WALES BILL

HL Deb 14 June 1978 vol 393 cc432-95

House again in Committee on Schedule 2.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46B:

Page 39, column 2, line 42, at beginning insert— ("The functions under section 10 of the Education Act 1944 (c. 31).").

The noble Lord said: The functions devolved under Section 10 of the Education Act 1944 appear to me to be functions relating to the fixing of standards for the provision of education, in the material sense, by the Secretary of State. These provisions are implemented under a Statutory Instrument of 1972, No. 2051. This instrument sets out in considerable detail what are the minimal standards for the provision of education. If I may quote at random, Section 5(1) in Part II, Primary Schools, states: The minimum internal area of the teaching accommodation shall be …". Throughout the instrument we find either that standards shall be sufficient or that they shall be other than minimum.

It strikes me as a peculiar provision that one of the functions devolved to the Welsh Assembly shall be a determination of the minimum standards under this section. One wonders what is the purpose. If they were maxima, one would understand, but they are minima. They relate to the number of square yards in the playground, the number of square metres in the staff room, the number of toilets, the area of the playing fields. All of these are minima. Already there is provision under subsection (2) to make a variation order where circumstances do not permit the minima to be met and where this is thought to be desirable. Therefore, if there are occasions in Wales when there should be a variation, this standard could be departed from.

I do not wish to make a mountain out of a molehill, but it seems to me odd that the first privilege that we should give to Wales under this part of the Schedule is to be the privilege of varying the minimal standards when there is nothing in that section of the Schedule to prevent those minima from being exceeded. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain to us why this should be the provision and what its effects will be. I beg to move.

The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)

The noble Lord speaks of a privilege being given to Wales. This is a privilege which Wales already has, in the form of the Secretary of State for Wales. As these Amendments are designed to prevent the objective which we are trying to achieve in this devolution Bill, which is to transfer certain things which affect the Welsh people from the Secretary of State for Wales to the Assembly, I think that it might be helpful if I made a few general remarks on this series of Amendments which are coming before the Committee.

Before we go into any great detail—many of these Amendments are very detailed indeed and not everybody will have had time to look at them carefully—I think it might be helpful if I tried to explain once again, which has been done before, the objectives of my Government in putting forward the Bill.

First, the background. As the original White Paper of November 1975, Cmnd. 6348, stated, the central task on which the Government have concentrated in developing the schemes for devolution is to define those areas of activity where decisions primarily affect people living in Wales. These areas include such matters as health, housing, roads and, in our particular case, education. At the same time, it would plainly be wrong to devolve activities which substantially affect people living elsewhere or which affected the wellbeing of the United Kingdom generally. Thus matters of national taxation and industrial, energy and regional policy should continue to be dealt with by the Government in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. As a subsidiary objective, but one which is nevertheless of considerable importance, the Government have kept in mind the need for a coherent and consistent pattern of government which will be clear and understandable to the people who work in it and the public whom they serve.

These objectives provided clear guidelines when the provisions of the Bill were being drawn up. Nevertheless, the boundaries between devolved and reserved functions have often needed to be defined in great detail and precision. The governing enactments were not drawn up with devolution in mind: the components of devolution—economic, social, educational—are not, at least in the second half of the twentieth century, easily carved up and produced in neat packages. Consequently there will always be some interaction between devolved and reserved functions and between authorities exercising functions in the same field in England and Wales. Nevertheless, the Government have tried and, I believe in great measure, succeeded, in delineating reasonably discrete fields of activity.

One of the criticisms levelled at the Government's earlier measure, the Scotland and Wales Bill, was that it contained numerous "apron strings", so to speak, which allowed interference by Whitehall in the day-to-day administration of devolved functions. We frequently hear talk of the complexities of modern life, of confusion, of "faceless administrators" passing those with complaints or grievances or in search of help and guidance from one authority to another. One of the intentions of devolution is that decisions in matters of domestic everyday concern to the people of Wales should be taken in Wales by identifiable people working in identifiable institutions—either the Assembly or organisations responsible to it.

The Wales Bill as now presented for your Lordships' consideration has been simplified by comparison with the earlier Bill, which never left the other place. Simplicity, or perhaps I should say in the light of my earlier remarks, comparative simplicity, can only be achieved if we leave the Assembly to get on with the job. I fear that many of the Amendments we are coming to seek to prevent that by placing the Secretary of State as an arbiter, or director, of last resort in many detailed matters in the education field. This must sap the initiative of the Assembly. We shall be dealing with these Amendments one by one, but I hope that this general thought can be kept in mind.

Turning to education itself, noble Lords will know that it is at present administered by the Welsh Office—although the Secretary of State for Wales has only recently, in 1978, been given the responsibility for higher and further education to add to his long standing responsibility in the primary and secondary field. Only the University of Wales now remains the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Science who, with the help and guidance of the UGC administers the universities on a United Kingdom wide basis.

The Assembly will thus be responsible for nursery, primary and secondary education, further and higher education outside universities and adult education. The Assembly will have a general duty to promote the education of the people in Wales, the development of institutions devolved for that purpose and the supervision of the execution by local authorities of educational policy. Among its functions will be control of the school building programme, including proposals for closing schools; approving regulations to various fields, for example in respect of school buildings, private schools and schools for those with special needs; approval of further education schemes prepared by local authorities and payment of grants (but not grants to university students which remain reserved).

