Source: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1980/mar/11/education-no-2-bill
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:18:04+00:00

Document:
§ Page 3, line 7, at end insert— ("( ) The governing body of a special school shall include, in addition to such governors as are mentioned above, a governor who is a member of the medical profession, and a governor who is himself handicapped.").
§ The noble Countess said: As the content of my amendment was fully discussed yesterday on a similar amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I do not propose to move my amendment today.
(f) in the election of staff governors each full time and each part time member shall have one vote.").
§ The noble Baroness said: I am sorry for delaying the Committee. I was expecting somebody else to move this amendment. What we want to do is to explain how these people, the parents and the teachers, will be elected to the governing body. We have set out the conditions here. We want there to be a secret ballot. I think that the amendment explains itself. We want there to be a secret ballot and we want the people who are going to vote to know something about those they are going to vote for. If you have a large secondary school, quite obviously all the parents will not know each other and it is going to be difficult to choose unless they have some information about them, and what their ideas are about on what should happen in the school. Everyone should have a ballot paper, and every parent should have a vote, and in the election of staff governors every full-time and every part-time member should have a vote. This is quite self-explanatory, but they are important conditions so that every member has full information and every opportunity to vote sensibly.
May I support the noble Baroness on this matter. I think that this is important. This is taking place where there are members of staff on governing bodies and where there are already parents on governing bodies. The experience that we have gathered over the time is that it is important that people should explain where they stand, where they are and so on. I therefore support the amendment.
It is really a question of how far the noble Baroness, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, accept that local education authorities are responsible elected representative bodies who do not need their hand held in this way. Our policy on this side of the Committee is to work on the assumption that LEAs will behave reasonably, and to leave as much of the detailed arrangements as is possible in their hands. In the case of elections of parent and teacher governors, the only, and crucial, condition it seems necessary to lay down in statute is that elections shall be by secret ballot. The matters stipulated in the amendment are only some of those which local education authorities will have responsibility for resolving.
It is not clear according to what criteria the noble Baroness has chosen these particular matters, but there are others, such as the minimum required number of votes cast for an election to be valid, that could as well, or perhaps even better, have been included. Surely experience should tell us that the more detail, the more chapter and verse, one writes into matters like this, the more complex it all becomes. That is only a short step away for there having to be legal interpretations because situations have arisen which have caused problems;and then we have lawyers involved and all those sorts of arguments. For all these reasons, we cannot accept the amendment.
Would the Minister not agree that the theme running through our discussions yesterday emphasised the fact that local government has moved so much further away from the people in Great Britain that handholding exercises become necessary from time to time? I do not believe that any of us are confident that the new system of local government is close enough to the people to give the type of detailed knowledge that the amendment suggests to the far away men in far away places who control the destinies of the schools.
I applaud what my noble friend the Minister has said, but he did not mention the subject of expense. I do not know what expense would be placed on local authorities in these hard times to produce all these papers. And what about the sheer 732 practicalities of the way in which it would be done? As for brief biographies of candidates, with authorities asking children to take home details when there is an election, I am certain that half of them would get lost. Children have a great deal to take home to their parents and much of it gets left in their pockets. It seems that the biographies of some candidates would be given to parents while others would not. In my view the expense would be out of all proportion to the effect the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, and I hope the Government will not accept the amendment.
If biographies of this kind were made available to all the electors in an area, that would tend to make parents who have children at school all the more interested in what was going on in the school. I am in favour of secret ballots in principle;indeed, following our experience a few moments ago, it would not be a bad idea if we had a secret ballot to decide who is to move certain amendments. Time and again yesterday it was said that very often governing bodies of schools are packed with party hacks. If biographies of candidates were to be handed to those who were to elect school governors, such hacks would be brought to light. I have sat on governing bodies and have been quite unaware sometimes (although I have been suspicious) of the political leanings of some of the governors;they hide it very successfully on occasions, and indeed there are more non-political Conservatives on governing bodies on which I have sat than I thought there were in the whole of the country.
We are talking about the articles of government in relation to the appointment of people and, returning to the last point the Minister made, we must remember that the election of these governors is the responsibility of the local education authority. The amendment merely suggests that if we are to have governors, there shall be a method of selection. What is wrong with that? That is not taking anything away from the local authority;they are the controlling body who have statutory obligations for their area. The amendment is saying, and saying clearly, that this is the method we should like to see adopted. As I said last night, we are dealing with a 733 new Education Bill and we now have the opportunity, drawing on a lifetime of experience, to add something that in our view is distinct and important. There is no need to suggest that we want to take something away from local authorities. In the end they are responsible for the articles of management both for primary and secondary schools. The amendment spells out clearly and fundamentally the method we should like to see adopted for the selection of people to serve on those bodies.
From what I have heard from noble Lords opposite, I get the distinct impression that hundreds of people are queuing up to serve as governors of schools and that these posts are being bitterly contested. I do not think that that is the case and I should like clarification on that point.
Are we not making rather heavy weather of this? I agree very much with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who called attention to the cost of this proposal. Apart from that, I was wondering who would write these brief biographies. I suppose it would be the people themselves. If they are, as has been suggested, party hacks, I do not think they will write that in their biographies.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, illustrates beautifully the nature of the dilemma facing the Government. It used to be the case that a biographical note was not necessary because the candidate was known;he was met in the street by those electing him to office. We now have an attenuated system of local government which forces on us the very complexities which noble Lords are now considering. It seems to me vital that the children of our schools should be entrusted with governing bodies comprised of people whose identity is clearly known, and in the system we now have that is not the case.
I support the Minister in opposing the amendment. So far as primary schools are concerned, from my experience of being a manager of Church-controlled primary schools I would say that the system for appointing managers works very well. They are known and, in my view, those appointed 734 take the job seriously and have the good of the school at heart. I support my noble friend in saying there is no need for the amendment. From my experience of Wiltshire, I am sure that the LEA there carry this out as well in the comprehensive schools as in the primary schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred to what he called the dilemma facing the Government. I was not aware that the Government were facing a dilemma on this issue, least of all on this amendment;we may face dilemmas on some others, but certainly not on this one. He also said that local government was moving away from the people. I suppose that is a view, but I think everyone in the Committee is concerned to ensure that that should not be so, and I do not think there is anything in the Bill that will do other, if that is the case, than bring it closer. In any event, if anybody has experience of organising and running elections, it must be the local authorities. They have great experience of this, as I know. My noble friend Lord Swinton referred to the question of expense, and I am grateful to him for making that point. Certainly there would be greater expense if we were to follow the lines proposed in the amendment, but in all honesty that is not the prime reason for us not waiting to accept it. Nevertheless, my noble friend made an important point.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, made a similar point and I am grateful to him for his support in resisting the amendment. Likewise, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Milverton, who I think said the same thing but in another way. I am grateful to him none the less, as I am to my noble friend Lord Morris. The noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, said that he was concerned to make parents more interested. The whole tenor of our response to the amendment is that if what the amendment proposes is what an education authority wants to do, let it go ahead and do so, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it from doing so. We are saying that to require it statutorily and to insert it in the Bill in such detail in the way proposed in our view cannot be right, and that is why we cannot accept the amendment.
Having listened to the views expressed by the Committee, I 735 am willing to withdraw the amendment, as the secret ballot is mentioned in the Bill. But I shall enjoy later this afternoon reminding the Minister of what he said about trusting local authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 37: Page 3, line 29, leave out subsection (11).
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said that he wants to know what are the Government's intentions in regard to this particular subsection of the clause. The effect of his amendment would be to hasten the implementation of this Part of the Bill regarding changes in the government of schools. If carried, the amendment would have the effect of applying this Part of the Act immediately it is brought into effect. In all the matters that we are considering in the Bill we arc having regard to the effects of public expenditure, and we recognise that there attaches to the school government provisions the possibility of increased expenditure by way of clerking of committees and so on —I sec that we have other amendments on this matter. It would only be right to draw the Committee's attention to this point.
736 We believe that it is essential for both practical reasons and public expenditure reasons that provision should be made to allow the new requirements about the composition of governing bodies to be introduced over a period of time. Subsection (11) is, first, intended to require the new instruments made after the Bill comes into effect to conform to the provisions of Clause 2. Where at present there are not such instruments of government they would then subscribe to the Bill. But the subsection also allows that existing instruments would continue until the Secretary of State makes an order under subsection (11)(b) applying the provisions of Clause 2 to that school. It is our firm intention to press ahead with the introduction of the changes contained in the Bill as quickly as is practicable, and the provision of subsection (11)(b) will enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the implementation is not unduly delayed.
Can the noble Baroness give me an indication of how long it will take, and would it be fair to assume that within a year of the passage of the Act this provision would apply to all schools?
At this stage I would not wish to be drawn into stating a timetable on this. We have said that we want to bring this provision into effect as quickly as resources will allow, and we certainly would not expect it to drag on for several years with nothing happening. Clearly we shall move in close consultation with our colleagues with regard to how the local authorities wish to proceed on these matters. I should not wish to go beyond what I have said. We do not wish this matter to be unduly delayed, but on the other hand, with regard to all that we are to say on all the subsequent clauses of the Bill we recognise the economic constraints under which we are all working.
§ Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 39: Page 4, line 2, leave out ("only to two primary schools") and insert ("to two primary schools catering for different age groups").
§ The noble Baroness said: We are rather anxious about the Government's inten-tions regarding setting up a governing body for every school. It does not actually state that intention at all in this clause, and so I move this amendment because it puts forward some safeguards. As subsection (2) stands, several primary schools could be grouped together under one governing body;in fact, many could. My amendment strives to say that two primary schools, or rather a junior school and an infants school could be grouped together. This would seem to be reason- able, because very often the children from the infants school go straight on to the juniors school, and the two schools are usually very close together. We want to provide that junior and infants can be under one governing body, but that groups of primary schools should not in fact be grouped at all. I beg to move.
I understand the noble Baroness's reasons for proposing the amendment even though, as drafted, it would not achieve the effect that she has in mind. I certainly agree that the most obvious case in which it would be sensible to group two primary schools is where a junior and infants school share the same site. But there may be other circumstances where local authorities would wish to do this, and yet again it seems to the Government sensible to leave this to the discretion of the local education authorities, for local determination in the light of local circumstances.
§ of position where head teachers were just coming in, reporting, and going out;and it could go on like this. Surely, what is proposed here is a sensible thing to do.
When anyone says to me, "Even in Leeds ", I usually respond by saying, "Especially in Leeds". But on this occasion I think I must say again that the thrust of this point, so far as the Government are concerned, is that I am fairly sure that local education authorities would resent this removal of a discretion that they have at present in this matter. It really comes down to a point that we debated again and again yesterday, and which no doubt we shall debate yet again and again before the week is out. It is a question of how far one is willing to leave the matter to the discretion of the local authority. So that I give no hostage to fortune for what I may say this week or further in the future, let me say that there are of course situations where there is something different, but frankly we do not think that this is one of those situations, and therefore we resist the amendment.
May I assume from the statement of the Minister that he logically applies the same reasoning right through this matter, and that the local authority can do this? If they want to do what is implied in the amendment, can they do it?
The answer to that is, Yes, indeed, they can.
I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. I may appear rather distrustful of the Government's intentions, but I feel that there is quite a let-out here, and so I should like to press my amendment.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65;Not-Contents, 149.
Allen of Fallowfield, L. Brockway, L. Cudlipp, L.
Aylestone, L. Brooks of Tremorfa, L. David, B.
Birk, B. Bruce of Donington, L. Davies of Leek, L.
Blease, L. Bullock, L. Davies of Penrhys, L.
Blyton, L. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Denington, B.
Boston of Faversham, L. Collison, L. Diamond, L.
Bowden, L. Crook, L. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Janner, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Gaitskell, B. Kirkhill, L. Shinwell, L.
Galpern, L. Leatherland, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Gardiner, L. Lee of Newton, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Gordon-Walker, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Stone, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L. Mishcon, L. Strauss, L.
Gosford, E. Paget of Northampton, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Parry, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Hall, V. Peart, L. Underhill, L.
Hamnett, L. Phillips, B. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Henderson, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Irving of Dartford, L. Ritchie-Calder, L. White, B.
Jacobson, L. Ross of Marnock, L. Wilson of Radcliffe, L.
Jacques, L. Sainsbury, L. Young of Dartington, L.
Adeane, L. Exeter, M. Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Airedale, L. Falkland, V. Morris, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Ferrers, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Alport, L. Foot, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Amherst, E. Forester, L. Norfolk, D.
Amory, V. Fortescue, E. Northchurch, B.
Ampthill, L. Galloway, E. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Amulree, L. Gisborough, L. Radnor, E.
Auckland, L. Gladwyn, L. Rathcreedan, L.
Baker, L. Glenkinglas, L. Renton, L.
Balerno, L. Gowrie, E. Ridley, V.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Gray, L. Robbins, L.
Barnby, L. Greenway, L. Roberthall, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Grey, E. Rochdale, V.
Bellwin, L. Gridley, L. Rochester, Bp.
Belstead, L. Haig, E. Rochester, L.
Berkeley, B. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) St. Davids, V.
Bessborough, E. St. Just, L.
Blake, L. Hampton, L. Saint Oswald, L.
Boyle of Handsworth, L. Hatherton, L. Savile, L.
Braye, L. Henley, L. Seear, B.
Broadbridge, L. Hill of Luton, L. Selkirk, E.
Brooke of Cumnor, L. Hives, L. Sempill, Ly.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, B. Home of the Hirsel, L. Simon, V.
Brookes, L. Hunt, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Hunter of Newington, L. Sligo, M.
Burton, L. Hylton-Foster, B. Spens, L.
Caccia, L. Ilchester, E. Stamp, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Inglewood, L. Strathcarron, L.
Carrington, L. (A Principal Secretary of State.) James of Rusholme, L. Strathclyde, L.
Cathcart. E. Kimberley, E. Suffield, L.
Chesham, L. Kinloss, Ly. Swansea, L.
Chitnis, L. Kinnaird, L. Swaythling, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Long, V. Swinton, E.
Clwyd, L. Loudoun, C. Thorneycroft, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L. Torphichen, L.
Daventry, V. Luke, L. Tranmire, L.
Davidson, V. Lyell, L. Trenchard, V.
De Freyne, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Ullswater, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Macleod of Borve, B. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Derwent, L. McNair, L. Vernon, L.
Digby, L. Malmesbury, E. Vickers, B.
Drumalbyn, L. Mansfield, E. Vivian, L.
Dundonald, E. Masham of Ilton, B. Westbury, L.
Effingham, E. Maybray-King, L. Wolverton, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Middleton, L. Wynford, L.
