HL Deb 19 January 1978 vol 388 cc241-63

5.4 p.m.

Lord DUNLEATH

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Dunleath.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Controlled integrated schools]:

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

I am advised that there are two corrections which should be made. Amendments Nos. 22 and 24 on the Marshalled List which are tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, should be in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath.

Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 5, leave out subsectior (1) and insert— (1) In order to facilitate the establishment of schools likely to be attended by pupils of different religious affiliations or cultural traditions, a school may, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, become a school (in this Act referred to as "a controlled integrated school") the management committee of which is nominated in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4A to the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (which Order as amended is in this Act referred to as "the principal Order").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I beg leave to make reference also to Amendments Nos. 2, 10 and 11; to a certain extent they are all consequential. The position is that during the Second Reading of this Bill on 24th November last my noble friend Lord Melchett expressed some grave reservations about Clause 1(1), (2) and (3). On that occasion he was good enough not to press me too hard to withdraw and I undertook to give the matter further consideration. In the intervening period he and his officials have been most helpful in furnishing me with additional information and, as a result, I am prepared to move the first Amendment which substitutes the paragraph as printed in the Marshalled List. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.

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

I should just like to make it known that I would never presume to persuade my noble friend to withdraw the Bill or to do any such thing, but I am grateful to him for moving this Amendment and indeed Amendment No. 2, to which he has also referred. As he has said, they meet the main problems which I saw in the practical application of the Bill when we discussed it on Second Reading.

Viscount LONG

I am sure we are all very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and the Government are in complete harmony. I should like to say from these Benches that we too are in harmony with them. Doubtless it is a New Year spirit, and long may it continue. The Amendment does exactly what I think we all wanted, leaving the rest of the clause in a rather well written democratic state. We have no criticism of this so long as it stays democratic.

Lord HAMPTON

I should like to join in the spirit of goodwill and to say that neither have we on these Benches any opposition to express to this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DUN LEATH moved Amendment No. 2. Page 1, line 15, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.9 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 1, leave out ("not less than three-quarters") and insert ("a majority")

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I think it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 7, which deals with a similar matter in the following subsection of the Bill.

Lord MELCHETT

I do not want to delay the Committee on procedure but I wonder whether it would be possible to take Amendment No. 7 separately? I understand that this Amendment deals with the position of the transferors, whereas Amendment No. 7, and indeed the two Amendments tabled in my name on the Marshalled List, deal with the position of trustees. As a slightly different existing law applies, I think it might be more convenient to take them separately.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

In any event I must call the Amendments separately.

Lord KILBRACKEN

I was merely trying to save a little time, but I am quite ready to do as my noble friend wishes. Amendment No. 3 refers to what is still subsection (4) of Clause I and it deals with the circumstances under which a controlled school can become a controlled integrated school. Here it is required that "not less than three-quarters" of the management committee should be in favour of such a change taking place. I am proposing that such a change should take place if it is desired by a plain majority of the management committee. My intention in doing so is that I want to see as many integrated schools as possible in the Province, and decisions of this kind are, after all, normally made by a majority. If I were to press this to a Division—which I have no intention of doing—it would be decided by a majority, as are all Parliamentary decisions. Therefore, I should like to put it to my noble friend Lord Dunleath that by making it a plain majority it would be more possible to have a substantial number of controlled integrated schools at an early date. I beg to move.

Lord DUNLEATH

I know that my noble friend Lord Kilbracken has proposed this Amendment for the simple reason that he is trying to be helpful; he supports this Bill and he is trying to make the implementation of it easier, if it in fact goes on to the Statute Book. I should say that I deliberately put in the three-quarters majority so that there could be no question of anyone suggesting that it was not a true majority. Nobody could say "If only so-and-so had not been off sick", or "If only so-and-so's car had not broken down, it would not have gone through". This was to make it absolutely cast iron and watertight. It was for that reason that my associates and I put in the three-quarters majority, so that there could be no argument about it whatsoever. I think that if this goes through it will stifle a lot of those people.

It may surprise your Lordships to know that there are people who are waiting for an opportunity to say that this is not democratic, waiting to find anything which can be misinterpreted as containing some element of imposition or compulsion, whereas, in your Lordships' House, I have on every occasion made it clear that this is purely an enabling Bill and will do nothing unless it is the will of the people that integration should take place. That is why we put in the three-quarters majority, and I myself would be happy for it to stay that way.

