turn to the points my noble friends in particular have made. They would like to see this scheme extended to such schools as take in weekly boarders so that the boarding part of the fees would be paid for under the assisted places scheme. The Government have made it clear throughout the proceedings in the other place and in your Lordships' House that, in the interests of spreading the available resources as widely as possible, the scheme could not extend to boarding fees. The scheme is on a par with the old direct grant scheme, and that was confined to day places. It is right that, having made the decison, we were under a duty to make it clear in the Bill not to leave matters uncertain and not to raise expectations.
If I may continue with the theme of my remarks in dealing with the last amendment, if we provided for boarding fees under the assisted places scheme we would severely limit the number of places which could be offered, or would
646
greatly increase the expenditure involved. The Government have taken a decision as to how much money they think can be devoted to this scheme and—goodness knows!—they have been criticised for devoting to it that comparatively modest sum of money. Nevertheless, this is what was decided. I respectfully suggest to the House that it is right.
It may be possible, as I have said, for some boarding schools to offer places in the scheme; but that part of it will be outside the terms of this particular clause. I should like to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said, that the assisted places scheme is in no way intended to deprive local education authorities under their powers which were contained in Section 81 of the 1944 Act. Under that section, there is no reason why a local education authority should not provide the boarding fees. One does not anticipate that they will feel inclined to do so in many cases, but there is nothing to stop them if they think a case merits it. If, for instance, there was a particularly bright or talented pupil, that child could be either sent to a boarding school, simpliciter, by the local education authority, or it could pay for the boarding part of the fees under the assisted places scheme.
The noble Lord's Amendment went slightly wider than tuition and boarding fees. I do not know whether he wished to pursue that. Clause 17(3) provides that the scheme will apply to tuition fees and
"other fees the payment of which is a condition of attendance at a participating scheme".
It is worded in these terms to provide for essential fees such as an initial registration or medical fee. But it would be inappropriate to leave this completely open-ended, and the amendment would sweep away the provision in the second half of Clause 17(3) that additional fees which the Secretary of State did not consider should be supported—for example, a fee for an extra such as swimming instruction or riding lessons—could be excluded under the participation agreement. I do not suppose that this is going to be a major problem, but it is essential that all concerned should know what fees are going to be covered and what will be provided for them. For this reason we shall encourage the practice of an all-inclusive

647
fee system covering the essentials. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we are not suggesting, as I understand it, that the Government should say that they will provide boarding fees. What this amendment does is to prevent the Government from saying, "In no circumstances will we provide boarding fees". As I understood the Minister earlier, the statement was made that the local authority would not be involved in expenditure for pupils who are given a place under this scheme. What he is now saying is they may well be involved in certain cases in paying more than the cost that the Government are bearing because the boarding cost—if that is necessary full time—will considerably exceed the cost of the day pupil.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
4.37 p.m.
Lord MISHCON Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 19, line 5, after ("State") insert—
(" (f) that in the event of an assisted place being granted without the prior consent of the local education authority in whose area the child resides, the participating school shall reimburse the local education authority for the expenditure which it has made on that child's education up to the child's entering the independent school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have been treated over the past couple of days at the Report stage of this Bill, and previously at the Committee stage, to a paean of praise from the Front Bench opposite to the discretion of local authorities and especially local education authorities. That has been music to the ears of those who have been privileged to serve in local government over many years, and who have not always heard that from Ministers in the Government. It has been said that it would be quite wrong to interfere with the choice by local authorities of those who would be on the governing body. It would be wrong to direct them as to the type of people whom they should choose, because local authorities are quite capable of
648
making that choice and of guiding themselves in that way without any need for anyone to interfere. We have been told that local authorities obviously have the knowledge and experience which is required—and nobody ought to interfere with it—in regard to the nature of the schools they want in their area.
This amendment deals with a situation where an assisted place may be given in a participating school where the local authority's consent has not yet been obtained. One may assume from the wording of this amendment that it would not be obtained. If local authorities are to have all this discretion in so many fields on the basis that they know what is good for the children in their area, your Lordships may feel that it must be right that, where in their view it is in the interests of the child that that child should not go to a participating school but does in fact go there, and the participating school accepts that child, the least that ought to be done, in justice, is that the participating school should be made to pay the appropriate cost of the tuition of that child up to the date when that child enters the participating school.
The participating school would be taking advantage of the education which that child has had to up that date and will have had its own purse, as it were, saved from the expenditure on the education of the child up to that stage. Your Lordships may therefore feel that this amendment is not only just but pays that tribute to the judgment and discretion of local authorities which during these debates the Government Benches have been so keen to emphasise.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I do not follow his logic at all. I would understand it if he had said that the local education authority should have a veto on the child being chosen for a selected place. But he did not suggest that, and I do not think that we would have agreed with him had he done so. When the local education authority has expressed disagreement with the fact that the Secretary of State proposes and the child's parents agree that the child should accept an assisted place, I see no logic in asking the selected school then to pay something. That does not appear to

649
follow in the least. The LEA has not been making an investment in the child's education. The person who is making the investment is the child and the child carries that investment with him to the assisted place. The LEA has not lost anything.
Even if the noble Lord does not support the idea, I am sure he is aware that some children go to private preparatory schools and then on to private secondary schools. But nobody suggests that the secondary school should pay the preparatory school for the work it has done before the child goes to the secondary school. The child would normally be going, I understand, from a primary school into the assisted place. Therefore, it may be the same LEA but it is not the same school that is educating the child. I hope that one of the sponsors of this amendment will explain, purely for my benefit, the logic behind this proposal.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I certainly cannot support this amendment. To be logical, one might as well say that if a doctor who has been trained in this county obtains a job in a hospital abroad, the latter should be asked to pay this country for that doctor's training. It does not add up.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, part of the reason for this amendment was to try to find out a little more about the position of the local authority as regards the assisted places scheme. So far as I can make out, the circular that went to independent schools on 6th December was sent to the local authorities with a short letter accompanying it explaining the intentions of the assisted places scheme. The only real reference to local education authorities in the documents comes in paragraph 4, which stated:
"Local education authorities will be notified of provisional responses to the letter of invitation from non-maintained schools in their locality and will he given an opportunity to make known to the Secretary of State their views about the operation of the scheme in their area if they wish to do so.".
They are given an opportunity to make their views known, but we do not know what attention will be paid to their views. I hope that the Minister will tell us.
The authorities' reaction has not been very enthusiastic, and the Association of
650
County Councils—hardly a left-wing or radical body—said in one of its documents:
"The committee wished to emphasise that their main consideration and concern would remain the protection of the standards of provision in LEA schools and they would wish to examine any proposals in that light. In their view, any proposals for an assisted places scheme should not imply that the provision made within the maintained system was inferior. In particular they would be concerned about provision within any scheme for the lowest income group—consequential costs for LEAs, the way in which a decision would be reached on the admission of schools to a scheme, and the question of boarding need.".
That of course we have just been discussing, but the ACC clearly wants to protect the standards of provision in LEA schools, and obviously assumes that some people will see that provision as inferior because the Government have decided to set up the scheme. That is certainly the assumption which is being made by many people. It is wrong for Ministers who are in charge of providing State education to let that happen. This is curious when their theme song has been "We must raise standards in State education". Can we really believe that the raising of standards is their first priority?
It is not only the ACC that is critical of the fact that it is being ignored: the Association of Metropolitan Authorities published a document in which it said:
"A start in 1981–82 will call for additional expenditure at a time when the current economics will be having their most marked effect, and when finances will be under the greatest pressure; this is not the time to put resources into the independent sector, whether by increasing the capacity of the schools or by helping parents to pay for places who would probably pay in any event.
"Although it is hard at this stage to predict the effect of the scheme in creaming some of the most able pupils from maintained to independent schools, the fact remains that the latter schools are mainly in urban areas where some of the most difficult problems arising from falling rolls are already being tackled. By 1991, because of the continuing fall in the secondary school population, the transfer of maintained-school pupils to independent schools is likely in practice to be from among the top 10 per cent. who stay on to study for A level. Entry at 16 plus to assisted places may well create additional strains on the viability of sixth forms in maintained schools. If an independent school has all its places designated as assisted"—
that was one of the justifications for the scheme—
"the effects on LEA plans and plant will be very great. There is already movement at 16 plus both into and out of the maintained sector; one would

651
not want to increase the movement in one direction."
The AMA has also expressed concern that the curriculum in maintained primary schools may be distorted if pressure is applied for exam classes. The letter of 6th December says that selection tests must not be biased against the curriculum in maintained primary schools, but we know what some heads can do.
The AMA went on to ask that LEAs should be involved in the present consultations between the DES and independent school interests and in any national forum established to keep the scheme under review as well as at local level on an individual basis in the operation of the scheme. The authorities want to have consultation and are very much afraid of the effects on their schools, particularly as regards the sixth forms, and of the possible effect on assisted-place schools, including those newly aided schools that may be attracted into applying for membership of a scheme.
The Society of Education Officers, the people to whom the Department circular of 6th December was sent, came out with a very strong statement. It is unusual for them to take such a step. They are the people who are running State education all over the country and they said this:
"As educationalists, we believe that the educational basis of this scheme is not proven. We believe that there are other and more effective ways of providing for able children…The picture of LEAs running establishments little better than secondary modern schools while their able children go to independent schools is unacceptable … It would not be unreasonable to require governors of independent schools to reach agreement with the LEA on the nature of their entrance examinations".
They do want consultations; but are they going to get them? That is the question I want to ask the Minister. Are they going to have any redress for losing a number of their able pupils, as is suggested in this amendment that we are talking about?
In passing, I should like to call the attention of the House to what one local education authority is doing for its gifted children. Three years ago, Birmingham set up a working party on how to recognise gifted children at an early age. They have just produced a document: Gifted and Outstanding Children. I would
652
suggest that perhaps the money which is being spent on the assisted places might instead go to supporting the sort of experiments which are going on and which might help more than the few thousands who may be helped by the assisted places scheme. My immediate question is: how are the local education authorities going to be involved and how are they going to be consulted? Have they any power at all?
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in her restatement of what the county councils and also the other educationists have said. Throughout the whole of this debate it has concerned me that on both sides of the House we have constantly reiterated the phrase "bright children". I was one of many Members of your Lordships House who went to grant-aided schools when they went through the terrible trauma of having to make a decision either to come into the State scheme or become independent. As I recall, about 50 per cent. went independent and 50 per cent. went into the State scheme. It seems to me that if we constantly suggest that only the independent school can provide education for the bright child we are downgrading those schools which did not remain independent. They cannot have changed very much, because it is only about a year or two years since this whole business was gone through. This clause makes no particular reference to bright or gifted children. It uses the phrase:
"for the purpose of enabling pupils who might otherwise not be able to benefit from education".
"Education" is a very wide term, and I do not think we should constantly harp on the fact that it is independent schools alone which can provide this sort of facility.
The LEAs have done a marvellous job in taking on the direct grant schools. I had the pleasure of visiting one the other day and the standard of education is very high. After all, the old grammar schools went to the local education authorities and therefore I think it is wrong to suggest, as we have seemed to do throughout this debate, that the only way you can deal with gifted children is to give them an assisted place. Ironically, it could be that the only place which is available for a very bright child would be in one of the

653
original direct grant schools which is now part of the State system. Do they then get some sort of contribution from the Government for taking the child in?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend has raised this point, because people are forgetting the ability and talent that exists in the sixth form colleges, where the most esoteric subject can be taken, particularly physics and mathematics. I do not call them esoteric, but we need 4,000 students in the one and about 2,000 in the other right away. Therefore I do hope that we will not think only of the bright children being sent to these schools but that will remember that there are other places, including polytechnics, from which people have reached the topmost heights of their profession and of their technical abilities.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think we have moved rather a long way from the original amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If this amendment were to be carried it would be a wrecking amendment as regards the whole scheme. Perhaps that was the intention, but the noble Lord asked a number of questions about it and I should just like to say to him that, if he really believes we should have a scheme in which, when the participating schools have some children from the local education authority which that authority wishes were not in the school, the school would then pay to the local education authority what it would have cost that authority to educate the children involved, we are really shuffling children around like pawns in a chess game. I would remind your Lordships that at the end of the day we are talking about children. Those who will be going into the schools are going to be 11 years old: that is what we are talking about, and I really do not think it contributes to an education debate to be discussing them in the kind of way implied by this amendment. I was very pleased to hear the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on this.
May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that she has raised a quite separate point and has used the amendment as a means of probing the Government's view about their consultations with the local education authorities? I shall do
654
my best to answer the point she has made. My right honourable and learned friend made it very clear when introducing this Bill in another place that we hoped there would be full co-operation with local education authorities in the establishment and development of the scheme. Local education authorities will be free to comment on the scheme as they think fit, but they will also be asked to say if there are any specific ways in which they would like to see the scheme develop locally: for example, by meeting shortages in particular subject areas.
Of course, local authority comments will be carefully considered before the scheme is established and before agreements are signed with individual schools. We believe—this was a point I made at Second Reading—that as regards sixth forms it is worth remembering that all pupils in the sixth forms of what were formerly direct grant schools are still there, paid for by the Government. Therefore, whatever problems there may be in the future, the maintained sixth forms are currently operating at the same time that the type of child who could be in the assisted places scheme is still in the old direct grant school system.
I really do think it is important to understand that it is perfectly possible for the two systems to exist side by side without the kind of fears that are being expressed. Furthermore, on the cost, one really must remember that we are talking about children who will have to be educated in the maintained system if they are not in the assisted places scheme, because the incomes scale in the assisted places scheme makes it perfectly clear that the only parents who will be eligible would be those parents not otherwise able to pay for their child to go to an independent school. So, whatever happens, the child has to be educated somewhere and the cost will be either in the maintained system or in the assisted places scheme.
I hope, that with the assurances I have given—because I believe the noble Baroness has raised an important point about the relationships with local authorities—she will recognise that we are discussing the scheme with them, we shall certainly take into account what they have to say and we hope to have their help and co-operation in making the scheme work successfully.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I hope that nobody thought this was supposed to be a wrecking amendment. I specifically said—and I would have hoped that the noble Baroness would have heard me—in my introductory remarks that the discretion that was being left to local authorities was very much a part of the case which was being made by the Government in respect of so many clauses of this Bill. The purpose of my amendments has, I hope, been achieved, in that it has enabled a discussion to take place as to what really the discretion and powers of local education authorities are when it comes to the question of assisted places. I am delighted that the discussion has therefore arisen in your Lordships' House, which has clarified matters, although many of us may feel that enough discretion is still not being given to local education authorities in regard to these matters.
I assure the noble Baroness the Minister that all the people who are participating in the debates in your Lordships' House have one primary consideration, and that is the children. Many of us feel that we have the idea of children so much in our minds the whole time, that we read children into the wording of Bills. We read the pride of children and their pride in their schools in the wording of Bills, and how that pride may be upset when the brighter children in a school are removed from it, as though they are something which the school is ejecting becaue it is incapable of dealing with them, and only the ones who are not so bright remain. I assure the Minister that she certainly does not have to lecture this side on the interests of children and, if I may say so, she certainly does not have to lecture me. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
5.1 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 48:
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—
656

(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 sub-section 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—

(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 circumstance 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

657
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: My Lords, many of us hoped that a new Education Bill would show some new thinking and would come forward with some new proposals for the 16 to 19 year-olds. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, in the Second Reading debate on the present Bill, said:
"I think that the most disappointing thing in this Bill, and in all the Bills since 1944, is the neglect of the child leaving school at 16, the child who almost falls into a pit and is lucky to get a job. Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, the distinguished author of The History of Europe and Warden of New College, introduced in his Bill in 1917 a continuation education scheme for young people. I introduced a similar, but rather more advanced scheme, in 1944. Practically nothing except a few sixth-form colleges has come to fill that gap. I believe that this Bill ought to have tackled the older end of the pupils with more determination, as well as the younger end. A child at 2 is at the age which is known by the Roman Catholic Church and by all who covet children as being in the vital years; but the age after education and before further education is equally vital".—[Official Report, 25/2/80; col. 1051.]
There is nothing in this Bill for the 16 to 19 year-olds and this new clause attempts in a modest way to fill that gap. I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander—and I am sorry that he is not in his place—that we need something much more than this to deal with the whole spectrum of educational provision for the 16 to 19 year-olds. But something must be done now, at a time of very
658
high youth unemployment, to encourage young people to continue their education at a school or establishment for further education, or some other institution; or even, if they left school at 16, to go back for courses that would improve their skills and prospects and, therefore, be of more use to the country.
The idea of maintenance awards is not new. Section 81 of the 1944 Act empowers the Minister to make regulations,
"for the purpose of enabling pupils to take advantage without hardship to themselves or their parents of any educational facilities available to them",
and regulations were made for this purpose.
In 1957, the Minister of Education set up a working party under Sir Toby Weaver, who was then a senior official at the Ministry, to consider the matter of maintenance allowances and whether any changes should be made. The Weaver Report, which was a landmark in the history of educational maintenance allowances, reaffirmed the aims of Section 81 of the 1944 Act. It analysed expenses which fall upon parents whose children remain at school after the compulsory age. Within the different categories of food, clothing, pocket money, holidays, heating and lighting, it calculated the separate costs at different ages. It then calculated the minimum sum which parents, however poor, should be expected to contribute.
The all-party Education and Arts Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee of the House of Commons, reporting on educational maintenance allowances in July 1974, based their findings and recommendations on the Weaver Report. They recommended that all existing educational allowances should be embodied in a single maintenance allowance, that they should be mandatory and administered by the LEAs and that they should be available in September 1975. That did not happen and the Labour Bill of 1978, which sought to introduce them, fell.
What we must do is look at the situation as it is today for a not very highly motivated young person. He can stay on at school or sixth-form college or further education college, but inevitably he will be a heavy charge on the family

659
budget. He will not have in his pocket the money that his friends who have left school and managed to get a job will have, that his friends will have who are on the dole and get £11.50 a week or, indeed, his friends who, having left school and been unemployed for six months, get on the youth opportunities scheme and draw £23.50 a week. I admit that the poor can get a small maintenance allowance from their LEA, if they have a kindly one, but it is inadequate and many who might benefit do not apply. Furthermore, it is only the very poor who can get it.
In 1974–75 only 2 per cent. of 16 year-olds who were in school and 7 per cent. of 16 to 18 year-olds who were in further education received maintenance grants. I should like there to be at least no positive disincentive to staying on in education. The Secretary of State, speaking to the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education on 22nd February, said that half of those reaching school-leaving age goon to jobs where they receive no training or they become unemployed.
The clause which I am introducing is lifted straight from the last Government's Bill—and, therefore, I hope that it is drafted correctly—as other clauses in this Bill have been lifted. But I hope that nobody will think the worse of it for that. The clause is so drafted that it can come into force only when the Secretary of State decides that there is no automatic immediate commitment. It extends only to authorities specified in an order made by the Secretary of State, and, if the order so provides, only to young people belonging to specified parts of their areas; for instance, inner city parts. The clause includes provisions in subsection (2) which prevent an overlap between it and Sections 1 and 3 of the Education Act 1962, which relate to awards for designated courses of further and higher education.
The existing discretionary powers of local education authorities to give assistance and to make awards are unaffected. I ndeed, authorities to whom the clause has been applied may exercise those powers so as to afford support additional to that provided by an award under this clause. The awards granted under this clause will rank for 90 per cent. specific grant, as do mandatory awards. They
660
are specifically aimed at those above compulsory school age. A recipient must be under 19 when he embarks on a course, although having started on it he can go on with it till he is 21.
I can predict the Government's response: they are very concerned over 16 to 19 year-olds, committees are working on the problem but, of course, we cannot afford it. To that I say that the problem is urgent. Unemployment is with us and revenue is being paid out in dole money. We ought to be seen to be doing something now. This clause demands no immediate action, but it provides a framework for action. If the clause is accepted and goes into the Bill, action can be taken at any moment. If unemployment among the young gets worse, action might have to be taken very quickly. One point to remember when considering the future expense, is that the number of 16 to 19 year-olds will fall by 25 per cent. in the next 10 years.
As regards the money, the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the 1978 Bill said that the scheme would be applied as a pilot scheme to only a limited number of authorities, and the cost would be about £15 million in a full year. If you subtract the dole payments that may be made, would there be left a figure very much above, if at all above, what will be paid out on the assisted places scheme? My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, has said, this amendment repeats the last Administration's scheme for a system of mandatory awards for 16- to 18-year-olds continuing in full-time education. Clauses to this effect were included in their Education Bill of 1978. The mandatory awards would apply to pupils either at school or at college. This would be in addition to the discretionary powers which local authorities already have to pay grants.
This is a subject which arouses a great and understandable degree of concern, and I accept the very real consideration that the noble Baroness gave in her remarks when she was speaking to this amendment. I appreciate the strength of the arguments that the current arrangements for financial assistance for young people in this age group seem to load the dice against those who stay on at school or at college.

661
It is very necessary, however, to consider the many factors which affect young people's decisions as to whether or not to stay on at school or college. Sometimes more important are the quality of the courses offered and young people's perceptions of their value to them in later life. The Government are concerned about the educational and training opportunities for young people but we believe that their needs and the provision made for them should be seen as a whole. As the noble Baroness referred to this, may I say that we have embarked upon a major review with the local authority associations of the relationships between school, further education and training for the 16- to 19year-olds.
We cannot just dismiss the cost of such new proposals as this. I think that the figure which the noble Baroness gave is very relevant to our consideration of them, and I accept that when she moved the amendment she said that they would be brought in at a date in the future to be determined. But the difficulty about accepting an arrangement like that is that once it is on the statute book the pressure is always on the Secretary of State to bring it in. I think it is fairer to indicate why one is unable to accept it at this stage rather than to lead people to hope that something will be available to them when, in the present financial circumstances, it cannot be available to them.
May I say a word about the comparisons between those who are in work and out of work. There are differences between the financial arrangements for young people continuing in full-time education and those who are unemployed and who may be undertaking part-time further education on the "three days" a week concession, or be on a Youth Opportunities Programme. In these cases, we are not comparing like with like. For a young person to be eligible for supplementary benefit, he must be and remain available for work. He may, however, take part-time further education, strictly for up to 21 hours a week, without forfeiting that eligibility. It seems right that he should be allowed to use his time profitably in this way while unemployed and drawing supplementary benefit in any case. Similar considerations apply to those young people benefiting from a Youth Opportunities Programme allowance. They would
662
otherwise be unemployed and drawing supplementary benefit or unemployment benefit in their own right, and they remain available for work throughout the programme. The circumstances of young people in full-time education are different. They are not available for work and are therefore not eligible for those benefits in their own right.
I have tried to set out the arguments on this amendment as fully as I can and to make it clear that the Government are not ignoring the needs of these young people and that we recognise the disparities in financial provision available for those in full-time education as compared with their unemployed contemporaries. We opposed a similar measure when it was first introduced and I am afraid that we cannot accept this amendment today. It is only right for me to tell the House that we have no plans to change the present legislative provisions for those young people who continue their formal education beyond 16. Local education authorities have the discretion to make awards to this age group and to decide the extent to which to do so. We do not intend to remove this discretion, or to advise authorities how they should exercise it, or to make it mandatory.
As to the longer term, any proposals to change the present arrangements will need to be considered in the light of the current review we are undertaking into the relationship between schools, further education and training for this group and of the public expenditure policies then prevailing. As I have indicated, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, the answer was not, of course, entirely unexpected, but I do feel very strongly about the position of the 16- to 19-year-olds at this moment. I should therefore like to press my amendment.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 135.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gregson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bacon, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Banks, L.