Elton, L. Milverton, L. Yarborough, E.
Emmet of Amberley, B. Minto, E. Young, B.
§ Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 40: Page 4, line 12, leave out from first ("governors;") to end of line 14 and insert ("provided that there shall be at least one teacher and one parent elected from each school").
§ The noble Baroness said: Subsection (4) of this clause says: …. and for the purposes of the election of such governors the schools to which the arrangement relates may be treated either separately or as if they were a single school". What I am striving to do in this amendment is to make sure that each school has one teacher and one parent if there is a grouping of schools to provide one governing body. As the clause stands, the two parents or two teachers could come from one school. It is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It just makes for fairness between schools.
I understand perfectly the point the noble Baroness, Lady David, is making. In inserting this particular subsection, we have tried to ensure that governing bodies, by having one parent and one teacher from each of a number of grouped schools, will not become too large. It is our intention eventually to move to the stage at which every school has its own governing body. We have had this arrangement whereby two can be grouped together and if more than two are to be grouped together this can be done only with the approval of the Secretary of State. But it is possible under the proposals. If the amendment of the noble Baroness were to be carried, this would then mean three parents and three teachers on the governing body and we would be getting a much larger governing body. While I see the point she is making, I hope she will accept that we hope that these are, as it were, transitional arrangements and that we do not want governing bodies which could become too large. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just produced an extremely good reason for supporting this amendment. If there are really going to be three parents and three teachers, let us have it.
Did I understand the noble Baroness, Lady Young, correctly—that it is her intention that each school will eventually have its own governing body?
The position we should like to arrive at is that each school would have its own governing body, but we accept that in the meantime there will be cases where it would be more sensible to group. Local authorities do not have to group. There is no compulsion about it, but under the Bill they are allowed to group two schools together. My noble friend Lord Bellwin identified the sort of situation we were thinking of in regard to an infant and a junior school, which would be an obviously sensible grouping. Many of us can think of instances where it might be sensible to group, for example, an infant, a junior and a primary school together. This would be possible, but it requires the agreement of the Secretary of State, because we do not wish to encourage larger grouping.
Our intention is that there would be in the grouped infant and junior school the two parents and the two teachers, and one would assume that one would come from each school. But if it became larger than that, there would have to be a local arrangement about it. We have not insisted upon this. It would be perfectly possible under our arrangements. All that we have insisted upon in our proposals is that there will be a minimum. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, could be met by the fact that there could easily be three;but we are not legislating upon it.
Is it the case that under the Bill one can have a single governing body for a primary school and a secondary school? Is that correct, or have I misunderstood the noble Baroness, Lady Young? Her previous argument based on the grounds of expense has gone out of the window, because if each one of those schools is serviced this will double or treble the expense of the administrative authority if there are single group governing bodies. I wondered whether I had heard the noble Baroness correctly, because on the grounds of economics it is absolutely out.
Under the terms of the Bill there would be a governing 743 body for all secondary schools. It is the Government's intention that eventually there will be a governing body for every school, but there are circumstances where it is sensible to group two schools together and that is what Clause 3 is about.
In my own area, which is a large area, primary schools and secondary schools are grouped for the purpose of making savings in staff. If we have single-group primary schools and single-group governing bodies, and if they have to be serviced and meetings held on different dates, it is going to be rather expensive to the local authority. That is what my director of education tells me.
I must admit that I am not really satisfied with the answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I think it could lead to a good deal of ill-feeling between the various schools if they do not each have a parent and a teacher. If they have rather big governing bodies to start with, by having three parents and three teachers, perhaps that will encourage them to hurry up with their arrangements for having separate governing bodies, and therefore I should like to press this amendment.
§ On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87;Not-Contents, 130.
Airedale, L. Gardiner, L. Peart, L.
Allen of Fallowfield, L. Gladwyn, L. Phillips, B.
Amherst, E. Gordon-Walker, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Aylestone, L. Gosford, E. Rathcreedan, L.
Banks, L. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Ritchie-Calder, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Grey, E. Rochester, Bp.
Birk, B. Hall, V. Rochester, L.
Blease, L. Hamnett, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Blyton, L. Hampton, L. Sainsbury, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Henderson, L. Seear, B.
Bowden, L. Heycock, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Brimelow, L. Hunt, L. Shinwell, L.
Brockway, L. Jacobson, L. Simon, V.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Jacques, L. Steward of Alvechurch, B.
Bruce of Donington, L. Janner, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Chitnis, L. Kilmarnock, L. Stone, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Kirkhill, L. Strabolgi, L.
Collison, L. Leatherland, L. Strauss, L.
Cudlipp, L. Lee of Asheridge, B. Swaythling, L.
David, B. Lee of Newton, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Mackie of Benshie, L. Underhill, L.
Denington, B. McNair, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Oram, L. Wilson of Radcliffe, L.
Foot, L. Paget of Northampton, L. Winstanley, L.
Gaitskell, B. Parry, L. Young of Dartington, L.
Adeane, L. Belstead, L. Buckinghamshire, E.
Alexander of Potterhill, L. Berkeley, B. Caccia, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Bessborough, E. Campbell of Croy, L.
Alport, L. Blake, L. Cathcart, E.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Boothby, L. Chesham, L.
Ampthill, L. Boyd-Carpenter, L. Clancarty, E.
Auckland, L. Boyle of Handsworth, L. Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Baker, L. Braye, L. Clwyd, L.
Balerno, L. Broadbridge, L. Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Brooke of Cumnor, L. Daventry, V.
Barnby, L. Brooke of Ystradfellte, B. Davidson, V.
Bellwin, L. Brookes, L. De Freyne, L.
Denham, L.[Teller.] Hunter of Newington, L. Robbins, L.
Derwent, L. Hylton-Foster, B. Rochdale, V.
Digby, L. llchester, E. St. Davids, V.
Dormer, L. Inglewood, L. St. Just, L.
Drumalbyn, L. James of Rusholme, L. Saint Oswald, L.
Dundonald, E. Kinloss, Ly. Savile, L.
Effingham, E. Kinnaird, L. Selkirk, E.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Long, V. Sempill, Ly.
Elton, L. Loudoun, C. Skelmersdale, L.
Emmet of Amberley, B. Lucas of Chilworth, L. Sligo, M.
Energlyn, L. Luke, L. Spens, L.
Falkland, V. Lyell, L. Stamp, L.
Ferrers, E. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Strathcarron, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Macleod of Borve, B. Strathspey, L.
Galloway, E. Malmesbury, E. Suffield, L.
Gisborough, L. Mancroft, L. Swansea, L.
Glenkinglas, L. Mansfield, E. Swinton, E.
Gowrie, E. Maybray-King, L. Thorneycroft, L.
Gray, L. Middleton, L. Torphichen, L.
Greenway, L. Milverton, L. Trefgarne, L.
Gridley, L. Minto, E. Trenchard, V.
Haig, E. Monckton of Brenchley, V. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. L. Chancellor.) Mowbray and Stourton, L. Vernon, L.
Halsbury, E. Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Vivian, L.
Harvington, L. Norfolk, D. Westbury, L.
Hatherton, L. Northchurch, B. Wolverton, L.
Henley, L. Nugent of Guildford, L. Wynford, L.
Hill of Luton, L. Radnor, E. Yarborough, E.
Hives, L. Renton, L. Young, B.
Home of the Hirsel, L. Ridley, V.
§ Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN moved Amendment No. 41: Page 5, line 6, after ("State") insert ("after consultations with bodies which appear to him to be representative of local education authorities").
§ The noble Lord said: I am sure that, on this clause, the Government will accept this amendment. After all the Government have said about consultation, and so on, and about how they want to democratise and bring things back in, I am sure they will certainly accept this one. If there is anyone who objects to it, I am sure it will not be the Government Ministers, because, going back to yesterday's questions and answers, I am sure they will completely agree that this is a sensible amendment to the Bill which will work very well indeed. I am sure they will appreciate it with open arms, even in Leeds. I beg to move.
As I very nearly put down an amendment in identical 746 words at the request of the Association of County Councils, I feel bound to support this amendment. It is almost meaninglessly trivial, and I hope that the Government will accept it. If not, I shall be delighted to be Content for once in this long day in front of us.
I am afraid that, although it is a very simple little amendment, I, for one—and I have studied it fairly carefully, as I have studied most of the amendments to this Bill so far fairly carefully—simply do not understand it. It says: after consultations with bodies which appear to him"— that is the Secretary of State— to be representative of local education authorities". I am no educational scholar in any theoretical or practical way, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is able to tell me who else, apart from local education authorities, are representative of them.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord because I think I have the answer;or, indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, could give it. It is, I think, the ACC and the AMA.
I have to suggest that it really is unnecessary to write this into the statute. The Secretary of State has already made it quite clear that there will be full consultations with all interested bodies, including the local authority associations, before any regulations are made, and I am happy to reaffirm that today. Indeed, can noble Lords recall any occasion on which regulations of this kind have been made without such consultations?
As for the point which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made, I would suggest that the argument that local authorities must always have a statutory right as such to be consulted would be unique. Indeed, I doubt very much if that is what they would want, simply because they are responsible for implementing the regulations. Those responsible for voluntary schools will be just as directly affected. There are, for that matter, many others who also have a strong claim to be consulted—teachers' organisations, parents and so on—and quite probably they would be consulted. But, clearly, there is no case for writing into the Bill a statutory obligation so to do in the case of one group, of one section of the people concerned, and not the others. Therefore, perhaps with a slight tinge of regret, I fear that the Government have to resist this amendment.
I just cannot understand the reasoning of the Minister on this issue. If he regards it as an automatic thing, then why not put it in the Bill? Because at the end of the day we could come to the decision that all we need to do is say, "Let us have an Education Bill and leave everything to either the Secretary of State or the Minister". This ought to be put in because it is a safeguard, and the Minister himself says that it will actually be carried out. Therefore, why not put it in the Bill and be reasonable?
I am not aware that I am not reasonable, but there may be other opinions as to that. I thought the point I made about the other bodies concerned was a very relevant one which was not touched on in what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. There are others too, who will have to be consulted on a whole variety of things from time to time, and if one were to write it into the statute 748 that the local authorities should be so consulted then one would have to give serious consideration to other bodies which may also have to be included in this way. I really do not think this is practical I am open to correction on this, but I suggest there is very little precedent from the previous Labour Administration, or any other, for that matter, for writing such a requirement for consultation into legislation of this kind.
May I remind the Minister that years ago—and I am sorry that Lord Alexander is not in the Chamber at this particular time—it was the wish of the department that there should be consultation with the Association of Education Committees, as they were at that particular time, and that that was written into quite a number of statutes. This was often the case. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, is not here to support me. This was common practice.
I cannot comment on the circumstances to which the noble Lord refers;but I feel confident in standing on the generality of the point that I made, that in fact it has not been the general practice for Administrations in the past to write into legislation that there shall be consultation of this kind. I think it is right to say that.
The normal practice is for those consultations to take place. From my long experience, I can say that if there is any change in the pattern of the articles of managers or governors, the normal consultation takes place with the Department of Education and Science. In my mind, that is the normal pattern of administrative response between those in the department and those who are administering education in the field.
I am not withdrawing the amendment.
§ Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 42: Page 5, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).
§ The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to Clause 4(1)(b) and is concerned with the tenure of office and disqualifica- 749 tion of governors. We should like to know on what grounds persons are likely to be disqualified from being governors. Difficulties can arise. I can remember that in the case of a teacher in an aided school the question arose as to whether he could be the manager of a school run directly by the local education authority since in law he was the employee, not of the LEA but of the board of governors of the aided school. That is an example of the kind of problem which might arise. What have the Government in mind as being the grounds for disqualifying people from becoming governors? I beg to move.
On this particular point, I think the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, would recognise that on these matters we should consult quite widely about the grounds on which the regulations would be made. These would be subject to consultation with those who are concerned. I think it would be difficult to lay down in statute form, as the noble Lord has suggested, the list of matters that might have to be considered.
As he asked specifically what are the kinds of grounds on which disqualification might occur, I may say that it is possible that people might be disqualified who had failed to attend a specified number of consecutive meetings, which is a common practice in a number of governing bodies and on other committees. Teacher and parent governors might be asked to withdraw from the discussion of certain matters—matters, say, concerning senior staff appointments or matters relating to their own children. None of these matters is settled. There will have to be discussion and consultation. And there are others. Anyone who has had experience on public bodies and committees will know that there are occasions on which it would be desirable that someone should be disqualified;and that is what we are concerned with here.
I am obliged to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Page 5, line 15, at end insert— ("( ) On appointment all governors shall receive a handbook setting out the powers and duties of governors and a guide to how they shall perform their duties;and where appropriate courses shall be run for new governors.").
§ The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 43. May I suggest that we consider at the same time Amendment No. 44? Owing to the very considerable power and duties of school governors, and the fact that the degree of success which a school has in service to a community may be influenced considerably by the efficiency and understanding of its governing body, it is clearly essential that all governors should be provided with a handbook setting out their powers and duties—and may I emphasise that these should be set out in a language which, speaking for myself, ordinary people can understand. The handbook should outline the organisation and services of the local education authority and the duties of its officers and should include the names and addresses of officers whom governors may wish to contact. The handbook should include an index so that governors may readily find the information that they want. The handbook should also provide information about short training courses both for new governors and for governors who wish to be brought up to date with their work.
§ The times at which these courses should be held should vary, and both evening and afternoon courses should be held in most, but not all, LEA areas. All governors should be informed by letter of the existence of these courses, of the ground they will cover and of their varying interest and value from the governors' point of view. I have with me the handbook which LEAs provide to all governors. If the Government are interested, they might like to look at it.
I support this amendment because it is one about which I feel strongly. When one becomes a Member of this House, one receives a handbook giving instructions as to what goes on and so forth;and I think that is very important. When one becomes a governor of a school, very often, in many authorities, one does know what one's position is. It was interesting to me, in going round the country, to note how many governors and managers did 751 not know what their responsibilities were. Therefore, I believe this amendment to be worth while.
May I give another illustration regarding training. I do not want to go on too long, but I think it is very important. Years ago, when I became a magistrate, I received notice of appointment and I sat on the bench at that time without any training at all. Luckily, we had a very good chairman of the bench who at that time said—if I can use a Lancastrian phrase that my Yorkshire colleagues will understand—" Look, lad! Just sit back and listen for 12 months and tha'll be all right". Listen and learn! Now, magistrates are trained;they go through a course of training.
Because of the legislation in education and because of the difficulties that governors and managers are facing, and will be facing, I believe it is important that they should know what the situation is. We do not want to train governors for a B.Ed. degree, but we want to give them the benefit of the experience of certain officers who would explain the fundamental principles of what a governor is expected to do. Therefore, I think it is right that this should be brought into the Bill at this time.