Lord MONSON

I do not often find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, but I must say it does seem to me that his Amendment is extremely reasonable. If it were accepted, it would not in itself change anything at all. It would merely require the parents to be consulted. Under subsection (8) a three-quarters majority of the parents would have to agree before anything could be done, and I think it is right that it should be so. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be simply to require the parents to be consulted if a bare majority of the management committee agreed. Perhaps the right compromise solution to meet the potential objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, would be to change the three-quarters to two-thirds. Perhaps this could be inserted at the next stage.

Lord MELCHETT

It does seem to me that there is an even balance between the two proposals. I do not think it is a matter of great principle. If the Committee wanted my advice—and I certainly would not come down firmly one way or the other—it would be to agree with my noble friend Lord Dunleath. The prospect of the Bill's passage through Parliament would be improved if the safeguard existing in the Bill for the position of the transferors was maintained and the majority of three-quarters left; in other words, hopefully, my noble friend might be persuaded to withdraw his Amendment.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

It seems to me that the suggestion that has been made that there should be some form of compromise is a very sensible one. After all, a two-thirds majority is a two-to-one vote and that is a very considerable safeguard indeed. I should have thought that would meet all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I think that a three-to-one, 75 per cent., majority is really taking safeguards to an extreme. We all want there to be as many of these schools as possible, and we also want there to be sensible safeguards. I would suggest that possibly the best course of action, if the Amendment were to be withdrawn, would be for the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, to consider accepting an Amendment to two-thirds at a later stage.

Lord DUNLEATH

Certainly, I would accept that.

Lord KILBRACKEN

I am very grateful for the support I have received on this Amendment. In view of what has been said by all noble Lords, I think perhaps the best solution is that at Report stage I should put down an Amendment in similar terms requiring a two-thirds majority. With that idea in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 2, after ("2(a)") insert ("or 3(a)")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This in principle is to include secondary intermediate schools. I must apologise to your Lordships that it was an omission on my part that this was not written into the original Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is to make good that omission, so that there can be controlled secondary inter mediate schools as well as controlled primary schools.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 5, leave out ("board") and insert ("education and libraries board (in this Act referred to as "the board")")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. This is purely a drafting point in the interests of accuracy and clearer definition.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 6, after second ("school") insert ("or that, where two or mre schools are grouped under such a management committee, one or more of those schools should become a controlled integrated school or controlled integrated schools,".

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. Here again there was an omission on my part in drafting the original Bill. This Amendment is to include schools which may happen to be grouped under the same management committee, so that one or more of those schools can be included in the provisions of the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.18 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 8, after ("where") insert ("majority of").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. In subsection (5) we move from controlled schools to voluntary schools, and here it is provided that in the case of a voluntary school "the trustees" must wish for it to be transferred to the Department and request that it should become a controlled integrated school. In the normal use of language, I would take that as meaning that all the trustees must be in favour of such a transfer, but it is not perfectly clear whether that is the intention. I was, therefore, proposing that the words "a majority of" should be inserted so that it would only be necessary for a majority of the trustees to wish for such a transfer. In view of the decision we reached just now, that in the case of a controlled school possibly a two-thirds majority would be the most suitable figure, I feel that it would be better to have the same requirement in this subsection. Therefore, if the Committee pleases, I shall withdraw this Amendment and at a later stage move insertion of the words, Where two-thirds of the trustees of a voluntary school …". I am looking forward to hearing what my noble friend may say on that matter.

Lord MELCHETT

I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I said a few words about Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 which stand in my name on the Marshalled List, because they strike at exactly the point which my noble friend Lord Kilbracken has hit upon. Certainly, whatever is the case on the transferors' side, the Bill did not specify any majority in the case of trustees where a voluntary school is being converted to a controlled integrated school. That was a clear omission from the Bill.

I suggested that we might take the two matters separately because in the case of a voluntary school becoming a controlled school there is already statutory provision in the Education and Libraries Order for the procedure which should be followed and for the majority of trustees which is needed for that process to take place. When I saw the Amendment of my noble friend and recognised, as I have said, that he had hit upon an omission in the Bill, it seemed to me that the sensible thing to do would be to attract the existing provisions for the conversion of a voluntary school to a controlled school, so that they applied equally to the conversion of a voluntary school to a controlled integrated school. This seems to me to go along, more or less, with what your Lordships have informally decided about the position of transferors, in that a two-thirds majority would be needed.

