HL Deb 09 February 1978 vol 388 cc1173-89

3.23 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Controlled integrated schools.]:

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 6, leave out ("or cultural traditions")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill seeks, as is set out in line 6 and in the Title, to facilitate the establishment of schools attended by pupils of different religious affiliations or cultural traditions. I am moving to delete the words, "or cultural traditions", both here and in the Title. It is certainly the case that there are pupils in Northern Ireland of very different cultural traditions. However, I suppose that in 95 per cent. of cases these are the same as their differing religious affiliations. I believe that the inclusion of these words clouds the issue and is unnecessary and, in any case, emphasises the different cultural traditions between those pupils. Therefore, the words should be deleted. I should be very glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has to say on this matter and to conform to his wishes. I beg to move.

Lord DUNLEATH

My Lords, these words were inserted quite deliberately and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for raising the matter and giving me an opportunity for explaining the reason for them. Cultural traditions are not entirely synonymous with religious affiliation. In particular, one finds that there are many on both sides of the community who feel a sense of deprivation that they in their schooldays and their children who are perhaps at school now have not been enriched by cross-fertilisation with the other culture. One finds Protestants who so aspire to benefit from the native Irish cultural tradition and Roman Catholics who so aspire to benefit from the more British cultural tradition.

In considering the Bill, we did not want to keep this purely as a religious issue; we wanted it on a much wider basis. I would respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, whether he would consider withdrawing the Amendment, because I think it is fairly important to the whole rationale behind the Bill and would go a considerable way to bring forward what both he and. I want—that is, to see integrated education—if it was not merely the religious aspect that was considered but the aspect of cultural traditions as well.

Lord KILBRACKEN

My Lords, I am very glad to accept what the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has said, and in view of that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 14, leave out ("three-quarters") and insert ("two-thirds").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the compromise suggested during the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and agreed to in principle by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath; that is, that it should require only two-thirds rather than three-quarters of the management committee of a controlled school to agree to that controlled school becoming a controlled integrated school. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, expressed some anxiety at that time that it might be said subsequently that some members of the committee had unavoidably been unable to attend and otherwise it would never have become a controlled integrated school. I think those fears are groundless, because if a member of the committee is absent owing to an accident, it in fact counts as a vote against the school becoming a controlled integrated school, as it would require two-thirds of all members of that committee for the decision to be made. Therefore, I hope that he will agree that two-thirds is a safe and better figure to use in this case. I beg to move.

Lord DUNLEATH

My Lords, during the Committee stage I gave an undertaking that I would accept this Amendment and I have pleasure in honouring that undertaking today.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.28 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 5: Page 2, line 5, leave out ("the Department shall request"). line 6, leave out ("to") and insert ("shall") line 8, leave out from ("is") to ("in") in tine 10 and insert ("required under subsections (2) or (3) above to ascertain the views of parents, it shall do so").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 3 as well as Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 which are consequential. I should point out at this stage that there are two misprints in the Bill. In line 8 the reference to subsection (4) should be to subsection (2) and in line 35 or 36 the reference to subsection (7) should be to subsection (6). Those changes should have been made as a result of Amendments that were made during the Committee stage. Under subsection (3), in the case of a voluntary school, the Bill as drafted at present merely states that the Department shall request the Board for the area in which the school is situated to ascertain the view of parents. However, in the case of controlled schools in the preceding subsection, it is required to do so. It seems to me indisputable that the same language should be used in both cases—it should be a requirement rather than a request. That will be effected by Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and it will also have the effect of enabling Amendment No. 5 to simplify greatly the language of subsection (4).

Lord DUNLEATH

My Lords, again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. As long as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is satisfied that these Amendments conform with the principal order, I have no objection.

The MINISTER of STATE: NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett)

My Lords, certainly my advice is that in practice the Amendments are not likely to affect what happens when the Bill becomes law. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken has said, they certainly make the Bill a little neater and tidier. I would see no objection to your Lordships accepting the Amendments, if that is your wish.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 12, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are still on subsection (4) which states that a scheme devised by the Department may make certain very important provisions. Here again, I think it is important that it should be compulsory. The word "may" has to be changed to the word "shall" so that such a scheme has to be prepared by the Department. I beg to move.

Lord DUNLEATH

My Lords, I am quite happy about that. Indeed, I think it is an improvement, provided that there is no objection that I have not thought of.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 32, leave out from ("ascertained") to end of subsection and insert ("would be prepared to send their children to the school if it became a controlled integrated school").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this point during the Committee stage. It was then agreed that it was desirable that the language used in what is now subsection (7) should conform with that which is used in subsection (4), which is slightly different. This Amendment would have that effect.