We should like, from these Benches, to support this amendment. I am not sure that I have understood it correctly. Is Amendment No. 43 an alternative amendment to Amendment No. 44? They seem to be covering the same ground. I am not clear whether one is an alternative. We are on Amendment No. 43 but I think the noble Baroness spoke to Amendment No. 44 as well. If I may also speak to Amendment No. 44, may I ask whether there is a misprint in the last line but one? Surely it means initial training for not less than five hours per year?
I gave much thought to that and decided that it meant that the course should not be longer than four hours 59 minutes.
At the moment all the noble Baroness is 752 asking for is what they get already because what they get now is less than five hours' training.
May I support the noble Baroness in this amendment? Some years ago there was such pressure in the Labour Party where I was in the West Midlands that we had to produce our own memorandum for school governors throughout the whole of the counties of the West Midlands. This is still necessary and the Labour Party head office—far from being an affluent body—runs a correspondence course for school governors and managers. That is still continuing and has been going now for a few years. Our course could only be for those representing local authorities who are Labour Party members. It can do nothing for non-political representatives. This would indicate that there is a grave need for school governors to have something of this kind. The ILEA considers it necessary to have a handbook, and I hope that this helpful suggestion will be accepted by the Minister.
Yesterday it was stated that there were some foundation governors in Birmingham aged about 80. However, things have progressed and, if the Minister is interested, there has been a complete reorganisation of governing bodies in the City of Birmingham. It is not a handbook, the folder and the file are almost equivalent to what the Minister has this afternoon. It gives all the details, responsibilities and penalties of governing bodies. Also, two courses are run on Saturday mornings for all members of governing bodies. I feel sure that if the Minister is interested the Conservative chairman of the education committee in Birmingham will be very pleased to supply her with what they are doing there.
May I take up the point that the noble Lord opposite raised as to the drafting of the last but one line of Amendment No. 44? I assumed when I read it that there was a misprint and the word "not "had been left out. We were told by the noble Baroness in charge of the amendment that this was intended. With respect, this is a ludicrous provision to put into any legislation. Five minutes' in-service training would, it seems to me, fully 753 comply with this as a statutory provision. Without touching at the moment on the merits of this kind of training, I must protest at a proposal which, if put into a statute, makes a mockery of legislation.
I have no objection whatever to handbooks. I agree with what has been said regarding the utility of the handbooks provided to members of the House of Lords. I do not understand why such a trivial matter should he written into a Bill. But what I least understand is the coupling of the provision of handbooks—which is a banal but not negative circumstance—with the suggestion of an in-service course. Is it suggested that there should be an in-service course of four hours 59 minutes for members of the House of Lords?
Many of us are intrigued by the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has raised. The mind boggles at some examples that might be produced if this were legislated for in the present form. It can of course be altered. I have in mind a submission by some ingenious lawyer that as a governor had had five hours and five minutes' in-service training, all the acts that he performed after that were ultra virus. In such circumstances, we all might be amused but not pleased with our efforts. I am sure that this can be dealt with quite easily before the Report stage. We are really dealing with the spirit of the amendment.
I have risen in order to try and save the time of the Committee because it is my privilege to move Amendment No. 48 in a moment. I think that if I make one speech, the Committee may be tolerant and listen to me. If I try and make two speeches, I will not have such a favourable reaction. Therefore, I want to try and make only one speech. Amendment No. 48 provides for the way in which the duties and powers of governors shall come into existence so that there is uniformity.
Under that amendment there is a power—indeed a duty—so far as the Secretary of State is concerned, to bring such regulations before Parliament which will approve them by Affirmative Resolution. The powers and duties are defined in Amendment No. 48. It would appear to be logical to be talking about Amendment No. 48 because this is the way in 754 which, if that amendment were passed, the powers and duties will find their way into the handbook which, in turn, is to be in the possession of governors.
There is no doubt at all that all of us are very concerned to produce the highest possible efficiency and experience in the governors of our schools. Many of us who have chaired boards of governors have suddenly come across a point where we have to turn to the clerk to the governors. It depends on the area whether that clerk—and I say this without any offence to any official—is really schooled in the duties and powers of governors and what is in the Education Act, and so on. Many a time I have seen that reference has to be made to the clerk of governors in order that the powers and duties of governors may be defined at a certain meeting when the governors are dealing with a particular point. It is obviously right therefore that from the very start, and by virtue of an enactment, the governors, who we hope to see of a very efficient standard, shall know what their powers and duties are. Amendment No. 48, provides for uniformity regarding those powers and duties.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, it would mean that if in statute one provided for the powers and duties to be settled by the Secretary of State, it follows logically that then one has to provide that obviously it shall be a duty to pass over the handbook containing those powers and duties to the members of the governing body. I very much hope that this amendment will be accepted without any of us having to bother at this stage about the trivia of whether it is not less than, or less than, five hours, as mentioned here. I am quite sure—and I have no right to speak for the noble Baroness—that at this stage, provided that the principle were agreed, she would not go to the stake (if I may use that phrase) in regard to the time limit of the in-service training.
I should like to support the last phrase in Amendment No. 43, and to do so on the grounds that I think that, as we all want the best possible governing bodies for all these schools, the fact that appropriate courses shall be run for new governors will emphasise that we want those who undertake this work to have their primary 755 interest in the school, and to be ready to give time to it. If that should lead them to become a governor of the school it should override any outside loyalty to any other body whatever.
May I ask a question that could affect my vote on this? It may sound a trivial, grammatical one but the word "shall "occurs three times. "All governors shall receive a handbook ", with which I entirely agree;" they shall perform their duties ";and "The local education authority shall make provision. "I quite agree with the first and the third "shalls ", but I wonder whether how "they shall perform their duties "is not meant to be how "they should perform their duties ";I think it makes a difference.
I wonder if this is necessary. Unless I am misinformed I should have thought the duties of the governors are defined in the articles of government, and I presume a copy of these articles would be given to any governor on appointment as a matter of course. Therefore, he or she should know what his duties are, what the powers of the governors are. I accept the virtue of training, but I should not have thought this was a matter to be put into a Bill but rather a matter to be left to local education authorities to arrange. I am a little fearful of the prospect of setting up training for 300,000 people, which will be roughly the number of governors if this Bill is made effective. I really doubt whether these amendments are necessary.
I agree with the noble Lord in asking whether these amendments are really necessary, because there are handbooks which are given out to one when one becomes a governor. Wiltshire do as Inner London Education do, and give you a handbook—more than one;they run courses and are planning to do more and more for governors and managers. So I should have thought that if my noble friend the Minister could just hint to all local education authorities that they should do this sort of thing, the necessity of an amendment could be avoided.
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak 756 not only to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 but to the amendment moved by Lord Mishcon which is No. 48. The noble Baroness, Lady Stewart, in moving these amendments stressed the importance both of having a handbook for new governors and of training new governors. It is not surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, supported this because, of course, in his committee recommendations his committee recommended that all governors should have a short period of initial training, that they should attend in-service training courses regularly, and that a person should be designated by the local education authority to be responsible for co-ordinating the training of school governors.
From the tenor of the remarks from all parts of the Committee, because of the importance of school governors, everyone recognises that there is a value in having training for governors. I was, of course, interested in the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, about the Birmingham handbook which I have not actually seen but which I can imagine is a large one and is, I am sure, valuable to governors;and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about the Labour Party's handbook. May 1 say "snap "to him;we have one for the Conservative Party that we have produced and which has sold very widely and been extensively used. It is a completely factual book about the powers and duties of school governors, and I am sure that just as his book has proved to be useful, so has ours. This is because people becoming governors for the first time do want something of this kind.
I return, if I may, to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to ask: is this amendment really necessary in statute form'? In fact, any local authority can produce a handbook and can—and many do—run training courses. In fact, recent surveys show that over half the authorities already either provide or sponsor some form of governor training or have firm plans to do so, and there is a steady expansion of the amount of training provided.
The two reports from the Advisory Centre for Education, one published in their magazine Where in 1978, and a second one in 1979, show that over 757 50 per cent. of local education authorities are actively concerned with providing some kind of training for governors, and about 40 per cent. of the authorities in fact mention training in their replies to Circular 14/77 on the school curriculum. So that the initiative in this matter is already taken by a great many local authorities. However, following the publication of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, my department gave a grant of £90,000 to the Post Experience Courses Section of the Open University to enable it to develop a nationally available course of training for school governors.
I have just recently received information about some of the details that the course would contain, and it would be the sort of course that would be usable by a local authority if it were running a course for governors in its particular area. It includes such matters as the starter pack, the organisation, curriculum, pupils, staff, resources and finance, and something about the community. These would be booklets, as I undertsand it, and possibly film strips and tapes go with it. I hope this will lead to a course which is of value in its own right and which will act as a complement to local training provision which is specific to its own area.
We could not accept the second part of Amendment No. 44 even were it to he redrafted, because this would commit us to increased public expenditure which at this moment we would not want to place on local education authorities because we believe they ought to be free to develop their own schemes. However, I hope that I have said enough to reassure the noble Baroness that we are acting on the report of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor;that there is a great deal going on in the world on the training of school governors and we hope that the work at the Open University will enable a very effective and useful way of training and complementing the training for governors in local education authorities. With those assurances, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Stewart, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
May I take it that the noble Minister has not answered the point of Amendment No. 48 because she intends to do so when I formally move it? If so, of course, I have no complaint.
I wanted to clear this point with the noble Baroness, Lady Stewart, but I will answer the point on Clause 48. The difficulty that we find ourselves in in this new clause that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has proposed, is that he is laying down the duties in relation to school governors in the six different subsections that he has proposed. When we introduced this Bill my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it quite clear that we did not intend at this stage to legislate about the powers of governing bodies. Indeed, he may recall that the former Secretary of State, Mrs. Shirley Williams, acknowledged the difficulties about legislating on powers when she introduced the 1978 Education Bill in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, might like to remind himself—the reference is December 1978, column 1230—of what she said on that occasion. It was almost exactly echoed by what my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State said on 5th November when intro-ducing our Bill. Because there is no general agreement about the powers of governors, no general consensus about what they should be, we have left this to individual local authorities. These are matters which we feel are rightly left for them. The articles of government for Secondary schools will still be based on the model articles used in 1945 and cover, in fact, all the matters to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention on this particular list. The rules of managements of primary schools commonly follow the same pattern and there is no reason why, when setting up governing bodies for primary schools, they should not follow the same pattern because the matters to be decided are very similar, although the ages of the children are different. I hope that with these assurances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment too.
Perhaps it would be tidier, in view of the question which was addressed to my noble friend Lady Stewart, if I shortly reply to the points made by the Minister when Amendment No. 48 is moved;but it will not be in the course of a long speech that I shall do so.
§ Page 5, line 15, at end insert— ("No governor shall take part in any discussion or vote if he has a direct precuniary interest in the matter.").
§ The noble Lord said: This is a very brief point. I think the principle of the amendment will be generally agreed, but we should like to hear a little more precisely how the Government view this, because lately there have been one or two arguments in local councils as to what exactly a direct pecuniary interest is. I have always understood that in almost any body you can vote for something that will benefit you if it is a part of a large group of people who were also being benefited by it. For example, it is possible for Members of Parliament in another place to vote for an increase in old age pensions even if they themselves are going to benefit from that increase. I can imagine a board of governors having a question before them which would benefit the children of one of them, but he would not for that reason be precluded because it would affect not only him but all other parents of children at the school. On the other hand, if the question before the board was one of direct interest to a governor—say as a builder—then quite properly he should be precluded. What I really want to know is this: How do the Government see this question?
I think the first and most important point to remember is that if this amendment were to be accepted it would of course apply both to county and voluntary-aided schools. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the position of governors of county schools is rather different from that of governors of voluntary-aided schools, because in particular governors of those schools are in law personally liable for their actions and could be thus held to have a pecuniary interest in almost any matter, even though in most cases any cost arising would in practice be met by the maintaining authority or from trust funds or would be covered by insurance. There is therefore a difference between the two types of governors.
760 In fact, there are quite a large number of matters which fall to he covered in regulations. Among those which will be subject to very full consultations will be the question of the financial interest of governors. It is a little difficult to single out precisely the kind of circumstances we envisage as regards this, but I think it would he common practice with local authority committees and other statutory committees that the whole issue of pecuniary interest should be one that is covered, and I think we should want to leave it to consultations to see what agreement might he reached upon it.
The noble Baroness is quite correct in saying that local authori-ties do protect themselves against any form of corruption by any of their members. We are well aware of corruption having taken place. I shall not enlarge upon that as I think your Lordships are sufficiently aware of what has happened in various parts of the country—indeed when some members of local authority councils were imprisoned. I think we must be careful not to put temptation in the way of governors. I am not quite sure whether the noble Baroness is right in failing to understand the kind and nature of items that would come before the governors: as, for example, the maintenance of the school, the provision of materials, building and the like. All those items would present opportunities to people who lack integrity so that there is the possibility of corruption.
I think, therefore, there is something to be said for the amendment, and we should have the assurance that governors will not be open to any question of suspicion. There is, of course, no question of suspicion: we do not doubt their integrity but it is possible that they could be tempted and therefore they ought not to vote on any matter in which they could possibly have a pecuniary interest. That has been accepted by local authorities and there is no reason at all why that should not be accepted.
Of course, I am fully aware of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, both about cases of corruption in local government and the issues that could possibly arise over school governing bodies, though it is much less likely than other possibilities. Perhaps 761 I may draw to his attention the relevant model article of government for county secondary schools from the 1945 model articles. This says: Except with the approval in writing of the local education authority, no governor shall take or hold any interest in any property held or used for the purposes of the school or receive any remuneration for his services or be interested in the supply of works or goods to or for the purposes of the school". That, I think, covers very broadly all the circumstances in which a governor could have a pecuniary interest. Clearly, if this needs to be amended—and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in his report recommended, I think I am right in saying, this form of condition within the model rules—that would be a matter for discussion. But this is what we seek to include and we would expect that governing bodies generally would base their instruments on the model rules which would include this.
I am quite certain that all responsible governors, and certainly local education authorities, would recognise the importance of this proviso. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, to be asking what it was and I think that by quoting the article in full, as I have done, he will see the circumstances to which we are referring.
(f) the duties in relation to school uniform, and any other requests the school may make to parents to pay for visits or materials."