Henderson, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Birk. B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blease, L.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Blyton, L.

Hylton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Simon, V.

Bowden, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Stone, L.

Byers, L.

Kaldor, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strauss, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Underhill, L.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.[Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Whaddon, L.

Foot, L.

Meston, L.

White, B.

Galpern, L.

Milford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Willis, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Northfield, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gosford, E.

Parry, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Adeane, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marley, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Middleton, L.

Allerton, L,

Exeter, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Alport, L.

Faithfull, B.

Morris, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falkland, V.

Mottistone, L.

Amory, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Ampthill, L.

Forester, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Armstrong, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northchurch, B.

Balerno, L.

Galloway, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gisborough, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Barnby, L.

Glasgow, E.

Orkney, E.

Bellwin, L.

Gormanston, V.

Pender, L.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Bolton, L.

Gridley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Bradford, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redmayne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Reigate, L.

Chesham, L.

Harvington, L.

Renton, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hayter, L.

Ridley, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Henley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Cockfield, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Romney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Ilchester, E.

St. Davids, V.

Cranbrook, E.

James of Rusholme, L.

St. Just, L.

Croft, L.

Kimberley, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Davidson, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Selkirk, E.

de Clifford, L.

Kintore, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sharples, B.

Digby, L.

Long, V.

Somers, L.

Dowding, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Spens, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Stamp, L.

Dulverton, L.

McFadzean, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Dundee, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Dundonald, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathspey, L.

Eccles, V.

Mansfield, E.

Swinton, E.

664

665

Tranmire, L.

Vaizey, L.

Westbury, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Trenchard, V.

Vernon, L.

Wolverton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vickers, B.

Wrenbury, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Vivian, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 5 [Provisions substituted in the Education Act 1962]:
5.25 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY Lord VAIZEY moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 41, line 44, at end insert—
("(e) such courses for professional training in dance, drama and music as may be approved by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which I think is of some importance. I did not move it at the Committee stage because there was a more general amendment which covered the whole field and, at that time, I thought it would be a mistake to take individual questions. Although this affects only a small number of students it affects that small number very deeply indeed, so that the degree of benefit which would come through the acceptance by the Government of this amendment would be considerable. The position at the moment is that most people studying for professional courses in music, the drama and the dance are not on degree courses. There are of course degree courses in all these subjects but by and large they are not taken by practitioners in the subject; they are taken by people who are going to teach the subjects or who are reading honours degrees, for example, in music, because it happens to be a general liberal education. I am concerned with the relatively small number of students who are each year preparing for professional positions in the professions which are associated with the theatre, with dance and with music. It is a small number and it is an area of our national life of great importance, in which I think Britain is one of the leading nations. One reason why it is one of the leading nations is quite clearly because the standards of training are, generally speaking, exceptionally high.
Because these are not degree courses the grants are discretionary and the result of this is really gross unfairness. If a
666
person happens to come from one county and is accepted at a certain prestigious school, that person almost automatically gets a grant. For example, the ILEA has always been extremely liberal in this respect. A person coming from another authority might not get a grant at all, although there is absolutely no difference whatsoever in their ability. This kind of discrimination of course is not allowed in degree courses but it is allowed in these kinds of courses and one of the responses of the schools is to try to put the training courses into a degree course structure, which is a professional deformation which I think is much to be regretted. It is unnecessary to academicise extraordinarily successful professional courses.
This subject has been studied by the Gulbenkian Foundation. Two reports have been published, of which I was the chairman: one on music and one on drama and another is about to be published of which Mr Peter Brinson, the Director of the Gulbenkian Foundation is the Chairman, on dance. Broadly speaking, our conclusions were that too many people pursue these courses for the jobs available. There is substantial unemployment among potential professional musicians and, of course, among actors and actresses. We advocated the setting up of boards which would judge which schools were best, which should be approved and that these schools should then be eligible under a scheme for mandatory awards.
In the case of music and the drama the boards are already functioning. The National Council for Drama Training under the chairmanship of Mr. William van Straubenzee, the distinguished Member of another place and a former junior Minister in the Department of Education and Science, has tripartite membership with representatives of the union—Equity—of the employers, the Society of West End Management and other employers' organisations, and of the drama schools themselves and it is actively working. A similar organisation has been established for music with the support of the musicians union and the employers in that field,

667
including the BBC. That is under the chairmanship of Mr. John Hosier, the principal of the Guildhall School of Music and a similar scheme will shortly be established for the dance. The scheme really depends for its success upon some acceptance at some stage by the DES of the notion that there will be mandatory grants for people who go to the schools or colleges which are recognised by these boards. The function of these boards is both to raise the standards of the schools which they recognise and to diminish the number of students who are studying these subjects because one of the principal aims in raising standards is to diminish the number of people who are seeking jobs—if I may say so, hopelessly, because there are just not the jobs around in drama, or in music or in the dance.
This amendment entails no extra public expenditure at all. First, because what is proposed is a permissive power to be given to the Secretary of State; secondly because the whole structure of what I might call the Gulbenkian schemes depends upon a diminution in the number of students and an increase in the quality of the students. So we would have fewer students on mandatory grants than we now have on discretionary grants, the difference being that any school would not be faced in any one year with the arbitrary element that some of its best students did not get discretionary grants and therefore it had to make up the numbers with inferior students or with people from overseas. This is an important amendment which I think has commended itself to all without exception who have studied the subject, and it has widespread support throughout the arts. I hope very much that the Minister will accept it. My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, as I have finally returned to my place on the Bench here, I should like to say a brief word in support of my noble friend Lord Vaizey. I am a governor of a school which provides dance, drama and music, which indeed is closely related, as the noble Lord would know, to the Gulbenkian Trust; they are very interested in it. I entirely support everything that Lord Vaizey has said; there is an unfortunate discrimination against such bodies,
668
and students may be put at a great disadvantage because some local authorities give them grants and some do not. This may deprive the community in the future of an able young man or girl who might well find a great career in these artistic professions. I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will be able to say a sympathetic word for this, because there is a small but strong case here.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, whether he could tell us if the schools that he has in mind are teaching general subjects as well as music, drama and dance, or are they entirely specialist schools? So far as dance is concerned, of course, children normally start learning dancing long before they have completed their normal, formal education.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down—I am not allowed to speak twice, but perhaps I could use that magic formula to give the answer—the schools we have in mind are things like the Royal Academy of Music, the Royal College of Music, the Royal Ballet School, and similar institutions.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, may I support the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, very strongly. I always have in mind the case that we had years ago in Lancashire with Kathleen Ferrier, who applied for a scholarship and did not get one, simply because of the reasons Lord Vaizey has stated today. I think this amendment is very important indeed and we should go all the way to support the noble Lord.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I recognise the very great interest and knowledge that my noble friend Lord Vaizey has in this subject, and, as he has quite rightly said, the present situation is that awards should be mandatory for students taking full-time courses of first degree or equivalent level, or initial teacher training courses, whatever the subject of study. Nevertheless, a number of degree and degree equivalent courses in music attract mandatory awards. I realise that many courses in drama and dance, in particular, are designed for performers and, in consequence, do not require the achievement of an academic level which can be regarded as comparable to degree

669
courses. They are therefore eligible for discretionary awards, and this is where the problem the noble Lord has stated arises.
It may be helpful to the House if I set out some of the complexities that arise if we consider the extension of mandatory awards to courses in the performing arts. At present, mandatory awards apply only to advanced level courses of further education. A very substantial departure from current policies would be involved in an extension into the field of non-advanced further education, which encompasses many of the performers' courses which might present themselves for designation for mandatory awards. If this were to lead to awards for all full-and part-time non-advanced studies, the costs would be counted in hundreds of millions of pounds, and we could not contemplate that. On the other hand, if such a wide extension were not envisaged, I do not see an equitable basis for distinguishing between one course and another.
The noble Lord's amendment would limit the Secretary of State's new power to courses in music, dance and drama, but not just to full-time advanced level courses. Even if it were proposed to consider for mandatory awards only full-time advanced courses for performers, it would still be inequitable to consider these in isolation. The areas of study for professional and vocational qualifications for which mandatory awards are not available extends far beyond the arts; and I would find it difficult to accept an amendment which would give special treatment to actors, dancers and musicians, while recognising the great importance that they have, while ignoring the claims of others; and we have a long list of them, lawyers, social workers, technicians of various kinds, speech therapists, librarians and others.
I recognise the point that the noble Lord has made about the working party, which I believe he chaired, which was to identify the circumstances in which mandatory awards might be given for certain pupils who qualify in some particular way. The working party recommended that once institutions had been accredited by bodies which would be recognised by the department and by the local authorities and the professions, consideration should be given to recognising their courses for mandatory awards. This, however, must
670
be considered in the context of the Council of Local Education Authorities' recommendation that all other full-time advanced courses should attract mandatory awards and that students engaged in part-time study for degrees should be able to look to local education authorities for mandatory assistance. So long as these recommendations cannot be implemented, the best that can be hoped for is that local education authorities use the accreditation lists as the basis for making discretionary awards, as indeed was originally envisaged.
I realise this is a very disappointing answer to give to my noble friend. Perhaps he will not be surprised to hear it in the context of everything else. This is a matter which I recognise is of importance, as indeed are the other amendments which the House has before it this afternoon. The noble Lord says this would not cost anything because the date of implementation would be decided by the Secretary of State. The difficulty of all these awards is that once we had agreed that they should be on the statute book the pressure for implementaton would be very great indeed, which is always the case, and it would of course be very difficult to resist.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, could she take on board the fact that I did not say it was just the date of implementation, but that the actual number of students would be reduced and total public expenditure would actually fall.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I did take that point. But even if my noble friend is right in saying that the total number of students within the particular areas that he is talking about would be reduced, the point which has been made by the local authorities and others is that once we extended the scheme of mandatory awards to one group we would in fairness have to look at other groups, which would mean at the end of the day that the total number would inevitably be increased. It is because I think it would be so difficult, once this was on the statute book, for the Secretary of State to resist its implementation, because naturally the pressure for it would be very great, that I am unable to accept it this afternoon. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, the Government are committed to a high profile on the arts. We have recently passed the National Heritage Bill and also implemented the public lending right. The Chancellor of the Duchy has recently announced substantially increased support to the Arts Council. I cannot see why this amendment, which actually involves a reduction in public expenditure, is unacceptable. I think the argument that it is inequitable
because other people are interested is a phoney one. So I regret I shall have to ask the House to divide.
5.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49) be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 121.

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gregson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

Rochester, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hampton, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Bacon, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Balogh, L.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Barrington, V.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Spens, L.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Stamp, L.

Blease, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Blyton, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strauss, L.

Brimelow, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Chitnis, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Underhill, L.

Collison, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Vaizey, L.[Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.[Teller.]

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Masham of Hton, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

David, B.

Milford, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mishcon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Northfield, L.

White, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Wigoder, L.

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

Willis, L.

Galpern, L.

Parry, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L.

Wynne- Jones, L.

Gosford, E.

I Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Daventry, V.

Hill of Luton, L.

Abinger, L.

Davidson, V.

Hives, L.

Adeane, L.

de Clifford, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Digby, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Allerton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Alport, L.

Dulverton, L.

Kimberley, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dundee, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Amory, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Kinnard, L.

Ampthill, L.

Eccles, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Armstrong, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Kintore, E.

Balerno, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Elton, L.

Long, V.

Barnby, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Lyell, L.

Bellwin, L.

Falkland, V.

McFadzean, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bolcon, L.

Forester, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bradford, E.

Fortescue. E.

Mansfield, E.

Butler of Saffron Waldon, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Margadale, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Galloway, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Glasgow, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Chesham, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Middleton, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gormanston, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gridley, L.

I Mountgarret, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hanworth, V.

Newall, L.

Croft L.

Harvington, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Henley, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Orkney, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Pender, L.

Sandford, L.

Trenchard, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Tweedsmuir, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Redmayne, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Vernon, L.

Reigate, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Vickers, B.

Renton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Vivian, L.

Ridley, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Rochdale, V.

Strathspey, L.

Wolverton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Swinton, E.

Wrenbury, L.

St. Davids, V.

Tranmire, L.

Young, B.

St. Just, L.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

I Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.48 p.m.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 41, line 44, at end insert—
("(e) full time courses leading to either the Common Professional Examination for the profession of Solicitor or Barrister, or to the final examination of either of the said professions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was not moved in Committee; instead a rather more general amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who rose to his feet at 5.18 in the morning of 12th March and it is perhaps hardly surprising that, during the brief debate that followed, the noble Baroness, Lady Young—whose efforts, if I may say so, in the course of these proceedings we all so much admire—indicated that it was not quite the appropriate moment to do full justice to this particular matter. Therefore, I do not apologise for returning to the topic at this stage, although I think that I can do so with some brevity.
The object of the amendment is to include in the list of those who may receive mandatory grants from local education authorities, law students, so that they can be added as a category to the existing categories set out in Schedule 5 to the present Bill. I hope that I do not need to stress that this is a matter of consequence to all of your Lordships and not simply to the legal profession, because it is hardly necessary, I think, to exaggerate the importance to all of us of having a free and fearless legal profession and a wholly independent and impartial judiciary. I believe it means that that can be achieved only if that is a career which is open to people from all sections of society, quite irrespective of their means.
Indeed, the Bar has, perhaps, a particular difficulty in this respect, because by its very structure it is an extremely precarious profession for any young man who is embarking upon it, despite all that the Bar seeks to do by way of scholarships, grants, loans and so forth. Therefore, I suggest that there is a case for this amendment in the general public interest, not simply in the interest of the legal profession alone.
In fact, the present position is that discretionary grants are payable and many local authorities, to their credit, make such grants. However, particularly in recent times of increasing financial stringency, it has become something of a gamble. The person who aspires to join the legal profession will succeed or fail in his application depending on which part of the country he happens to live. Indeed, it has become so much of a gamble that not very long ago a decision was made in one local education authority that discretionary awards would be made to Bar students; the authority began to make the awards in alphabetical order of the names before it, but when it reached the letter "H" it decided that it could not afford any more, and as a result all the other applicants were unsuccessful. As someone whose name begins with the letter "W", I regard that as a highly unfair method of procedure.
There is respectable support for the principle set out in this amendment. No doubt your Lordships will recollect that when the 1978 Education Bill was before Parliament it contained a Clause 15 and a Schedule 2, Clause 15 being almost indistinguishable from this present amendment. That was then a clause which met with the enthusiastic support of the present Secretary of State for Education, Mr. Carlisle, and support from Dr. Rhodes Boyson; indeed, not one member of the Conservative Party at that stage spoke

675
in any way against this proposal. It had that support from that source. There is support from the Royal Commission on Legal Services, which in its recent report came out very strongly in favour of mandatory grants for the vocational stage of legal training.
I should add, of course, that I entirely accept the Government's argument that it is impractical to embark on any substantial new expenditure at this particular stage of our economic problems. I do not ask for that. I simply ask that the Government should recognise the need and the claim of law students, and should include the profession among those to which mandatory grants can be payable when, in due course, regulations are made by the Government. I do not ask that such regulations should be made at the moment. I ask that as and when the economic situation improves they should be made, but that recognition should be given now to the acceptance by the Government of that obligation. In the course of the debate in the other place it was suggested that it would be difficult to do this because apparently there is very little prospect of the economy improving in the foreseeable future.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, does not wish to take that approach on behalf of the Government of which she is such a distinguished member. In the other place it was also suggested as an alternative that instead of including this in the present Bill—although the Government recognise the need for such a proposal—it could be included in some future Education Bill. I am sure it is not intended that there should be a major Education Bill every two or three years of this Government's life. Indeed, I am sure that the noble Baroness would be appalled at such a prospect! I ask her to consider whether, if there is merit in the proposal—as there clearly is because it has been accepted by her own Secretary of State, her own Minister that there is merit in the proposal—it could not be included in some form in this Bill, to be brought into effect at a future stage when economic considerations permit. I beg to move.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has made this case in, if I may say so, a very restrained manner.
676
I should like to support him in his staking a claim for the future, because, in effect, that is what he has done. However, I should like to add just one or two brief comments. First, it has become notorious that some local education authorities have found it impossible to do anything to help those who wish to enter the legal profession. Other authorities have been generous and others have put forward a sort of notional solution—they have given a very small discretionary grant. Clearly, that is not just or satisfactory.
The other point I wish to make is, 1 am afraid, the same as the one I made in the early hours of the morning last week. It is that it is right in relation to both branches of the profession—either branch being able to produce judges—that the people of this country should feel that they have a broad spread not only of talent, but a broad social spread of young people entering both branches of the profession. We shall not get complete satisfaction until, at some future date, grants become mandatory.
5.57 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I speak not only as a member of the solicitors' profession, but as an ex-Member of the other place. I do not believe that the position of the legal profession in this country and the particular part it plays in respect of the community as a whole is yet appreciated. Let me be perfectly clear about this. Most Members of Parliament have had experience of people coming to them in order to take advice and possibly the same applies to Members of this House. In my experience, I have had thousands of such cases. It is true that I was a Member of the other place for a very long time and I have been a member of the solicitiors' profession for over 60 years. Those of us who have held surgeries, as we call them, will realise that a very large number of the so-called men-in-the-street have problems which have to be solved by legal advice.
Let me say at once that I have an interest in this. I happen to have been alternatively the chairman or the vice-chairman, when the various Governments have come to power, of the Solicitors' Group of Members of both Houses. We are anxious, and I am sure that the country is anxious, that there should be full opportunity for a person to be properly advised

677
and represented when he has either a legitimate grievance or a grievance which he thinks is legitimate, in which latter case he consults a professional person who can explain to him why his grievance is not legally important. Every person must be given the opportunity to consult professional people with a view to understanding whether his or her grievance is legally right or wrong and, if it is right, to have his case properly attended to. It is not just a matter of little concern; on the contrary, it is of very deep concern. I am sure that every Member of this House is anxious that nobody should be prevented from obtaining proper advice in relation to these problems which range over a very large scale.
I said a moment or two ago that I was speaking as a solicitor who has been in practice for some 60 years. I can tell your Lordships that, while it is perfectly true that the majority of people have no occasion to consult lawyers over their problems, a vast number of people do, and the whole situation goes practically from the cradle to the grave with problems at every stage of life. The question, therefore, is: Are we doing the right thing? If I may say so with respect, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, except on a matter which I gather he has left alone because it was not carried last time at five o'clock in the morning. I think it was because people were not fully aware of the situation that his amendment was not carried.
Are we or are we not concerned—this is the point—with justice being given to all through the best advice that can possibly be obtained? Are not the professions the right people to consider this question and to place it before the Government? Surely it is not going very far to say that the principle—I would go very much farther, of course, as did my noble friend Lord Mishcon—is an indication that when times are better people shout: "It's no good." We know the financial position is bad, but justice is a very important point to consider when deciding whether or not you are going to support a particular profession or case which is put before you.
I say to you that this is a case which requires the utmost consideration and that the amendment should be immediately observed by your Lordships and by the
678
noble Baroness and the noble Lords on the other side of the House. What does it do? It lays down the principle that with proper representation of people who have complaints which have to be dealt with legally, we shall sooner or later have the opportunity of dealing with the position by having young people trained irrespective of their financial means. It is a shame that some people have been and are going to be lost to the profession because they have not had the means to carry on. Surely, they should have the opportunity sooner or later. I know this amendment will give us the chance to ask the Government about the matter from time to time. Is that what has frightened them? If it is, I think they are wrong because it should be open to us to say to the Government, "Look, the financial position has improved or whatever it may be, "and we think the grants should become mandatory."
We know very well that some local authorities—we have heard this already, and I shall not go over ground that has been covered—have not taken this view. Consequently, I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she will agree that it is not difficult for her to decide in favour of the amendment but that the Government themselves should he pleased that it has been moved.
Baroness TRUMPINGTON: My Lords, I hope you will forgive me if I speak on a personal basis. I shall speak against this amendment. I have a son who is a "baby" barrister; he passed out in the top 8 per cent. of his class in his Bar finals. He has not been able to get into chambers. He is nearly 25 and has not earned a penny yet. That is no fault of his. He is surrounded by friends from his university who also are unable to get into chambers. In my view—and I say this in all humility—there are too many barristers at the moment. There is not enough work for them. When I occasionally sit in the Crown Courts with judges they tell me they are heads of chambers and they are going back to their offices to tell their pupils that they have no work for them and that they will have to leave.
I personally think that this amendment is unnecessary at the present time. I cannot speak for the solicitors' side of the profession, but it is my belief that there

