There is a good deal of substance, as might be expected in an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton). It has a certain logical basis, but I am not sure that logic is always the essential ingredient of our legislation. There are powerful practical arguments on the other side, and I hope to convince the hon. Member and the House that on the whole the balance of argument is in favour of leaving the Bill as it stands. I will state the arguments briefly. They are four in number. The first is that, by Section 34 of the existing Act of 1921, the local authority, with the approval of the board, has power to redistribute children between voluntary schools of the same denominational character. That is to say, children over 11 in church school "A" can be directed to attend church school "B." There is also a provision in Section 34 that this redistribution can only operate in schools in the area of the same local authority. If this Amendment were accepted, you would get this anomalous position—that you would be able to carry out the major operation of closing the school entirely and sending the children across into the area of another local authority, whereas you could not, under that Section 34, carry out the minor operation of redistributing the children. It may be asked, why not amend Section 34? The answer is, first, that this Bill is confined to Section 19 and designedly confined, because it is the desire of the Government to make as little inroad as possible on the great settlement of 1902.

The second point is that many local authorities naturally dislike what is called the problem of the border-children. They give rise to serious financial complications, and there are disagreements between the local authorities as to the rate at which one should pay for children who live in one's own area but go to school in another area. The third point is that the cases in which a removal of this restriction as suggested by the Amendment is likely to be useful are, I am advised, very few and far between. They are likely to be very rare. So that financially speaking, and educationally speaking, this Amendment is really de minimis.

Fourthly, even if the effect be unimportant, the bodies responsible for the voluntary schools do not view, or would not view, this Amendment with any great pleasure. As the Bill stands now, I am bound to admit that it has been received by the voluntary school bodies with acquiescence rather than with enthusiasm, and it is the Government's policy to do nothing in this Bill which can give rise to the claim that the settlement of 1902 is being upset. Therefore, I suggest to the House that on the whole it is wiser to maintain the limitation as in the Bill, and I beg my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.