§ The noble Lord said: The Minister, when we were dealing with Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, said that the problem of dealing with the powers and duties of governors had come before the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science and also before the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, and that both had felt that there were difficulties in the way of legislating for such matters and setting this out by regulations. I have on personal and political grounds the greatest respect for the previous Secretary of State for Education and on personal grounds the greatest respect for the present Secretary of State for Education. But the fact that the difficulties have been put off from December 1978 to December 1979, and presumably may be put off even further, does not enable us with good conscience to throw off those difficulties again.
§ We must examine the desirability of this matter—and the desirability is to wrestle with the powers and duties of school governors. They do not differ;in their main elements they are the same. If noble Lords examine the examples given in the amendment, I believe that they will take the view that, within those categories, we have included every type of school envisaged in this part of the Bill.
§ There is a good case for uniformity, and for saying that the powers and duties of governors should be examined by Parliament when the Secretary of State makes a regulation as to what those powers and duties should be. It may be that when the previous Secretary of State examined this matter in December 1978 further discussion was necessary with local education authorities before uniformity could be attained. A substantial period of time has elapsed since then.
§ Unless we grapple with this problem now by passing this amendment, I believe that we shall he faced with yet another 763 case of a beneficial provision being put off because further discussions have to take place. We must see that decisions on such vital matters are made. I ask the Minister seriously to consider this amendment. I would be more than happy to accept an undertaking by her that before Report the remaining difficulties will be circumvented so that we may have the uniformity in regulations that is so necessary in respect of the powers and duties of governors throughout the kingdom.
I am sorry that I am unable to support this amendment. I do not believe that uniformity is desirable. The duties of governors in urban areas may necessarily be different from those exercised in a rural area. Let me take as an example the maintenance of school buildings and grounds. In an urban area it may well he that the grounds are maintained by the parks department. Therefore, governors are not held responsible for the maintenance of grounds. This happens in a number of areas. In a rural area this is properly and rightly a direct responsibility of the governors. In relation to the supply of materials to a school, again there are variations. In certain areas there is a central supply department and the governors have no responsibility in respect of supplies. In other cases the governors quite properly have such a responsibility. Therefore, I cannot accept the proposition that there should be uniformity in these matters throughout the whole country.
I rise briefly to deal with the point made by Lord Alexander so that the Committee should not be confused. I did not suggest, and would not suggest, that the duties and powers in regard to specific schools in respect of grounds, or whatever it may be, should be laid before Parliament by regulation. I was merely saying that the regulations should contain a little sentence, which would be clear to everybody, stating that where the grounds are in the ownership and care of the school, it is for the governors as part of their duties and powers to deal with them. There is no difficulty on this score. The desirability of uniformity is greater than the small difficulty of using wording to indicate that where these matters fall within the 764 purview of the school, by virtue of property, duty or whatever it may be, they should be dealt with by the governors.
On the subject of standardisation, we must remember that the articles respecting governors are standard throughout the country. Such articles relating to the control of schools, whether maintained or otherwise, are more or less uniform. That is certainly the case in Wales. Therefore, in administrative terms there is already a type of standardisation.
It may be necessary by regulation rather than by provisions written into the Bill merely to indicate some of the functions of governors. I appreciate that there are differences in rural areas. In my county, for example, the subject of grounds and their maintenance is a matter for the local authority. The local authority carries out that function because it has the wherewithal to do so. I wish to emphasise that there is now a sense of uniformity in administration, and that the amendment seeks merely to give some indication that this is the case. I appreciate the standpoint of Lord Alexander, but remind him that there is already a great deal of standardisation in many facets of education. We are merely suggesting that this should be done by regulation as and when the Minister sees fit.
I am unable to accept the argument put forward on this amendment by Lord Alexander. I believe that the governing body of a primary or secondary school should be responsible for overseeing the needs and requirements of all pupils in all aspects of the school. If the grounds which the noble Lord suggested should be maintained by the parks department were not kept in a proper state or were not up to a school's requirements, surely it would be for the governing body to draw the attention of the education committee to the fact that the parks department of the local authority was in dereliction of its proper duty. The same consideration applies to the supply of stationery, or anything else required by the school. Therefore, I regret that I cannot go along with Lord Alexander's argument.
As this discussion has progressed, I have become conscious 765 that we are talking at cross purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that we had put off a decision on this matter since December 1978. There is no question of anybody putting off a decision. Both the Labour Government and the present Government reached the same conclusion on this subject, both administrations having considered the matter carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Heycock, was right in his argument in that most governing bodies operate within the model rules. Those rules lay down a framework. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, was also right in saying that circumstances in different schools vary. Consequently, they vary within the framework that is laid down. In a sense both noble Lords were right.
The Labour Government when they introduced their legislation in 1978 and the present Government are concerned to stand by the model rules—rules which we believe are broadly acceptable to all the interested parties. We have no intention of changing the basic distribution of powers and duties as they affect local education authorities, governors and head teachers. Therefore, we stand by the framework.
What we should like to see, and what I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would like to see, is the possibility for development, where necessary, within that framework, because none of us can see precisely how the role of governing bodies might change in the future. That is why we believe that the system which we currently have provides this framework, and both the recent Advisory Centre for Education pamphlet School Governors: Partnership in Practice and our own report on Local Authority Arrangements for the School Curriculum show this clearly in their comments on the steadily increasing involvement of governors in the curriculum and on educational issues more generally. This is perfectly acceptable.
I do not think the noble Lord's point would be better met by these prescriptive rules that he is suggesting applying to every school, because many of them are quite permissible within the current framework. On the other hand, if they become too prescriptive, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, correctly pointed out, they could not possibly apply to every school. 766 I hope, therefore, that he will feel we are meeting his point and that he will withdraw his amendment.
In view of the very conciliatory terms in which the Minister has graciously dealt with this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
§ Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 49: Page 6, line 21, after ("school") insert ("in that area").
§ The noble Baroness said: We now come on to the extremely important clause which deals with admission to schools and parental preferences. I am interested in a number of amendments that are to be moved to safeguard the position of a local authority. This amendment is to insert the words "in that area ", so that subsection (1) would read: Every local education authority shall make arrangements for enabling the parent of a child in the area of the authority to express a preference as to the school in that area".
§ This amendment would make sure that a local education authority has a responsibility to make arrangements for parents to express preferences for schools, only in so far as those arrangements refer to schools within the area of the authority. Thus authority A should not be expected to make arrangements to enable a parent to express a preference for a school in authority B. If agreements have been reached between the authorities involved, then such arrangements may be made and would be permissible, given the terms of the amendment. In order that local authorities are able to plan effectively, without being undercut by neighbouring authorities seeking to attract pupils into their schools, for whatever motives, Clause 6 should make it clear that the requirement on an authority to enable parents to exercise choice should apply to its own schools or its own provision.
§ There is in the notes on clauses a slightly alarming phrase. Subsection (1) goes on to say: 767 …to express a preference as to the school at which he wishes education to be provided for his child in the exercise of the authority's functions and to give reasons for his preference". The phrase "in the exercise of the authority's functions "is rather mysterious, so I looked up the notes on clauses. They say: The phrase in the exercise of the authority's functions ' in subsection (1) brings in not just maintained schools, but any school with which the authority might make an arrangement for the education of the child". I think that that is rather alarmingly wide.
§ It is particularly important to insert the words "in that area ", when one thinks of the later clauses about recoupment between authorities and so on. If this Bill is passed, it will be very much easier for children to move across boundaries, and at a time when rolls are falling it is even more difficult for local authorities to plan their educational provision. So this is a safeguarding amendment. I am glad to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is here, because I should have thought that this was something about which local authorities would have been extremely anxious.
§ We do not want a lot of poaching to go on across boundaries. I know that in some areas a perfectly amicable arrangement is reached, when another authority's schools are much closer than their own, but there is a danger. We have all heard about the Kingston situation, and the fears of Merton and Richmond that their children will be passing across the border. So this is an important clarifying amendment and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
I should like to support the amendment. I have been talking to many directors and administrators of education, and they are very worried about the wide interpretation which might be put on parental choice. I thought that section 76 of the 1944 Act was quite clear about parental choice, and that should have been sufficient. In North Wales, there is a clash between the teaching of Welsh and English in schools, which can create problems. Is it suggested that English parents in Gwynedd can send their children across the border, and that the Gwynedd education authority should make payment? You can drive 768 a coach and horses through this regulation. A parent can exercise his right to choose a grammar school, rather than a comprehensive school.
As I said, I support the amendment, and I think that parents' choice should be confined to the administrative area in which they reside and to which they contribute. I would certainly agree to that. There is choice in Wales on linguistic grounds, but within the area of the authority. There are also religious grounds upon which a parent can exercise his choice, but, again, within the authority's control. I am certain that this provision could cause all kinds of difficulties. At the end of the year, there are always difficulties in assessing the inter-authority payment for functions which another authority has performed, and this is one feature which disturbs authorities. At the moment, they are bending over backwards to see that parents have a choice. Naturally, in a free society there must be a modicum of choice, but, logically, it should be a restricted choice. The noble Baroness talks about expense, but this wide parental choice will be the most expensive part of education, from the local authority standpoint.
Let us get back to Section 76 of the 1944 Education Act. We made provision for parental choice in certain circumstances, and parents could appeal to the Minister if an authority acted unreasonably. I want to say this clearly, as a local authority representative for nearly 42 years. If you do not want to create problems and difficulties, and have myriads of appeals and legal interpretations, then, for goodness sake, support the amendment, because it is a logical one and restricts parental choice. But I agree that parents should exercise a choice within the area to which they make their contribution.
I rise to speak without the authority and knowledge of the noble Lord. Lord Heycock, and without having heard all the argument, but I also tend to agree with the amendent. My reason is a different one. I think it is very important that the Bill should not mislead parents into expecting things which, in the very great majority of cases, will not be realisable. The clause as phrased gives the impression that parents are going to be at liberty to make proposals about 769 moving their children from one school to another over distant parts of the country, which in principle I do not think is a good thing. In 99 cases out of 100, on economic grounds alone local education authorities are not going to negotiate such a change. It is very misleading and I do not think that parents should be led up the garden path.
The noble Baroness who moved the amendment said, with frankness, that it was moved in the interests of the local authorities. No doubt it is;but, by the same token, it is an amendment which, if adopted, would affect prejudicially the rights of parents, inasmuch as it would limit the area in respect of which they can express a preference. I therefore take the view that it would have an adverse effect on the rights of parents and I am therefore very much against an amendment which would have that effect.
I quite take the point of the noble Lord who has just spoken, that if parents express a preference for a school in some other area it may not be possible to meet that preference and that there may then be disappointment. But it seems wrong, because of that, to seek to deny all parents the right to express a preference for a school outside the area.
I should like to put another thought to the noble Baroness. If quite a lot of people in a local education authority's area express a preference for schools outside that area, then that local authority probably ought to be doing some hard thinking about what is the matter with its schools and what improvements are needed to meet the wishes of parents.
I was also struck by the noble Baroness's reference—which I took to be a not wholly enthusiastic one—to what she described as "the Kingston situation." I am not unfamiliar with the Kingston situation, which I regard as extremely satisfactory. The Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, under a progressive and effective education authority, has created very high standards in the schools of that borough. It is therefore not at all surprising that parents in adjoining boroughs have pressed those adjoining boroughs to allow their children to come to the Kingston schools. Indeed, the parent of an intelligent child living in that area would almost be failing 770 in his duty if he did not do so, because the educational opportunities in that borough are so high.
If your Lordships think that I am indulging in a "commercial "on this point, I would ask them to consult the Oxbridge scholarship results for the last 10 years which the noble Baroness will find fully confirm what I have been saying. If, therefore, the moving of this amendment by the noble Baroness is designed in any degree to disturb the wholly satisfactory situation in which the educational standards of North-West Surrey are raised to a considerably higher level than they would otherwise attain because of the efforts of the Kingston Council, that gives me redoubled reason for being against her amendment.
Since 1944, Section 76 has acted as the fundamental basis upon which parents exercise a choice. Would the noble Lord tell me what is wrong with it?
Much as I would love it, I think that to give the noble Lord a lecture on many clauses of of the 1944 Act would mean that the noble Lord might find himself inclined towards taking his dinner before I had finished. I am saying that the Bill as it stands seems to me to be satisfactory to deal with the situation. I would bring the noble Lord and the Committee back to the point that it is the noble Baroness on the Front Bench there who wishes to alter that which seems to me to be the satisfactory position of the law as it will be if the Bill becomes an Act in its present form.
Would not my noble friend agree that this would fall particularly hard on those parents who want their children to go to particular denominational schools on account of their faith? Quite often there is adequate primary education for those who wish to go to a Catholic, or to a Jewish, or to a Church of England school, but this is not always possible when it comes to the secondary school. If this embargo were to be imposed, it would fall particularly hard on those who want their children to go to a particular school of their faith. I am thinking of an experience I had in my old constituency. When a child 771 who had suffered for some years in hospital and who was very frail went to school, she could not stand the hurly-burly of the very active, boisterous and healthy youngsters around her. On medical advice it was suggested that the child would be able to mature and get into the other school if initially she could go to a convent school. I am happy to say that this happened some years ago, that she has now been to university and that she is a very brilliant young woman who is now earning her own living. But without that opportunity to cross the border, as she did, she would have been deprived of the opportunity to go to the absolutely correct school for her particular condition at that time.
It is not very often that I disagree with amendments proposed on this side of the House. I am bound to say that the argument which has just been put forward is extremely important, particularly from the point of view of those religious denominations which have schools to which parents want to send their children. I hope the Committee will forgive me for referring to my own sphere —the Jewish people. It is a religious section of the population. Many of them might be affected adversely if they could not send their children to schools of that denomination because they were unable to send them outside a particular area. I hope that my noble friend will consider this point because it is extremely important to us. Indeed, an amendment is to be moved concerning this point by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, which I propose to support.
I think we ought to consider the effect of religious schools. After all, we are living at a time when the moral side is tremendously important to everybody in the world. In my view, religious schools have the effect of getting people to understand the duties which are incumbent upon them in order to prevent the kind of things which are happening now—the violence, the terrorism, the murder and God knows what! In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will reconsider the point.
As the noble Baroness, Lady David, invoked my aid in support of this amendment and tried to 772 draw my fire, may I say to her that I prefer to keep my powder dry until my own amendment on the same subject, Amendment No. 59, is reached—which I hope will not be very long from now—when I hope that some of my supporters will have finished their tea.
I tend to share some of the concerns which have been expressed by my noble friend Lord Hunt. It seems to me that in most cases, since we are talking about the broad concept of parental choice, parental choice will be extremely limited. Even if, say, 20 places out of an agreed intake of 200 in a given school are reserved for the parental choice list, this will reduce the opportunity for children living within the catchment area. That is particularly the case in an area like Buckingham, which I know fairly well, where there are very few grammar school opportunities for local children.