That is already the position under the Education and Libraries Order and that would be the effect of my Amendments Nos. 9 and 18, with the exception that the Education and Libraries Order says that where there is a clear practice laid down for the trustees in the trust deed, or where there is a practice which is by convention and long practice followed by the trustees, then that should apply. In other words, if the trust deed says that the trustees need a majority, a simple majority or some other majority, then that is required, but if the practice and convention of that body of trustees is something else, then that is what would be followed. Otherwise it would be a two-thirds majority. That is the effect of my two Amendments and I suggest that that is probably the most desirable course to follow in this case. Moreover, it would be very much in line with what has already been suggested for transferors.

Lord KILBRACKEN

In view of what my noble friend has said I certainly do not intend to press my Amendment any further, because, as I understand it, what I had not realised is that the Amend-merits that he has put down, to a great extent, have the effect of the Amendment that I was proposing to put down at the Report stage. I hope that my noble friend Lord Melchett and the Government will always bear in mind that the great opposition to the Bill—and one has to say this—will come from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church more than anyone else, and it is the schools attended by Catholics that we are now talking about. If it will, under any circumstance, require unanimity among the trustees in a voluntary school, I think that there is very, very little hope of its ever being obtained. I hope that wherever possible the change can be or will be made with a two-thirds majority. However, in view of what my noble friend the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 9, after ("Department") insert ("of Education for Northern Ireland (in this Act referred to as "the Department").")

The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment in the interests of definition. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 9, after ("Department") insert ("under Article 14 of the principal Order")

The noble Lord said: As I said when speaking to Amendment No. 7, this Amendment would have the effect of providing, in all cases where the trust deed did not already lay some legal obligation on the trustees to follow a particular practice or where the trustees did not, through long practice and custom, follow a particular practice, the need for a two-thirds majority. In view of the fact that we are talking about a very similar process—the conversion of a voluntary school to either a controlled school or a controlled integrated school—it would make sense for the existing statutory procedure to be attracted to the transfer in this Bill. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment and Amendment No. 18 which is consequential to it. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.25 p.m.

Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 10: Page 2, line 13, leave out ("(2) or").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment: No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 11: Page 2, line 15, leave out ("(3) or").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent)

Amendment No. 12. I must point out that if Amendment No. 12 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 13 or 14.

Lord DUNLEATH moved Amendment No. 12: Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("question") to ("shall") in line 21.

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 12 I should recall to your Lordships' minds that the other area of concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Melchett during the Second Reading of the Bill was this particular passage of the Bill, because he and Her Majesty's Government felt that it would be impossible to define or quantify what was "a reasonable distance of that school" or what would be the catchment area of the parents who would have to be consulted. Again, I am very grateful to my noble friend and to his officials for the information and advice that they have given me in the intervening period. Therefore I am prepared to propose Amendment No. 12 which deletes the passage in question. As has been stated, Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 will be irrelevant if Amendment No. 12 is agreed to, as indeed will Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. I beg to move Amendment No. 12.

Lord KILBRACKEN

I put down Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 16 and 17 before knowing that my noble friend Lord Dunleath was planning to delete this passage. Those Amendments constituted my attempt at making the subsection more easy to administer. I felt a certain apprehension when I saw that my noble friend had gone so far as to delete the passage altogether because, of course, it means that if in any area there is a question of, let us say, a Protestant school becoming an integrated school, the views of the Catholic parents will not be taken and vice versa. However, having thought it over, I think that he is absolutely right and that is how it should be—it should be merely the parents of the school in question who should be consulted. Being, therefore, completely in favour of the change that my noble friend is proposing not only will Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 fall, but I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 15: Page 2, line 24, at end insert— ("( ) If the Department cannot approve a scheme prepared by a board, the parents' views shall be ascertained in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Department.").

The noble Lord said: This is a proposal to add a new subsection at the end of subsection (6). Under subsection (6), the appropriate board is required to ascertain the views of parents of children at the school in accordance with a scheme prepared by the board and approved by the Department. However, no provision is made for circumstances in which the Department is unable to approve a scheme prepared by the board. I foresee the possibility that a board, which does not want or which is not in favour of integration and wants to hold up integration in some way or other, may make proposals of a sort which it knows the Department cannot approve. I therefore propose the addition of this paragraph, which simply states that: If the Department cannot approve a scheme prepared by a board, the parents' views shall be ascertained in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Department". I beg to move.