679
are too many young men wrongly going into the barristers' side of the law, because there is not enough work for them.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, the case for the amendment has already been so fully made by the Members of all three political parties that I do not propose to add to it. May I reply to what has just been said. The Bar, having no senior partners and no employers, and standing on their own feet, have always been regulated by the laws of supply and demand. There have always been times when there are too many barristers, too many solicitors, and times when there have been too few. We are legislating for the future. I should have thought we ought to have regard to the general position, and I rise in particular because I should not like anybody to be under any misapprehension that I strongly support this amendment.
6.8 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, so far in the course of these debates the controversy has been largely confined to the two Front Benches with occasional interruptions from those on the Back Benches. My only intervention occurred when this subject, or something very much like it, came before us one day last week when I ventured to offer a few observations. It requires some courage, believe me—not physical courage; that is easy, or at any rate I have always found it comparatively easy—but moral courage, to face up to three famous legal luminaries—Lord Wigoder, Lord Renton, a colleague of mine in another place, and an ex-Lord Chancellor. I ask you! So if in the course of my observations there are defects, grammatically, logically, philosophically and certainly legally, I hope I may be forgiven.
It will be noted that neither of those who have spoken in favour of this amendment has offered any opinion as to the cost involved. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, did touch on it when he criticised, by implication, some local authority who had provided a derisory grant. Of course, his suggestion was that it was not enough. How much will it cost? That is very important.
Training a person to become a barrister, I always understood, meant—what do
680
they call it?—"eating in Inns" one had to consume, metaphorically and figureatively speaking, a number of meals. The whole business—I nearly said stinks, but I must not use that word; I have the word!—reeks of finance, cost, and periods when it is almost impossible to make it a gainful occupation.
We talk about barristers. One has only to look at another place. It is cluttered up with them. Briefless barristers. All the training in the world has forced them to become candidates; some on the Conservative side, some on the Labour side. Some by mistake. It often happened accidentally. They were not quite sure which side to be on. They weighed it up and said, "That's the kind of Government we are going to have shortly, and I am going to be on the winning side." I know some of them. I have known them. Some have disappeared.
I speak as one who knows very little about education. I had practically none myself. I have made the best of it, with struggle, sacrifice, hardship and traumatic experiences. But although I have a limited knowledge of educational matters, I believe that if we are going to use this legislation wisely and sensibly—to use the term used by Lord Robbins the other day in the course of his speech—and if our education system is going to be effective and efficient, then we have to take the long view. What sort of people do we want 25 and 30 years hence? We shall be wanting engineers, scientists, technicians and technologists. These are what the country needs. The more of them the better.
The whole purpose of education however—let me qualify my previous observations— is not to create careers for particular professions. The purpose of education is to acquire knowledge, and then to use that knowledge to the best advantage, and it is for the person who acquires knowledge and becomes intelligent to decide which profession, which industry, which occupation suits his ability and his outlook. The noble Baroness opposite who opposed the amendment—and did so rightly—said that we had too many barristers. I would not go so far as that, except to say that those of the legal profession who have spoken had better be careful: do not encourage more

681
competition. When I heard my noble friend Lord Janner speaking, if I may say so with great respect, he took a long time to say very little on the subject. It is sometimes too much. Do not let us go too far.
Let those young people to whom reference has been made who acquire knowledge, get their O-levels and go through all the schools, even the highest of our scholastic institutions, and have to make their contribution, them consider what contribution can be made in the general interest of our country, and not decide that one particular profession is for them. For example—and with this I think I shall have said enough; I feel there will be general agreement about that—why do we not add to this amendment that they should qualify to become politicians? That is needed more than providing more barristers. For heaven knows—and one must be careful in saying this; it might be regarded as a matter to be considered by the Privileges Committee—a vast number of them could do with a little more education and knowledge not of a legal character but of a kind that would enable them to understand what people need and what the country requires. That is what we want.
I venture to say, with the utmost respect to the members of the legal profession, whom I have had to use myself in the course of my lifetime—and I have had to pay them; I never got anything for nothing out of them; it is a remarkable thing that you never get anything for nothing out of the legal profession, though you would not expect to anyhow—that it is unnecessary to accept this amendment, but if it is decided to accept it, then all I can say is that I will remain on the fence. I shall be neutral. I shall vote neither on one side nor the other.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords—
6.17 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I intervened at this stage. I am sure that I should take Lord Shinwell's advice. I am not sure whether his education for politicians was directed at me or not, but I shall carefully read what he has said in Hansard tomorrow morning. I am sure that one should take his advice
682
and be rather careful when engaging in argument with so many distinguished lawyers. I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said in introducing this amendment. I and my colleagues accept the importance of the legal profession and its role in society, and we recognise that it is arguable that we might include in this Bill a reserve power, to be used when resources become available, to make mandatory awards for those taking the professional qualifications to become barristers or solicitors. On the other hand one has to view this once again in its wider context.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, reminded the House that when the former Labour Administration had an Education Bill in 1978 they included a power to extend mandatory awards to advance professional and vocational courses. Not surprisingly, the omission of this clause from the Bill has prompted amendments during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill both in another place and here. During the debates on these amendments the Government have maintained that, although they welcomed the provision contained in the 1978 Education Bill because it seemed in principle to be a reasonable development, in the light of the present economic circumstances they feel that they cannot bring forward a similar amendment in this Bill.
It might therefore be helpful for me to say what the cost would be. We estimate that the cost of extending mandatory awards to training for barristers and solicitors is estimated at some £3 million to £4 million, and for all full-time advanced professional and vocational courses the cost would be at least £10 million or more. It is not for me to comment on my noble friend's most interesting remarks about the numbers of barristers and her family in particular, but I would confirm the point she made that most courses remain full despite the fact that it is discretionary awards that are granted for them. This must be a measure of the fact that for the courses that there are, the numbers of discretionary awards that are given are enough to make sure that there are no vacant places.
I recognise the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Renton, that because we are talking about discretionary awards, not all authorities will

683
award them and therefore there could be a variation and there might not be the same social spread as there would be if every authority made the award. On this matter, as on other amendments in the group, the Government believe it would not be right at this stage to agree to this power being included in the Bill for the reasons I have advanced earlier; namely, that if we accepted the amendment we would be under great pressure to bring in the duty to make a mandatory award, and in the present financial circumstances of the country we would be unable to do so. I hope the noble Lord will accept that explanation and withdraw the amendment.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Shinwell were fascinating. Everyone knows that the famous Manny Shinwell could have excelled in any field he wished without any specific training; he obviously did not require the training in politics which he advises others to have, and I doubt that even if they had the training they would achieve what Manny Shinwell has achieved throughout his life.
However, this amendment is dealing with a matter of considerable significance which cannot be brushed aside and dismissed as trivial. I have to admit that if it dealt retrospectively with what happened in the past, I should be involved because my wife is now engaged in her final year of a barrister's course, but the amendment cannot affect here. We are dealing with something which is an essential part of the qualifications of a lawyer. A person may spend three years at university, take the course and do extremely well, but he does not qualify as a barrister, for he has then to take a further year to become a qualified barrister.
I was trained as a chemist and at the end of three years I got my degree and could have taken a job as a chemist. I was lucky enough to get a grant to go on and do research, and it was not until after a further two years that I had the training and qualification which was regarded as acceptable, for example by ICI, to get a good job in the chemical industry.I would not have got a job, which I did later, as a university lecturer unless I had had a further two years' training. To pretend that in three years you can have a training
684
which qualifies you for any profession, other than politics, is absurd. No other country in the world gives anyone in three years a qualification which enables him to take a good job. On the Continent of Europe the minimum period is about five years and is often seven years, and in America the minimum period to get an initial qualification, which does not qualify you to practice very far, is four years.
In the legal profession you must have this qualification of a further one year course. It is essential to become a barrister; you are not a barrister when you have a degree from the university. Only the other day I received a letter from the professor of law at the university with which I was associated for 25 years, the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and he asked me to intervene in this matter, pointing out that he had himself only a year ago had a student who took first-class honours in law. If he wanted to become a barrister he had to spend another year, and that year had to be paid for by his family, who were working-class and could not afford it, or by himself, and he was earning no money and could not earn money while he was working for his qualification. It is ridiculous to pretend that this is just something which people can somehow find out of their pockets and hand over. That just is not true.
If the amendment is not accepted, we shall be denying to those people who do not have the money—this may not be important to some people and although the noble Baroness, Lady Young, shakes her head in dissent, I repeat it the right to become a barrister. It means, in other words—and I am sure my noble friend Lord Shinwell would be the last to approve of this—that the people who can afford to become barristers, people with rich families, are those who can go on and take this final year. That is surely against every principle we have upheld in this country until the present Government came to office. It is the principle we have supported over the years, the principle that it is the right of everyone to acquire these qualifications. I do not want to see a legal profession staffed entirely by people who are so well-heeled that they are able to afford it. I want to see in the profession those who can qualify, and unless the amendment is agreed to

685
we shall be denying this right to those who have no money.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, perhaps I might correct two mis-statements of fact. The history of this matter is that no Government have as yet agreed a mandatory award for these particular courses. All Governments have made it possible for local education authorities to give discretionary awards. So there can be no question of a clear cut-off between those who can afford to pay and those who cannot; discretionary awards are available.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: With financial cuts, my Lords.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I would only say to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that all I am anxious to ensure, and all the legal profession wants to ensure is that anyone who wishes to enter the profession and has the necessary talent is not debarred from doing so by the lack of appropriate support from a local education authority.
Having said that, I do not propose to divide the House on this amendment. This does not seem to me to be a matter which it would be appropriate to settle by trooping through the Division Lobbies. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for a not unsympathetic reply to the debate. I am sure that she and her colleagues will reflect upon what has been said, and that in due course, when the time is appropriate, steps will be taken to meet the difficulty which the amendment tried to deal with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.31 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 43, line 3, at end insert—
("Provided always that nothing in this section shall prevent a local education authority bestowing awards for secondary education on persons over the age of eighteen years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was not moved at the Committee stage of the Bill, partly because of the lateness of the hour, and partly because
686
of my feeling that I could not do justice to the moving of it and that your Lordships might not have been able to do justice in listening to what it provides and deciding upon it. I move the amendment as an amendment to Schedule 5 because this schedule deals with people over school age seeking grants. The schedule, and certainly the Bill in total, excludes from its consideration for the enjoyment of discretionary grants in appropriate places a very important group of people in the education system of this country, or rather people who have escaped from, or fallen out of, the education system.
I wish to assure your Lordships that this is not an argument for paying grants to sixth formers, which was dealt with in a previous amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, though of course we supported that case. This is quite a separate matter. The aim is to empower local education authorities to make grants at their discretion to people over 18 years of age who, for whatever reason, left full-time education without attaining 0-levels or, as appropriate, A-levels and to enable them after the age of 18 to return to full-time education in order to qualify them for further education later in their lives.
I think that your Lordships will be well aware that in inner urban areas in particular many children leave school without any qualifications at ordinary or advance level, or indeed without qualifications of any kind. This is not because they are not bright enough to attain them, but rather because they are bored with school and see their contemporaries out of school, in employment—or certainly with money in their pockets. Alternatively, they may enter a business which seems promising at the time, but which turns out to offer no future; or, most likely of all, they do not have qualifications because they came from a family which lacked parental support or enthusiasm for pushing them on. More often than not such people come from under-privileged homes where not only is there no parental support for the concept of education after the compulsory age level of 16, but there is actual hostility in the family—and quite often I encounter this hostility in the part of the world in which I live—towards children remaining at school a minute beyond the compulsory period.
Because they are intelligent, because they want to get on, because they want to further their education and improve themselves in some way, these people may wish later in life to enter a full-time course of secondary education, at either ordinary or advance level; and at that time they most probably will be out of employment. It would be a tragedy if they were to be excluded from possibly obtaining a discretionary grant to further their educational career. I consider that they are a very deserving group of people, many of whom in the earlier part of their lives have suffered and now want to recover from the disadvantages. They may have suffered those disadvantages through no fault of their own, or perhaps there was a lack of knowledge earlier; but in any case they now want to im themselves and to become more use ore skilled members of the community.
One of the major problems in many of the urban areas of this country is the very low number of skilled people as against the very high proportion of unskilled people, and I believe that for people of this kind aged over 18 grants should be available to enable them to pursue secondary education courses. As drawn at present the schedule prevents discretionary grants being made for that purpose. My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I well understand both the point that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, makes and his concern that young people over the age of 18 who remain in full-time education at school continue to be regarded as dependent upon their families, whereas those who have left school, either to enter employment or to continue their full-time education at a college of further education, may be eligible for benefits in their own right. I am also aware that some more mature people may return to school and that these, too, may not be given grants, except to prevent or relieve hardship, and then only if their parents' means are taken into account.
The effect of the amendment would be to empower local education authorities to make awards at their discretion, but without any statutory constraint, to young
688
people of 18 years of age who were continuing in, or resuming, full-time education at school. Its widest application would be to those reaching 18 during their last year in school, and in that context it touches on the underlying philosophy concerning the independence of young people of different ages from their families. I am sure that for this reason many people would be sympathetic towards the amendment. Nevertheless, the very fact that it would create in this particular way distinctions among those in their last year at school raises difficulties. Young people in the upper sixth form at school would be divided between those who were eligible for assistance in their own right and those whose parents were deemed still to be responsible for them, and, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, this could lead to difficulties within the school.
Authorities already have power to pay educational maintenance allowances to the parents of young people in full-time education. These are paid at local education authorities' discretion and must have regard to parental means. I realise that the level of assistance paid under educational maintenance allowances can vary very considerably between different areas of the country and that this is not entirely satisfactory. However, the proposed amendment would not ease this difficulty; indeed it could exacerbate it. So far as the comparison between young people in school and those pursuing their courses in further education establishments is concerned, the local authority associations advise their members to treat them alike so far as possible. The proposed amendment would not therefore offer any particular benefit in that context. If the practice of returning to school at a more mature age becomes more widespread—and I acknowledge that this may have attractions at a time when falling rolls open up some spare capacity in schools—then we may need to reconsider the arrangements for providing financial support. But for the moment I do not think this is necessary; nor would we wish to take precipitate action which might not, in the light of experience, represent the best approach to the problem. Perhaps I should add that anyone returning to full-time education in a further education college or technical college, where he can do "o" and "A" levels, can obtain discretionary awards under existing

689
powers. So that meets part of the problem.
While I accept that there may be scope for rationalising the range of benefits available to young people continuing in full-time education beyond school-leaving age—and this indeed is something which we as a Government very much have in mind—I do not think it would be right for me this evening to accept the amendment, which would leave unresolved a great many of the problems which I think we all recognise. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, will accept this explanation and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My Lords, my purpose in putting down the amendment was to open a door to enable your Lordships to realise that there is this lacuna or gap facing people who have left school and who want to return to secondary education. The reply of the noble Baroness was very helpful and most sympathetic. I see that the door is open, that the Government are aware of the problem and are considering it. The problem applies in particular to a group of people who are suffering in today's society—people who, through no fault of their own, have missed the opportunities of secondary education. I understand that the Government appreciate the problem and are sympathetic towards it, and I hope they will continue to explore it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.40 p.m.
Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 43, line 29, at end insert—
("(d) to bestow awards on persons taking courses provided by the Open University;")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is only a matter of chance that your Lordships are listening to the third of three Liberal amendments in succession, with a fourth to follow. It just happens that that is how they have fallen. This amendment takes us into a rather different field. Up to now, in dealing with recent amendments, we have been talking about local education authority grants, but we now turn over to grants from the Secretary of State under paragraph 3 of Schedule 5.
690
The Open University is in a rather peculiar position, and it does not fit neatly into any plan. I think noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that the Open University was a bold and imaginative innovation, and that it has been outstandingly successful. But, of course, the essence of it is that it works only for part-time students, and the general set-up of the arrangements for grants does not cover part-time students. The students of the Open University, and the association which represents them, have for a long time been campaigning to get this difference recognised and for special arrangements to be made for Open University students to get grants. There are discretionary grants from local authorities, but they, like other discretionary grants from local authorities, are offered in a rather haphazard way. Some authorities help; others do not help.
My noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and I have had conversations with representatives of the Open University Students' Association, and we have learned that there are many hard cases where people could pursue valuable courses—valuable to themselves and, I believe, valuable to the community, because they are increasing the breadth of their knowledge and experience in the world—but where they are prevented from doing so because they cannot get a grant. So, after discussion, my noble friend and I thought that the best thing to do was to add to the third paragraph of Schedule 5, where the awards are made by the Secretary of State. These are all discretionary awards, so they do not in fact involve the Government in any expenditure immediately. Indeed, there is a further hurdle to be got over, because the paragraph begins:
"Provision may be made by regulations under this Act for authorising the Secretary of State—",
et cetera. So, even if the Government and the House accept this amendment, there is no immediate position in which the Secretary of State is required to make grants. In fact, he is never going to be required to make grants, but he cannot make them until he has first made the regulations which enable them to be made.
I believe there is a real case here for doing something for the Open University students. It may be that this is not the

691
right way to do it, and certainly from what the Government have been saying recently they are not going to be very favourably disposed to accepting this amendment; but if they feel that there is a real case to be met here, I hope they will be able to think of some way to do it. Before I move the amendment and leave it, may I be allowed to make one other comment? If your Lordships have before you the third paragraph of this Schedule, on page 43. your Lordships will see that at line 19 there is a reference to courses" comparable to post-graduate courses". I think it is important in all legislation that we should try to use the English language correctly, and that it is especially important in an education Bill. I would ask the noble Baroness whether, indeed, the proper preposition to use after "comparable" is not "with" rather than "to". We compare one course with another, and I should have thought it should be courses "comparable with post-graduate courses". I may say that the same error (as it is in my view) appears in five or six places in this Schedule. If the noble Baroness comes to the conclusion that I am right, a few amendments could be put down on Third Reading which I am sure will go through without any discussion. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I welcome this amendment, particularly now that both sides of the House pretty well accept the existence of the Open University as a fact, and not as an experiment. This may he an appropriate place, in passing, and if I am not ruled out of order, to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lady Jennie Lee who was so persistent during her period of office in her determination to create the Open University. I have looked through this Bill, and, having been a tutor in adult education for some 17 years, I would have wished that I could have seen a little more in the form of help for adult students. Here is one place where it can be given, and where the Secretary of State himself can take action irrespective of whether or not the local authorities are sympathetic. Going back to the days of the dear old Master of Baliol and Professor Tawney, I think the magnificent work they did in the field of adult education came to an apex, in a way, in the setting up of the Open University.
692
I do not want to delay the House, but I wanted to make that point. I sincerely hope that the House will take this amendment seriously, and that we shall have a sympathetic reply on it in regard to the Open University, as well as some clue as to the attitude of the Government to the massive work done in adult education that is non-vocational, to which tribute has been paid by many Members on both sides of the House at different times.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, having been Chancellor of the Open University for five years and also a student, I should like to support the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. These discretionary grants by local authorities have really not proved to be satisfactory. May I take two students, one a teacher and the other an ordinary housewife. I can fairly take them because our biggest group of students are teachers and our second biggest group are ordinary housewives. So far as the teacher is concerned, he is the only student who stands to gain financially by getting a degree from the Open University. He is normally a teacher who, apart from his teacher's training certificate, has not got a university degree himself; but if he gets a degree then this will qualify him for additional remuneration. So he stands to gain by it.
The housewife, of course, may well be in difficulties in being able to pursue her studies through lack of means to pay the fees. What happens in practice is that there are many local authorities who give grants to teachers because they are their own teachers, and who therefore support them financially although, of course, a man who is a teacher and in paid employment can probably well afford to pay the fees himself. But, then, they do not give anything to the housewife. This is very unsatisfactory, and not how the thing ought to work; and it is hardly fair on anybody except the teachers. They have all through been in this rather privileged position that, earning a good income, they can afford to pay the fees, but they have them paid for them by their own local authority; whereas the people who ought to get the grants—the second largest group, the housewives—do not. I therefore very much hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this amendment.
Lord HYLTON; My Lords, I think it is perhaps fitting that someone from this side of the House should say something on this amendment. I believe the Open University is a brilliant British innovation which has led the whole world in many ways, and which is very much envied and admired by some other countries. On those grounds, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench, and the Government generally, will look on this amendment more favourably and give it greater consideration than other special cases. The second point is that students of the Open University, being by their nature solitary people, require tremendous motivation to proceed with their studies right through to the end. Therefore, there could still be scope for regulations making money or grants available after students have shown determination for six months or a year to prove themselves.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, as a current member of the council of the Open University and having only this morning attended their meeting in London, I would wish to support this amendment and add a few words. The council itself and the whole structure of the Open University are conscious of the need to conduct their own affairs according to the stringent financial conditions of our time. They are treating this very soberly and making their own internal adjustments. There will be pressure on recruitment, on student courses and on graduates within the university. I support the amendment because it is essential that the spirit of the Open University should be kept up.
6.51 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I have listened with interest to noble Lords who have spoken and I should like to say that I, too, am a supporter of the Open University and recognise the great and important work that it is doing. I recognise immediately the same kind of difficulties that we have had over the amendments that we were debating earlier on. For the Open University, students may receive relief from their employers or they may receive discretionary awards from local education authorities, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, pointed out, there are many people who do not receive awards at all—and this is the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was making—and for them the position
694
is difficult; because discretionary, locally-administered awards have their drawbacks particularly if they result in inconsistencies between one authority and another. It is also a cause for concern if support from local education authorities proves unreliable because, for example, a local education authority feels unable to guarantee support for the full length of a course which, for the Open University can be six years or eight years. It is true that some local authorities now feel it necessary to curtail and even sometimes to withdraw support from Open University students and that the extent of their support is diminished.
The noble Lords who proposed this measure have suggested one which, in effect, would transfer to the Secretary of State the local authorities' responsibilities to support these students. No doubt, a scheme operated by central Government would be more consistent but there is no guarantee at all that it would be more generous than the present local authority arrangements. Indeed, at the present time we could not contemplate a generous and all-embracing scheme. Nevertheless, if power to support Open University students were to be vested in the Secretary of State, the local authorities would almost certainly consider themselves relieved of their responsibilities and would quickly withdraw their existing support.
Turning to the cost—because I have no doubt that many would like to see a scheme under which awards could automatically be given to Open University students—we believe that for Open University students (who would be part-time) the cost would be up to £5 million but if other part-time students were to be included it would cost more than that. This is something which at the present moment we do not feel we can justify.
I should also say that the amendment proposed would represent a substantial departure from the long-standing division of responsibility between central and local government. At present, the duty or power to bestow awards rests primarily with the local authorities. The Secretary of State has only limited powers to pay grants and to bestow awards and these are exercised only in respect of certain post-graduate students and those on full-time courses at the long-term, adult, residential colleges. We would not lightly