What will happen to prevent a school of good reputation which has become fashionable—and we all know that schools do become fashionable—increasing its numbers, resources and buildings at the expense of a neighbouring school which is declining? Surely local education authorities will be bound to resort to quota fixing as a means of getting around the headaches arising from this proposed legislation. They alone will decide when a school is full, thus defeating in advance the principle of parental choice. I suspect that parental choice will turn into a huge illusion which will achieve very little except to put a nightmare burden on the appeals system. I should like to assure the noble Baroness that I am simply an objective seeker after truth, and I should like her to convince me to the contrary in order to help me to decide how to vote on these amendments should they be pressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was absolutely right. The ideal situation is for a local authority to have a high standard in all its schools, but unfortunately that does not apply in many areas of the country and perhaps I may cite my own example. Until 1974 there were five schools in my area which did not have sixth forms, so clearly there was tremendous interest within those catchment areas on the part of parents to get 773 their children into the schools which did have sixth forms. I found a much simpler solution: I gave sixth forms to all the schools and the result has been quite astonishing. In my own school, for example, quite clearly standards in every respect have risen, but unfortunately we are faced with the situation—and here I come to the point made by my noble friend Lady David—that we are in a period in which local authorities will be facing very serious problems because of the rapidly diminishing rolls.
Again to quote my own authority—and I take these figures out of my head but I can assure your Lordships they are approximately correct—we have 38,000 students in our comprehensive schools;by 1990 12,000 of those places will go. Clearly that will place a tremendous series of problems on the South Glamorgan County Council in the relatively near future. What I suspect—and I hope with all my heart that this does not happen—is that sixth forms will be taken from the schools into which they were introduced fairly recently and we shall have the same old stampede. Indeed, we might even find that schools which cost millions of pounds to build will in fact be closed and a great deal of capital investment will be wasted. So I think the Government should look rather more closely when we refer to the problems faced by local education authorities, and those problems will increase. There really ought to be a rather better response from the Government on this issue.
I need some assistance from the noble Baroness on the Front Bench. I was chairman of the Standing Committee on the Education Bill, in 1979, introduced by the previous Government and, but for the unfortunate result of the last general election, Clause 7 of that Bill would have excluded the necessity for the parental choice to be restricted to the area in which the child lived. I think there is a great deal to be said for giving a wider choice. One argument that I know is very practical, refers to the fact that a child might be living in the first house on one side of the boundary and across the road, perhaps 50 yards down, there is a first-class school which can be reached within a few minutes' walk. I take the view that local authority boundaries are not sacrosanct. They are lines on maps and we 774 are speaking about children. We could be imposing a long and unnecessary journey on a child just because of the accident of a line on a map. I honestly feel that this is a restriction which does not meet with the spirit behind either this Bill or the Bill that was introduced by the previous Government, and I hope those points can be reconsidered.
I want to make only a short intervention. This amendment and indeed the whole of this Part of the Bill carries my mind back 26 years because of the attitude towards parents. When I first went to the Ministry of Education in 1954 there were practically no parent-teacher associations. One was formed in Wiltshire and I attended a meeting and said a few words of encouragement. I was immediately told by my local authority that these were the most dreadful things;that parents had nothing whatever to do with the schools;they were all ignorant and the teachers knew far better how to handle their children than they did.
A couple of years later the parent-teacher associations were sufficiently numerous to want to found some kind of national body (I do not remember exactly what). At that moment not only the local authority associations but all my civil servants came to me and said "Minister, you must not touch it. It will be the worst possible thing for the education of children in this country if parents get any form of power or grip on the thing at all". Well, I told them where they could go and we encouraged the parent-teacher associations, and then, little by little—and it is partly because both sides of the House encouraged better secondary school education after the war—there grew up a new generation of parents who wanted to have something to do with the education of their children and it became more and more necessary, step by step, to find ways for parents to express an interest which I dare say before the war—and I know nothing whatever about what happened in the schools before the war—they did not want to have. However, they did want it from 1960 onwards. Therefore, when one looks at this part of the Bill the first thing one must be quite sure about is that the local authorities in general will be against it, 775 because of course they do not want their power fragmented in any sort of way.
What my noble friend Lord Boyd. Carpenter said is perfectly true, that crossing boundaries is a form of competition (or can be) and can show up differences in standards between one local authority area and another. Thus, if we take the boundary between Wiltshire and Gloucestershire and Hampshire, which is the part of the world where I live, it is an extraordinary boundary. I cannot think whoever drew it, but it has the result that a lot of children from Hampshire want in one place to come to Wiltshire and more still from Wiltshire want to go to Andover, or Ludgershall or somewhere just over the border.
Why should we want to hold that up? I really think that the only question before your Lordships is whether we are hurrying too fast in giving parents some say in the maintained schools. There is a rate beyond which one should never increase one section's power against another because it provokes reactions which are not worth while. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is probably right that in certain cases the appeals procedure will be very difficult to administer. But we do not have a Bill like this very often, and the Government quite rightly have said that the time has come to do something more for parents. Therefore, I should take the risk and let this clause remain as it is.
I do not dissent from the importance of encouraging parents to take the most active interest in the education of their children. Indeed, before the war, some 30 years before the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, became Minister, I had a parents' association in every school in the area which I then administered. But I am concerned with the breadth of this clause. Unless I misread it, as a parent I can choose ally school in the country and say, "That is my preference and I insist upon going before an appeals committee, accompanied by a lawyer, to defend my choice". Surely, that is a little unrealistic. I greatly fear, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has suggested, that parents may be encouraged to think that this is offering them what it cannot possibly offer and 776 they will be sadly disappointed. Incidentally, according to the recent evidence of Dr. Rutter, not all parents are necessarily very good at choosing the right school for their children.
Before the Minister replies, may I answer a few of the things that have been said about my speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Janner, did not quite listen to what I said. I said that if agreements have been reached between the authorities involved, such arrangements would be permissible given the terms of the amendment. That refers, among other things, to children wishing to cross boundaries in order to go to a denominational school of their choice. The only thing is that under this Bill they may be able to go to the school provided they can pay the fare to get there. Under my amendment there would be nothing to stop parents choosing a denominational school not within their own boundaries. My noble friend Lady Jeger mentioned the point about children being very close to a boundary and a school across the boundary being very much more convenient. That would be dealt with in the same way;agreements are reached between local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that I was speaking from the point of view of the local authorities. I may have said that, but I was thinking not only of the local authority but of all the children in the area. Some with rather articulate parents may think there is a rather smarter school across the boundary and opt for that. But what we have to think of are all the children who are going to be left;we have to think of the provision of education within the area for all the children and not just for a few. I have not brought the figures in with me, but Kingston, I believe, is going to spend some enormous sum of money on its grammar schools and a negligible amount on its secondary moderns. I think what could go on could be very unfair. My amendment is thinking of all the children in the area of the authority, as well as of the authority being able to make sensible plans, particularly in a situation of falling rolls.
The noble Baroness is quite right in saying this is an important amendment. It does show the divide 777 between the attitude of the noble Baroness and her supporters and ourselves on this very important issue of parental choice. This particular clause is one of the most important in the Bill and it is one to which we as a Party attach great importance. We committed ourselves in our manifesto to extending parental choice, and this is the active recognition of that commitment in this clause. I was extremely grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which I think put it very well indeed, and also to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, speaking from his long experience in education.
Let us look at the circumstances, if this amendment were carried, in which parents would be restricted to choosing a school within their own area. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger who made the point that there are many children who find that the school they would prefer to go to is across the road and because quite arbitrarily the local authority boundary runs along the road they would not be able to go to that school because it is in the area of another authority.
If I may intervene, I did deal with that point. I said that arrangements can he made to deal with that, and my amendment would not prevent that.
Yes, I take that point, but what we have done is not only give parents the right to express a choice, but in Clause 33 we have given the right of automatic recoupment. The noble Baroness will be familiar enough with the difficulties of recoupment of costs from one education authority to another to realise that Clause 6 by itself would be quite ineffective without Clause 33, which gives the guarantee of automatic recoupment. This will give a great deal of choice of schools to a number of parents. That is the first group of parents.
The second group of parents are those who would like to choose a denominational school, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, made the point. Never before in my time in the House of Lords have we been on the same side on any issue, so I was very pleased to have his support. The noble Lord is quite right. There are 778 a number of Jewish schools in London where children have to travel very considerable distances, and although within ILEA there is automatic recoupment this does not apply in other parts of the country. I am quite sure the right reverend Prelates will appreciate this point very much, from the point of view of voluntary aided schools and the value to them of having these provisions in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Heycock, made the point that the situation in Wales would become very complicated. I think he quoted Gwynedd in which some schools are conducted in Welsh, and some parents may prefer to have the schooling conducted in English. I may say that this is precisely the sort of situation in which parents might wish to express a choice.
I am sure it is very unwise of me to embark on an argument about teaching in Welsh with the noble Lord, Lord Heycock. All I am saying is that I believe all parents in Wales also ought to be able to express a choice and under our Bill they will be able to do so, whether in Gwynedd or Glamorgan.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, expressed a difficulty which was also expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that parents may be disappointed in all this. The fact is that whenever you give freedom of choice to people, freedom is never limitless;someone is almost invariably disappointed. But surely it is wrong to say that because not everybody can he satisfied, nobody can be satisfied. And that is the logic of the argument.
If the noble Baroness will give way at that point, it seems to me to be the essence of the argument. What we are saying is that it is a tiny minority who will be having the choice. When a parent goes along to an appeals committee the parent does not say, '''I have come to listen to the reasons why my child cannot go to the school of my 779 choice". He says, "I have come here to exercise my choice and you are not giving it to me". The noble Baroness has not really dealt with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made, that the overwhelming majority cannot exercise their freedom of choice, and this is where "freedom of choice "is a misnomer.
If the noble Lord had restrained himself until I had finished my argument I would have answered this point, and I will answer it now. The parents who actually have choice at the moment are those who can afford to pay, a point made frequently in your Lordships' House and one that no doubt will be made at greater length later this evening. I have known rich parents, sending their children to maintained schools, who have decided to buy a house in the catchment area of the most popular school. They, too, are in the fortunate position of exercising choice. But a lot of other parents, who are not well off, and who do not choose to send their children to independent schools, and are unable to buy a house and move where they wish, surely are entitled to exercise choice. I think it is a deplorable attitude to a lot of parents to take the view that they are unable to exercise choice. If the noble Lord, Lord Brooks, looks at Clause 6, he will see that subsection (1) is qualified by subsection (3). This answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. Subsection (3)(a) states: if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources". There is a point about voluntary aided schools, who will be responsible for their own admissions;and then paragraph (c) deals with the point about selective education.
Neither I nor my colleagues at any point have said that every parent is going to have an absolute right for their child to go to the school of their first choice. All we are attempting to do, for which we believe we have extensive public support, is to try to get the maximum amount of choice that is allowable. I believe this is a matter of principle to parents who are in fact, as my noble friend Lord Eccles said, deeply concerned about their children's education, well able and desiring to make a choice. Furthermore, we believe that cross- 780 authority opportunities for parents will help to raise the standards of education both within an authority and throughout authorities. A bit of healthy competition will do no harm at all and will be a measure of what is going on. But the principal reason for inserting this clause about which we feel very strongly—and there could be no question of accepting this amendment—is our commitment to parental choice.
Before this matter is decided, I wish to express great discomfort about the present situation. We on this side are being pushed into a position where it is suggested that we are against parents having choice. That is not only nonsense, but everyone who says it knows jolly well that it is nonsense. It should not be said. It was said to me again and again during the debate on our Education Bill and I lost my temper every single time. It is an absolutely intolerable and dishonest argument.
What in fact is happening is that the Government are, with one hand, making going to school for anyone much more difficult as a result of their transport provisions, which we shall discuss later, and on the other hand are promising something which simply cannot be fulfilled. Parents who do not read the provisions carefully—most of them will not read them at all—will not realise that, under paragraph (a), if a school is full or even popular there will be no choice whatever, any more than there ever has been. It is a piece of window-dressing of the most blatant kind rather neatly putting us on the defensive. I wish to defend myself.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness would give me some advice?
Subsection (1) refers to: the parent of a child in the area of the authority". It goes on to say: wishes education to be provided for his child in the exercise of the authority's functions". Does that not confine the provision to the area of the actual authority? Therefore, 781 it is not possible to have a preference for a school in the area of another authority. It seems to me that we need a clear interpretation of the legal position.
My Lords, Clause 6, the first of this whole sequence of clauses, is designed to enable a parent to express a preference. I have already indicated that, because of the recoupment provisions, the parents may express a preference in another authority's area. At the same time, Clause 8 requires information about schools so that a parent can make an informed choice. Clause 7 contains the appeal procedures. I am very sorry that I have caused the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to lose his temper. Indeed, I hope that he will not do so. I can assure him that I shall not lose my temper, no matter how cross he becomes.
Will the noble Baroness give way?
First, I should like to finish what I was saying to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I believe that we are fulfilling a commitment. I accept —and it would not be right for me to say other—that we cannot provide complete parental choice for everybody, but that does not prevent us from trying to give as much as we can. There is no doubt at all that, as parents nowadays take a much greater interest in their children's education in a rather more professional and more sophisticated way than they did in, for example, 1944, it is quite right that they should have these provisions included in the Bill.
From a personal point of view, I should like to say that I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for whom I have the highest regard, as she knows, even though we have crossed swords so very often in the course of our debates. However, she may not be quite as pleased when we come to a later amendment in which the noble Duke, Lord Norfolk, and I are very keenly interested.
is the noble Baroness aware—bless her heart—that the whole of this debate has been pillars of cloud? I have listened to what has been said and I have looked at what the Bill says. The clause heading is, "Parental 782 preferences ", but as we look at subsection (2) we find a different situation. In the Notes on Clauses it says that it requires: LEAs and the governors of county or voluntary schools to comply with any expressed"— listen to the full flowing language— parental preference, subject "— and here comes the rub— to certain limitations listed in subsection (3)". It then says that it: provides that the requirement to comply with a parental preference does not apply (a) if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education "— who in the name of the Lord will measure that?— or the efficient use of resources".
These are esoteric phrases. It then says: (b) in the case of an aided or special agreement school if compliance would be incompatible with any arrangements between the governors and the LEA in respect of the admission of pupils to the school … the child does not go. It then goes on: In the case of a school whose admission arrangements are based on selection by reference to ability and aptitude "— I know how difficult it is to measure both of those, especially when one looks around this noble House (I shall mention no names)— if the child is not selected under the operation of those arrangements". I think that we have used up a great deal of time, because whatever we say this provision will remain on the Statute Book.