Lord MELCHETT

Once again, my noble friend has hit on an omission in the Bill. There is a similar provision in the main Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order. Clearly, it is needed in this case so that there is no prospect of a stalemate. Although I should certainly not expect there to be this sort of dispute between the Department and an area board, it clearly makes sense to have some provision for settling any such dispute in the Bill. I urge the House to accept this Amendment.

Lord KILBRACKEN

I am most grateful for what the Minister has said.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]

5.32 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 18: Page 2, line 37, at end insert— (" ( ) In Article 14 of the principal Order, in its application to a school which the Department determines under subsection (7) above shall become a controlled integrated school, for the words "controlled school" there shall be substituted the words "controlled integrated school".")

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this Amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord KILBRACKEN

I should like to raise a point which occurred to me too late to table an Amendment. I should like to draw the Committee's attention to it and perhaps table an Amendment for a later stage. Under subsection (6) parents are required to state whether they would be prepared to send their children to the school if it became a controlled integrated school; whereas under subsection (8) their views as to whether or not they are opposed to the school becoming a controlled integrated school must have been ascertained. These two things are said as though they are the same thing, which I suggest they are not.

We must consider the kind of case that would arise, where a school becomes an integrated school because more than three-quarters of the parents wanted it to. It is perfectly possible that a parent would be prepared to continue to send his child to that school because it is the only school in the area. But at the same time he might be one of those who were opposed to it becoming a controlled integrated school. My feeling is that the language used should be the same in both cases.

I have given neither of the noble Lords most interested in this Bill notice of this point. I feel it would be better if the same language were used on both occasions by changing the sentence in subsection (6) so that it reads: to state whether they are opposed to the school becoming a controlled integrated school"— the same language as in subsection (8). I do not know whether I could have any reaction on that. Perhaps I should not have raised it at this stage. It might be a matter for the Report stage.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

I should like to raise, briefly, another matter, although I suspect not very constructively, because I do not think that there is any way of effecting that which I should like to see. In this clause we are discussing the whole question of who should be consulted. We have agreed to the Amendment which omits the consultation of "parents of children of the appropriate age" in the locality. The appropriate age is quite clear there because the children were enrolled in other grant-aided schools; it is quite clear that they were children of that age. It is a pity that we have been unable to find some way of inserting a means of consulting the parents of children who are not yet of school age. It may be impossible to do so, but if it were possible—and perhaps the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, the Minister and other noble Lords would like to think about this between now and the next stage—it might be very helpful.

In a survey which I commissioned about seven or eight years ago, I found, as one might expect, a marked difference between the opinions of parents whose children were at school and those of parents whose children were not yet at school about the comprehensive system, with a considerably greater majority in favour of the comprehensive system among those whose children had not yet taken the 11-plus and had not yet passed into the secondary system. I think that we might find something of the same if we consulted parents of children of a very young age in Northern Ireland; we might find a greater willingness to integrate, a greater willingness to spare their children some of the problems of division which arise under the present system, among the parents of younger children. I do not have much hope that there is any practical way of doing this, but I thought it right to draw this point to the Committee's attention.

Lord MELCHETT

Perhaps I could comment briefly on that. It strikes me that my noble friend Lord Kilbracken has hit on a good point about the need for similar wording in subsections (6) and (8) now that lines 18 to 21 of subsection (6) have been deleted. I am sure that this is something to which we could return at the next stage.

I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I am afraid that I should still be raising the objection which I felt the need to raise on Second Reading—namely, that it does not really matter what age group we want to consult—whether it is pre-school or the same age group as the children at the school. That is not the problem. The difficulty arises in deciding in which area we consult them. That is the Difficulty and the stumbling block which we come up against every time, both in the circumstances of this Bill and, as I think I mentioned on Second Reading, in similar circumstances where, for example, we ask parents to appoint members to a management committee. We are always driven back on the need simply to limit it to the parents of children actually at the school.

Lord DUNLEATH

I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who hate made constructive and obviously well thought out suggestions so far during the Committee stage. I should like to assure the Committee that I shall certainly give very careful consideration to the points that have been made.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

5.39 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 19: After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:

Separate classes for children of different religious denomination

(" . In a controlled integrated school, if a majority of the parents of either denomination should so desire, there shall be separate classes for Protestant and Catholic children, conducted by teachers of their own religious affiliation, in any period devoted to religious education.—")

The noble Lord said: I have tabled this Amendment because I think it is important that the Committee should consider this question of the teaching of religious education, which is sometimes referred to in the Education Act as religious instruction or religious knowledge. I am not talking about divine worship; I am talking about periods devoted every week to religious education. There is nothing in the Bill about it. It may be the feeling of the Committee that there should not be. However, I think that it is an important matter to be considered. If there was something in the Bill about it, it would again remove, or tend to remove, some of the fears of the Catholic hierarchy who, I mention again, I see as the main enemies of the Bill.