Lord DUNLEATH

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, had a good point in Committee: that the language ought to be consistent in the two subsections; and I think he has now selected the right form of language for both subsections. I am entirely in accord with him on this.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, may I just add that from the Government's point of view this is certainly the preferable of the two versions which were originally in the Bill. I should certainly strongly support the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Management of controlled integrated schools]:

Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 8: Page 3, line 9, after ("Article 8(2)") insert ("of the principal Order").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting point to make it clear that the article referred to is part of the Education and Libraries Order 1972, being the principal Order. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

In the Schedule [Schedule to be inserted in principal Order—SCHEDULE 4A Membership of School Management Committees of controlled integrated schools]:

3.34 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 9, leave out ("one or more than one") and insert ("a").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving Amendment leading to Amendment No. 11. I wish to refer to both Amendments simultaneously. We now move to the Schedule which is to be inserted in the principal Order. This sets forth the manner in which the school management committees of the new schools will be chosen. It is a matter of some importance. But this is a rather technical point in that at present paragraph 2(a) makes it possible for one or more controlled integrated schools, which in the past have been controlled schools, to continue to have the same management committee in the future. In other words, they will be grouped under the same management committee.

But as the enabling Order stands at present, this is in point of fact not possible because the relevant article—Article 8(1) in the principal Order—talks about how committees will be appointed for the different sorts of controlled schools, which are controlled primary schools, other than nursery schools, controlled intermediate schools, controlled nursery schools, controlled grammar schools and controlled special schools. Under Clause 2(1) of the Bill controlled integrated schools are added to that list.

Article 8(1) of the enabling Order makes it possible for schools to be grouped under one school management committee only in the case of primary schools, intermediate schools and nursery schools. When controlled integrated schools are added to that list the enabling Order, as it is worded (unless it is further amended), will not permit them to be grouped in the way suggested under one school management committee. Therefore, it seems to me that unless the enabling Order is further amended—and I do not believe that it is intended to do so—Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 are necessary.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, would it be in order for me to ask him a question while he is continuing his speech? Could he elaborate a little on exactly why he thinks it would not be possible for controlled integrated schools to be grouped as he has suggested?

The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)

My Lords, perhaps it would be more orderly if I put the Question?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, but my noble friend would not then be able to make another speech.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I should have thought that on Report the mover of the Amendment may be permitted to do so. I shall put the Question. Amendment proposed: In the Schedule, page 4, line 9, leave out ("one or more than one") and insert ("a").

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I hope that the House will give my noble friend a chance to speak twice more if that turns out to be necessary, because I confess that I am a little unclear about the point he is trying to make. He is making this point on Amendments which I suggested to the sponsors of the Bill should be included, and which were not included when the Bill was first introduced in your Lordships' House. The important point which is covered, both by paragraph 2(a) of the Schedule and, indeed, also by Clause 2(1)(a), as my noble friend has pointed out, is that there are some schools in Northern Ireland—particularly primary schools—which are grouped together under a single management committee. I was told by my advisers that as originally drafted the Bill made it impossible for schools that were grouped under a single management committee to become controlled integrated schools under the Bill as it was first introduced; and that it was necessary to include a reference to controlled integrated schools being grouped under management committees for schools of that sort to become integrated under the procedures in the Bill.

I confess that from what my noble friend has said I am still not clear exactly why he feels it is not possible—given the Amendments which are made to the principal Order in Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill, and the principal Order is amended in Clause 2(1)(a)—for grouped schools to become controlled integrated schools, either singly or collectively. My advice certainly is that it is possible and that it is necessary, unless grouped schools are to be excluded altogether from the provisions of the Bill, which I believe would be very undesirable.