695
depart from the accepted division of responsibilities in this case. It would present two severe practical problems: first, the problem of size. Open University students number some 60,000 and other part-time students on advanced-level courses could bring the numbers to be supported by central Government schemes to over 140,000. A centrally-administered scheme could therefore become very unwieldy. Secondly, there is a great variety of needs and circumstances.
I am sure that all of us have sympathy with the intentions behind this amendment. Nobody is going to argue against the value of the Open University or the advantages which it has for many people to get qualifications that they have been unable to get before or who wish to retrain to get further qualification; but it would not be right for me to accept an amendment which would commit the Government in some way to this further money. The pressures to introduce such mandatory awards would be very great and we could not contemplate this at the moment.
I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, because he raised a separate point about the grammar in the clause, that I have had advice on this and I understand that Schedule 5 merely repeats the language used by Parliament in 1962 when the Education Act of that year was passed. He might like to see what conclusions he draws from that statement and perhaps at another stage we could debate the relevant merits of either "with" or "to" in the circumstances. On the important issue, of the principle of his amendment, I hope that he will accept my explanation and withdraw the amendment.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, may I say that the conclusion I would draw about the language of 1962 and of 1980, is that the Conservative Government have learnt nothing in 18 years?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I think he might say that if it was right in the first place, it is right now.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I wish
696
that she had found it possible to suggest some way in which these students could be helped. Perhaps in the course of time she may turn over this in her mind and discuss it with the department to see what could be done for them. They are in considerable difficulty. I was obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, with his special experience, who, in the examples he gave, explained how difficult it is to get this right. In the hope that something will be done, and as we have had the opportunity of airing this, I shall in a few minutes' time seek to withdraw the amendment.
I want to say on the subject of "with" and "to" that I have consulted my noble friend Lord Airedale, who usually advises me and my noble friends on the use of the English language. He immediately quoted Shakespeare at me and he referred to somebody who was "compared to"—
A noble Lord: A summer's day.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, everybody knows it except me. All I can say is that I do not know that Acts of Parliament ought to be drafted in Shakespearian language. The fact that this is taken from the 1962 Act I can understand. I came across a similar case once before when I found something which was completely wrong and was told it was only a repetition of what had been done before. I still leave the thought with the noble Baroness that we might strike a new note and try to write contemporary English in our Acts of Parliament. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS AIR SERVICES (SCOTLAND) BILL
7 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I rise to commend to your Lordships a Bill which is not only short

697
and uncomplicated, but is also likely to receive your Lordships' full support. It is of course entirely a financial measure. Its whole purpose is to enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to continue to provide financial assistance to operators of air services. As such, it does not require detailed consideration by your Lordships. I should nevertheless like to explain to the House the proposals in the Bill and some of the historical background.
In a report to the Government of the day in 1974, the Civil Aviation Authority drew attention to the importance of air services to the social and economic wellbeing of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The report said that this was an area of the United Kingdom which, because of its remoteness and its difficult weather conditions and terrain, could not be served at an acceptable level by surface transport alone. I am sure that many of your Lordships are familiar with this geographical fact. Surface transport—that is, transport by land or sea—is not in itself a complete answer to the transport needs of many parts of the Highlands and Islands.
The CAA concluded from its study that the provision of air services in the Highlands and Islands should be governed as far as possible by normal commercial criteria but that there were certain routes where there was no possibility of providing air services profitably. The CAA called these routes "social routes" and recommended that they should be directly supported from public funds administered by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The report helped to emphasise the need for changes aimed at improving services in the Highlands and Islands and making them viable. Discussions were already taking place with British Airways on the progressive transfer to Loganair of most of their "third level "services, on which they were making heavy losses. I should explain that "third level" is the term applied to services operated by aircraft with fewer than 20 seats. The Loganair aircraft (Britten-Norman Islanders and Trislanders) were much more suited to such short-haul local services, and the success of most of the routes which were transferred to Loganair under these arrangements has fully justified this policy. It was recognised however
698
that, as the CAA had reported, there were certain routes which could not make money even by using smaller aircraft, but that it was essential to maintain them for social and economic reasons. It was agreed therefore that from April 1975 Loganair should take from British Airways the Glasgow-Tiree and Glasgow-Barra services; and that Loganair should receive financial assistance towards operating those routes. With the transfer of the third level services it was decided that no subsidy should be paid to British Airways for any of their remaining routes.
That is the historical background. It led to the inclusion by the previous Government of the clause which became Section 21 of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975. The section empowered the Secretary of State to pay subsidies to operators of air services in the Highlands and Islands. It is exercisable for only five years—that is, until December 1980—and it was the previous Government's intention that it should then be reviewed. This particular form of assistance was therefore an experiment; but, by undertaking to review it, the previous Government clearly had it in mind to extend the legislation if it proved to be successful.
When the present Government came into office, we immediately recognised the special problems of the Highlands and Islands, and I was given the task of coordinating Government action in relation to this part of Scotland. One of our first actions was to carry out the review of the subsidised air services which the previous Government had promised. We have concluded that the legislation was successful and, in this Bill, we seek to extend it indefinitely. We consulted all the local authorities, community councils and other bodies who have a direct interest in the air services which are at present assisted. There was general agreement that these air services are an essential and integral part of the transport provision for these communities and that the use made of the existing powers has successfully ensured their continuance.
The present powers were used sparingly. Only one operator—Loganair—has received subsidy and only towards a few services. Support is currently running at about £100,000 per annum, and in total the amount paid out to Loganair is less than £500,000. This selective use of the

699
powers is, in our view, correct. First, it would not be appropriate to pay subsidy on operations running at a loss when those operations could be run profitably without causing social hardship. Secondly, these are not the only powers available— or indeed being used— to subsidise air services: the Local Government (Scotland) Act gave wide powers to Regional and Islands Councils which complement the powers available to the Secretary of State at national level.
Subsidy has therefore a limited but important part to play in order to maintain vital air services to remote island communities. May I again remind your Lordships that the important factors are geographical ones. The aim is to provide essential services— not merely services which provide greater convenience. I should like to add that Loganair do try in their fare structures to help the islanders themselves to benefit most from the subsidy by providing concessions where the journey starts on an island. But the subsidy also helps those who have to travel from the mainland, for instance to provide necessary services, such as chiropody veterinary, agricultural or building services, to which mainland communities have easier access.
I should like now to turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill, which are brief and straightforward. Clause 1 authorises the Secretary of State to assist persons engaged in providing air services in the Highlands and Islands. It is widely drafted to allow it to be administered flexibly in the light of any future developments or eventualities. We intend however to continue the present policy of giving assistance selectively to certain socially necessary air services which are clearly going to remain unprofitable for some considerable time. We also intend that, in the main, local services wholly within the area of a regional or islands authority shall remain the responsibility of those authorities. In practice therefore we propose to continue the existing subsidy to Loganair in respect of the services which are at present designated as eligible for assistance.
These services are the services between Glasgow and Barra, Skye and Tiree. Tiree is of course within Strathclyde Region and the service to it could reasonably be regarded as the responsibility of that
700
authority. It receives central Government subsidy because for half the year it is only the first sector of the through service to Barra and its direct costs are relatively small. We do not therefore propose to ask the Strathclyde Regional Authority to take over responsibiltiy for assisting this service. On the other hand, there are no further services, existing or projected, which seem to be eligible for Central Government assistance under the criteria by which the currently assisted services were designated.
The other clauses, Nos. 2 to 5, are incidental. I wish only to draw the attention of the House to the commencement date in Clause 5(2). This is to be 15th December 1980. The Bill will therefore come into effect the day after the main provisions in the existing legislation cease to be exercisable, so that full continuity in the operation of the subsidy arrangements will be ensured. There is one further point which it might be helpful to explain to the House. Clause 4 provides that, when the Bill conies into operation on 15th December of this year, the existing provision in Section 21 of the Scottish Development Agency Act will be repealed. This is necessary because Section 21 contained a provision enabling the Secretary of State to give assistance by acquiring shares or stock in a company, in addition to or instead of giving assistance by grant or loan. This power was never used and we are not repeating it in this Bill. Section 21 provides however that after the five-year time limit the Secretary of State may still hold or dispose of shares or stock which he has acquired. Although no shares or stock have been acquired, or will be before December 1980, it is necessary for us to remove this continuing provision from the statute book by way of repeal.
As I have explained, the Bill is drafted in general terms, as indeed are the present powers, but its aims are modest. There are only a few air services which are both uneconomic to operate and vital to the communities they serve. They are vital because of the difficult terrain, the distances between communities and the long sea crossings, and they provide an essential component in the whole network of road, sea and air transport throughout the area. We have already recognised the transport difficulties in the Highland and Islands by increasing the grants to ferry operators, and the consultation paper on ferry

701
support, which we have recently issued, shows the seriousness of our intent. This Bill can therefore be seen in the context of our developing policy for the Highlands and Islands, and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a (The Earl of Mansfield.)
7.10 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, as I was Secretary of State at the time when the original powers were given to the Secretary of State to assist air transport in the areas covered by the Bill, I am very glad that the Government have brought forward this Bill. The original experiment was expected to last five years and, if nothing were done, the power to assist was to lapse.
I noted the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, about the changes in the Bill. So far as I can sec, there are only about three such changes. First, the word, "establishing" has been included; secondly, the power in respect of an option to buy shares and stocks has been dropped; and thirdly I note that, for drafting reasons, the word "received" has replaced the word "receipts" to the Secretary of State. However, I do not quibble over that.
It is interesting, however, to note that we are making this payment of £ 100,000 to Loganair, because we all know that Loganair now has nothing to do with Logan. We remember that pioneer and what he did for the Highlands, much of which came from the original work carried out by Torn Johnson's Hydro-board. That enabled a firm in the Highlands to build itself up to be one of the finest in the country. That company suffered greatly when its senior partner, Mr. Logan, was killed in one of his own aircraft.
Perhaps that was when the change took place, because Loganair is now owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland. The House may wish to know that the Royal Bank of Scotland Group has just announced pretax profits for 1979 of £ 96 ·6 million. It is a sobering thought that we are giving the Royal Bank of Scotland a sum of £ 100,000. It was as well that the Government decided to drop the transport provisions from the Education Bill or I might have made a few caustic comments on this Bill. En this respect we are not subsidising companies,
702
but services. Therefore, there is a justifiable reason for deleting the option in respect of shares and stocks because that does not apply in this case.
I am glad that the Government have taken this step. I had the privilege of putting through the other place the Highlands and Islands Development Board legislation. That is one of the other changes. We are redefining the area and going back to the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965 rather than using the 1975 legislation relating to the Scottish Development Agency. Originally, we listed the seven crofter counties and included a power for the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the area, and that has been done. In the Scottish Development Agency Act we listed the areas that were to be covered according to regions and districts. I believe that it was sensible to return to the 1965 definition. The area was extended to include Bute and the Isle of Arran.
If I recollect correctly, we also extended the services to Morayshire which has been drawn into the Highlands and Islands area. Therefore, the return to the original power will make the whole matter much more comprehensive. The fact that we took the power to assist the people of the Highlands and Islands to improve economic and social conditions and to enable the Highlands and Islands to play a more effective part in the economic and social development of the nation was a sensible move.
I read the debates on this Bill in another place, and some honourable Members there did not appear to appreciate that these provisions were included in the Scottish Development Agency Act. They were put into that legislation because that Bill was available and about to go through the House. Although those provisions had nothing to do with the Scottish Development Authority, that legislation was thought to be appropriate and we took the opportunity to include these matters. It is not always the right thing to do to put an extra clause in a piece of legislation that is going through Parliament but, if I recollect correctly, this was done on that occasion and it made the Secretary of State responsible for these matters.
The Secretary of State also has the power to give other grants to the Civil

703
Aviation Authority. I was surprised that the Minister did not mention the fact that the present Government have upped by about £ 1 million the amount given to the CAA. The authority must be able to give a considerable amount of help not only to Logan-air but to the other airfields which are helped by the CAA. Indeed, I think that the total figure is about £ 2½ million, which will assist considerably with the increased land charges.
I am sure the Minister is aware that people in the Islands have a justifiable complaint about the cost of fares. The fares are getting beyond the reach of many people. I am worried more about Shetland than about Orkney. The Government have a special fund in respect of the Shetlands which is supported by legislation which passed through both Houses and which gave a certain amount of money to the island authority there. Therefore, if necessary, some of that money could be used. But when we consider the Western Isles and places such as Barra, Skye and Tiree, we all appreciate that one cannot run air services on an economic basis. They must be given support.
I do not know whether the Minister was concerned about the point raised in another place about the timetables of Loganair not always being of the best for the travelling public. The Minister has the right to lay down conditions in regard to the suitability of services for the travelling public in those areas. However, on the whole I think there is no reason for anybody to be other than glad that the Government have decided that this legislation should go forward. I have very great pleasure in supporting the Government on this Bill.
7.19 p.m.
The EARL of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has given the Bill a welcome. No one has more experience of trying to help the people in the Highlands and Islands than the noble Lord in his long term of office as Secretary of State for Scotland. All noble Lords are agreed that this beautiful but sadly deprived area needs all the help it can get. If I did not mention the very
704
recent help which the Government have been able to give in respect of airport charges, it was merely that I did not want to be accused of banging the party political drum on a matter which has nothing to do with this Bill.
As the noble Lord has raised the matter, I confirm his "guesstimate" that the subsidy amounts to £ 2.5 million for 1980– 81. It has enabled the Civil Aviation Authority to reduce from £ 3 to £ 1 its proposed passenger load charges for scheduled domestic flights at all of its eight aerodromes. This in turn has enabled the airlines to moderate their proposed fare increases; but the Scottish Office will be discussing with the Civil Aviation Authority the future operation of the aerodromes with a view to establishing a a long-term plan for financing them as regards charges and subsididy.
Turning briefly to the other matters raised by the noble Lord, the choice of language of the draftsman was purely for clarification. I am assured there is no sinister purpose in it. The pre-tax profits of the Royal Bank— of which I am not a shareholder, I regret to say— fall outside the consideration of this Bill, but, as the noble Lord was good enough to say eventually, this is a matter of services to the islanders and has really nothing to do with the Bank in its more ordinary character and operations.
I confirm, as the noble Lord said, that the area of the Highlands and Islands is within the area in relation to which the functions of the Highlands and Islands Development Board may be exercised by virtue of subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965. It means no more and no less than that. In the circumstances, I am glad that your Lordships have apparently given this modest measure your blessing.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.23 p.m. until 8 p.m.]

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
Further considered on Report.
Consideration on Schedule 5 resumed:
8 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 43, line 29, at end insert—
(" d) to bestow an award on any person in respect of his or her attendance at a course provided by a college or other institution leading to the H.N.C., H.N.D. or T.E.C. qualifications, where that person was made redundant in the twelve months preceding the date on which the course began; and the amount of the award shall be equal to the average earnings of the person over the six months immediately preceding the date on which he or she became redundant.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last time that we were talking about the question of technicians was at two minutes past six in the morning, when your Lordships may not have been at your best to consider such a weighty and important matter. I am glad to have this opportunity of returning to the subject. I should like to emphasise at the outset that, although your Lordships have listened to several cases of what might be termed special pleading on behalf of musicians, lawyers and so on, what I am attempting to do by this amendment is of a rather different nature. I am attempting to secure that the nation has the benefit of the people who would be sent on these HNC, HND and TEC courses, and thereby the very serious shortage of technicians would, we hope, be partially filled. So what I am talking about is not a provision to benefit a certain class of students by giving them exceptional payments, but to encourage people to take these courses and so to satisfy the needs of British industry.
I am confining the benefit to people who become redundant because, unfortunately, it is a fact of life that in many important industries, particularly the engineering industries, men and women are being thrown out of work by the economic crisis. I mentioned last time the case of the British Steel Corporation which, we all know, has to slim down, probably from its present level of 180,000-odd employees to something nearer 100,000, which is a tremendous loss of manpower and a tremendous waste of the skills and
706
talents of the men involved if we cannot find some way of re-employing them elsewhere, particularly in manufacturing industry. After all, manufacturing industry, whether noble Lords like it or not, is the life-blood of this nation. If we do not have manufacturing industry, then we can forget about the musicians, the lawyers and all the rest of the very worthy objects that your Lordships were talking about a few minutes ago.
This matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, not so very long ago in a debate which he initiated on the Finniston Report. Engineering Our Future was its title. A few minutes ago on another amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked what kind of people we are going to need in 25 years' time, and his reply was engineers, technologists and technicians. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, would come back and make that remark on this amendment, because if we hear someone of his stature who is not an engineer himself recognising the need, then there is hope. If non-engineers, people who have been trained in the arts, and people such as the noble Lord himself, who maintains that he has no particular training although he always speaks in your Lordships' House with great eloquence, can recognise the need to do something for the engineering industry, then surely the Government can see that this is something which is really important.
The Finniston Report was concerned with professional engineers and not with technician engineers, but they felt that the shortage of technicians was of such an acute nature that they said, in paragraph 3.29, that in the absence of a sufficient number of technicians companies were, of course, able to carry on, but sub-optimally with reduced professional engineering input. In many cases, the committee remarked, it was necessary for them to employ professional engineers in jobs that could have been perfectly satisfactorily done by technicians, which is an appalling waste of trained manpower when we do not have enough professional engineers either.
So what I hoped to do was to kill two birds with one stone, as it were, by taking off the unemployment register some people, there because they have been made redundant, who, by definition, have ex-

707
perience of working in industry, and persuading them to go into the courses which I have mentioned for HNC, FIND and TEC qualifications, where the shortages are so acute, by making provision for the Secretary of State to pay them during the time that they were on these courses at the same rate as the remuneration which they had been receiving in the six months immediately before they became redundant.
It is only fair that the Secretary of State should bear this expenditure, rather than the local authorities. For reasons that we all know of, the local authorities are finding great difficulty in meeting their existing commitments. To lay a new burden on them of this nature would be totally unthinkable, but to put it on the Secretary of State would be perfectly right and proper. The Government would thereby be relieved of the expenditure on unemployment benefit, which they would otherwise have had to pay these men and women, and in the long term they could not only look forward to their own earning capacity being enhanced by the training that they had received, but also one hopes that the profits of industry would be thereby improved tremendously and the taxation base of the Government would thus be enhanced.
I dare say that all kinds of reasons will be given as to why we cannot do this. In particular, the matter of costs will be mentioned, as it may be in response to the recommendations of the Finniston Report as a whole. I must say that we are not very good in this country at cutting corners when an emergency arises, and it would be no exaggeration to call the shortage of technicians an emergency, so far as industry is concerned. We are bad at reacting quickly to a foreseen need. There are too many ways of finding the proverbial difficulty to every solution. I hope that in this case the Government will decide to take a first step in response to the very important recommendations of Finniston to enable industry to get the technicians that it needs, and to take a few off the unemployment register at the same time. My Lords, I beg to move.
8.10 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, may I support my noble friend
708
on this question, because it is important. Today, I had lunch with two industrialists from East Lancashire and they were very much concerned with the engineering industry. Even though we have an unemployment problem of 7 per cent. in that area, we nevertheless find that there is still a shortage of skilled people going into engineering, especially at OND and HND levels.
We have got to encourage people to do this. The only way in which we can encourage them to do this is by accepting the suggestion put forward by my noble friend. I believe that the only way of encouraging them is by giving them some incentive to take up courses in colleges. There are many colleges that are crying out for students of this particular kind. I am the Deputy Pro-Chancellor of Lancaster University. At Lancaster University we have a very good course for higher degrees, but it is not the higher degrees that many engineering firms require. It is the basics that they require, and the basics are the OND and HND courses. Therefore, I support my noble friend in his amendment and hope that when the noble Baroness the Minister replies she will accept it.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Avebury. I think I am right in saying that it was only yesterday that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, Mr. Neil Macfarlane, said that he and other Ministers were constantly disturbed by the discrepancy they found, going around the country, between the number of people who are unemployed and the number of vacancies for skilled workers. I suggest that the Government have a glorious opportunity here to alleviate the problem of unemployment and at the same time to deal with this mis-match within the labour market.
The need to create more wealth for the benefit of the community is something which many on this side of the House have in common with the Government. I hope that in her reply the noble Baroness will be able to say something which shows that she recognises the distinctive nature of this particular amendment compared with some that have gone before and what can be done under this heading for the benefit of British manufacturing industry. much take the point which has been made
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I very by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, about the importance of strengthening the links between education and industry and of producing the numbers of technically qualified people that we need in support of manufacturing industry and the wealth-creating sectors of our society. The amendments before the House are concerned with educational and training opportunities and financial support for those who are unfortunate enough to have been made redundant and who may wish or, indeed, need to retrain for a new occupation.
Let me say that mandatory awards from local education authorities are already available for students taking courses leading to the Higher National Diploma and the Higher Diploma of the Technical Education Council, provided the student fulfils the conditions of the awards regulations. If for some reason a student does not qualify for a mandatory award, or if the course lie proposes to take is not designated for a mandatory award, local education authorities are free to make an award at their discretion.
Direct support for the unemployed is given by the Manpower Services Commission under their Youth Opportunities Scheme and Training Opportunities Scheme. The Training Opportunities Scheme provides training for adults who have been away from full-time education for a total of at least two years after the age of 16 and who want to take a Training Opportunities Scheme course to learn a new skill. It also provides financial support for those who wish to take full-time technical courses in further education of up to one year's duration. Indeed, the training of technicians of all kinds is regarded as a priority area by the Manpower Services Commission. There are also separate arrangements under the Youth Opportunities Programme for meeting the training and development needs of young people under the age of 19. The allowances paid under these schemes are generous and are intended to provide the wherewithal with which a trainee can finance himself for his training; and also to provide a measure of incentive, if needed.
I am very sympathetic to the problems of the unemployed and recognise the
710
importance of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is making in these amendments, but in view of the provision which is already being made by local education authorities, and particularly by the Manpower Services Commission, I do not feel that it would be right to create a further scheme to enable the Secretary of State for Education and Science to bestow awards. I hope, therefore, that on these grounds the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made a very clear and definite statement about the present situation, but may I call her attention to certain points to which she has not referred. For a number of years I was in charge of a chemistry department where we employed no fewer than 40 technical staff and it was extremely important that they should be properly qualified. The qualification which we were looking for was the HNC. Unless they had the HNC qualification they were ineligible for promotion to higher positions.
Those noble Lords who may not be completely familiar with it may like to know that the HNC is a qualification which on the technical side is not very different from a university pass degree. It is an important technical qualification which allows people to take certain absolutely vital jobs in the technical field, jobs which are of extreme importance throughout the whole of our industry and throughout universities and all training places. I am told— and I should like to ask the noble Baroness if she is able to say whether or not this is right— that if a person is unemployed and enters upon a course like this, such a person loses unemployment pay. If that is true— and I have been told that it is by the principal of a college of further education— it is a very serious matter. It means that a person cannot get the qualification without surrendering the right to receive unemployment pay.
These qualifications are essential, and I am quite sure that the noble Baroness is aware of this. If she is not, I am sure that Dr. Young will tell her how important it is to have in his laboratory people who are well qualified and who have the ability to do this sort of job. If we in this country are serious when we say that we want technically qualified people in order