My proposal is that in a controlled integrated school there should be separate classes for Protestant and Catholic children conducted by teachers of their own religious affiliation in any period that is devoted to religious education, if it is desired by a majority of parents of either denomination. I do not mean by that that all such periods should be segregated but as many as the parent may think desirable.

The Committee may be interested to learn, if it does not know already, what has been done in England in this matter at the one school where there has been a coalition of Catholic and Protestant pupils; that is to say, at St. Bede's School at Redhill in Surrey. Here two schools got together and made an integrated school, and the arrangement is that there is no watering down of denominational beliefs. Each tradition brings its own richness to the common study of the Christian faith in mutual respect". I am quoting from the Catholic Herald of last November. But, during two of the three weekly RE periods, pupils together follow a joint syllabus but separate into their denominational groups for the third. It is something of that sort that I think may be desirable.

I also have here the constitution of All Children Together, the organisation in Northern Ireland which has done a great deal in the sponsoring and organisation and working with my noble friend Lord Dunleath on this Bill. Article 2 of their constitution particularly says that the organisation seeks change in the education system of Northern Ireland and looks for an education in shared schools acceptable to all religious denominations and cultures in which the Churches will provide religious education and pastoral care. It is heavily underlined as being a very important point that the Churches (in the plural) will provide religious education and pastoral care.

Of course I personally would far prefer it that the period devoted to religious education, like the others, should be integrated. But, at the same time, I think that, if a majority of the parents particularly of the denomination that happens to be in a minority in that school should desire it otherwise, then one or more of the periods devoted to religious education should not be integrated. That is what the addition of this new clause would bring about. I beg to move.

5.44 p.m.

Lord DUNLEATH

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for having raised this point. We thought about this quite a bit but, in the event, decided not to put in a clause of the sort he has drafted because it seems to be pretty fully covered in Article 16(7) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, where it states that Ministers of religion and other suitable persons, including teachers of the school, have access to schools to give what religious education may be required. We reckon that this would again be largely a matter of parental choice. If there was a group of Catholic parents who wanted a Catholic priest to come in and give religious education to those children, they would be empowered to arrange that, and indeed welcome to do so. But, like the noble Lord, I should like to think that, as I believe is the case at Redhill, there was a general assembly of children of all denominations, and that secondary to that there was denominational religious education where this was required. But the main reason we did not include this was because we reckoned that the order covered it already.

Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH

Although I appreciate my noble friend's motive in introducing this Amendment I have grave doubts about it, and particularly with regard to its wording. It suggests separate classes for Protestant and Catholic children, and that there are only two religious bodies to which schoolchildren belong. Of course in England that is wholly untrue, and in years to come it is likely to become equally untrue in Northern Ireland. Therefore if we accepted this Amendment, I think the wording would have to be altered.

It seems to me that undenominational religious instruction education certainly works very well in this country, and pupils have the right, through their parents, to withdraw if they wish to do so. Very few do. In those classes the children learn to co-operate and to understand not only religious matters but others too. If children were withdrawn to attend denominational classes in Northern Ireland today, I think that that would be likely to remind them, if they were old enough, of the many problems that country has had relating to both religion and politics. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be better to maintain the non-denominational classes as they are today.

The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK

May I ask a question on a point of information? In Northern Ireland are there schools in which there is no stated religious education, or are most of the schools church schools of some sort? Reference has been made to the school at Redhill. That happens to be in my diocese, and I was largely responsible. In fact, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Southwark and I were responsible for it, and we opened it together. I know all about the syllabus, and so on. But people go to that school from that area because they want to be taught either in the Anglican faith or the Roman Catholic faith, and also to learn something of one another in an ecumenical way. If people wanted no distinctive Christian faith then they would not go to that school: they would go to a school where no denominational teaching was given. The question I am really asking is whether in Northern Ireland it is the same as in this country; you can go to a denominational school, be it Anglican or Roman Catholic, or you may go to a school where there is no distinctive denominational teaching.