3.40 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN

My Lords, if I am in order as the mover of the Amendment, may I reply? I should be glad to try to elucidate the point of my noble friend the Minister of State. To make it as clear as possible, the best thing I can do is to read out paragraph 8(1) of the enabling Order as it will read when it has been amended by Clause 2(1)(a) of the present Bill. It will read as follows: A board shall make provision by means of a committee (in this Order referred to as 'a school management committee') to be appointed by the board for the management of each—

  1. (a) controlled primary school other than a nursery school;
    • (aa) controlled integrated school;
    1180
  2. (b) controlled intermediate school other than a technical intermediate school;
  3. (c) controlled nursery school;
  4. (d) controlled grammar school;
  5. (e) controlled special school;
under its management"— and this is the nub of the matter— and two or more such primary schools other than nursery schools or two or more such intermediate schools or two or more such nursery schools"— and only those, I add— may, if the board so determines and the Ministry approves, be grouped under one school management committee". So, the paragraph allows only the primary schools, the intermediate schools, and the nursery schools, of those listed above, to come under one school management committee. Would the Minister now care to interrupt me?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I should be delighted to interrupt my noble friend. I should imagine that the reference to the three types of school refers back to all the different categories which my noble friend gave, including technical colleges, and the rest of it. It will also now include a reference to controlled integrated schools. Under the Amendment, that will be included in the list.

There is a reference to primary, nursery and intermediate schools. Those refer back to the different categories listed. The different categories listed include controlled integrated schools. The controlled integrated schools can be primary, secondary or intermediate, and I should have thought that my noble friend's point was covered because the list of the types of school—primary, secondary, intermediate—refers back to the various categories, which include controlled integrated schools as provided for in the Bill. To finish this brief interruption, could I give an undertaking to my noble friend to consider the point again with my advisers? If I am incorrect, I shall take steps to have the Bill amended at the next stage.

Lord KILBRACKEN

My Lords, obviously I can do nothing but bow, if not to my noble friend, to his legal advisers who have assured him that my Amendment is unnecessary. Clearly, I am not going to press the matter any further in view of the undertaking that he has given. I am sure that his advisers will look into it very carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.44 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 10: Page 4, line 11, leave out ("not more than").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10, and at the same time to refer to Amendments Nos. 12 and 14, which raise exactly the same point. These Amendments are all connected with the manner in which the committees of these controlled integrated schools will be constituted. As the wording stands at present, we are told that not more than one-third of the members of the committee should be nominated by the parents, more or less; not more than one-sixth shall be appointed in accordance with regulations made by the Department as persons representative of the transferors and superseded manager; and not more than one-sixth shall be appointed, in accordance with regulations made by the Department, as persons representative of nominating trustees.

It is very important indeed that these committees should reflect as far and as accurately as possible—and the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will help to bring this about—the composition of each controlled integrated school. The present wording leaves that composition very indefinite. For instance, if there are 11 members on the management committee, all we are told is that not more than one-third shall be representatives of the parents. This means that, in that case, not more than three would represent the parents, but it could be two or it could be one, and we do not know what the required figure will be in each case.

I therefore propose that, at the start of each of these sub-paragraphs, the numbers concerned should be one-third, one-sixth, and one-sixth rather than not more than one-third, et cetera. I am informed that, if these Amendments were accepted, it would automatically follow that the number of members on a management committee would have to be a number divisible by six, so that one would not have to deal with fractions of a person. If these Amendments are accepted, then we know exactly how many representatives from each of the four different categories will be present on each committee.

Lord SOMERS

My Lords, I see some little difficulty here, taking the number that the noble Lord quoted; that is, 11. If it is to be one-third, presumably it is to be the nearest figure to 11, because one could hardly have two-thirds of a person. Therefore, is it to be three or four?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, if I could help your Lordships, my advice is quite clearly that if the Bill specifies that the management committee must be divisible by six, then it must be appointed in such numbers as are capable of being divided exactly by six, and the problems of one-third or two-thirds, or whatever, of people will not arise.

Lord DUNLEATH

My Lords, from the start it was my intention, if possible, that the numbers on the management committee should be in multiples of six, but I think we were advised at some stage that this might not always be practicable. It was for that reason that the Bill was worded in the way that it was. In view of what noble Lords have said, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, I think that if this is so it would be the ideal solution, and I would entirely accord with it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 12: Page 4, line 21, leave out ("not more than").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suppose that this Amendment is, in a way, consequential on Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 13: Page 4, line 24, leave out ("manager") and insert ("managers").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to such an extent that it is practically a typographical Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 14: Page 4, line 25, leave out ("not more than").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.50 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 15: Line 32, leave out ("so far as practicable").

The noble Lord said: This paragraph of the Schedule states that regulations "shall ensure so far as practicable" that votes cast by the parents shall be by secret ballot and, if the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is accepted, that they shall be by the method of the single transferable vote. I am moving to delete the words "so far as practicable" because I consider it essential that the vote should be secret; and if Lord Beaumont's Amendment is accepted, then that method will be used and there will be no question whether or not it is practicable. In particular, therefore, in order to ensure that the vote is always secret—something which can always be ensured—I wish to delete "so far as practicable".