711
to carry on the jobs which are essential to industry, then it seems to me that we must make available to them the opportunities to get their qualifications. I should have thought that this amendment was a very simple and clear way of guaranteeing that people who want such qualifications can get them and that therefore industry, which requires such people, can get them in the particular fields in which they are wanted.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if I may briefly comment on the Minister's speech, she said that mandatory awards are already available for courses of this type, and that is perfectly true. But the student I am talking about in the amendment is somebody who has become redundant in, for example, the British Steel Corporation. He will have to accept a very catastrophic fall in his standard of living if he is to live on a grant as compared with the remuneration he was getting from his employment immediately prior to the date on which he became redundant. If I may say so with great respect, that is not very much of an incentive to somebody of this kind to take an HND course or its equivalent. As for the Manpower Services Commission's schemes which the noble Baroness mentioned— the Youth Opportunities Scheme and the Training Opportunities Scheme— yes, there is a payment associated with the courses that they provide, including the full-time technical courses, but it is certainly not a generous one.
A friend of mine recently went on a TOPS course and was paid about £ 30 a week. He was a single man, without dependants, of course, but nevertheless a payment of that nature will not attract an enormous number of people to take the technician courses that we are discussing. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, has reminded your Lordships, the courses leading to these qualifications are not being filled. There is an appalling wastage of resources in the technical colleges, in that provision is made for a certain number of students who are not actually entering those courses.
If we are to treat this matter as seriously as it deserves, I honestly think that we cannot rely on provisions of a general
712
nature, such as the Oxford TOPS, but we have to single out the education of technicians for the most exceptional treatment to meet the exceptional needs of industry. I dare say that it would not be sensible to press this amendment but to return to the matter when we have an opportunity to discuss engineering education in a wider context. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
8.22 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL Baroness FAITHFULL moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:—
A wards for Students in Social work
"There shall be mandatory awards for mature non-graduate students wishing to train for social work").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak with some diffidence and I almost feel that I ought to apologise for bringing forward yet another amendment concerning mandatory awards. I only hope that I can be as restrained and considerate as was the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. At Committee stage I moved Amendments Nos. 201 and 202, which were paving amendments to Amendment No. 207, which sought,
"Mandatory awards for other courses as the Secretary of State shall prescribe by regulations".
This amendment is, rightly or wrongly, in more specific terms, as many other amendments have been earlier this evening.
The amendment is put forward primarily in order to meet the needs of the most vulnerable in our society— that is, those who are assisted by social service departments and voluntary organisations. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if for one moment I tell you what those duties are. Under the Mental Health Act 1959 social workers are responsible for helping mental patients outside the hospital in the community, and the Jay Report has recommended that many more patients should be discharged from mental hospitals and helped in the community. If that were to be done there would be a great saving of money.
Under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act the disabled are helped in the

713
community and, if the report of the Warnock Committee is to be implemented, social services departments will need to help the disabled children in the community while the school helps them with their education. The elderly are helped under the Health Services and Public Health Acts, and here again many old people's homes are closing, with the idea that people should be helped in the community. Finally, under the Children and Young Persons Acts, children are being helped in the community rather than in custodial care.
I should just like to mention one particular area of difficulty in the work of social workers and that is in the area of battered children. If any of your Lordships have ever had to make up your minds whether or not to remove a child from home, hearing on the one hand the mother saying that she never hurt the child at any time and on the other hand seeing the child bruised and hurt, you will have had to make up your mind which decision to take: to leave the child at home or to remove the child.
In the past few years there has been— I think rightly— a change of direction for social workers. The intention is that they should give a better and more skilled service within the community. That means very skilled work by skilled people who are trained, but not only trained: they must have experience of life and maturity within themselves. By the same token of course it means that the very seriously vulnerable are left in custodial care and therefore the residential social workers also need to have maturity.
I ask two things. First, that the Government should consider widening the range of courses attracting mandatory grants— and I appreciate that those grants for mature non-graduate students would come through the local education authorities— and, secondly, that the Government should encourage local authorities to consider the training of older men and women who are non-graduates, who have gained experience in their early years in other spheres of life. Those who have had personal experience of tending people— married women, men retiring from the Services and so on, 35 years of age and above, would, with training, be of inestimable value. I know that 75 per cent. of students who gain the certificate
714
of training in social work are over 25 years of age and of that 75 per cent., 30 per cent. are over 35 years of age. But I think we need more than that percentage and perhaps I may just say that last year of the young graduates there were 70 less training and therefore 70 fewer grants from the Department of Health and Social Security, which is the department which provides grants for graduates.
The cost of this would be approximately £ 1 million and I maintain (although obviously it cannot be proved at the moment) that it would be cost effective. Perhaps I may give one example. I am the chairman of the Adoption Resource Exchange. Last year we placed 100 handicapped children for adoption. Had they remained in care until they were 18 years of age they would have cost the country £ 2 million. The country has been saved that £ 2 million.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder; I know that at the moment the country must not be extravagant, must look to costs and must consider its priorities, and therefore I know the difficulty of the Minister in agreeing to such a proposal. Therefore I hope that, as with barristers, she will give it consideration and thought, if not immediately, at any rate in the long term. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I enter the debate on this particular clause, bearing in mind that there are still 51 amendments before your Lordships. Whether we shall get through by 11 o'clock tonight, which I believe is the intention of the Government, supported, if I may say so, by the Opposition, remains to be seen. So perhaps I had better be brief, but I wanted to get that remark in because I think it is important that we should bear in mind the fact that we have another 51 amendments before us.
I want merely to cross the t's and dot the i's of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. This is one of the rare occasions on which we see eye to eye. The only point I want to make concerns the validity of her request. We have a vast field of social services in this country, and whatever people may say about them, many of us on both sides of your Lordships' Chamber are justly proud of the contri-

715
bution that they are making to society every day. But the fact remains that more than half the social service workers are in fact without training. In the main they are young and they are without training and the noble Baroness rightly said that what we need at the present moment are the mature, non-graduate students who have some contribution to make because they are bringing to social work, once they have received the basic training which enables them to understand what it is all about, a great deal of experience of life. Although they may not have done social work before, nevertheless they are often in a position to make objective judgments.
It is on that basis that I think the noble Baroness is perfectly right when she makes an appeal for the mature non-graduate students who wish to train for social work. I realise the difficulties. I do not have to appeal to the noble Baroness the Minister. She herself has had vast experience. I can remember when she was chairman of the Children's Committee in Oxford; I can remember when she was chairman of the Social Services Committee in Oxford. There is no need for me to make out the case for this. I am sure she will be in complete agreement. I merely wanted to support the noble Baroness.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I should like very briefly from these Benches to support as strongly as I can this amendment. In the many years that I worked at the London School of Economics I saw a number of these older people come forward for training. There is no doubt the good candidates take the training extremely well and make very good use of it. The combination of maturity and training means that they can do a first-class job. What is more they stick, they do not leave. The younger trainee works very well for a year or two getting experience and then very often is off, whereas the older woman coming back will stay for the rest of her working life, and that may be 25 years. It is a very good investment.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, may I add my voice very briefly from the point of view of the courts, because I have had to deal with rather young very immature people who go out at my request to make social services reports. If I had had mature people who were able
716
to talk to shoplifters, able to talk to people with marital problems, I am sure a lot of my troubles would have been lessened, and certainly theirs would have been, too. I would have got very much better reports than I did get from people who did their very best but who were very young and very inexperienced in life.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I add one or two words. I do not think there is any need to add to what has been said so very well by the noble Baroness and others who have spoken. I think the argument is strengthened by the fact that the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which I have the honour of being a vice-president, are entirely in agreement with this amendment. I do not think it needs any additional words of mine, but simply for the House and the noble Baroness to realise that those who are actually in touch with the whole matter are entirely in agreement.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. The noble Baroness reminded me a little while ago about the Moorgate disaster. The Red Cross members did not go there in the end to do the first aid that they were expecting to do, but were invited to take charge of the care of the relatives of the casualties in the disaster. By the time the relatives arrived it was after hours and there were no social workers present, so it fell to these mature boys and girls to look after the relatives and to try to help and advise them as to what they should do the following morning, where they should go to find out about death grants, pensions, mortgages and many other things. This was after they had taken the relatives to sort out the belongings of the casualties, the deceased. They then took them to the mortuary to identify the bodies, some of which were dismembered. I feel that this was an example of the support and guidance of more mature people being such a very great help to the young graduates, who, although trained in all these matter, because they are still young are very apt to be emotionally upset when confronted with very distressing cases. I would point out that in social work continuity is of tremendous importance, and the young do like to move around. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to bear these points in

717
mind when deciding on mandatory financial awards for mature students in social service work.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this point. I should like to say at the start that I do very much appreciate the valuable work undertaken by social workers, and the points that were so well made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. We have heard a number of experts, including of course the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who speaks from long experience on this subject. The present position about awards for social workers is that students who obtain places on degree courses in social studies— and these course may lead to a certificate of qualification in social work as well as to a degree— are eligible for mandatory awards on exactly the same conditions as students reading for a first degree in other subjects. There is no age barrier for the receipt of a mandatory award, and in fact the award regulations make special provision to pay a higher rate of grant for students who are over 26 years of age and who have been in full-time employment for three to six years immediately preceding the first year of the course. It is true that courses for the non-graduate diploma in social work do not qualify for mandatory awards, but students taking a two-year certificate course may be released on salary if they are already employed by a local authority. Otherwise, they may apply for a discretionary award from their local education authority.
My noble friend Lady Faithful] referred to the Department of Health and Social Security, and they do make awards to graduates taking courses for the certificate of qualification in social work, because a course for post-graduate studies is acknowledged to be the responsibility of central rather than local government. A year or two ago the DHSS did agree to divert resources from elsewhere to provide an extra 200 awards for graduate social work courses. They did so because of concern then being expressed that cuts in discretionary awards would seriously affect recruitment to the profession. In the event there was no demand for this extra provision, and the extra funds could now be made available only at the expense of
718
other equally important programmes. Nevertheless, the initiative of the DHSS does illustrate that central departments of Government take very seriously exactly the kind of concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and other speakers. For my part I have taken very careful note of the points made and of the views expressed, and I shall certainly pass these on to my colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security.
Particular reference has been made to the need to train mature students. I understand that about 30 per cent. of students studying for the certificate of qualification in social work are over the age of 35, which suggests that mature students are not being neglected. Indeed, I was quite interested to see that the figures show that 75 per cent. of what are known as CQSW students are 25 or over, 50 per cent. are 30 or over and 30 per cent. are 35 or over, which does suggest a rather higher age range than one would expect on other courses. I recognise that this does not in any way meet the point that my noble friend is making in this amendment. I do realise the great interest that has been shown in it from all parts of the House by people who are very knowledgeable in this matter. It is clearly the kind of thing that, if money were available, we should like to do. But at the present time it is no use my making this promise, because we do not feel able to extend the lists for mandatory awards for the reasons I have given on the other amendments. I hope that at any rate on some of the narrower points I have been able to offer an explanation to my noble friend, and that, with this, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I noted when my noble friend was speaking that she indicated that support for mature students who were employed by local government was available, but she did not mention anyone else. I speak on behalf of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children which, being a charity, has great difficulty in getting expert, extra knowledge for its representatives in the field who are all of the older generation— many are ex-Servicemen as my noble friend Lady Faithfull has suggested. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will seek to convey to her colleagues in the DHSS

719
that perhaps they might think to extend anything that they have going—and I appreciate that perhaps it must not be more than it is at present—to charitable organisations as well as to local authorities. They work very closely together, they are complementary and they are not in competition. However, the same sort of expertise is needed by both, and I hope that perhaps that could be followed through.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have spoken and to the Minister for her understanding of this problem. Who, more than she—as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said—who has been the chairman of a children's committee? I know only too well the financial constraints throughout the country, and having aired this problem I hope that her right honourable friend the Minister in another place will take note of what noble Lords have said. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [School meals: England and Wales]:
8.42 p.m.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET Viscount MOUNTGARRET moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 21, line 11, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall have a duty to").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, there are just under 50 amendments or so to go, but I believe that it is important that we should not hurry through something which I feel is of fundamental importance to the Bill. When Clause 22 was last debated in your Lordships' House it was about 6.15 in the morning. At that hour I do not think that many of your Lordships were particularly keen to have a prolonged discussion. I am not sure that the amendments that have been tabled in my name have been really thought through in much detail. I ask your Lordships' permission not only to move Amendment No. 56, but to speak to Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 which are consequential upon Amendment No. 56. The situation is rather complicated—at least it is to me—because I am a bit of a novice in these matters. However, I ask your Lordships to look at Clause 22(1)(a)
720
where we see that it says that a local education authority:
"may provide registered pupils at any school…with milk, meals or other refreshment".
In these three amendments I am trying to impose an obligation upon local authorities to provide pupils with milk if those pupils are aged 8 years and under, and meals,
"suitable as the main meal of the day on days when the schools are open for instruction".
So, your Lordships can see that the three amendments all really dovetail together.
I am very conscious of the need to allow local authorities the freedom to conduct their affairs as they think best in the interests of their locality and also to avoid having too much dictatorial, centralised government. But I feel very strongly that there are times when the Government must lay down certain definite rules. Providing milk for children under the age of eight while at school, in my view, falls into that cateogry. If the Bill were to go through as it stands a local education authority might, for some reason, choose not to make use of the power that this clause at present provides. I think that it would be wrong to permit that eventuality, especially where milk is concerned. It is, and this is well accepted, an essential ingredient to good health.
As far back as 1943 the late Sir Winston Churchill, speaking on the subject of establishing a National Health Service on broad and sound foundations, at one point said:
"There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies. Healthy citizens are the greatest asset any country can have".
I am not suggesting for one moment that children attending school are necessarily babies, but I suggest that certainly up to the age of about eight there is still the requirement for a regular good supply of milk into young children. If people get off the mark in the right way they will be healthy, one hopes, for the rest of their lives; but if one denies them the opportunity, then I think that we shall have much cause for concern.
I am sorry to see that my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden is not in his seat at present, because I should like to remind your Lordships of what he said so well during the Committee stage

721
on 13th March. He said that the first decision he had to take was whether he could honestly disband and remove the whole of the meals and milk service to which he attached so much importance nearly 36 years ago and which he introduced. I do not think that that ought lightly to be disregarded.
It seems to me rather strange that, in 1944 when there was a serious shortage of everything, including food and milk, the Government of the day decided that it was correct to have a clause in the Education Act to ensure that young children received a regular supply of milk. Here we are, 36 years later, with apparently nothing like the shortage that existed then, but we are seriously considering abandoning what I believe to be the principle of good health. I should like to say at this stage that I have no vested interest to declare. I might be a farmer, but I do not have a milk herd and so I am not out to ensure that I have a regular sale of milk. I thought that I would get that comment in.
Another very important point—and I think that it is probably the most important of all—is that I do not seek to suggest that school milk or indeed meals for that matter (we are speaking on Amendment No. 60 as well) should be provided free. I emphasise that point because it was with some concern that this afternoon no fewer than six noble Lords, four of whom sit on my Front Bench, said to me, "Oh, we cannot possibly accept this amendment. There is no money; we must cut down. You cannot have free milk." I said that there was no question of providing anything free.
I ask your Lordships to be kind enough to bear with me for a few moments. I refer your Lordships to subsection (3)(a) where it clearly says that a local education authority:
"may make such charges as they think fit".
As far as I am concerned that will stand. Under subsection (3)(b) a local education authority may
"remit the whole or part of any charge that would otherwise be made if, having regard to the particular circumstances of any pupil"—
and so on. That is fair enough and I wish to leave it. It is absolutely right. There is no question whatever of suggesting that this provision should be made free of charge.
I am very concerned that, if we do have to test the opinion of your Lordships' House on this matter, there may be many noble Lords who are present elsewhere in the House, who have not heard what I have said, and they may come into the Chamber and be under a misconception. I wonder whether my noble friend might not do some sterling work elsewhere while I am here. However, I should like to make that point abundantly clear. In my view there is no question of making it free. If, for instance, a child is provided with half a pint of milk a day in the middle of the morning, at present this would amount to a mere 50p a week, which I suggest is a drop in the ocean in most parents' pockets compared to the expenditures they choose to make in other spheres.
As I have said, provision is already made under this clause for an authority to provide milk free of charge for certain categories of children whose parents clearly cannot afford to pay. Therefore, I can see no reason why the provision of milk should, in fact, cost the Government anything. I am advised by one or two of my friends who are councillors that their respective education authorities would not dream of stopping milk or, for that matter, meals. If that is so, I do not think that by imposing a duty upon them so to do as opposed to a provision whereby they only "may", that will cause any offence or, indeed, hardship. Nor do I think that it will cost them any more if they plan to continue the supply of milk or meals and they choose not to stop it: if there is a duty so to do, in the few isolated cases where a local authority may wish to stop this provision, I suggest that we are talking of a very small amount of money.
Therefore, would it not be right to ask my noble friend Lady Young to take another look at this and ask the Government to think again on it? When the clause was debated during the Committee stage it was about 6.15 in the morning. I apologise to your Lordships for not being present at the Committee stage, but I unavoidably had to be elsewhere. It was probably as well that I was not present, otherwise I would have raised this amendment, and at that hour of the morning I would not have been very popular had I started a debate such

723
as this; obviously, the sitting had gone on for quite long enough.
I turn to the question of meals. Again, there is only the power to provide—they "may" provide meals of unspecified quality and of unspecified quantity. Many children spend most of their day getting to school and returning home. I am, of course, talking of the rural community. I accept that children in urban areas are probably the metaphorical stone's throw from their school and, therefore, that this does not apply to them. However, we should not forget the rural communities. Such children spend a long time getting to school in the morning and back home again late in the evening. It is just not good enough if, having arrived at school, for some reason or another no proper meal of any description whatever is provided for them. They should expect to have a proper meal. It is no good thinking that it is the duty of the parents to provide them with food. Noble Lords may think that it is the parent's duty to provide them with food, but children living in urban areas who might have to go home to lunch, may find that the house is closed; their father would be out at work, as would their mother. The parents do not want and cannot afford to be tied to the home in order to give little Willie a decent tuck-in. They send the children off to school and that is the end of it; they have their jobs to do.
Reference has been made to a provision for local education authorities to provide a place in which children can eat their food. I am sure noble Lords will agree that unfortunately there are times—I hope not too many—when children are sent to school without even a proper breakfast, let alone the possibility of taking anything to fill their tummies during the middle of the day—frankly, that is wishful thinking. As far back as 1944 Section 49 of the Education Act stated quite clearly that meals at school in the middle of the day were to be provided as being suitable as the main meal of the day. Thirty-six years later, with all the difficulties and troubles of the war behind us, I do not understand why we should seek to overturn that principle. I do not believe that it imposes a burden of financial stress upon the local authority to provide such a service, particularly as in the case of
724
milk and in the relevant clause, local authorities have the power to charge people who can afford to pay for the cost of those meals.
There is the question of the child who leaves his home early in the morning, at 7.30 or 7.45, in order to be at school at 9 o'clock. Let us suppose that the local education authority does not take up the power provided at present under the clause as it stands. The child will attempt to concentrate on his education on an empty stomach from the time he arrives right up to the time he leaves school and finally gets home at night. I know what I would do if I were a child at school and had a break at lunchtime and no proper meal; I would go straight to the local shops and get some grub, have some fun and probably not return to school, which would be conducive to truancy. That is the wrong way to treat children. It is not conducive to learning; it is not conducive to good health and, as I say, it is conducive to truancy.
I am sure that many noble Lords will have very good arguments in support of that, so I do not want to cover all the ground myself. I simply want to try to understand why it is that after 35 years of providing a first-class service of school meals and milk for children, we are in danger of throwing it all away, when I am not sure that there will be any saving of any significance attached to it. I believe that we shall incur the wrath of the parents up and down the country, and that we shall be rendering a disservice to the health of those who follow us. Both these things I see as being counter-productive—the former in the near future and the latter in the longer-term. Nor, indeed, do I wish to appear to be ratting on my awn party, because this is not even a minor part of the Government's economic strategy, which I most wholeheartedly support and endorse. However, I believe that it is necessary and can only do good. I very much hope that my noble friend Lady Young will accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is moved. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, may I suggest that we speak also to Amendments Nos. 57 and 58?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, as Amendment No. 57 is an identical amend-

725
ment, instead of taking up the time of the House on Report, I shall simply move it formally.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would speak now and move it later.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to it or, as someone has said, forever hold my peace. I shall be brief. We want to insert the word "shall", because if there is a change in the economic climate, we may not have confidence in the judgment of local authorities to provide a service which can be shown to be discretionary when they are under pressure by the Government to make expenditure cuts. It may not be this year or next year, but unless this duty is clearly spelt out in the Bill, we shall find areas of the country which offer no provision at all for midday meals or compensatory grants for schoolchildren. I think that is clear enough without any more talking.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Ross, if he were minded to speak to Amendment No. 73, or any other noble Lord for that matter who has Scottish interests at heart to consider that.
9 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to add a very few words from the point of view of the dairy industry—the milk industry, if you like—and also because I support entirely the views that have been expressed by the noble Lord who moved this amendment on the subject of milk in schools. I have had a far longer association with milk in schools than anybody in this whole assembly since it was way back before the war that Lord Boyd-Orr, and my husband, made the original inquiries and tests about milk and the value of milk for growing children and came out with the scheme which has been running for years and years known as the "Milk in Schools Scheme". So I support that wholeheartedly.
However, there is one thing today which is different from even then. I do not know whether the noble Lords realise that a national contribution of 2p per pint gains for us an EEC subsidy of 8p per pint. Surely when we are all very worried about
726
the amount of money we spend at the EEC, this is a very good thing indeed. If this goes through and milk is not provided in schools or is provided in a much smaller way, the milk producers will lose 90 million litres of milk a year, which is £3 million over the price of milk for manufacture. I am not in the dairy industry so I speak without any particular personal interest but the £3 million in the dairy industry will be a very severe knock to dairy farmers and will have to be made up in some way, probably by subsidies.
Then, as has been said, the children will lose a valuable source of nutrition and we in the United Kingdom at the moment spend £15 million at the existing rate, and we get £15 million back from the EEC. We also get an additional £60 million which we shall lose, because if we do not have this milk scheme which is being supported by the EEC then we are going to be in a very bad way. In other countries milk is being subsidised quite considerably by the EEC. In Denmark about two-thirds of the children get milk; in Germany I believe they do everywhere, except in Hamburg, and all subsidised by the EEC.
I think we would be doing very severe harm not only from the point of view of the schoolchildren—and I am not going to mention that, since it has been ably dealt with by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret—but from the point of view of what we can get for the dairy industry from the EEC in grants. If we do not take this, I think we shall be doing very severe damage to the dairy industry, and I wholeheartedly support what has been said about this and hope very much that the Government will realise what this means to us.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Baroness and say that she has introduced a new, real and practical note which we always rely upon her to do in these debates. I am not very hopeful that the Government will take any notice of any of us on this. We all know that Governments only respond to the people using their feet and voting against them. As one of the noble Lords has said earlier, so many of their Lordships are partaking of their own milk supply at this moment that they are not able to be present to hear our arguments.