Lord KILBRACKEN

I am not sure that I am qualified to answer the right reverend Prelate's question, and indeed I do not know why I am trying. When we consider that somewhere around 99 per cent. of schoolchildren of both denominations are at present going to segregated schools, and when we consider the importance that religion plays as a political shibboleth in the Six Counties, I think that it is very hard to imagine that there are many schools there which are not very specifically of one denomination or the other.

I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. I feel that the general wish of the Committee is that this Amendment should be withdrawn, and that there are already safeguards, to which my noble friend Lord Dunleath has drawn attention. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 [Management of controlled integrated schools]:

5.50 p.m.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

I understand that Amendments Nos. 20 to 24 are all of a drafting nature. If that is so, and if the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, wishes to move them en bloc then, if the Committee agrees, I shall put them en bloc.

Lord DUNLEATH

In my opinion these Amendments all deal with drafting points. However, I must put myself at the service of noble Lords should any Member wish to ask me questions about them. If it is the wish of the Committee, I shall be happy to move them en bloc. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 2, line 45, leave out from ("Order") to end of line 1 on page 3. Page 3, line 5, after ("schools") insert ("where they first occur"). Page 3, line 18, leave out ("after the definition of "controlled school"") and insert ("at the end of the definition of "controlled school" there shall be inserted the words "other than a controlled integrated school" and after that definition"). In Clause 3, In Clause 3, leave out from beginning of line 28 to ("school") in line 31 and insert ("principal Order shall apply to that"). In Clause 3, line 33, leave out subsection (2). —(Lord Dunleath.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Supplementary provisions]:

On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

Viscount LONG

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the Committee, if I am delaying matters, but I noticed that when Lord Melchett spoke on Second Reading he said that he was somewhat unhappy about this part of the Bill. Am I right in thinking that he is now happy about this provision?

Lord MELCHETT

I am at a loss to remember at this time, particularly without being directed to the exact comment made on Second Reading, exactly what worries I had about this clause. Now that the noble Viscount has reminded me of the point, perhaps I might consider the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill, and if there were some residual worries which have not been met by the Amendments made today I could, if necessary, table an Amendment then.

Viscount LONG

I apologise for catching out the noble Lord. We on these Benches were nearly caught out and we simply wanted to put on record the fact that he expressed some slight unhappiness about the provision, but we look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say at a later stage of the Bill.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Schedule [Membership of School Management Committees of controlled integrated schools]:

On Question, Whether this shall be the Schedule to the Bill?

Lord KILBRACKEN

I apologise for detaining the Committee for a few moments longer, but this is a rather important Schedule which contains a matter of some concern to me. My concern is about paragraph 2, which deals with the formation of the school management committee of a controlled integrated school. It seems to me most likely that the controlled integrated school will have started life as a controlled school, which decided to become a controlled integrated school and which then attracted a certain number of pupils from voluntary schools. It is, therefore, basically a Protestant school which attracts a relatively small number of Catholic pupils. These would be pupils who were previously attending a voluntary school in much the same area. I do not think we can hope for more than three or four, or at the most half a dozen, of these schools in the Province in the near future. They might have, say, 80 or 100 Protestant children of a certain age and, say, 20 or 30 Catholic children of the same age.

I feel some concern as to the likely composition of the management committee which will have to run such a school. Under paragraph (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d) it is laid down how the members of this committee will be apportioned. Noble Lords will see, in paragraph (a) that— not more than one-third of the members of the committee shall be persons nominated at a meeting … held in accordance with regulations made by the Department, by the parents of the pupils attending the school or schools … and the parents of the children attending the school or schools at the time they become integrated schools, in the case of a controlled school, will be Protestant and they are most likely to vote for Protestant members of the committee. Similarly, under paragraph (b)— not more than one-sixth of the members of the committee shall be appointed in accordance with regulations made by the Department as persons representative of the transferors and superseded manager of controlled schools in the area". Therefore, any appointed under that provision will also be Protestant. Similarly, under paragraph (d)— the remainder of the members of the committee shall be persons nominated by the Board for the area in which the school is situated". In a predominantly Protestant area, as in County Down or Antrim, it is likely that the majority of the board will be Protestant. Thus, the only members who are more or less guaranteed to be Catholics are the not more than one-sixth of the members of the committee who are appointed under paragraph (c). If the number of Catholic pupils in the school is, say, one-quarter or one-third of the total, then I do not think that will be enough.