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I am not sure that I make a very strong point when I put it to the House that it would be possible to have a meeting of parents at which representatives were to be elected where such a small number of parents were present that it would not be practicable to have a secret ballot, and in such a case the duty laid on the meeting under the Schedule would be difficult to fulfil. It is clear from the wording currently in the Bill that there should always be a secret ballot where that is practicable. I would simply worry that, where there were practical difficulties or obstacles which were impossible to overcome—as an extreme case, where only one or two parents turned up to vote in their representatives—there might be some legal difficulty in that those appointed or elected as a result of only a couple of people having come to vote might have their position questioned if there was subsequently a problem with the management committee. Therefore, it might be desirable to leave these words in the provision to cater for that eventuality.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, I quite understand what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is saying, but, when we have agreed, as we now have, that paragraph 2(a) shall provide that one-third, but not more than one-third, of the committee of managers of a controlled integrated school shall be the nominees of parents, I should have thought there was every reason for accepting this Amendment. In other words, let us bring pressure on parents to turn up in sufficient numbers to have a proper vote, and, if they are to have a proper vote, then that vote must be by secret ballot. I therefore support the Amendment.

Lord KILBRACKEN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his support. On the other hand, I am grateful to the Minister for drawing my attention to a case that had not occurred to me, and, in my view of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.54 p.m.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 16: Page 4, line 35, at end insert ("and by the method of the single transferable vote.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is also concerned with the election of representatives of the parents to the school management committee. What we are dealing with is the production as far as possible of the maximum confidence of everyone in embarking on these experiments. I am sure that all noble Lords bear goodwill towards the Bill and we therefore want to give it as fair a wind as possible so that it has a good chance of success.

At the last stage of the Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips—I regret that she is not in her place, but I will continue with what I intended to say because on that occasion I was perhaps not so sympathetic as I should have been to the point she was making—said, and I entirely agree, that if one ever gets to the point where people feel they must cast their votes entirely according to block, the experiment will be in very great danger of failing. However, that is not what we are talking about; we are not talking about what happens when it reaches that stage. We are talking about writing conditions into the Bill so that people embarking on this scheme can see that their own interests and position will, in the result, be looked after and be absolutely fairly protected. It is therefore extremely important that there should be fair representation on the management committee.

I rather sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in relation to the point raised by the last Amendment, and perhaps that point can be considered again before Third Reading because to write in the necessity for a secret ballot without any side qualifications might be of psychological help. Leaving that aside, we must make certain that people feel that minorities will be represented on the management board. I will not go through the difficulties that exist in that respect; at the last stage Lord Kilbracken pointed out, as reported at column 260 in Hansard, how an overwhelming majority of the board of management could be from one community. Indeed, I do not think he went far enough. I feel that one could have a situation where, unless an Amendment such as the one I was moving is accepted, it might be an almost, if not a completely, monochrome board.

I can think of only two ways to safeguard against that. The first is by nominating a certain minimum number from particular communities; but that has serious drawbacks, one being that, wherever possible, one always prefers election to nomination. If people are nominated, one is encapsulating the whole thing; one is nominating the representatives of a group, whereas we want to make things as fluid as possible, though in such a way that all groups can be represented. The second alternative is the one I have put forward; namely, for some form of representational electoral system which makes certain that a certain number of representatives of each community will, in the normal course of events, be able to be elected.

At a previous stage the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said, or I understood him to say, that this would not be so important because in the majority of places where that would happen to begin with, there would not be a question of a very large majority and a very small minority. Lord Kilbracken has actually suggested to me that that is not necessarily so; but I would point out that, whether or not it is so, the situation is the same with a straight ordinary method of election such as would normally be used if we did not make this alteration. A majority of 51 per cent. as against 49 per cent. could still get a whole block of managers without any minority representation at all.

I believe, therefore, that this is the way to overcome the problem. There is only one serious possible objection to which I concede; namely, that it is certainly true that in some places in the United Kingdom this would be an unduly troublesome way of setting about things. But I do not believe that is so in the conditions of Northern Ireland, and I say that for two reasons. First, it is worth taking trouble to make certain that this works and that people have confidence in it. Secondly, owing to the recent history of Northern Ireland, the people there now have considerable experience of voting by the single transferable vote in public elections of various kinds, and I am informed by the Electoral Reform Society that there are so many trained single transferable vote counters in Northern Ireland that they are practically coming out of their ears. No doubt they would like to keep in practice. I do not think there are any of those normal practical objections which one would otherwise expect. I beg to move Amendment No. 16.