727
We come back to the old argument in this clause. Of course, we know that the good local authorities will always provide the milk and the meals, but the moment you give some kind of option like this, those who want to save on it will certainly save on it. I am an ex-teacher and I should like to say that one of the things so often bandied about is that things are better today than they were. Yes, they are, but the fact that parents have more money does not always mean that they arc prepared to spend it either on children's milk or meals. If we are going to have some kind of measurement by which those who are on supplementary benefit or one parent families will receive these things, that is excellent. But I am afraid it will leave a lot of children without the necessary milk or meals because the parents either will not or cannot give them the money. In some cases, I am sorry to say it is because they will not.
The point was lightly touched upon about truancy. This is a very real point and I should like to tell the noble Viscount that urban schoolchildren also have to travel. My bus each morning is filled with children having quite a long journey to school, so if they had to get home in the lunch hour it would be virtually impossible because the lunch hour is not long enough. I think we must dispel this cosy illusion of children able to nip round the corner and have a meal. It is practically impossible now except for primary schoolchildren.
What do we see? Those children will be given what they are given now, they will probably be given 20p to spend on the meal. They cannot get a meal for 20p so they will buy a packet of crisps. I am not sure you can even buy that for 20p now and they will range about the streets getting into trouble. I can tell your Lordships there is more trouble during the lunch hours in our big cities than at any other time during the day, and I speak as one with knowledge of juvenile delinquency.
I would remind the Government yet again that it is a waste of money to give funds to the Home Office to research into juvenile deliquency, while at the same time restraining the amount of money that is available in this connection. So we must make it mandatory on the local education
728
authorities to provide this. I would go even a little further than the noble Viscount and say that I should like to see it free as well. Let us face it; the total amount it will cost is really very little.
If the Minister, when replying, says that the previous Government had some kind of inquiry and then did not act on it because of the General Election. I can only reassure her that, had they acted on it, there were a number of us from behind them who would have spoken against it, because I think it is absolutely vital that schoolchildren should be fed and that they should have their milk.
We are told how healthy children are today. This is one of the reasons they are healthy, and I make a strong appeal—not very hopefully, because I am not quite sure how large our troops are—at least to let us go down fighting for the cause of the children.
9.8 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I am sure that I am right in saying that under Clause 22(2) a local authority has to provide free meals if a family is drawing supplementary benefit or family income supplement. That means that they are earning £3,000 a year. Surely, any parents earning between £4,000 and £10,000 a year can afford to give their children a meal at midday. They can afford to pay the local authority for so doing. If they are so selfish when they are earning that amount of money that they will not do that, I think they ought to be brought to court. I do not think that that would be possible under our existing law, but I think that there should be a law to that effect.
It is far better if it is left to the discretion of the local authority because the teachers (I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was a teacher) surely know the background of the children, the family background, and I should have thought it was far better to leave it to the discretion of the local authority, the administrators, and the teachers. My noble friend behind me said that when we debated this in the early hours of the morning—in fact, the rather late hours of the morning—it was not properly debated. But it was debated for a long time. I was there, and I remember it well. In fact, I will never forget it. The Committee came to a

729
decisive decision then, and with respect to your Lordships I think we are rather wasting our time. I close by saying that I cannot support this amendment.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I think it is time for the CrossBenchers to speak, and especially as I had my name to the amendment. I fully disagree with the noble Viscount who has just sat down. I fully support all the amendments dealing with food and milk, both English and Scottish. First, I should like to ask the Government why there is no safeguard in the Bill that children will not go hungry while attending school? Dealing with food, this Bill as it stands seems to encourage material interests for local authorities rather than safeguarding the needs of children. This just is not realistic. Are our children not the best investment we have for our future?
Over school meals, I can assure your Lordships that there is great concern among teachers, and an ex-teacher has just explained this to us. I have just spoken to my noble friend Lady D'Arcy de Knayth, who has been attending a school governors' meeting at Maidenhead this afternoon. The head teacher at that school did a survey of children at his school who brought sandwiches; seventeen out of twenty-four of the six and seven year olds pack their own sandwiches. They select the food they take to school themselves. This, my Lords, is Maidenhead—an affluent middle-class area.
What happens to the children who find no food in the house? The same headmaster did another survey in another school and found that many of the children did not get one cooked meal from one Sunday to the next. This may be difficult for your Lordships to believe, but this is the sorry state of our modern society, and this is what we have sunk to. Not long ago I attended a study day at a special school near Stockton organised by general practitioners. We were all shocked at the short hours of the school working day undertaken by the children. The head teacher told us that very often the ambulance men who fetched the children had to get them out of bed and dress them while the parents slept off their drunkenness from the night before. The head teacher told us that he had to give these children breakfast. He could not teach hungry children. What will happen
730
to small children who have no food when they come to school and whose parents are not on social security?
I have worked at a borstal for years. I have seen many 15 year-olds coming in with lice and sometimes scabies. Very often they are small and weedy. After a few months of regular meals these boys become fit and alert. I think that most local authorities will provide some sort of food. What is the reason the Government have not written this need into the Bill? Education surely is not just about academic subjects. It should be educating our children to be responsible, well organised citizens, not "sandwich kids", who do not know what a well-balanced cooked meal is. It seems to me that the job of the local authorities should be to try to encourage parents to take up the school meals for their children and to appreciate that that is good practice.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, it seems to me that noble Lords who have supported the amendment have been speaking, and I have much sympathy with their view, in favour of the provision of milk or meals but the amendment would make it mandatory to have charges. It does not make it mandatory to have meals, unless I am misunderstanding the amendment, and I apologise if I am.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I think the changes we suggest would make mandatory the provision of meals, whereas at present, as I understand it, the Bill only empowers a local authority to do it. This is a step backwards in respect of both meals and milk. I was touched by what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said about milk. It was her husband, Walter Elliot, who, as Minister of Health, introduced milk in schools; it was one-third of a pint, one penny for those who paid and those who required it and could not pay for it got it for nothing. At that time I was teaching in the Gorbals in Glasgow and I know the value it was to the children in school.
I am appalled that in this day and age, when we are giving butter to the Russians at a cheap rate, we should be denying our own children the benefit of surpluses of milk in respect of which our own farmers must pay levies. Remembering that our dairy farming is based on liquid

731
consumption, I do not know whether the Government realise what is happening to our dairy farmers today. Even dairy farmers in Ayrshire are going out of business, but there will be another time to discuss that. Considering the facts which the Minister gave us in relation to finance from the EEC, it is nonsense not to provide this milk free to all.
However, I want to speak also about the whole question of meals, because the provision of meals is much older in England, Wales and Scotland than the provision of milk. It started way back in 1906 when, prompted by the discovery that youngsters joining the army at the time of the Boer War had had to be thrown out because of their unfitness, a Royal Commission was established and recommended that local school boards, as they were in those days, should provide meals for necessitous children.
We are now going backwards, way back from 1980 to 1906, and I do not know what the Government are thinking about when we are talking of progress. We should speak not about free meals but about guaranteed meals, because there will be those who will get them free and they will not necessarily all be poor; the poverty trap is such that coupled with the changes that are being made, many who are just as poor will be denied what is being given under the clause. During the war it was realised that it was not just a question of dealing with those who were undernourished; we had to try to prevent that undernourishment. It was that which prompted the development of the school meals service.
At that time the take-up of meals was, I think, about 20 per cent. and the Government during the war—and goodness knows, if we are hard up now, they were harder up then—encouraged local education authorities to expand the meals service. We eventually got it up to 50 per cent. and indeed at that time, in 1943, it was expressed that the aim should be a take-up of 75 per cent., going on to make it free. The Tory Government in 1953, and again in 1971, took away the freedom of local authorities to do things as they thought fit. It was in 1971 that the Tory Government introduced the standard scheme. They had tried before on the basis of a model to get local authorities to get things together,
732
but they found that of 35 local authorities in Scotland there were 22 different schemes and there was unfairness all round. The party opposite must live with their past and, in this matter, it is not a bad past; for 11 years there was no change in the cost of school meals, and during that time the take-up rose to its highest.
A Labour Government, as we have been told, increased the charge in 1968. But what the Minister failed to tell us was that at that time we also introduced increased family allowances.
There has always been a relationship between school meals and financial support for children. This is the dilemma that the Chancellor is facing today as a result of the decisions that are being taken now. Saving money on school meals, putting the burden more heavily on families, means that child support will have to be increased. The actual fact is that the Tory Government, from I think 1958, right through until 1964, made no change in the cost of school meals. It was left to a Labour Government to deal with the matter about four years later. I remember arguing about it at the time and drawing attention to the fact that eventually the cost would be greater because an increase in family allowance would be needed. That is what has happened.
Let us look at what is going to happen. Already the uptake of school meals is decreasing, and the children are suffering. I arrived in Glasgow last Friday wondering, because of the snow, whether I would be able to get a train down to where I live in Ayr. Meantime, my young daughter was travelling from Ayr to where she teaches at Auchinleck Academy, because the children were at school, having travelled through the snow. Many of them had left home at eight o'clock in the morning, travelling from Muirkirk and Glenbuck. Glenbuck is where they have a football team called Glenbuck Cherrypickers, or at least they had one. That is where Shankley comes from. We produce good footballers, as well as good men. They do not all come from Aberdeen.
The point is that there are children travelling from distant farms, from Catrine, from Mauchline, from Sorn. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will know what I am talking about. The

733
children from the area in which he lives receive their secondary education in Auchinleck. Children also travel from Drongan, from Ochiltree. When do they leave home? When do they get up? When do they have their breakfast? Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilion, asked, do they get any breakfast? Breakfast will have to be at 7 or 7.30 in the morning. They do not get back home until 4.30 or 5 o'clock at night, and now there is no guarantee that there will be a hot school dinner for them. This is really disgraceful.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has more to answer for than has the Secretary of State for Education and Science, because he has all of the resources of the Scottish Office to play with. We established that the Secretary of State for Scotland can move resources from one department to another, from roads to education, and so on. That cannot be done in the department of the noble Baroness. They are tied to what they have there. I say to noble Lords, you can do many things in Scotland for the benefit of Scotland; you could learn much from us.
There has come from Downing Street a diktat that Scotland has to do the same as England. That is why we are covered in this Bill. Look at it, look at the clauses. There are only two now in respect of Scotland. We were dragged in here for this budgetary purpose of saving money; and this is the wrong way to save money.
The same is true of the Catholic schools. Consider secondary education in Kilmarnock. The children have to travel from as far as Stewarton, from Kilmaurs; they have to travel for miles and miles. I mentioned Kilmaurs; that is where Lord Boyd-Orr was born. So we have history on our side. We have representatives of both sides of your Lordships' House on our side on this one. I say to noble Lords drop this one, as you dropped the transport clause.
Viscount RIDLEY: My Lords, may I ask one or two questions which I think must be asked in this connection? First, is this Bill not about freedom for local authorities; the freedom to provide, within the inevitable limits of the economy, the best education service that they can? They may decide whether or not in certain
734
areas it is best to provide a hot meal. They may prefer to spend their money on teachers, or in other ways. I do not think that the amendment would do anything to help local authorities in the educational field. I do not think that the proposers of the amendment have at all considered what it might cost to provide a hot school meal which in fact may not be required. The waste, the expense which would be involved could be considerable.
Secondly, I wonder whether anyone who says that the school children must have a meal, otherwise they will starve—and we have heard many noble emotions on this point tonight—has considered what happens during the 16 weeks when the schools are closed. What happens on Saturdays and Sundays during the school terms? About half the year there are no school meals—there were not even under the previous Government, for that matter. What happens then to these children who are deprived? Is it necessary that we should keep the schools open for 365 days a year to provide meals? Because that is the logic of the amendment before us.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, would I be entirely out of order if I—
Viscount RIDLEY: Yes, my noble friend would. I shall be very brief. I apologise for speaking at all, but I think that in her reply the noble Baroness might be able to tell us something which I think we should know. What other countries in the Western World or in Western Europe provide school meals at all, whether they are free, hot, cold or otherwise? I do not think there are all that many, but I think we should like to know.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Ridley, there are two possible things at least which school kitchens can do, and which some of them are doing already. One is to provide meals-on-wheels for old people, and the other is to provide meals at a fixed point for lunch clubs, and such like.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, in moving his amendment, said—I think I am quoting

735
him correctly—that he had not been here at the Committee stage of the Bill. I think it is very unfortunate that he has not heard the previous debates on this matter, and has not listened to the very serious argument. We come now to a very late stage in this Bill, and I am bound to tell him quite frankly that I am very surprised that he should raise these arguments on a major matter, because if his three amendments are pressed to a Division and are carried, they will of course completely wreck Clause 22. They are wrecking amendments to Clause 22. I understand noble Lords opposite, because they have never pretended that they liked Clause 22 and wished to have it in the Bill. They have, in fact, made it clear that they do not. Therefore, it is perfectly right that, if that is what they believe, then that is what they should say. But I really would ask my noble friends to pause and think what it is that they are trying to do in this particular case.
We have been asked to make economies in the education budget. We all know that the country is living wildly beyond its means, and you do not have to be what I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, described as an ordinary housewife to appreciate that. I should have thought that anybody with common sense would realise that economies have got to be made. We looked carefully at the education budget, and we decided that they would be made in three areas—meals, milk and transport. The House has decided, and the Government have accepted, that there will be no economies in transport. If these amendments were carried there would be no economies on meals or milk as well, and we would therefore be moving economies that local authorities are going to be required to make of the order of £200 million annually. Just pause and think what this is going to mean in terms of teachers, in terms of books and in terms of all the provisions. I really think that some of my noble friends ought to consider these matters very carefully before talking in the terms they have used.
The fact is that school meals cost £600 million annually, which is 11 per cent. of the school education budget. This is (we have had this) on the production of the traditional school dinner. One of the reasons why it costs so much is that it is in fact very labour-intensive. In 1978–79,
736
less than one-third of the cost of the meal was spent on the food; the rest went on salaries, wages and overheads. What the local authorities asked of us—and my noble friend Lord Ridley put this very well—is that they should have the power to provide meals, and not be required to provide a meal necessarily suitable to be the main meal of the day. What this clause does is to give local authorities the power to provide the type of meal that they think is best and to charge for it what they think is right, with two provisos. The first is that they must provide a suitable meal for families on supplementary benefit and family incomes supplement free of charge; and the second is that they must provide a place where families whose children bring sandwiches can eat their sandwiches. But apart from this, they have discretion to provide what they believe to be right.
Experiments in a number of schools with simpler meals, including cafeteria-style meals, in fact show that, as a consequence of changing from having a meal suitable to being the main meal of the day, the take-up is higher; and in almost every case of which I have heard of a school which has changed to this system, more children are eating a meal at school than ate one before. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Ross, may say about Scotland—and far be it from me to speak about Scotland; my Department does not run in Scotland, and even what my noble friend Lady Masham said about England—the fact is that only half the number of secondary schoolchildren eat school meals nowadays and only three-quarters in the case of the primary school children. I do not know what happens to the other 25 per cent. of primary school children. I think it a terrible reflection on British family life to assume that most mothers do not give their children breakfast—and it is not very difficult to tip cornflakes into a bowl and that is what we are talking about—or fail to feed their children in the evening or give them nothing to eat at weekends or feed them during the school holidays. To base our policy on the assumption that no child is fed at any time except in school would not be conducive to a sensible policy.
Of course, we must look after those who are the poorest—and this we are doing. We have discretionary powers for the local authorities to limit charges in any cases where they believe this to be right, on

737
the basis of experienced local authorities knowing which children are at risk and which need to be helped. I think that we are suggesting in a most extraordinary way that local education authorities (assuming that this Bill is passed) will decide in the summer term to wind up the school meals system. I am sure we are not going to see anything like that. We are going to see that in the difficult economic situation that the Government face, we have an opportunity to make economies in the non-educational part of the budget. We are making provision for the poorest families; and giving a discretion which the local authorities have asked for. I would say to my noble friends who will not support us on this subject: "Remember you are committing the education budget to finding £200 millions in some other sphere; and this would be an irresponsible thing to do at this stage of the proceedings."
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend did not mention that we are going to lose £60 million from the EEC if we cut down on the distribution of milk.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Baroness is usually straightforward in the way she replies to debates, but she was not really quite straightforward on this occasion; because the debate is not about whether or not there will be charges for meals. That has been settled. It is about whether or not, in addition to the local authorities being required to provide meals at midday for people on supplementary benefit, they should be required to provide it for others as well. That is the difference. This £200 million which she flashed in the air is not really true.
The EARL of SWINTON: My Lords, I am bound to be in trouble here. Whichever way I go, I shall offend on this occasion either my noble friend Lady Young or the equally noble Lady, my wife. I will take my courage in my hands and say that I side completely with my noble friend Lady Young.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: Oh!
The EARL of SWINTON: My Lords, I hope that whatever your Lordships
738
think about this, you will wish me well in the corning 24 hours. If I turn up for the forestry debate tomorrow with two black eyes, you will know what has happened. I feel that this is putting a duty on the local education authority. I was going to ask my noble friend Lord Mountgarret what would happen if this amendment were carried because it says that the local authorities "shall have a duty to" provide pupils at any school with milk and then this meal. What will happen to this milk which will be on offer and charged for, and what will happen to the meals which will be there, if the pupils decide they cannot afford to pay for them? —or perhaps their parents will not have sent the money. I hasten to say that I do not agree with my noble friend Lady Elliot about milk being good for you. I was brought up on milk—and look at me now! I can say in front of your Lordships' House that I do not think it did me a lot of good. Various friends have accused me of putting on weight in later life by overeating. But I can say that I was very nearly my present size when I went to primary school. That was because of free milk.
Milk cannot be taken on a sale or return basis. The local education authorities are going to have, by statute, to produce milk and meals for all children at school. There is going to be an awful waste and administrative expense. A lot of it is not going to be used. What are we going to do with it? I am not taken in by grants from the EEC. Perhaps I am letting down the NFU as well as my wife on this occasion. I am a member of the NFU, though I do not support this particular milk lobby. There is going to be awful wastage and a lot of food will be thrown away. It is going to be an unnecessary expense. Somebody has to administer it all. If this amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall vote with the Government and against my noble wife.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend Lady Young whether I am to understand that, despite the fact that power is there for local authorities to make charges for meals or milk for pupils who can afford it, none the less it will cost the authorities some £200 million a year? I should like to be clear on that point?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, by leave of the House, my reference was that, if all these amendments taken together were passed, this would be the effect. They are interleaved amendments.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to follow on that point. I do not understand the £200 million. The purport of the Bill, as it stands, is to leave discretion to the local education authorities. It should at least be a possibility that all of these authorities would exercise that discretion by continuing to give meals and milk. The Minister obviously is on fairly sure ground when she assumes that not all the education authorities will act in that way. On that basis I would not disagree with her. I do not understand how she is able to make the calculation that the authorities in exercising their discretion will save £200 million.
Several noble Lords: Vote!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: (Viscount Hood): My Lords, is the noble Viscount
pressing his amendment or withdrawing it?
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, I think that in view of what has been said may I please, by leave of the House, make —
Several noble Lords: No. Put the Question!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Several noble Lords: No!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Question then is that this amendment shall be agreed to.
9.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 56) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 88.

CONTENTS

Bacon, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Balogh, L.

Houghton of Sowcrby, L.

Rochester, L.

Barrington, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Birk, B.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Blease, L.

Hylton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Bolton, L.

Janner, L.

Simon, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Coilison. L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

David. B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davics of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Underhill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Galpern, L.

Mountgarret, V.[Teller.]

Whaddon, L.

Gardiner, L.

Northfield, L.

White, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gosford, E.

Phillips, B.

Winstanley, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

de Clifford, L.

Gainford, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

De La Warr, E.

Galloway, E.

Armstrong, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Gibson-Watt, L.

Balerno, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Glasgow, E.

Bellwin, L.

Dulverton, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Belstead. L.

Eccles, V.

Greenway, L.

Bradford, E.

Elton, L.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Cathcart, E.

Faithfull, B.

Harvington, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Falkland, V.

Henley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ferrers, E.

Hill of Luton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Fortescue, E.

Hives, L.

Holderness, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hood, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Newall, L.

Sudeiey, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Swansea, L.

Kimberley, E.

Orkney, E.

Swinton, E.

Long, V.

Renton, L.

Teviot, L.

Lyell, L.

Ridley, V.

Tranmire, L.

McFadzean, L.

Rochdale, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trenchard, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Just, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mancroft, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mansfield, E.

Sandford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Sandys, L.[Teller.]

Vernon, L.

Massercene and Fcrrard, V.

Selkirk, E.

Vickers, B.

Middleton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Spens, L.

Young, B.

Morris L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9.46 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 21, line 11, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 57 formally.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Hood): The Question is that Amendment No. 57 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content": to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Content!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place and I declare that the Not-Contents have it.
Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 21, line 12, leave out ("milk, meals or other refreshment") and insert ("shall provide a meal in the middle of the day suitable in all respects as the main meal of the day").
9.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 58) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 84.

CONTENTS

Bacon, B.

Hale, L,

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Balogh, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bolton, L.

Hughes, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stone, L.

David, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Underhill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.[Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Northfield, L.

Whaddon. L.

Gosford, E.

Peart, L.

White, B.

Gregson. L.

Phillips, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Blackburn, Bp.

Cottesloe, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Bradford, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Armstrong, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

de Clifford, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cathcart, E.

De La Warr, E.

Belstead, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

Dulverton, L.

Hood, V.

Ridley, V.

Eccles, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

Hylton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Enniskillen, E.

James of Rusholme, L.

St. Just, L.

Faithfull, B.

Kimberley, E.

Sandford, L.

Falkland, V.

Long, V.

Sandys, L.[Teller

Ferrers, E.

Lyell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Fortescue, E.

McFadzean, L.

Spens, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Galloway, E.

Mansfield, E.

Sudeley, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Margadale, L.

Swansea, L.

Glasgow, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Swinton, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Middleton, L.

Teviot, L.