I suggest that this is a matter which should be given some consideration, and perhaps on Report an Amendment could be made to ensure greater Catholic representation—or greater minority rep-presentation because the same could perfectly well happen in a Catholic area so far as Protestants are concerned—and to ensure that there are more representatives of the minority community on these committees.

Baroness PHILLIPS

I take the noble Lord's point, but, speaking as the chairman of a Catholic school in this country, I thought that his was a counsel of despair. If the integrated school is to work at all, surely the one thing that must be clearly seen is that those who sit on the board of management, whether they be Catholic or Protestant—or the other curious beings who seem to be undenominational, whatever that means—are there for the good of the school. They should not see themselves as representing a minority or majority, and I am one of those who believe that religion has been blamed in Northern Ireland for many problems which have nothing to do with religion.

As we are seeking to get an integrated school, we should not start off by assuming that we must have, say, six of those and 12 of those because, if we do, that is how they will see themselves. They must see themselves as members of the management board for the good of the school.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, intends to reply to the cogent points that have been put, and in my view this is a subject into which we should go rather further; the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has raised an important point. I fear that, in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is producing a counsel of perfection. I am sure it is necessary to have safeguards for the minorities. With the best will in the world, these things can go wrong. It is important that they should not go wrong, but it is also important for people to feel that if they agree to send their children to a school such as this, they will definitely have a guaranteed say in what goes on.

I need hardly point out to the Committee that the answer is to have the elections of the parent representatives by the single transferable vote, something which is not particularly difficult. I have recently been instrumental in persuading my branch of the National Union of Journalists to introduce exactly that system. It is probably the only way to get round this problem, except with a nominated scheme, but a nominated scheme is not quite the same thing. I should have thought that what we want to produce is a situation whereby the parents of both main groups in the school, both Catholics and Protestants, can feel that they quite definitely have a right to elect certain representatives. I suggest we should put our heads together, to see whether or not before the next stage we can insert an Amendment to that effect into the Bill.

Viscount BARRINGTON

I should like, very shortly, to support the line which has just been taken by my noble friend Lord Beaumont, with whom I do not always agree, even on religious questions. I very seldom disagree with the noble Baroness; but I agree with my noble friend that she is being a little starry-eyed on this occasion in thinking that what happens in English schools is likely to happen in Ireland. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has a point here. The only county of which I have had any personal experience is Tyrone. I can quite imagine a school which had a large majority of Catholic children, the board of which would be very unlikely to have possibly any Catholics on it at all. I put that forward only as a suggestion; but I think Lord Kilbracken's Amendment is one which is worth consideration, and I believe it would be a pity simply to dismiss it on the grounds that everybody in Northern Ireland is sensible enough to realise that religion and politics are different matters.

Lord DUNLEATH

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for having raised this point. There are a couple of things I should say in reply. One is that from a practical point of view we do not envisage an immediate rush into integrated education in areas which are almost entirely Protestant or almost entirely Catholic. Where a start is made—and I hope a start will be made—it is more likely to be in the more mixed communities; so one would hope that there might be a better balance in that instance. But I think the really important thing is that this is an enabling Bill, designed to provide the framework for the people and the parents themselves, if they so desire, to bring about the changes; and one would hope that if the mood of the parents is such that they want integrated education, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was not being all that totally unrealistic or starry-eyed about it. One would hope that if this was the mood of people, this mood would translate itself into the way in which these appointments were made.

Of one thing I would have certain doubts, and that is the giving to people of a certain denomination a guaranteed place on a management committee, because, as Her Majesty's Government (not this one but a previous one) learned to their discomfort some years ago in Northern Ireland, if you try to give people guaranteed places in any position of authority on the basis of what part of the community they come from the results are not always entirely satisfactory. But I am very grateful for the suggestion and for the observations which have been made by the noble Baroness and several noble Lords. Certainly this is something to which more consideration will be given before this Bill comes before your Lordships again.

Lord MELCHETT

I wonder whether I could be quite out of order for a very brief moment and take the opportunity of this debate on the Question, Whether the Schedule shall stand part of the Bill?, to point out that the Marshalled List has misled the Committee to some extent, and I am grateful to the noble Viscount, who drew this to my attention. In fact, Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 applied to Clause 3 and not to Clause 2, as the Marshalled List says. They have made the drafting clear in a way which now makes me entirely happy with Clause 3. My confusion arose from the fact that there should have been some Amendments to it.

Viscount LONG

I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.