Do we understand from this provision that it is partial parental choice within regulations? Let us get the situation perfectly clear. The noble Baroness has said that it cannot be full parental choice, so therefore it can only be partial parental choice. Can we have the situation perfectly clear?
I am not sure that I fully understand the question asked by the noble Lord. It is an absolute right of a parent to express a prefernce, and that stands in Clause 6. It is an absolute right to have information about the school in order that the preference shall be an informed preference. I have said that one cannot guarantee that every preference will be fulfilled, but we are going as far as we can in that regard.
When the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, puts on his angry act, it is usually rather disingenuous. Quite often it is a way of distinguishing between the pure motives which no doubt distinguish him from some of the less pure motives from the Benches behind him. I wish to substantiate that statement. It is not that he is seeking to lay blame on the Benches behind him, but he is wishing to distract our attention from what is being said on the Benches behind him. Listening to the speeches that have been made from the Back Benches of the Labour Party, it is amazing how many of them have been about how this provision will, in fact, be a nuisance to the authorities. On these Benches we are much more interested that it should be an advantage to the parents. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and other Members of the Labour Benches know perfectly well that when we talk about freedom of choice and it merely means freedom by the purse, we are on their side and we vote with them because we know that when it is put forward it is a sham. However, it seems to us that as regards the particular case which is being put forward by the Government there is genuine choice only for a limited number of people, and only partial choice under regulations. But, of course, what more could it be? It is a genuine extension of choice, and if there is a Division we shall vote with the Government.
I was interested in what the Minister said. She had, until a few minutes ago, been using the word "choice "but changed it in her last reply to "preference". Indeed, that is all that the clause is saying—it is saying "preference". I might prefer a mink coat, hut I know very well that my choice will have to be rabbit or some imitation fur. For parents to show a preference might sound all right, but it does not alter the situation as it is at present.
People have all kinds of preferences as to where they would like their children to go;but, as I read the Bill, according to the arrangements which will be made, in the majority of cases one would have to appeal if one chooses a school that is not within the arrangements. The arrangement that is normally laid down by a local 784 authority is that one chooses the school nearest to the area in which one lives. I know that that is the practice in most urban areas, because it is important that the size of the school has been designated for the number of children expected to live in a given area.
Therefore, bearing in mind what the previous speaker from the Liberal Benches has just said, it should be emphasised that no choice is given to parents. The parents are being asked to have a preference;that does not mean to say that they have any rights at all. The parents have a preference for one, two or three schools, and that is what normally will happen. If the parents do not get their first preference, it is most unfortunate and they will have to appeal. But to whom can they appeal? They will have to appeal to the local education authority, which has already made the arrangements as to where children will go in that given area.
I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but when we discuss Clause 7, which deals with appeals procedure, she will see that that is not the provision in the Bill.
I should like, if I may, to press the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the question I asked and which I do not believe she answered. Perhaps I did not put it very clearly. I should like to put it another way. In the light of the wording of subsecton (1), is it possible for an authority to exercise its functions in the area of another authority?
The answer is: yes, because it would be contained under Clause 6(1);and the phrase: in the exercise of the authority's functions means not just maintained schools but any school with which the authority might make an arrangement for the education of the child. It is in that connection that a parent can exercise a choice outside the area.
I do not believe that I have fully answered the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. We believe that there are severe disadvantages in tying a child to the neighbourhood school. This has been recognised in 785 many urban areas, and the fact is that not all authorities give the parents an opportunity to express a preference or a choice. We believe that this will mark an advance in that parents in all authorities will be able to express a preference; that there will have to be an appeals machinery; that there will have to be informaton about the schools, and that all local education authorities will start thinking about the opportunities of widening the experience for children in schools rather than narrowing it to the particular area in which they happen to live.
Will the Minister agree that this point also comes under subsection (5)(a)?
I am not quite sure that I am with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, over his question.
I believe that subsection (5)(a) covers what the noble Baroness has been saying.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is quite right. I thank him very much for drawing it to my attention.
§ Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 50: Page 6, line 29, after ("would") insert ("in the opinion of the local education authority").
§ "(3) The duty imposed by subsection (2) above does not apply— (a) if compliance with the preference would in the opinion of the local education authority prejudice the provision of efficient education of all the children in the area of that authority or the efficient use of resources for the education of all the children in the area of that authority". I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she can say to whose opinion it refers. Is it in the opinion of the local education authority? If so, I presume that the noble Baroness will accept my amendment. Does she believe that the prejudicing of the provision of efficient education 786 is of all the children in the area of that authority, and the efficient use of resources for the education of all the children in that authority? I should have imagined, and I hope, that she would agree with that, and would be willing to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
"The duty imposed by subsection (2) above does not apply— (a) if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources". The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked: in whose opinion? The answer is that we shall come to that when we come to deal with Clause 7, which provides the appeal system. It is then that I am sure my noble friend and perhaps I, if I can do so, will be able to explain to your Lordships how those words in subsection (3) of Clause 6 are to be interpreted on appeal.
In those circumstances, I think that I shall save my fire for Clause 7. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 53: Page 6, line 31, at end insert ("within the area of any one local education authority or any zone covering the areas of two or more local education authorities").
§ The noble Baroness said: I should like breifly to move this amendment. This is a slightly different amendment and adds after the word "resources" the following: within the area of any one local education authority or any zone covering the areas of two or more local education authorities". 787 This gives a chance for co-operation and the authorities getting together. Therefore I imagine that this amendment would be acceptable.
I do not like to be unhelpful to the noble Baroness, but I do not think that this amendment is acceptable. The situation as we see it is that an authority or governors of a voluntary school will only refuse a child admission if they believe that they are not under a duty to admit him or her. If they wish to plead that the child's admission would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources, they must have good grounds for believing so, which will stand up to challenge on appeal. These are bound to relate to their own locality, but the considerations involved may, it is true, cross local education authority boundaries. Your Lordships will notice that the provisions of Clause 6(3)(a) have deliberately been placed "at large ", if I may use that expression, so as not to restrict the matters which can be taken into account.
However, what I have just said would have the ground cut from under it if the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness was to be accepted, because the amendment would limit the relief to the prejudice, which is being talked about in Clause 6(3)(a), to the area of one local education authority or a zone covering local education authorities alone. That goes against the more general wording of the Bill as it stands, which puts the matter at large.
I think that the phrases "the provision of efficient education "and "the efficient use of resources "are extremely vague. I do not know how they will be interpreted by the appeals committee, if and when it is set up, but I shall not press this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
These phrases are used within this clause. It is the guidance to the education authorities. Surely in the first instance, under Clause 6(3)(a): the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources must apply to a judgment of that education 788 authority. It is not good enough for the Government to say we must wait until a later clause. We have a right to know exactly what the standard of judgment is here and now under Clause 6.
May I try to do a little better for the noble Lord and as I am not quite as familar with this as my noble friends on these Benches I may help myself at the same time. If I am not out of order, may we look one clause ahead to Clause 7—and I shall keep this brief, because I think this is getting rather near to offending against the rules of order. I think that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is this. The way in which an appeal—and I am thinking of the point which the noble Lord made—will work so far as this point is concerned is that the arrangements which the local authority will have made for admissions to schools will be published—and that is required in another completely different clause, Clause 8. Should a parent be dissatisfied, the parent will have the opportunity to go to an appeal committee under Clause 7 and put his case. The committee will be bound to have regard to the authority's published admission arrangements, but it will be for the local authority to demonstrate that any limitations on parental preferences which are set out by the arrangements are justifiable in terms of the provision of efficient education—which is what the noble Lord is asking about—or the efficient use of resources. It will be for the appeal committee to listen to the case which the local authority is making;to listen to the case the parent is putting, and to decide on those two criteria—if those are the two criteria which are relevant to the appeal—whether the parent's appeal has been made out or whether it has not.
§ Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No. 55: Page 6, line 31, at end insert ("(having regard to the limits determined by the local education authority under the provisions of this Act)").
§ The noble Baroness said: This is an extremely important amendment. We have to think of the situation of falling 789 rolls. They are going to fall extremely fast. Authorities are going to be left with an extremely difficult situation with schools shrinking. They have to make a plan about how they are going to cope with this. When we were discussing the last Education Bill, the noble Baroness said that there would be a clause in this Bill which would deal with planning admissions, and I am not satisfied that we have it strong enough.
§ I should like to add at the end of line 31(3)(a): (having regard to the limits determined by the local education authority under the provisions of this Act)". I am not just thinking of the local education authority and its being able to manage things comfortably and easily. It is important for them to have some overall plan for all the schools in their area while they are dealing with this situation, otherwise there will almost inevitably be some schools which will not be favoured, will become sick schools, if a great deal of care is not taken. The courses which could be provided would probably be fewer, and there would be an unfair situation for a great many children. We have to give the local authorities the power to plan their admissions;to have what I think is called a planned operating capacity for each school. I beg to move.
As I understand this amendment—and I think there are other amendments linked to it—what the noble Baroness, Lady David, is asking for is a return to the proposals on planned admission limits which were in her own Administration's 1979 Bill. One of the difficulties which we found when looking at these proposals was that once the admission limits had been set to particular schools, they were in fact unchallengeable. We feel that this is not an acceptable situation for parents to be in. We believe this to be arbitrary and contrary to the best interests of the parents.
If an authority wishes to refuse a child's admission to a particular school, they must justify the refusal not just by reference to an arbitrary number but by reference to a great many things, which would include a point made by my noble friend Lord Belstead;that is, the efficient use of resources and the efficient provision of education in their area. They must find 790 something more than simply a question of numbers, so that children are not simply numbers on a list. We believe that the Bill as drafted achieves this.
The amendment which the noble Baroness has moved actually allows the local education authority to determine in advance that these considerations are to be regarded as satisfied by the limits that the authority set to the number of children that they will admit to one school, rather than to have to give any other further explanation. This is a major difference of principle about the numbers in the schools. We all know that rolls are falling, but I do not think that we can use children simply in a numbers game to sort them into schools in this way.
Is the noble Baroness then prepared to let some schools keep full and let the numbers in others drop substantially? What will happen about the staffing? Will they be able to keep staff to teach a couple of foreign languages and science subjects? How does she imagine that the authorities will cope with that situation?
Among the published provisions on schools which they will have to give will be the numbers of children that they admit, and this will be one of the criteria. Everyone will know that this is one of the criteria to be laid down. Nobody is arguing that there should be sick schools. No one would wish to have that at all. But to argue to the contrary of that that every school should have a planned admission limit, and that parents will not be able in any way to alter this limit once it is set regardless of any arguments that they may be able to adduce because the number is set, is not a satisfactory situation. I cannot believe that the noble Baroness herself thinks that it is.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 55) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72;Not-Contents, 172.
Aylestone, L. Heycock, L. Ritchie-Calder, L.
Birk, B. Irving of Dartford, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Blease, L. Jacobson, L. Sainsbury, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Jacques, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Brimelow, L. Janner, L. Shinwell, L.
Brockway, L. Jeger, B. Snow, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Kirkhill, L. Soper, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Leatherland, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Collison, L. Lee of Asheridge, B. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Crowther-Hunt, L. Lee of Newton, L. Stone, L.
Cudlipp, L. Listowel, E. Strauss, L.
Darwen, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
David, B. Lloyd of Hampstcad, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Longford, E. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Denington, B. McCarthy, L. Underhill, L.
Diamond, L. Maelor, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Mishcon, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Gaitskell, B. Oram, L. Whaddon, L.
Galpern, L. Parry, L. Willis, L.
Gardiner, L. Peart, L. Wilson of Radcliffe, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L. Plant, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Airedale, L. Denham, L. [Teller.] James of Rushholme, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B. Denman, L. Killearn, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L. Derby, Bp. Kilmarnock, L.
Alport, L. Derwent, L. Kimberley, E.
Amherst, E. Digby, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Dormer, L. Kinnoull, E.
Amory, V. Drumalbyn, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Ampthill, L. Dundonald, E. Long, V.
Amulree, L. Ebbisham, L. Lothian, M.
Auckland, L. Eccles, V. Loudoun, C.
Avon, E. Effingham, E. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Baker, L. Elliot of Harwood, B. Luke, L.
Balerno, L. Elton, L. Lyell, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Evans of Claughton, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Banks, L. Exeter, M. Macleod of Borve, B.
Barnby, L. Faithfull, B. Mais, L.
Barrington, V. Falkland, V. Mancroft, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Ferrers, E. Mansfield, E.
Bellwin, L. Foot, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Belstead, L. Forester, L. Middleton, L.
Berkeley, B. Fortescue, E. Mills, V.
Bessborough, E. Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Milverton, L.
Blake, L. Gainford, L. Minto, E.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Galloway, E. Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Bradford, E. Gisborough, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Bridgeman, V. Glendevon, L. Morris, L.
Brooke of Cumnor, L. Gray, L. Mottistone, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, B. Grey, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Burton, L. Gridley, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Haig, E. Newall, L.
Cathcart, E. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Norfolk, D.
Chitnis, L. Halsbury, E. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Hampton, L. Ogmore, L.
Cockfield, L. Hanworth, V. Onslow, E.
Cork and Orrery, E. Harvington, L. Orkney, E.
Cottesloe, L. Hatherton, L. Penrhyn, L.
Craigavon, V. Henley, L. Radnor, E.
Craigton, L. Hertford, M. Rathcreedan, L.
Crawford and Balcarres, E. Hives, L. Rawlinson of Ewell, L.
Croft, L. Holderness, L. Reigate, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Home of the Hirsel, L. Ridley, V.
Daventry, V. Hornsby-Smith, B. Rochdale, V.
Davidson, V. Hunt, L. Rochester, Bp.
§ Resolved in the negative, and amend tent disagreed to accordingly.
§ Lord STEWART of FULHAM moved Amendment No. 57: Page 6, line 37, leave out paragraph (c).
§ The noble Lord said: In our recent discussions there have been some powerful speeches made, particularly by noble Lords opposite, on the subject of parental choice. I might add, in parenthesis, that we shall treasure those speeches in our hearts and remember them when, at a later stage in the Bill, we are discussing the possibility of children actually getting to school—having the transport to do so—and one must hope that those who show such zeal will be able to see that it is financially possible for the children to go where their parents would like them to go. Of course it is usually Tory philosophy to increase people's rights in law and on paper, and to make it increasingly difficult an economic fact for them to be able to exercise those rights. That is broadly what those two parts of the Bill taken together will do.