Gowrie, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Tranmire, L.

Greenway, L.

Morris, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gridley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trenchard, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harvington, L.

Moyne, L.

Vernon, L.

Henley, L.

Newall, L.

Vickers, B.

Hill of Luton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vivian, L.

Hives, L.

Orkney, E.

Young. B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendments Nos. 59 to 61 not moved.]
Clause 22 [School Meals: England and Wales]:
9.59 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 21, line 19, after ("supplement") insert ("or rent rebates or rate rebates.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in order to facilitate the proceedings, I think we could discuss together Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 69. What this amendment does is to extend the possibility of aid to people who are on supplementary benefit or rent or rate rebates. The extension of the aid would be given and would provide the means to further categories. I beg to move.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I think this could be an important amendment and I say that because I believe it is the Government's intention to restore the real level of rent rebates to the value which they originally had when they were first introduced.
The EARL of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I shall address my remarks to Amendment No. 62 and with the greatest of speed say that Amendment No. 77 is four-square, but I am not going to say anything more after that! Amendment No. 62 seeks to impose on education authorities an obligation to ensure that provision is made free of charge for any pupil whose family is receiving a rent rebate or a rate rebate. Noble Lords will appreciate that this is an obligation which goes beyond even the authority's present duty and of course well beyond the duty imposed by the clause. Under the present law, authorities must provide free meals for two groups of children: the first group consists of those whose parents are receiving supplementary benefit and family income supplement and receipt of those benefits automatically confers entitlement to free school meals. These children are sometimes referred to as the "passport beneficiaries". Clause 25(2) continues to impose a duty in relation to these children.
The second group entitled to free school meals under the existing law consists of
746
those children whose parents qualify under the income scale set out under the milk and meals regulations. This generous scale at present extends entitlement to families with income well above the supplementary benefit or family income supplement level. Under Clause 23, an incomes scale would no longer limit undesirably the discretion which we wish local authorities to have to determine their own charging policy in the light of local circumstances and to remit the charges where they think it appropriate to do so.
The present amendment goes even beyond this and seeks to extend entitlement automatically to those children whose parents receive rate or rent rebates. I make no claim to understand the complicated rules concerning entitlement to benefit of various kinds, and still less can I explain them, but direct comparison between the scale governing entitlement to free school meals and that governing entitlement to rent and rate rebates is impossible because the former is calculated on the basis of net income and the latter on the basis of gross income. So, without knowing in some detail the circumstances of a particular family down to such matters as the cost of travel to work and the superannuation payments of the parents —items which are deducted with many others to arrive at the net income for the purposes of free school meals, it is quite impossible to say whether that family would be entitled to rent rebate and free school meals or to one only and not the other. I could go into the numbers in Scotland but, for the purposes of this argument, I do not think I need to.
The probability is that the amendment would require authorities to provide free meals for a larger number of pupils than they have to provide for under the present income scale, and of course it would impose a duty in relation to very many more pupils than the children covered by Clause 23(2) —that, of course, is the Scottish one —as at present before the House, those whose families are receiving supplementary benefit or family income supplement. So not only does this amendment apparently seek to restore the

747
position, it goes far beyond it. It runs completely counter to the Government's policy of giving authorities greater freedom to achieve the reductions in expenditure which we are requiring them to make. In the circumstances the noble Lord will perhaps see why the Government are not keen to accept this amendment.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, in view of the Minister's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
10.7 p.m.
Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 21, line 30, at end insert ("or if they are satisfied that the effect of the charges under this section would be to cause that pupil's family to be poorer than they would he if their income were reduced to Family Income Supplement or Supplementary Benefit level".).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment perhaps I may for convenience also speak to Amendment No. 80, which deals with the position in Scotland. This amendment was drafted by my noble friend Lord Banks, who has an unrivalled knowledge about the operation of family income supplement and supplementary benefits. The object of the Amendment is to remove, so far as we can, the very serious poverty trap which arises because of the way in which this clause has been drafted. It is an increase in the poverty trap which is caused by the restriction of the right to free school meals and the freedom to charge for school meals at the local authorities' discretion.
When the right to free school meals is limited to those on family income supplement and supplementary benefit, I am given to understand that some 400,000 children who now get free school meals will have to pay. If the charge, to take an example, is 50 pence, this means payment of an extra £5 a week for a family with two children, and this is a considerable increase in the poverty trap at the lowest level, since immediately their income increases above supplementary
748
benefit and family income supplement level the family lose £5 a week as well as their other benefits.
The amendment has been drafted in order to ensure that the remission of charges would apply in all cases where the increased income which lifted the family off the supplementary benefit and family income supplement level would, after deduction of the charges for school meals, leave the income below those limiting levels; in fact, it would bring their income up to the family income supplement or supplementary benefit level. This would enable local authorities to taper off the meals charge by remitting in part or in whole, so that no family coming off supplementary benefit or family income supplement would be made poorer as a result.
It is an extremely complicated position, but I have great confidence in my noble friend Lord Banks, who most unfortunately could not be here today and who would have explained it with much greater skill and expertise than I. I hope something can be done to protect poorer families from this really rather frightening poverty trap should their income —perhaps because they have taken up work after being out of work —rise marginally above the supplementary income benefit level. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD>: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. There is no doubt that the poverty trap, which the amendment is designed to avoid, can present serious problems for the low-paid. As the noble Viscount has said, it can lead to families in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement being worse off if their income increases because, as a result, they could lose the benefits that are linked to supplementary benefit or family income supplement as well as losing the actual benefit or supplement itself. Similarly, others not in receipt of either of those benefits might be better off earning less in order to qualify for them.
Nevertheless, there are some practical objections to attempting to deal with the problem in the way in which the amendment proposes. First, it would involve a local education authority in England in assessing family income according to two

749
different and complex sets of rules —that is to say, those in respect of supplementary benefit and family income supplement, neither of which are familiar to a local education authority because eligibility for these benefits is determined by the Department of Health and Social Security. That is the first point.
However, there are various ways in which a local education authority can alleviate the poverty trap problem. Under subsection (3)(b) a local education authority is required to remit the whole or part of the charge that would otherwise be made if, having regard to the circumstances, the authority considers it appropriate to do so. A number of local education authorities recognise the problems which can be caused by providing free school meals only for pupils whose parents are in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement, and they are proposing to be more generous than this. I would commend their action to other authorities who, by simply complying with the provisions in Clause 22(2) and (3)(a) so far as the provision of free meals is concerned, may not have had adequate regard to the circumstances of pupils as is required by subsection (3)(b).
So, the most common method adopted by authorities is to retain an income scale form of assessment, albeit at a lower level than at present. But that is not the only method. It is consistent with our general approach to this clause —that is to say, of giving a local education authority the widest possible powers and expecting it then to use them responsibly in the light of local needs —that we should not prescribe what a local education authority should do other than to require it to remit charges, in whole or in part, where, having regard to the particular circumstances of a pupil or class of pupils, they consider this appropriate.
I do not think that I need address myself to Amendment No. 80. Clause 23(3) requires, in the same way, authorities to remit in whole or in part any charges for school meals which would otherwise be made, if they consider it appropriate to do so. That, I submit, gives ample scope for authorities to make appropriate arrangements if the situation which noble Lords fear appears likely to transpire, without burdening authorities with what I suggest would be an extremely cumbersome administrative commitment.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I should have thought that everything that the Minister has just said is a very good argument for having some sort of national scale. He has outlined the difficulties which the local authorities will face. They are not suited to doing calculations of this type. As regards these matters, it seems to me most important that there should be a national charge and a national scale for remitting charges.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, the Minister, when talking to subsection (3)(b) and the power to remit, said that a number of authorities took account of the poverty trap and did remit. He then went on to say, "and I commend this to them". I cannot expect him to give an undertaking on behalf of this side of the Border. But, as regards the directions which are sent out in Scotland, will that commendation be carried out in writing rather than just in this statement to the House?
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers that, are any directions to be issued in Scotland or for that matter in England and Wales? —because, if we are to give freedom to the local authorities, we do not then proceed to direct them. I remind the Minister that the position as he outlined it was the position that existed until 1971, when his Government decided that we should have a national scale, for the simple reason that, as I said before, in Scotland 22 different schemes came forward from 35 local authorities, despite the fact that the Government had issued a model scheme. The local authorities paid no attention to it. However, to get the best out of the Bill as it was then, the Tory Government introduced a national scheme. Now we are returning to the unsatisfactory position and flying flags declaring that this is progress. It really is nonsense.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, perhaps I could respond to my two territorial comrades. Dealing, first, with the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I do not think that my territorial ministerial status need put me off from conveying to my noble friend who sits next to me on this Bench what would seem to be, if I may say so, a sensible suggestion. I think that a circular will be issued, and in it these

751
matters will be made plain. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, does not look wholly satisfied with that idea, but in the circumstances I think that it is the most practical one.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, with the leave of the House —
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, order! With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, this is a Report stage and noble Lords can only speak once.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, but what direction was used? —not a circular.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I do not know whether I am to take it that the speech of the noble Earl covered England and Wales as well as Scotland?
The EARL of MANSFIELD: My Lords, yes. With the leave of the House, may I make it plain —if I have to make it plain —that the greater part of my remarks were on the English amendment, which was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon —Amendment No. 65 —and then I turned for a few sentences to deal with Amendment No. 80, because I hoped that thereby I would save the time of the House. However, in fact, everything that I said applies mutatis mutandis to both countries.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I have listened to the reply from the Government. Strangely enough, my noble friend Lord Banks, who has such great expertise in this matter, had anticipated that we might be told that there were great administrative difficulties in giving effect to his suggestion. He has studied the matter and he thinks that these administrative difficulties are not as great as they are made out to be. In a little note he sent me he says:
"It would seem that all that would be required would be a statement from the Department of Health and Social Security saying that supplementary benefit or family income supplement is of a specified amount and was being paid up to a specified date."
The local authority themselves are familiar with obtaining information about the income of someone applying for free
752
school meals because they have to do that in any case, and all they would have to do would be to deduct the first figure from the second figure in relation to the current levels. However, I appreciate that this would involve extra work. I was very happy to hear the noble Earl say that consideration would be given to advising local authorities, by way of a circular, that this is a desirable point with which to deal. On the assumption that he was speaking, as he told us, for England and Wales as well as for Scotland, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 68 not moved.]
10.19 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 22, line 3, at end insert —
("(6) The Secretary of State may make regulations extending the categories of pupils to whom subsection (2) above applies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very modest amendment, but it is also one that will test the Government's real intentions. As it stands, subsection (2) puts a duty on local authorities to make provision for children where the family is in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. What we are proposing in this amendment is not that those categories should be increased now, but that the Secretary of State should have the power to make regulations increasing the number of children for whom it shall be a duty for the local authority to make provision of meals.
Earlier in the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was trying to frighten us all, particularly her noble friends, with the figure of £200 million. Quite a number of her noble friends were singularly unconvinced about the reality of this figure, which seemed to have been conjured out of the air. But that imaginary line of defence is not open to the Government on this amendment because it imposes no extra financial obligation at present. But it means of course that as the position of the country improves —I presume the noble Baroness shares the view that it will improve: we may have differences about that, but she presumably is of that opinion —it will be possible for more generous provision for school meals to be made.
This kind of provision in an Act of Parliament is very common in many different contexts. As regards decontrolled rents, for example, there was a provision that the Secretary of State could from time to time make orders extending decontrol as the circumstances seemed to warrant it. That is the kind of thing we are proposing here.
It seems to me that if the Government resist this amendment it is a reasonable assumption that they are resolved permanently to dismantle the school meals service. They can accept this amendment without any present financial obligation, undertaking merely an obligation as times improve to bring back the school meals service to what it is now. That is really all this amendment would put on them.
If they resist it, what conclusion are we to come to other than that the Government are not taking the action they are now taking because of an immediate financial emergency, but because they intend to make the dismantling of the school meals service permanent? If they do not intend to make it permanent, if the Government can say, "In these hard times we must reduce the size of the school meals service, but we are anxious, as soon as the country can afford it, to restore it", and if that is what they truly mean, I can see no reason why they should resist this amendment.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, surely when the prosperity returns to the country, when there is no chance of the noble Lords opposite ever being in power again, we shall get to a state where there are fewer people on supplementary benefit or receiving family income supplement —because the two must go together. The prosperity of the country is entirely centred upon people being in employment and receiving a full and decent wage so that they can pay for their own children's food. Surely, therefore, the entire purpose of this amendment is misconceived because it is based on a theory which assumes that there will be no prosperity, whereas if there is prosperity it is not needed.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Mottistone for that argument, which I find really most useful at this moment.
754
But perhaps I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, that although he is quite right in saying that there is no financial obligation contained in his amendment, we believe that we have made adequate provision and safeguards on school meals for poorer families, both by the provisions saying that those on supplementary benefit or family income supplement can receive free meals and, of course, by the discretionary provisions which are still available for local authorities to provide meals for those children who they feel need meals or who in certain circumstances need help. Those are there.
Secondly, the requirements in the Bill are, of course, minimum requirements. It is open to local authorities to provide free meals for children other than those on supplementary benefit and family income supplement. They are not prevented from doing that by anything in the Bill.
The answer to the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, is that what we are seeking to do on the whole of the school meals service is to make an economy in the non-educational part of the education budget; but we are leaving in the budget, even if local authorities do succeed in saving £200 million, £400 million, which is a very considerable subsidy indeed, which will go to help the poorer children for the discretionary provisions that local authorities may choose to make, and as a subsidy even for other children who will contribute no doubt more than they have in the past but may not in all cases pay a full economic cost.
I think we need not at this stage be drawn down the path suggesting that what we are proposing under the Bill is the dismantling of the school meals service. What we propose is something much more in keeping with the latter half of the 20th century. It is something that the local authorities have asked for, and I think we can accept that they will use their discretion sensibly. We believe that we shall have the type of school meal service much more suited to the rather more sophisticated children in our schools today providing the kind of meals they like, and I think we may find that the take-up increases. I see no reason for having a regulating power for the Secretary of State, which I think will simply appear to the local authorities that we do not trust them once again. I see no reason for supposing

755
that they will not act responsibly, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
10.27 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MA RNOCK: My Lords, may I take it then that there will be no regulation directing local authorities to carry out their duties under subsections (2) and (3)(b)? In other words, there is only going to be maybe a circular, a recommendation, but no direction —no real recommendations as there were in 1953 and 1971, which were the framework of the creation of the service? This is vital because it means too that there will be no report from the local authorities to the Secretary of State be it in England, Wales or Scotland, as to how they are proceeding to carry out this power.
As the result of the refusal to intervene directly in this way by the Secretary of State —and this is a direct question to the Minister of State for Scotland —how many of the staff will he save in his catering advisory service? You might as well get rid of them all, and the same applies in England and Wales, because they have given reports on the dietary benefit of the school meals service and made recommendations against the "sandwich provision". Some of the things the noble Baroness has been saying tonight run counter to all the advice that she has in her own department from reports of the development of the school meals service.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I answer the noble Lord's point? Under Clause 22 what we are giving the local authorities is a discretion, and therefore there is no question of a direction. You cannot invite a local authority to exercise a discretion and give it a direction at the same time. That would be a contradiction in terms, and that is why I said that there will be a circular which will make recommendations to the local authorities. I have no doubt that, as in Scotland on the whole they conduct their affairs in a fair, sensible and responsible manner, they will pay attention to the circular and comport themselves accordingly. As to the staffing results from this, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question tonight. I shall make inquiries
756
and either write to the noble Lord or possibly speak to him before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord BROOKS of TREMORFA: My Lords, the Government Front Bench has made great play throughout the whole of the passage of this Bill on the freedom it is giving to local authorities. But there is another Bill which will shortly come before your Lordships' House which is opposed in many respects by the local authority associations, and particularly by the Association of County Councillors, which is Conservative dominated. Is it not the case that many of the so-called freedoms which local government is being given in this Bill, much of which we would dispute, are going to be taken away from them in another Bill to come before your Lordships' House?
Apparently, there is to be a great reduction in the rate support grant and a new measure of the needs and resources of local government; there is to be a restriction on rate rises which local authorities may wish to impose on their ratepayers to maintain a level of services; and one must ask whether these two Bills are not inextricably bound up. Is there not a great deal of hypocrisy contained in this Bill, because local authorities will not at the end of the day have the freedom which Front Bench spokesmen opposite are saying they will have?
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, the remarks of my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa were very much to the point. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, produced the usual argument: "The local authorities asked for it". If you make it quite clear to local authorities first of all that you are hanging them over the head by saying they will have a good deal less money, you will probably extract a request of some kind from them. The highwayman who says to his victim, "Your money or your life", could be fairly said to be giving his victim freedom of choice. That is rather the position in which local authorities have been placed, so I hope we will not have any more of that; it is intellectually beneath the level of the noble Baroness.
I rather preferred the more frank and robust reply of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to the more elegant dressing

757
up by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The noble Lord made it quite clear that if the country is hard up, we cannot afford a school meals service, except on a very limited scale. if the country is prosperous, we do not need it. It is quite clear, therefore, that he does not want a school meals service. When it comes to the point, he thinks it is more important to give income tax reliefs to people with incomes of over £10,000 a year than to provide school meals for children who may be in need. That is what it is all about.
Lord MOTTISTONE: If the noble Lord will give way —
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord MOTTISTONE: I think it is going rather far —
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Where is the Leader of the House?
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, if it is not almost indelicate to mention such a subject in this House at this hour, the noble Lord's attitude comes dangerously near to a declaration of class war. Indeed, it is a remakable thing in this country today that people who would most bitterly repudiate the doctrines of Karl Marx seem most anxious to behave in a way which proves he was right. They quite brutally oppose the advantages of those who are already fortunate to the needs of those who are really in need, and that, as we all know, behind all these amendments and so on, is what we are really talking about. I therefore find the arguments of the noble Lord against the amendment morally repulsive and the arguments of the noble Baroness against it intellectually unsatisfying, and I invite my noble friends to press the amendment.
10.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 69) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Seear, B.

Balogh, L.

Janner, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Blease, L.

Kaldor, L.

Simon, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Spens, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Clcdvvyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

David, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Northfield, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peart, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Phillips, B.

Underhill, L.

Galpcrn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.[Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Winstanley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rochester, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hughes, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Dulverton, L.

Hives, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Eccles, V.

Hood, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Armstrong, L.

Elton, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Atholl, D.

Enniskillen, E.

Kimberley, E.

Balerno, L.

Faithfull, B.

Long, V.

Bellwin, L.

Falkland, V.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

McFadzean, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cathcart, E.

Galloway, E.

Mansfield, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gisborough, L.

Middleton, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Glasgow, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

de Clifford, L.

Gowrie, E.

Morris, L.

De La Warr, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Harvington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Henley, L.

Moyne, L.

Newall, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Orkney, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Trenchard, V.

Renton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ridley, V.

Sudeley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rochdale, V.

Swansea, L.

Vernon, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Swinton, E.

Vickers, B.

St. Just, L.

Teviot, L.

Vivian, L.

Sandford, L.

Tranmire, L.

Young, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

10.42 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with your Lordships' indulgence, perhaps I might ask the Acting Leader of the House whether he can give any indication as to what we are going to do tonight. As I understand it, there are something like 38 amendments remaining on the Marshalled List.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, as I understand it, the arrangements were that we were going to finish the Report stage of the Bill this evening, and that is what we anticipate doing.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my understanding was that we would finish it, but it was assumed that we would finish at somewhere around about 11 o'clock.
Earl FERRERS: Of course, this is very much a matter for the House, is it not, my Lords? One cannot control exactly how long noble Lords speak, but I think your Lordships will realise that some noble Lords have spoken more than once and we have had odd Divisions called by mistake, all of which has taken up time, and I do not think that that can fall to the blame of the Government.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think we must be reasonable about this. There was only one Division which was not proceeded with. Do not let us exaggerate; let us keep to the truth. This is a very important Bill, both from the Government's point of view and from the Opposition's point of view. We made it abundantly clear at the very beginning that this was a Bill which we would be contesting. If the Government have not allowed sufficient time so that we can do this in a reasonable period, the Opposition can hardly be blamed.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think it is a question of how much time the Government have allowed for it. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, knows perfectly well that we have allowed reasonable time. Of course, the business of any Government can be frustrated if noble Lords talk at length. Everyone knows perfectly well that if one talks—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Earl FERRERS: With the greatest respect, my Lords, I am not suggesting that we have talked at inordinate length. All I am saying is that, if noble Lords do talk at inordinate length, then the business of any Government will be frustrated. What I would suggest to the noble Lord is that we have made reasonable progress, and I am sure that if we can go on for a short while longer that progress will be brought to fruition. But I really do not think it would be reasonable to suggest that we should stop at the moment.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 22, line 3, at end insert—
(" (6) Where a local education authority remits charges for milk or meals provided by them to any category of pupils they shall be under a duty to ensure that such a scheme is administered as far as possible so that confidentiality is maintained for such pupils").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think this is a completely uncontroversial amendment. I am sure that noble Lords opposite must agree that this is a desirable amendment and that it should be passed. As we know, fewer children will be having free meals under the new arrangements. Therefore, in a way they are going to be much more conspicuous. I therefore hope that the Government will see that the local authorities are under a duty to make sure that, so far as possible, the scheme is administered so that confidentiality is maintained.
I have had one letter, part of which I should like to read to your Lordships