Lord KILBRACKEN

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in this Amendment. We have to be a little realistic and to recognise that if this Bill reaches the Statute Book, as I very much hope it will, it is quite unlikely that there will be more than two or three, or at the most half a dozen, of these controlled integrated schools in the near future. As the voluntary schools are so much under the control of the Catholic hierarchy, I think these are almost certain to arise, in probably every case, because the controlled school decides to become a controlled integrated school and succeeds in attracting a number of Catholic pupils from the area. The set-up frequently will be that there will be perhaps 15 per cent., or 20 per cent., or 25 per cent., of Catholic children in a controlled integrated school which had previously been a controlled school.

I think it is important to do our best to ensure that an adequate number of the committee are acceptable to the Catholic parents. We may say that we hope everything will be air and light, that there will be no disputes and that we will be all friends together, but I am afraid we cannot take it for granted, and an Amendment such as the noble Lord proposes, which would tend to ensure, in the kinds of schools I have envisaged, a higher percentage of Catholic representatives or representatives who are elected by or are the choice of Catholic parents, is to be welcomed. I do not think there is much danger of there being many complications in arriving at the result when, instead of having the huge numbers that one would have at a General Election, there is the very small number of parents who have a vote at such an election.

Lord DUNLEATH

My Lords, I am entirely at one with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in his advocacy of the single transferable vote as the most democratic way of conducting elections. In principle I have nothing against that, but I think one must be aware that it is a deviation from normal practice, and it is a question of fine judgment as to whether or not such a deviation from normal practice would be of advantage in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and also the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, suggest; or whether by picking out a very small number of schools from the whole academic field in Northern Ireland and saying that these are different and here the management boards are going to be elected by proportional representation, the advantages are going to be greater than the possible disadvantages of making it so self-consciously different that it might generate some fear or suspicion.

In principle I am in favour of it but, as I say, it is a deviation from normal practice. I also had doubts at one stage whether or not this might transcend the framework of the principal Order; but I have been advised that this would not be the case, so I would certainly not oppose the Amendment. I know that it has been suggested in the spirit of supporting this Bill and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having done so.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, I am not saying that I am opposed to the Amendment, but before we agree to it I think we ought to bear in mind that the provisions of the Bill are that before the ball can be started rolling for a controlled integrated school to be set up the parents shall give their views, and the Department of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett has to take their views into account under Clause 1(5). Therefore one starts from the assumption that the parents want a controlled integrated school. I think it is worth bearing that in mind before reaching the conclusion, definitely and irrevocably, that one must have a proportional representation system.

The only other thing I cannot resist saying is that, if the Government are right that it is dangerous to put into the Bill an absolute requirement that there shall be secret ballots—dangerous because there might be not enough parents present to vote—there may not be a great many votes to transfer. That is for the House to decide.

I have one question which I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I should have found the answer to this myself. I am not absolutely certain, but I think the noble Lord said that as far as he knew the Amendment did not in any way contravene the principal Order. What happens when managers or governing bodies of controlled integrated schools come either to resign or retire? Will they then again be elected to the management committees of these schools by the single transferable vote? I should like to be absolutely clear about that before I agree that the Amendment is right.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, it might be helpful if I did my best to answer the noble Lord's question. My understanding is that the management committees would fall, in the same way as management committees of other schools in Northern Ireland do, generally in line with the term of office of the education and library boards. If the Bill makes a specific provision about the way in which the management committee of a controlled integrated school should be appointed and the people who should be appointed to it, as it does in the Bill as it stands, that is the process which will be followed each time a management committee is reconstituted.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

My Lords, I am grateful to the House for the way it has received this Amendment. There are two points which I ought to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, asked if we were right to make this a rather self-consciously different process. I entirely see his point but these are going to be different schools; we all know that. In a way, the eyes of the community are going to be on them, and a very good thing too. They are going to be an experiment, and I think for this kind of experiment one is justified in making new and specific arrangements.

The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about the casual vacancies was answered by the Minister. I think the point which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead made, that of course the parents will already have been consulted, is a valid one; but we are dealing in what we now have to call an ongoing situation, and the time will come when it is will not be those parents, but other parents, and if there is to be confidence, which is the keynote of this Amendment, that everything is to be done fairly, it would be a good thing to have this in. I thank noble Lords for their support.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 17: Line 2, after ("schools") insert ("likely").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is simply to bring the language of the Title into line with the language of Clause 1. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]