The hon. Lady says "Hear, hear", but I think she will not be so sure when I have recounted the incidents which have occurred in my Constituency. Her comment shows that she has no knowledge whatever of the happenings in the area.

In September the divisional executive had to undertake its responsibility of appointing governors to the schools within the area. Naturally, one accepts that in the reappointment of governors there will always be a certain number who are anxious to retire. One equally accepts that it is desirable that there should be constantly into the boards of governors an infusion of new blood, young people, anxious to take their part in the conduct of schools. One also appreciates that on occasions some governors are found to be inadequate to their duties or even guilty of dereliction and that it is generally felt that they should not be reappointed. One also accepts that membership of boards of governors should be kept in broad alignment with the ebb and flow of local opinion.

It is right that there should be a broad alignment, by gradual change in alignment, with changes in local opinion as reflected at local elections, but this is very far removed from what took place, which was a massive dismissal of school governors in Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Essendon, Cuffley, Brookmans Park and in the whole area covered by the executive. It is the kind of conduct which, thankfully, we have not seen before in Hertfordshire. In the nine years I have represented the area this kind of conduct has never taken place and, from all the inquiries I have made, no one can recollect any similar incident.

What is particularly important is that the emphasis is precisely the emphasis of the changes for those areas where there is very little Labour support. Hon. Members may say, "This always happens in the appointment of governors of schools. Party politics always enter into it". I do not agree. This does not happen in Hertfordshire and we are proud of the education which is provided in the area.

It is worth pointing out that these massive dismissals could have been halted had we been prepared to use the influence of the political machine because these are no more than recommendations by the divisional executive, which go to the county council. If we, the Conservative Party, which has a Majority control over the county council, had wished, contrary to what has been the practice for years in the past, to use our party political machine, we could have halted the action which was taken.

The Press referred, quite rightly, to about 39 school governors being dismissed. If I take the most generous interpretation of the action of the Mid-Herts. Divisional Executive, it would appear that 32 school governors were anxious to continue holding this office, but were dismissed. This figure does not in any way include the numbers dismissed on the recommendation of the county council, nor does it in any way include the numbers dismissed on the recommendation of the local authorities. These 32 people were dismissed on the recommendation of the divisional executive, and they are persons against whom no single voice of criticism had been raised, nor has any complaint whatsoever been levied against them. Overwhelmingly, they are persons who are held in the highest respect locally.

Some of these persons are of an entirely non-political type; by the very office they hold they are non-political. There is a clergyman, there is a sergeant in the police force, there is the treasurer of the Hatfield Rural District Council. They are just the kind of person—not attached deeply to party politics—who, I believe, can bring a useful influence to bear in our schools.

Some of the people who were dismissed have dedicated much of their spare time to serving the schools over and above the ordinary call of duty as governor. One of them, for instance, I know had spent an enormous amount of his spare time digging the swimming pool for the school. He was replaced by someone who had had no connection whatever with the school. Some of these persons who were dismissed had served with considerable distinction helping the schools for a number of years.

Others had been appointed so recently that the school to which they had been appointed had not even been opened; they had only been able to attend one governors' meeting or, in some cases, two. One of them wrote to the local Press, and I quote from his letter in the Welwyn Times and Hatfield Herald:I was selected as governor of the new Monks Walk Secondary Modern School as recently as March of this year. There has been only one meeting of the governors since my appointment. It is difficult to understand the reason why, if I was a suitable person to be selected as a governor in March I am not suitable in September of the same year. My complaint is that absolutely no explanation on at all has been given as to why he or anyone else has been dismissed from the boards of governors of these schools—and, as I say, they have often been replaced by persons who had no interest in the welfare of the school in the past.

I quote from another letter which appeared in the Herts Advertiser and St. Albans Times on 16th October. It is from someone living in Brookmans Park, who writes: My object in writing originally was to expose the utter nonsense of this sordid business, instancing the replacement of a local manager who, if interest in the welfare of the school were any qualification, stood head and shoulders above everyone else, by a local individual who till then was completely unknown and had taken no interest in the school's welfare. I believe that the writer of that letter has gone to the heart of the matter; the criterion for the appointment of a school governor should be, to use his words, the "welfare of the school." I believe that it is the appointment of governors of that kind, who are interested in the welfare of the school, and not the appointment of delegates of party politics, that parents really want.

I have received very many representations from parents. They seem to me to be very reasonable. The dismay felt locally is so widespread that I felt it right to request a public meeting with the executive council at which I and the parents could have an explanation given to us why there has been this massive dismissal of governors. I regard a public explanation given to me, the elected representative, and to parents as the absolute minimum courtesy to which the parents are entitled, and I also regard it as the absolute minimum of ethical behaviour which one can expect from a divisional executive charged with the responsibility for education. So far, in spite of repeated requests over a considerable period of time, no reasonable explanation has been given to the parents or to me.