761
because I think it shows the difficult situation in which many children are put if they are exposed. I think that the new cafeteria-type meals system, which will probably be introduced in a good many secondary schools as a result of the new arrangement, will probably make it more difficult and the local authorities must be more careful about making sensible arrangements. This is a letter from somebody in Reading. She says:
"I am a one-parent family with two children. They have up to now had free schools meals at different comprehensive schools. At my son's school they have got around any stigma by my son paying for his dinner and the school returning the money to me by monthly cheque. At my daughter's school they gave out dinner tickets with no payment for both 'free diners' and the girls whose parents paid by cheque at the end of the term. With this system she was able to appear as a cheque payer. Now, with the new system of buying individual items rather than a dinner as a whole, her school is stopping cheque payments at the end of this term and only free-school-dinner girls will receive dinner tickets. Everyone else will pay with cash. The thought of her classmates knowing about it is just too much for my shrinking violet of a daughter. Consequently, I am having to give up free dinners for her."
There will be other parents with children in the same situation. I think it is important that the local authorities are put under a duty to make sure that confidentiality is respected.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady David, has read out the very sad case of the child who has been identified as one who received free school meals under the present arrangements. With her, I regret it very much when these incidents happen. It is difficult and embarrassing for the children. It is not a new situation, and she must have been as familiar with it in her time in local government as I was in mine. It has been difficult to find any complete solution to this. I believe that most local authorities try hard to keep confidentiality about the children who receive free school meals now. I think that frequently if there is a difficulty it is perhaps with somebody new and inexperienced who does not realise the problems that can arise when a child is identified in this way. I do not think there is any simple solution to this. I do not believe it can be solved by legislation. It is a matter of good practice. I think it is something of which most people in the education service are well aware. We would not feel it right to legislate, and for that reason I cannot accept this amendment.
Lord AVEBURY: Surely, my Lords, if it is a matter of good practice, as the Minister has said—and I accept that—you can require local authorities to adopt good practices. As I read this amendment, that is all that is being asked for: that they should be under a duty to ensure that, so far as possible, confidentiality is maintained. No uniform system of ensuring confidentiality is being imposed on the local authorities from above. They are simply being asked to do as the Minister said they ought to do in any case, which is to observe good practice. I do not see why she is making such heavy weather of it.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, do I understand the Minister to say that the Government are not willing even to give guidance?
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. I had considered intervening on a previous debate when I saw the words: "the local authority considers it appropriate to do so"; but I did not do so in the interests of getting through the business. If the Government are going to take a hard line and are not going to move even when the Minister says there is reason in this matter, then the Minister ought to be taking another careful look at what is being proposed. The Minister has said that this proposal was sensible. Why not put it in the Bill so as to give guidance to the local authorities to do the decent thing?
Baroness YOUNG: By leave of the House, what I said was that I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady David—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, feels the same—that anybody who has had any experience of this matter knows that it is very undesirable for children who receive free school meals to be identified in any way. Good practice in schools ensures that this does not take place. It is a different proposition to legislate upon this and make it a duty. It is very difficult to legislate for good practice, and that is why we are not legislating for it. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether we would give any guidance. Clearly, this is one among many matters that we shall consider if we issue a circular, which I believe we shall have to do, and this is the type of issue that we can consider in that circular.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, with that assurance, I will withdraw that amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 not moved.]
Clause 23 [School Meals: Scotland]:
10.51 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 22, line 5, leave out ("may provide milk, meals or other refreshment") and insert ("shall provide a meal in the middle of the day suitable in all respects as the main meal of the day.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move formally. I have no desire to create a division but I want the amendment negatived purely and simply.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 74 to 79 not moved.]
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 22, line 16, after ("day") insert ("including days when the school does not meet")
The noble Lord said: I should like to know exactly what the Government are going to do about this in Scotland. This has been in the present legislation for a long time. Provision was made for the really poor children—we used to call them necessitous—to get a meal, even when the school was on holiday. The facilities were there and used. Is it the intention of the Government to drop this facility? Have they done it deliberately or is any provision being made that meals will be provided even though the school is on holiday?
The EARL of MANSFIELD: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know very well, Section 53 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, which is the enabling power to provide meals at present, specifically includes a duty in Section 53(2) on education authorities to
"make such arrangements for such period as they deem necessary for the provision …of milk and midday meals on days when the school does not meet"
for any pupil if, in the opinion of the authority, that pupil would otherwise be unable to take full advantage of the education provided. This duty has now
764
been subsumed in the general duty on education authorities to make free provision for those pupils whose parents are in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement (subsection (2)) and for those pupils for whom they consider it appropriate (subsection (3)). The new power and duty to provide meals is not restricted to those days on which the school meets. There are, therefore, sufficiently wide powers and safeguards to ensure that such provision could be made if necessary. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I am not entirely satisfied, bearing in mind that Section 53 is to be repealed. But the night being what it is, and the stubbornness of the Government not to allow us to debate this at a reasonable time, I have no option but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 to 85 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Nursery education: England and [Vales]:
10.55 p.m.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 23, line 1, leave out ("have power to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to speak to this amendment and the next four, as they all go together to make the following sentence:
"A local education authority shall establish nursery schools or nursery classes, maintain such schools established by them or a former authority and assist any school which is not so established."
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has left because nursery classes were included particularly to satisfy him. He said that he would have supported us in Committee if nursery classes which he thought could be established in primary schools were in the amendment.
There is a great deal of disappointment in the country that the Government are choosing to take away the duty from the authorities. I have had a great many letters from all over the place, and I believe that it is a good thing in hard times to keep some ideals in order to cheer people.
The argument advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on the last

765
occasion when this matter was discussed—namely, that perhaps if there were nursery schools people might feel obliged to send their children to them and might feel a kind of inferiority complex if they did not do so—was absurd and not up to her usual level, if I may say so. It was too ingenious by half. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is here and can put the same argument that she advanced previously; I shall certainly not attempt to put it for her. Women are very pleased to have part-time jobs and to keep in touch, so that nursery classes fulfil a need that is quite different from that supplied by day nurseries. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, under Amendment No. 86 and the other amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, has spoken, authorities would not only continue to be required to provide education for the under-fives but for the first time would be under a duty to provide nursery schools and nursery classes regardless of resources. At this late hour I shall not detain your Lordships by rehearsing yet again the Government's reasons for deciding that the duty imposed on local education authorities by Section 8(1)(a) of the Education Act 1944 should be replaced by a discretionary power to establish and maintain or assist nursery schools.
What we believe we are doing in the new clause and these new proposals is putting the law as people believed the law to be and not in fact as it was. There is no doubt at all that, although under the 1944 Act there was a duty to provide nursery education, in fact for two reasons—first, because resources have never been available, and, secondly, because parents are not obliged to send children to school until the age of five—this duty has never been fulfilled in the way that other duties would normally be fulfilled under Acts of Parliament. Therefore, we do not believe that the fact that local authorities will have a power and not a duty to provide nursery schools and classes will, in the event, make any difference in the reality of the situation. We are all agreed on the importance of nursery education, and what has prevented us from having more nursery schools and classes is the resources to provide them. But as an additional safeguard not only are we converting the duty into a power but under Clause 12 for the first time we
766
are making the closure of nursery schools subject to the statutory procedures, so that it will not be possible, as it was before the Bill, to close a nursery school without any real safeguards for the parents.
I hope that I have said enough to indicate that the Government do believe in nursery classes, nursery schools and nursery education. Also we believe that the reality of the situation is that as resources allow so nursery education will expand, and the House may like to know that in 1979–80 we have a building programme of £4 ·6 million, which has been fully subscribed. We therefore expect to provide for about 6,000 more pupils this year. In 1980–81 we have a £2 million building programme, and so far 45 authorities have made bids totalling more than £6 million. We can assume that the whole of the building programme will be taken up and will provide another 3,000 extra places. I give these figures simply to indicate that the fact that there is a power and not a duty will not prevent the provision of extra nursery schools and classes. I hope, therefore, with these assurances, that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, at this late hour I do not want to say very much. I think there is very little between us and I am sure that the noble Baroness really cares as much about nursery schools as we do on this side of the House. However, it seems the greatest pity that the duty should be removed. Had it not been there, no doubt this would hardly have been the moment to introduce it; but symbolically to remove it at the moment signals to authorities who are not very interested in it that it is not a good thing to do. That is really what we are talking about. It is a narrow point; but leaving it in would make no difference and taking it out indicates to those who are not very keen on it, and have done nothing, that they can go along in their old evil ways. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I should like to take up one moment of your Lordships' time to draw attention to the "double-speak" of the noble Baroness the Minister when she speaks of the Government having been prevented from doing everything they would have liked

767
in nursery education because of lack of resources, and saying that we are all seized of the necessity to expand nursery education as and when the resources become available.
Just imagine if one were to apply this kind of terminology to defence and say that we are all seized of the necessity for having an Air Force but resources are not available and therefore we have to do without one. It is so obviously ridiculous for anyone to make a statement like that. We must have an Air Force: it has to be there to defend this country—nobody questions the need for it, and so it is treated as being something which is immune from considerations of resources. Whatever the state of play of our economic fortunes, we have to have certain things, and they include an Air Force and they do not include nursery schools.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 90 not moved.]
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 23, line 7, after ("8") insert ("(1)(a)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a purely technical drafting amendment. It was suggested by my noble friend Lord Morris in Committee and, after further consideration, the Government accept it in the spirit in which it was moved on that occasion.
11.4 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 23, line 19, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is taken along with No. 94A. It would reinforce the present situation in Scotland. I may say that even that is unnecessary. There never was any doubt in Scotland as to what the law said. The noble Baroness said that people in England believed that it was a power and not a duty; that they were empowered but did not have a duty. There never was any doubt about it in Scotland. It comes in the first clause of the 1962 Act, and it says quite clearly that
768
"It shall be the duty of every education authority to secure"—
that there is for their area adequate, efficient provision for school education. Then it defines "school education":
"In this Act ' school education ' means primary and secondary and includes activities in schools and classes hereafter in this Act called ' nursery schools ' and nursery classes '."
But the Secretary of State had powers under subsection (2) to prescribe standards and general requirements. So he had powers within his control, if effectively used, to develop as we could. I am sure that the Minister of State will agree that what I am saying is right. It is irrefutable.
Why are we in this Bill at all? Why is this clause here? This has nothing to do with money. We have a spineless Department and Secretary of State, which have just trailed along at the English heels. I can understand it in respect of transport, because this was a dictation from the Treasury and from the Cabinet—"You have got to save so much money on transport. You have got to save so much money on school meals." But there is nothing of that here. I really cannot understand the Scottish Office.
The Minister of State has already said, when I questioned him on the assisted places, "Don't worry. It is coming in future legislation." Why could this not wait till that piece of legislation, and then we could get a Scottish Bill with those things that are relevant to Scotland, instead of this? Now we have two clauses. Here is a Bill of 38 clauses and seven schedules, and two clauses apply to Scotland. This could have waited, and if it had waited it would never have been enacted, because it is quite unnecessary. Nobody was in any doubt as to what the position was, and nobody was unreasonably pressing. If they did, the Secretary of State already had the power to hold them back. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I will, of course, convey the noble Lord's sentiments and token of admiration to my right honourable friend tomorrow morning at our Ministers' meeting. But the reason for Clause 25, which I think is obvious to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is that it is intended merely to bring the law into line with the present position. As he said, education authorities have, in practice, extended a discretion in the

769
matter of providing school education in nursery schools and nursery classes.
I do not think, even at this stage, that we have got over to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that what we suffer from in this country is a lack of resources. What is needed to improve the provision of nursery education is additional resources, and we can consider making these available only when the economic situation of the country improves. This is not something to do with only Scotland or only England; it has to do with the United Kingdom. With respect, if the noble Lord had wanted, as it were, to re-introduce the duty in Section 1 of the 1962 Act, he would surely have moved to delete the whole of Clause 25. So I respectfully suggest that the amendment is misconceived and that the noble Lord misunderstands the position.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I do not misunderstand the position but I realise how farcical it is to carry on with this at this time of night. The last time we discussed nursery schools was at a quarter to eight in the morning, after an all-night sitting. But I suppose we had better go on with the farce, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 92 to 94A not moved.]
Clause 27 [School and further education regulations]:
11.9 p.m.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 24, line 43, after ("educational") insert ("and other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, even at this late hour, I must in moving this amendment say a word of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the care and thought, as my noble friend Lady David and I know very well, which she has given to this matter since a comparable amendment was moved in Committee. Very briefly, the issue is this: The schools keep records about pupils. Some of them are educational records dealing with academic matters; others, of a more delicate nature, deal with character, health, family problems and so on. It is
770
agreed that these records ought to be passed on to the relevant people. As the noble Baroness pointed out to us when we discussed this matter after the Committee stage, the tragic case of Maria Colwell illustrates very well the harm that can be done when information of this kind is not passed on from one department to another. That, then, is established. At the same time, it will be generally agreed that this information ought not to be disseminated casually but—I use deliberately the phrase—should be passed to the relevant people. There has got to be communication but at the same time the necessary confidentiality.
Our worry when we first saw the draft of the Bill was: On this important question, why has the Secretary of State got power to make regulations about educational records, which are the less delicate and difficult, but no power to make regulations about the other kinds of records where one would have thought more serious problems might arise? I know that the noble Baroness has been giving thought to this matter, and we shall all want to reach agreement upon its merits. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will be able to give us the benefit of the further consideration she has given to the matter.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, as I have written to my noble friend Lady Young since the Committee stage, I wonder whether she will be able to say anything to me in reply, particularly about the destruction of records—for instance, when a child finally leaves school?
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, as health was mentioned, I was under the impression that the school health records came under the health authority. I, also, would like to know what happens to the other educational records when a child reaches the age of 16.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I do not know what the current state of play is in the Government's thinking with regard to the recommendations of the Data Protection Committee. This could be very relevant since many of the records that have been discussed here could be maintained on computers. Therefore the recommendations of the Data Protection Committee would be relevant. One of the recommendations which might certainly

771
be incorporated in any regulations that would be made in accordance with this amendment is that the parents of a child should have the right to see a print-out of the information and be able to question it if they thought that there was any inaccuracy in it. I can see every necessity for the Government having the power to extend the making of regulations to all these other kinds of records which the noble Lord has mentioned.
11.13 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. I was very glad to have the opportunity of discussing, between the Committee stage of the Bill and Report, with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, the various issues which arise from it, and I hope very much that we might be able to reach agreement upon it. As I explained during the Committee stage, this clause appears in the Bill because there is a clause in the Local Government and Planning Bill, going through another place, which repeals certain general provisions. We are re-enacting them in a new form under this Bill. We are all agreed about the importance of making regulations on educational records, for all the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has set out. I do not believe that there is any disagreement in the House about this point.
In the case of a pupil who moves to another school, his new teachers may wish to know something about his educational progress, and Clause 27(1)(d) is intended to replace the provisions of Regulation 8 of the Schools Regulations (1959) which place a statutory duty on local education authorities to make relevant educational information available to any school to which a pupil moves. In addition, the Government hold that there should be a large degree of openness between schools and parents. Indeed, the educational records kept on most pupils will normally consist almost entirely of the information that is anyway made available to parents in termly reports, at parent-teacher evenings and the like. On both counts, the Government envisage that a case may be made for regulations under this clause.
772
There is also a very wide range of additional information which may be available on pupils relating to non-educational matters. These are the type of matters to which the noble Baroness. Lady Masham of Ilton, has referred, and also the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Hylton. They may relate, for example, to medical records, to psychological assessment, to items arising from the school's pastoral role. Some of these records will be confidential, others will not. In a small number of cases, suspicions may arise that a child is being ill-treated at home or is otherwise at risk. Unfortunate cases of this nature serve to underline that it is not always easy to balance the general desirability for openness between schools and parents against the duty of the school to record and make use of certain information in the best interests of the pupil and to ensure in those circumstances that it is treated in confidence.
As it stands, Clause 27(1)(d) would empower the Secretary of State to make regulations on the keeping, disclosure and transfer of educational records about schoolchildren. This power is concerned with facts and judgments about the scholastic development of individual pupils in school, and it is capable of being exercised within reasonable and ascertainable limits. To widen this power to cover other records would, we believe, be to extend the powers of the Secretary of State into a new area: the term "other records", without qualification, could refer to any piece of recorded information about a pupil that is in the school's possession—and which may have originated from sources or agencies outside the school, and have little or even nothing to do with the pupil's educational needs or attainments. It is very difficult to see how regulations could be drafted to distinguish between all the varieties of recorded information and to specifiy how they should be handled, and at the same time allowing schools to maintain reasonable discretion in how they deal with individual cases in the light of local circumstances.
This is a matter that the Government have considered very carefully, particularly in view of the discussions that we had at Committee stage, and we have come to the conclusion that it would not be right to extend the regulations beyond the proposals that we have in the Bill. We

773
believe that it would be particularly unfortunate if regulations on non-educational records were to lead to fears about the disclosure of sensitive or confidential material. This could have the effect of hampering communications, for example, from doctors to schools or between schools and statutory services. It might be to the detriment of a child's welfare, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has referred to the case of Maria Colwell. In that case and in others there is no doubt that the moral to be drawn from the tragedy is a lack of communication between authorities.
In weighing up all the arguments, it has certainly weighed very heavily on myself when considering this amendment as to whether anything we put into the Bill might make communication between either statutory authorities or non-statutory authorities any more difficult. For that reason, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, on reflection on this matter will have reached the same conclusions. It is a matter on which I hope very much we shall all be agreed that we should leave the regulations to this area, which is a well-trodden area on educational matters, to what we believe to be good practice; because we believe that if we have to define all this in regulations it could well be that statutory authorities and non-statutory authorities might be less willing to give information to teachers, or teachers to give information to them if it was all going to be recorded and passed on and covered by regulations. I hope that the House will realise that this is really a very important matter for a number of children; not a matter on which it is easy to reach a decision, and I hope the House will feel that we have made the right decision, having weighed up all the arguments on it.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she say whether, short of regulations, she is thinking of issuing any kind of advice or guidance to local authorities about this?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think this is a matter that we shall want to consider very carefully, and I should like to reflect again over the discussion that we had the other day and the letter that
774
I have received from my noble friend Lord Hylton and indeed the debate this evening. This is an area which, when we come to give advice, we should consider, and certainly I should like to take up this point.
Lord STEWART of FULHAM: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for the consideration given to this matter, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Provision of clothing for physical training etc.] :
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 26, line 41, after ("years") insert (" (other than a registered pupil at a school) ")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there was some discussion during Committee stage of the question of who should be liable to pay for PT clothing provided to persons over 18 in those cases where an authority might consider it appropriate to seek to recover the cost of provision in whole or in part. On reflection, the Government consider it would be right that the parent should continue to be liable so long as the recipient of the clothing is a registered pupil at school. In other cases of over 18 year-olds, it would be the recipient himself who would be liable to be asked to pay if the authority considered it appropriate to do so. This amendment meets that case. I beg to move.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said in regard to an earlier amendment I moved that I resembled a wrecker, would she at least give me the credit for being responsible for one small brick in the unsatisfactory edifice of the Education Bill?—because this is a point that I tried to make in the early hours of the morning. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who made three attempts, half asleep at the time and very understandably so, failed to understand my point and saw no reason to amend at all. I am deeply grateful for the further consideration given to the matter, and I hope my description as a wrecker will not last until half past eleven tonight.
Clause 31 [Recouptnent between education authorities] :
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 27, line 16, after (" education ") insert (" or further education for pupils aged 16 to 19 years ")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at Committee stage we moved an amendment to put "further" after "primary or secondary education" in the first subsection of Clause 31, and that was not received very well. So now I am trying something rather gentler and suggesting that provision for primary or secondary education
"or further education for pupils aged 16 to 19 years"
would be a suitable amendment, because it would mean that young people of 16 to 19 are being treated in the same way whether they are attending secondary school or a further education establishment. I have as a result to amend subsection (3) by putting after "further education",
"of those students aged 19 years or over".
This is to remove the anomaly which was mentioned in Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I very much hope the Government will feel able to accept this amendment, for two reasons. One is that in these days of unemployment among school-leavers it is extremely important that those youngsters who have left school with nothing to do should be taking classes of further education or adult education of a more general kind. There never was a time when this sort of provision was more important.
The second point is an economic one: that it would be very foolish not to encourage payment across local authority boundaries of fees granted for further education. If this is not done there will not be specialisation in different colleges. Take the London area. It is perfectly possible for people to travel from one local authority area to another, and it is ridiculous that colleges should not specialise. A lot of further education is very costly in equipment, and if one college is providing a good course it is highly undesirable and expensive that other colleges should be doing it. If local authorities are not required to do this, either there will be no course in the other local authority or else they will duplicate each other in an extremely wasteful way. So this is particularly pertinent to the unemployment situation
776
among school-leavers, which is one of the most serious problems in urban areas. It is also an economical measure because it will make much better concentration of the use of resources for further and adult education.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, this is a matter which we debated in Committee. I recognise that there is an anomaly in that there is automatic recoupment for 16 to 19 year-olds who are in school and who choose to go to a school in another authority, and for 16 to 19 year-olds who may be adjacent to a college of further education. But, I said in Committee that, although we recognise that there is an anomaly, we do not believe that this is the right place to deal with it, for two reasons. The first is that the Bill has not altered significantly the position on recoupment for further education, because the Bill does not lay on authorities new obligations with regard to parental preference, as is the case with primary and secondary pupils. It would not be satisfatory in the light of the lack of agreement between local education authorities about the rights and wrongs of automatic recoupment for further education, to which I referred in Committee, to impose an arrangement upon them in respect of some further education students, but not others. At the end of the day, if the amendment were agreed to—although we have anomalies, which I accept, in the Bill—it would create almost as many anomalies as it would solve.
The second reason why we feel that we cannot accept the amendment is that the working party under the chairmanship of my honourable friend Mr. Macfarlane is looking into the whole question of 16 to 19 year-olds and, as I said in Committee, it would be premature on these grounds to legislate upon this matter now. However, that is not to say that I do not recognise the point to which the noble Baronesses have drawn my attention. I believe that this is the wrong place to legislate, and I think that it would not be appropriate to do so unless we had agreement with the local education authorities. for those reasons, I must resist the amendments.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I should like to make a brief comment. I think that it is a great pity that this Bill has been rushed through

777
Parliament. Perhaps it would have been a much better Bill if the Government had waited. They have admitted that we have had to wait for many, many things, including the Warnock Report. This is another amendment over which it seems that the Government will waste money.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I am not in the least convinced by the Minister's argument. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made some excellent points. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, that the Bill has been rushed through. We could have waited a little and, I should have thought, had a much better Bill. However, at this time of night I shall not press the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 96B not moved.]
Clause 34 [Definition and registration of independent schools]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 30, line 12, after ("under") insert ("subsection (1) of").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another technical drafting amendment proposed in Committee by my noble friend Lord Morris, which the Government on further consideration accept. I beg to move.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 97A not moved.]
11.28 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
Page 48, line 3, column 3, leave out (" entries relating to section 55(2) of and ") and insert (" entry relating to ").
Page 48, line 3, column 3, leave out line 13.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these two amendments are purely technical, being consequential on the decision at the Committee stage to delete Clause 23. They remove from the Bill such proposed repeals of the existing law relating to the provision of school transport in England and Wales as were not deleted at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 48, line 20, leave out (" Section 51.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment following the decision of the House during the Committee stage of the Bill to remove Clause 25 (as it then was) from the Bill. It is therefore necessary to delete the reference to Section 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 contained in Schedule 7, so that the existing duty to provide school transport will be retained by education authorities. I beg to move.

HOUSE OF LORDS' OFFICES
Fifth Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.
CANE HILL CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.