§ I come now to a limitation on parental choice contained in Clause 6(3)(c), which is quite different from the limits imposed by paragraphs (a) and (b). The limits imposed by paragraphs (a) and (b) could be fairly defended as being the result of sheer physical necessity. The limit imposed on parental choice by paragraph (c) is quite wanton and artificial. It means that if a parent says, "I would like my child to go to that school, which is called a grammar school ", and all the arguments of common sense seem to suggest that the child should go—the nearness of the school the fact that the parents like it, and that 794 they know other children there —the parent is then told, No, the child cannot go there because the local authority has a selective arrangement. That is to say, it puts the children when they are approaching the age of 11 through a kind of test which is supposed to tell what kind of school they are fit for. As I say, this is an artificial and quite wanton limitation on parental choice, and it is important therefore to examine what is the validity and the idea of a test at the age of 11, because some of sort test there must be.
§ There has been a fearful amount of argument as to what kind of test is best for choosing whether a child should go to a grammar school or secondary modern school at the age of 11. That has always seemed to me a quite vain argument. I think it was the March hare who argued that his action in trying to repair his watch by putting butter in the works was justified by the fact that it was the best butter. Much intellectual energy has been wasted in trying to devise the best form of selection at 11-plus.
§ I am going to quote—not verbatim—from the conclusions of a quite full inquiry that was held some years ago into the working of the 11-plus examination. The inquiry found, first, that the examination was extremely fallible;that many children who were not considered fit for grammar school education subsequently turned out to be fit. Secondly, the inquiry found that the examination varied considerably from one part of the country to another in the proportion of children whom it admitted to grammar schools. Next, it was found that the examination varied enormously from year to year in the proportion of children whom it considered to be fit or not fit for grammar school education;and also that it worked very differently as between boys and girls, and in almost all authorities to the disadvantage of the girls.
§ That judgment on the 11-plus—which, to put it crudely, is what paragraph (c) is about—came from a study made some years ago by the Women's Conference of the Conservative Party. It confirmed a judgment that I quoted to your Lordships during the Second Reading debate of the Bill, in which a coalition Government White Paper in 1943 said that there was nothing to be said in favour of selection at age 11.
§ On the examination's fallibility I would add that I think it can probably detect those children of such outstanding ability that anyone could detect that ability, whether or not there was an 11-plus;and that is all that can be said for it. It fails disastrously the other way in that a great many children who have real ability will —as the phrase goes —" fail the 11-plus "
§ Secondly, I think that the examination is seriously divisive, because if it is once decided as a result of this testing procedure that some children go to schools that are deliberately meant to be for clever children, and that the others go into schools that are deliberately meant to be for children who are not very clever, there is the danger that the children in the second kind of school will conform to the unfavourable judgment that has been made of them. One of the discoveries about comprehensive education is the good effect it has had on chilren who at the age of 11 appeared to have only very limited gifts, but for whom being in a school with more gifted children is a stimulus. They are deprived of that stimulus in the secondary modern school. The stock reply to that was, "Oh well, once you have discovered your mistake you can transfer the children from the secondary modern to the grammar school". Would there always be a number of vacant places in the grammar school for such transferees;or, if it were found that a mistake had been made the other way, were children to be transferred from the grammar school to the secondary modern school? Try arguing that one with the parents of the child and you will find that you will not get very far.
§ The idea that the defects of the 11-plus could be remedied by transfer meant that one was saying to the child in the secondary modern school, "Come, work hard, be diligent, and you can win the greatest 796 prize that this school offers—you will be able to get out of it". On that basis a school would never have a very good morale. Any differences there were in talent between the children at age 11 would be magnified and exaggerated by the process of putting them in different schools.
§ There is a further objection, sight of which is sometimes lost: the perversion of primary education that follows from the existence of the 11-plus. Create the 11-plus, make it quite clear that some schools are the kind of schools that can lead on to further education, to university, and eventually to the better paid jobs, and parents will inevitably judge the primary school by asking, "What is its record in getting children past the 11-plus? "That is to say, primary school will be thought of mainly as a cramming establishment to get children through the examination. I do not believe that today one will find any primary teachers who, once they have been delivered from that tyranny, will want to be put back under it.
§ The 11-plus also has a very serious social effect. It has been demonstrated that the 11-plus cannot—even if it is a desirable thing to do—properly decide according to what is supposed to be innate ability. Some years ago there appeared in the Guardian newspaper a letter from the father of twin daughters, who had both sat the 11-plus. One of them had passed, one of them had failed. They were fraternal twins, or perhaps the correct expression is sororal twins. No, I am sorry, I should have said that they were identical twins, and if there was anything in this nonsense about inherited intelligence quotients, the results of the 11-plus examination ought to have been the same in each case. But one does not wish to be pernickety, and I do not press that point. The father received two letters from the local education authority. The letter that told him about his daughter who had failed the examination was addressed to "Mr. So and so". The other one was addressed to "So and so, Esq.". That is only one instance, but it is symbolic of the whole attitude.
§ I have often had to face people who believed in the selective system, and I must say that of all the many lobbies that I have encountered over a good many years, the advocates of selection at 11-plus were 797 usually the rudest and the most ill-tempered, and the most unwilling to listen to argument. I found that the commonest argument as to why they did not want schools in their neighbourhood to go comprehensive was, as one of them put it to me, "I don't want my daughter to mix with rough girls. "Some of them, quite frankly, would not have been capable of discussing questions of curriculum, and were not interested in that. They wanted to feel that their child was going to what was regarded as socially the best school. Sometimes one receives what are the most pathetic of all letters. They are letters in the child's handwriting, so clearly dictated by an adult, retailing the snobberies and the prejudices of the adult as a reason why the schools in a particular neighbourhood should not go comprehensive.
§ There is a particularly serious aspect in one of the problems that we have to face today. I do not think it can be disputed that, on the whole—there will be exceptions—the children of recent immigrants will be at a disadvantage in any form of 11-plus examination. Many of them come from countries where English is not the mother tongue. Others come from countries where the standard of education is lower than it is here. Whatever their natural gifts, it is not likely that they will be able to do as well as other children in any form of test that is supposed to show aptitude at the age of 11. You will be in danger, therefore, to the extent to which you keep the selective system, of segregating increasingly black and white. The plain fact is that not only does this sort of thing happen;it is what a good many of the advocates of selection want to happen.
§ In the minds of many people the purpose of the 11-plus is to see that those parents who have themselves enjoyed a better than average education shall be sure to pass on that advantage, to pass on not merely a good education, but a better education than somebody else's, to their children, to create privilege and to make it hereditary. I need not dwell on the injustice of this. I add the further point that, in the situation in which the country is today, where we need the energies and good will of all our people, this is not the right kind of educational system to promote. I believe that, when it really comes to the point, everyone knows that.
§ I have never found an advocate of selection who was prepared to let his own child go to anything but a grammar school. That reveals the whole nature of the argument. The secondary modern is the school for somebody else's child. In view of this, after all we have learnt about the evils of the 11-plus, and in a clause which is supposed to emphasise parental preference, can we insert something which flatly denies parental preference? You can prefer as much as you like. You can produce any reason you like, but the 11-plus examination tells you that your child will not go to this school. Surely, if there is anything in what has been said in all quarters of the House about parental preference, we must reject paragraph (c). I beg to move.
I must add one word to the extraordinarily clear explanation just given to the Committee of exactly what the argument is about, because this concerns the entire Bill. There are a number of other things in the Bill which we do not like, but this is the centre of what we do not like. We had this argument when I was in the noble lady's position for what seemed like months two or three years ago, and I do not think a single member of the Opposition side ever spoke up in favour of the 11-plus. I know that some noble Lords were not here and might have done so had they been here. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, might have spoken in favour of it if he had been here, but he was not. In the course of those three or four months I do not believe I ever had to attack the 11-plus as put forward by somebody from the other side. One always found them saying, "I am not going to defend the 11-plus, but …" I just wanted to add that to what my noble friend has said.
The noble Lord has challenged me in his usual agreeable way. As he himself said earlier, I certainly have no wish to lose my temper with him. He referred to the perfectly accurate fact that I did not take part in the debates in this House on Mrs. Shirley Williams' infamous Bill. 799 That is perfectly true. What the noble Lord knows—and I think the House should know—is that, at the time that Bill was being discussed, I held a public appointment under the Crown as chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and under the rules connected with the name of the late Lord Addison. I was inhibited from taking part in controversial debates. The noble Lord knows that, because we had a passage of arms before the change of Government when I pointed this out to him. I take it a little amiss that he should make this comment again this afternoon without adding the explanation of which he is perfectly well aware.
It never occurred to me that the noble Lord would take this as anything other than an opportunity to express the view which he was then unable to express for reasons which I stated in public, at his request, to this House. I do not think I need say it every time I get up.
If the noble Lord is asking me to make a speech on selection, he knows that he is dangling temptation in front of me. From a wider point of view, I rather suspect his motives, because when is the snare set in sight of the bird? May I remind him of a fact which he and Mrs. Shirley Williams were quite unable to rebut;that whatever the merits or demerits of selection—we could go on about that all night, but I do not propose to do so—the fact remains that in certain parts of the country where selection was practised the local authorities responsible for that were consistently returned to office and power and responsibility at every local authority election. The real argument which Mrs. Shirley Williams and he never faced was why education authority areas who wished to continue this system should be denied the right to do so by the legislative blunderbuss of a declining government.
I do not wish to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has already said so clearly and so eloquently. I am thinking of a small boy who passed his 11-plus, who went into the grammar school stream and who was under very 800 great pressure by responsible parents at home and by his teachers to do well at school. But it happens that children develop at different ages. Some are slow developers and they are not ready at the age of 11-plus. Others may pass an examination at 11-plus and then not be able to take the pace of the special grammar school teaching. If you were in an enlightened authority such as the one which was in the heart of my constituency in Cannock, where an excellent secondary schoolmaster could help certain children to move from the secondary modern to the grammar school, that was one thing. The child was proud. But what can you do about a child who is in the grammar school stream but who cannot go back to the secondary modern? There is so much cruelty and so much lack of imagination in all this, in addition to the snobberies which go with it.
There is another point. There is a certain type of child who is the natural craftsman and artist of the future. One of the great wrongs we have done children is to promote my type. I could pass an examination on anything at a certain age, but my hands were completely useless. Let us face it, if you could do your arithmetic correctly and had a very good visual memory and that kind of thing, you went soaring ahead, but another kind of child might, for nervous reasons, not be able to stand the racket of an examination. Those children are the artisans, the engineers, because between the skilled mason and the sculptor there are very strong links. You do not need to go back to Leonardo da Vinci to know all about that. On every count there are the snobberies, the cruelties to children, the divisions in families. Those of us who have represented constituencies must all have had situations where the daughter in a family goes to the grammar school and the boy goes to the secondary modern, or vice versa. This is no way to deal with children.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is going to answer the points made by the noble Lord. The first time I met the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was when I came to discuss comprehensive education with him. On that particular occasion, in order to 801 argue very clearly for the justification of the case I was then presenting, I used, if he can remember, Mrs. Thatcher's Circular 1070. In that circular she made three points—that if one satisfied academic standards, if one satisfied public opinion and if one had the financial resources, then at least, under Circular 1070, which was the Government's own circular, one could reorganise on a comprehensive pattern. That afternoon, after 40 minutes, I was able to prove, because of our own experience, that on sheer academic grounds there was justification for reorganising secondary education in the Neath area, for financial reasons and because of public opinion. We did not have one single objection on grounds of public opinion.
The situation we were faced with about selection in the county of Glamorgan was simply this, and it is fundamental. It is said by educational psychologists, for what it is worth, that about 30 children out of every 100 who start school are competent enough and have the intellectual ability to profit by the type of education given in what was deemed to be a grammar school. In Glamorgan we found that in one area 19 per cent. of the children would get into a grammar school and in another part the number would be 35.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyle, was Minister of Education in 1965 when we presented a case for reorganisation on a comprehensive pattern in Port Talbot. On that occasion he very kindly sent me a letter complimenting us on the reorganisation on a comprehensive pattern. There is no historical reason why the age group should he from seven to 11 or five to 11. It was only in an Act of 1911 that, for some unknown reason, it was decided to have this division of children on an age basis. In 1952, when Miss Horsbrugh was Minister of Education, she granted us the first comprehensive school built from the ground. I believed that selection had gone by the board. The next stage, if one comes to analyse historically secondary education, would be tertiary colleges—11 to 16 or 15 to 18 in tertiary colleges. That must be the next move forward if one wants to reorganise secondary education.
I was unopposed in Glamorgan for 30 years because the people I represented believed in secondary education. The 802 fact that one wins elections indicates that the people are accepting one's basic educational philosophy. Our experience in Glamorgan eliminated this intensive selection at 11 plus where there was a concentration on English and arithmetic. As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has very properly said, the school that had more passes was considered by parents to be the better school. From our experience of children coming up into the comprehensive pattern at Sandfields, we found that at least 19 of them went to the university. Had they remained logically in a modern secondary school they would not have gone there.
In the small grammar school the choices at A-level were very limited. In a large comprehensive school the choices at A-level are much greater. One is talking about academic values in every sense of the word. I can say from my experience that it relieves the primary schools. They can have wider or more liberal studies because they arc not concentrating on enabling children to pass the 11-plus examination. Glamorgan is about 99 per cent. fully comprehensive and we have more children going to the university than ever before. According to the headmasters of previous grammar schools, the standard of children passing A-levels is higher under the comprehensive system than it was under the old grammar system.
I am not an expert on this. I was chairman of the Welsh Joint Education Committee for about 30 years and I analysed the examinations very clearly. I am appalled that we are going hack to talk about selection. Previously we were talking about freedom for parents. Let us also give freedom to children in the broad educational sense. Let us accept the changing pattern of educational philosophy. Let us get on with the job in every sense of the word. In 1952 when I approached Miss Horsbrugh she permitted us to change our transport facility to a much wider concept than we have at present. I believed that the question of 11-plus selection was dead and that every educationalist worth his salt who understood the basic, fundamental philosophy of education would have got completely clear of that. 1 am certain that if we go back to selection we are going backwards in the field of education.
I should like, if I may, to put the record straight on one point. The suggestion has been made that it was impossible, or very difficult, for children who were in a secondary modern school to go to a grammar school but much more difficult for them to do the reverse. As the chairman of a governing body which has seen this happen many times between a voluntary aided girls' grammar school in London and one of the large, prestigious comprehensive schools in London, I should like to put it on the record that it has been perfectly possible to do that with great success on both sides, in and out.