The chairman of the executive council, writing in his capacity as chairman, has written—I quote from the Herts Advertiser of 25th September: More detailed consideration was given to these appointments this year than we have given for some time, but I can assure you and your readers that no governor or manager was replaced because of his membership of any political party or none. If that is the case, it makes the action of the executive even more bewildering. In fact, it makes it totally incomprehensible. I must tell the House—I am always very careful not to use intemperate phrases—that I have not met a single person who accepts this assurance—not a single person of any political party—which has been given by the man who is charged with the responsibility for the education of our children in that area.

How else can one possibly explain the reasons why these school governors were dismissed? How can one possibly explain why in, for instance, Chancellor's School, Brookmans Park, when three posts had to be filled and three governors were anxious to accept the responsibility, every single one of them was dismissed? How else, apart from political motivation, can one possibly explain why in Bushwood Infants School, Welwyn Green, when there were four posts to be filled and four governors were anxious to be reappointed, every single one was dismissed? How else can one explain, apart from political motivation, how in Cuftley Primary School, where there were four posts to be filled, three of the governors who were anxious to continue in office were dismissed? These are not areas where the Labour Party can reasonably expect to be in control. If there is another explanation, it has never been given publicly, and I believe that the parents of the area are entitled to a public explanation.

What I am asking the Minister to do is to make inquiries about the reasons for this continued secrecy by the divisional executive. It is a matter which affects the education of children in the area. It is a matter which is causing widespread concern.

I wrote to the divisional executive, and I propose to quote my letter in full. It was the last act which I undertook as Member of Parliament before the General Election. I wrote: I have received many representations from parents expressing dismay at the action of the Mid-Herts Divisional Executive in dismissing 39 school governors. As the Member of Parliament for the area, I feel bound to ask for a public explanation. This massive dismissal affects directly the education of children. I feel strongly that their parents are entitled to an explanation. So far, no reasons have been given publicly for this unprecedented step in HertfordshireWe have a wonderful record in education in Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield and I am concerned about the public impression now being created by this strange method of procedure. Many of the people are well known for having devoted much of their time to the local schools. Many are very experienced. They are widely respected by parents and teachers. Others have been appointed so recently that they have not yet had a chance of even attending one single governors' meeting.Public concern amongst parents appears so widespread that I now request a meeting in the immediate future with the Mid-Hertfordshire Divisional Executive. At this meeting I will require an explanation to be given publicly to me as to why these persons have been dismissed. Further correspondence follows. The divisional executive was not prepared to see me and I gave it fair warning that, if it was not prepared to give a public explanation to me and to parents, the very first act I would take on being reelected Member of Parliament for the Division would be to raise its conduct personally with the Secretary of State. On 15th October I received a letter from the executive which read Your request was considered by the Emergency Committee of the Divisional Executive and they asked me to say that all the appointments"— I ask the hon. Gentleman to take note of this— were made in public. The meetings of the Divisional Executive are public meetings and the decisions are taken by majority vote. The constitution of a divisional executive provides for meetings to be called by members of the Divisional Executive and there is no provision for visitors to speak or to be heard. I would hardly say that the elected Member of Parliament wishes to be described by the divisional executive as a "visitor". The letter went on: They may, of course, he present as ordinary members of the public. The Executive is, therefore, unable to accede to your request The executive is, therefore, refusing to give a public explanation to me and to parents as to why it has undertaken these dismissals. In its letter it says that this event took place at a public meeting. It is true that it was a public meeting but, in fact, one member of the public attended it. He happens to be a former chairman of the Hatfield Rural District Council. As the executive claims that this was a public meeting, it is worth reading what he, the one person to attend, wrote in a letter to the newspapers. He said: Perhaps it is just as well that I was the only member of the public present—though, to be fair, I do not know how they could ascertain the date and the venue of a meeting—for a larger audience might well have wondered if they were really in the presence of the body controlling educational matters in this area. I regret very much the forcing into the schools of central Hertfordshire of party politics and I believe that it is very widely resented indeed by parents in the area. The governors of these schools should not be delegates of the Labour Party or of the Conservative Party. They should be appointed solely to enhance the welfare of the schools.

I personally—and many others—know very well why this action has been taken. It has, of course, been taken because the extreme Left-wing of the Labour Party is anxious to force through comprehensive schools and abolish the grammar schools. I quite accept—and I am not arguing this at the moment—that there may be or may not be a good argument for comprehensive schools in various parts of the country. What I say is that the arguments for comprehensive schools should be argued publicly before parents. Let them be argued on their merits. The forcing through of comprehensive school education should not be achieved by appointing Labour Party delegates, "yes-men", to the boards of governors.