The noble Baroness is talking about a child going from a grammar school to a comprehensive school. We have been talking about going from a grammar school back to a secondary modern. The child suffers humiliation, and the child I am talking about had a complete nervous breakdown because he was not suited to that particular education. Even if he had been, we had no comprehensive there. If there had been a comprehensive he would have been able to get ahead according to his talent.
I must support my noble friend on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, mentioned twins. As a twin, I feel I should record the fact that at the age of 11 or thereabouts my twin brother and I both took the same entrance examination. I passed it with flying colours and he failed it miserably. Our parents came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to divide us, so we went to the same school. The result of all this is that my brother is still as thick as he ever was.
At the end of quite a long interchange, may I remind the Committee that the effect of this amendment would be to do away completely with selective education? I thought it might be a good idea to remind ourselves what we are talking about. I remember very well when the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, and I met for the first time;it was a long time ago now. It is perfectly true that he and I met because he wished to establish a comprehensive school in the local authority area in Wales which he 804 has served for so many years. At the department there were reservations because the school would have been very small in numbers. I am a great supporter of the smaller school, but there were feelings that perhaps the school was going to be almost too small. The issue which decided that particular case, if I remember it from 10 years ago, was that on educational grounds the noble Lord and his advisers were absolutely right and that the school would have every chance to prosper.
I must say to noble Lords opposite that the difference between the two sides of the Committee on educational grounds is that in 1976 the Labour Party made it clear that they did not want to leave it to local authorities to decide what sort of educational provision they should have, and in the process, incidentally, destroyed many good voluntary-aided and all the direct-grant schools. Last year the Conservative Party amended the law, making it clear that local authorities could choose as to whether they wanted their schools to proceed on comprehensive grounds or on selective grounds, or on a mixture of both. We on this side of the Committee intend that where parents want it there shall continue to be selection. But, if I may answer a point which was put by one of your Lordships on the other side of the Committee, this does not mean that the selection process must not he fair and objective, and that it cannot be challenged before an appeal committee. Most authorities which have grammar schools already have careful procedures for looking at borderline cases and for taking the best decisions that they possibly can in respect of the limited number of places which are available.
So this provision—which, incidentally, in essence, is exactly the same provision as we find in the 1944 Education Act, and which is a provision, therefore, which was operated by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, when he was Secretary of State for Education—is something which we believe should be continued in the present Bill, and I therefore ask your Lordships to resist this amendment.
I must say that before the noble Lord got up to speak I was inclined to support the Government, because I thought that the amendment would not have any effect 805 on the selective system at all, and that therefore it would be pointless. The reason why I thought it would not have any effect is that subsection (3)(a), I thought, would deal with the matter even if you eliminated (3)(c);in other words, that if in fact people tried to get into an academically selective school children who were not suited for it, the local authority would be able to turn it down under (3)(a). But the noble Lord tells me this is not so. The noble Lord says that if we pass this amendment then we will in fact be doing away with the selective system. So be it: that sounds a very good reason for voting against the Government.
On a technical matter, may I ask a question of the noble Lord who has just spoken? He says, "Do away with the selective system "—one of those smashing, emotive phrases that we all know from these debates. Could he say how he is going to ensure that a child gets the right sort of education that it needs without some kind of selection? Just tell me in simple words.
No, I am sorry;I am not going to rise to that bait. The noble Lord, myself and other noble Lords who are speaking in this debate have been over this time and time again. I have argued the straight comprehensive system against him before now and I am prepared to do it again, but I do not honestly think that this is the time to do it.
If we get down to absolute fundamentals, I would wish to make a very brief intervention on this. If we want to educate to their highest capacity most of our children, then we cannot have the selective system. If we want to educate a small number of either rich or poor children who we think are cleverer than the others, then we have the selective system. In the state of our country at the moment we do not want to educate just the clever and the rich to their greatest and highest capacity;we want to educate all our children, because if we do not educate all our children in this scientific and technological age we shall go on being poor and we shall go on being slandered in the world, and looked down upon, as we are, in fact. 806 We have to educate most of our children to the highest ability of which they are capable.
I think we are missing what is the simple and essential point. There is no question of abolishing selection. Any authority that did that would be in breach of the 1944 Act. They arc under a legal obligation to educate children according to their age, ability and aptitude;and if they do not take steps to ascertain their-ability and aptitude, they are clearly in breach of the Act. What we arc discussing is whether that should be done within one school, so that each child gets the opportunities appropriate to his ability and aptitude, or whether we should do it in separate schools. That is what we are discussing, not the issue of whether or not there shall be due care taken to have regard to the abilities and aptitudes of children. That, surely, is a fundamental requirement. I should not like to see a school which ignored these factors and tried to educate children.
I believe that the noble Lord who has just spoken was absent from the Chamber when, from the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham made what was an excellent speech in which he made perfectly clear that it was understood that selective processes are not at issue. It is quite clear that age, aptitude and ability arc matters which will govern the distribution of pupils throughout schools. What we are trying to do is to make absolutely certain—and I thought that was the Government's intention until a few moments ago—that in doing that we provide a machinery within each district which will see that the children in that area have access to education according to their age, aptitude and ability.
Our concern here is a genuine one—I thought we had made that clear—for the fact that this Bill as it is written seems to be based on a different philosophy. If we are honest and admit that there is a differing philosophy on education in our approach to this Bill, and that some of us believe that we have fundamentally to change the disposition of education, then we can approach it in terms of an argument which is more honest than I think this debate has become in the late 807 stages of this afternoon. It was the lotus eaters, I think, who, in the afternoon, came unto a land in which it seemed always afternoon, and I have had that feeling in the dying stages of this debate. I hope we shall get some new energy when we break for supper and come back addressing ourselves directly to the question.
On this question of education, in relation to this particular amendment on selectivity I think we should point out that the bands of deprivation that exist are not in fact a matter of philosophy. In the schools that we administer, whichever Government are in power, there are bands of deprivation which arc not mentioned in the public debate on education. I was always conscious, as a sixth-form master, that the dispositions made to me when I was teaching at that level were in fact in positive benefit for the sixth-form structure;but when I was teaching at other levels of the system—and I have taught as a primary teacher as well as in further education I found bands of deprivation to the disfavour of the children in those schools. There was positive discrimination, for example—and properly so—in favour of the backward and the handicapped, and there was not such discrimination within each different school in favour of the average. So I would claim that, no matter how we organise education, the average child in each particular school is the really disadvantaged individual.
I do not want to take the Committee further into that argument, away from this particular amendment, but this point at this moment is totally apposite. We arc dividing ourselves on this issue as to whether we are providing within the system of selectivity an educationally acceptable and a socially decent manner of disposing of the abilities of our children within the structures of our schools.
I should like to add a word, speaking from the county of Surrey, which has always had selection. I very much agree with the point of view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, Why should not a local education authority choose for itself the structure which it thinks suits its locality best? In Surrey, we have always had selection. We have a splendid record of local grammar schools. I am glad 808 to say that some still survive, although they have had to become independent to do so. In parenthesis, I may say that in the last few years I have been very glad to help my local one in Guildford (which has a history of 400 or 500 years) to become independent. We had little difficulty in raising funds to make it do so. As to those funds, we were very concerned, under the last Government, to set aside enough money to give bursaries to families where there would not be enough money to pay the fees at the now independent school.
The point I wish to make is this. In Surrey, where in days gone by I used to take an active part in the education committee, and was happy to do so, our comprehensive schools as they developed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, also achieved a very high standard;and the sixth forms have achieved superb results in getting their students into universities. So I often feel that it is a great pity that we have made a major political issue over this, because the fact is that the comprehensive schools and the grammar schools both have a part to play.
Whenever I listen to my noble friend Lord James of Rusholme I am persuaded once more that we have to do something special for the gifted child. Personally, I am not a parent with children in that category, but I see families who are. I have seen them grow up and I know how much we want them in the top ranks of industry and the professions. We need them to be educated to that top level and we need to make special provision for them. We are depriving those children and ourselves if we do not make such provision. I am happy that my noble friend has kept this selective system within the general structure and that later on, when we come to talk about assisted places, we may say that we have done the best we can to help children from families who could not afford to pay fees to go to schools which will give them the kind of education they need.
§ On Question. Whether the said amendment (No. 57) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98;Not-Contents, 149.
St. Davids, V. Stamp, L. Ullswater, V.
St. Just, L. Strathclyde, L. Vaizey, L.
Saint Oswald, L. Strathspey, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Sandford, L. Stuart of Findhorn, V. Vernon, L.
Sandys, L. [Teller.] Suffield, L. Vickers, B.
Savile, L. Swaythling, L. Vivian, L.
Seear, B. Swinton, E. Wigoder, L.
Selkirk, E. Tanlaw, L. Winstanley, L.
Sempill, Ly. Teviot, L. Wolverton, L.
Simon, V. Torphichen, L. Wynford, L.
Skelmersdale, L. Tranmire, L. Yarborough, E.
Smith, L. Trefgarne, L. Young, B.
Airedale, L. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Plant, L.
Avebury, L. Hamnett, L. Rathcreedan, L.
Aylestone, L. Hampton, L. Ritchie-Calder, L.
Banks, L. Heycock, L. Rochester, Bp.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Houghton of Sowerby, L. Rochester, L.
Birk, B. Howie of Troon, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Blease, L. Hunt, L. Sainsbury, L.
Blyton, L. Irving of Dartford, L. Seear, B.
Boston of Faversham, L. Jacobson, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Boyle of Handsworth, L. Jacques, L. Shepherd, L.
Brockway, L. Janner, L. Shinwell, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Jeger, B. Simon, V.
Bruce of Donington, L. Kilmarnock, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Byers, L. Kirkhill, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Leatherland, L. Stone, L.
Collison, L. Lee of Asheridge, B. Strauss, L.
Cudlipp, L. Lee of Newton, L. Swaythling, L.
Darwen, L. Listowel, E. Tanlaw, L.
David, B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Longford, E. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Denington, B. Lovell-Davis, L. Underhill, L.
Diamond, L. McCarthy, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Maelor, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Evans of Claughton, L. Morris of Kenwood, L. Whaddon, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Noel-Baker, L. Wigoder, L.
Gaitskell, B. Ogmore, L. Willis, L.
Galpern, L. Oram, L. Wilson of Radcliffe, L.
Gardiner, L. Parry, L. Winstanley, L.
Goronwy-Roberts, L. Peart, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B. Denham, L. [Teller.] Hornsby-Smith, B.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Derby, Bp. Hylton, L.
Ampthill, L. Digby, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Baker, L. Drumalbyn, L. Iddesleigh, E.
Balerno, L. Dundonald, E. James of Rusholme, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Eccles, V. Killearn, L.
Barrington, V. Effingham, E. Kimberley, E.
Bellwin, L. Elliot of Harwood, B. Kinloss, Ly.
Belstead, L. Elton, L. Kinnoull, E.
Berkeley, B. Exeter, M. Long, V.
Bessborough, E. Faithfull, B. Lothian, M.
Blake, L. Falkland, V. Loudoun, C.
Boyd of Merton, V. Ferrers, E. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Fortescue, E. Lyell, L.
Bradford, E. Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Bridgeman, V. Galloway, E. Macleod of Borve, B.
Brooke of Cumnor, L. Gibson, L. Mancroft, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, B. Gisborough, L. Mansfield, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Glendevon, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Burton, L. Gormanston, V. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Campbell of Croy, L. Gowrie, E. Middleton, L.
Carrington, L. (A Principal Secretary of State.) Gray, L. Mills, V.
Cathcart, E. Haig, E. Minto, E.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Cockfield, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Cork and Orrery, E. Halsbury, E. Monson, L.
Cottesloe, L. Hampden, V. Morris, L.
Craigavon, V. Hanworth, V. Mottistone, L.
Craigton, L. Harvington, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Croft, L. Hatherton, L. Moyne, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Henley, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Daventry, V. Hertford, M. Newall, L.
Davidson, V. Hives, L. Norfolk, D.
de Clifford, L. Holderness, L. Northchurch, B.
De Freyne, L. Hood, V. Nugent of Gulidford, L.
§ Viscount RIDLEY moved Amendment No. 59: Page 7, line 11, after ("authority") insert ("after consultation between the local education authority or governors concerned and the local education authority for the area in which the child is resident").
§ The noble Viscount said: I think it will be agreed that it is time that we had an amendment from this side of the Committee. I hope the Government will agree to it. I move this amendment on behalf of the Association of County Councils. I should like to state quite firmly that they completely support the Government's proposals to strengthen parental choice, which was so well debated just now. There is concern about the effects which one local education authority's decision on admissions may have on efficient arrangements for other children in a neighbouring authority. In the same way, a voluntary school in a border area with declining numbers might admit pupils from a neighbouring authority without any regard to the consequences to that authority's schools and pupils. The amendment in no way limits the parents' rights to choice, nor does it wish in any way to interfere with the principle of pupils crossing boundaries where that is decided to he possible. Nor does it give the local authority, which is "exporting "children, any right to veto such arrangements. All I seek to ensure here is that the home "authority or the "exporting "authority should be consulted about what is going on, should know what the patterns of admission in their neighbouring areas are, 812 and have a chance to plan and make the best use of scarce resources. I believe that this amendment is relatively harmless but will greatly help the smooth working of the arrangements under this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
May I ask the noble Viscount whether this is the unanimous view of the county councils' association?
I doubt whether we are ever unanimous. It was the strongly held opinion of the education committee of that association.
May I ask what the administrative arrangements are financially? Is there to be a transfer of financial responsibility?
That comes in a later clause in the Bill. I do not have the reference with me;but recoupment is dealt with later in the Bill.
My noble friend's amendment is prompted by a concern which I recognise of some members of the local authority associations to ensure that they are fully informed where pupils from their area are being educated in the schools of other authorities. I hope that my noble friend will accept the explanation that we believe that his amendment is unnecessary. Authorities will know what their neighbouring authorities are doing because of the information that neighbouring authorities will be required to publish under Clause 8 of the Bill. It has not been a requirement of authorities before this Bill and therefore it will be published, and each authority will know what its neighbour is doing. There is nothing to prevent local education authorities discussing further, one with another;but 813 we do not believe that it is necessary to put this kind of consultation into statute form.
The answer to my noble friend Lady Faithfull is that part of our provisions to allow parents to express a preference for the school in an area other than the one in which they live, is the automatic recoupment provisions in Clause 33 whereby one authority will automatically pay to another where this child goes and is accepted in the other authority's school.
In the circumstances and subject to whether we ever get to Clause 8, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if the House do now resume. I beg to move.
§ Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed.

References: V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V.

 V.

 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V.

 V. 
 V.

 V.

 V.

 V.

 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V.

 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V.

 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.