Thus people living in Wales will look to the Assembly for the ultimate provision of their educational needs. It is my belief that the Amendments proposed by noble Lords opposite would undermine this and insert arbitrary boundaries between devolved and reserved functions. In particular I hope that the debates we heard earlier about the Assembly's appellate role will have removed many fears which some of these Amendments obviously express. Let us have a little more faith in the inherent reasonableness of those elected to the Assembly. Nothing will do more to sour relations with the Secretary of State than if he is forever looking over the shoulders of Assembly Members. The approach evident in the many detailed Amendments we are to come to could only provide for confusion, inefficiency and ultimately, I fear, for conflict. Responsibility would be diffused, the provision for education in Wales would be effected piecemeal. The educational system itself could be damaged.

The Amendments concerning education which have been tabled by noble Lords opposite, except for three Amendments—Nos. 46W, 46AAA and 46AAD—about which I shall have more to say later, are of two kinds: either they reserve to the Secretary of State powers that the Bill now devolves to the Assembly or they give the Secretary of State superior powers to override the Assembly's exercise of powers that are being devolved. The issues of principle involved in the Amendments are therefore similar in each case, and your Lordships may think that it would have been better for these issues to be argued out for the Amendments as a group; but the noble Lord was not content to treat them in this way, so we will deal with them individually. However having already said a certain amount about the principles concerned, I shall deal very briefly with the individual Amendments.

Both kinds of Amendment are a derogation from the powers of the Assembly. Either they remove powers that the Government consider that the Assembly clearly ought to have, or they place constraints upon the Assembly's exercise of its powers that can only lead to friction and eventual conflict between the central and the devolved Administrations. The Government's intention is that the Assembly should have virtually all the powers of the Secretary of State in devolved fields. Therefore, we strongly disagree with, and oppose, the Amendments, except the three I have mentioned, and when the time comes I shall urge the Committee to reject them.

I ask the forbearance of the Committee for having made rather a long speech at the outset but there are a large number of Amendments, all concerned with the same area, and it seemed to me that it would save time if, instead of speaking at length on each, I spoke at length at the beginning and hoped to deal much more shortly with the Amendments as they arise.

This Amendment would certainly bring the objective of emasculating the Assembly's powers nearer by excluding the power in Section 10 of the 1944 Education Act from the competence of the Assembly. If the Assembly is to have any responsibilities in the education field it must surely be given the power to determine standards of school premises within the framework laid down by primary legislation. Inevitably it will be argued that standards must be exactly the same in England and Wales. But the whole point of devolution is to give the initiative in such local matters, which primarily affect people living in Wales, to the Assembly. This is one of a large number of ministerial powers for which the Assembly will be responsible and accountable to the people living in Wales. It is an extreme view which suggests that the Assembly will ignore the electorate or be insensitive to its feelings—the field of education generally or this power in particular. The Assembly Members will, after all, hope to be re-elected. I urge your Lordships to reject this Amendment.

8.40 p.m.

Lord ELTON

That was an extremely interesting introduction to the evening's proceedings by the noble Lord. I hope he does not think I am unco-operative or ungracious in not wishing to take these Amendments holus-bolus. He was not present, as it happened, when we had a rather heated exchange on the same subject on an earlier day. It was quite definitely the opinion of the Committee, and it was voiced on both sides, that this would not be a good thing. I am following in this guidance of the Committee. I am, of course, clear that there are certain principles which are common to a number of the Amendments, and I do not propose wearily to trot out the same arguments on every occasion. If I do so, I am sure the noble Lord will be the first to check me in that process.

Since the noble Lord has introduced a number of general principles, it is only fair that I should remind him also of the same. As I said earlier, a principal concern of this Committee must be to see that this Bill works as effectively as possible to the benefit of the Welsh people; secondly, to protect individual Welsh people from what may be the miscarriages of the machinery which this Bill produces. These are both primary functions of Parliament and have nothing to do with the Welshness of the institution we are considering; it could as well be Liverpool or Blackpool. Another purpose is to see that the best deal which can be obtained is obtained. What I find difficult in this is that the provisions of Section 10 are provision which set out standards which are minima. Anybody can have twice as many square metres in the classroom or the staffroom as are set out in Section 10. Anybody can, on appeal to the Minister, have less. The Minister to whom such an appeal would be, as I understand from the noble Lord, would be himself a Welshman.

We are not taking anything away from Wales. If I used the word "privilege" it was sarcastically. We are taking away from them nothing except the right to have something less good than the English. The noble Lord looked puzzled, but that is what the case is. Under Section 10 of the 1944 Act as it stands, they are required to have at least as good as the English are required to have. There is no need to alter that. If they want to have more they do not have to alter this Act. The only right they are being given is the right to lower standards, and it seems a strange one to me. I do not want to leave the subject of uniformity of standards when those standards are minimal. This is the least important area of it. When it comes to standards of teacher training, standards of pupil accomplishment, or standards of examination, we shall obviously have more concern. There is a principle of equality of provision. The noble Lord says that he wishes to address himself to general principles during this sequence, and this is the first principle we have come to. I have not heard him defend it as yet.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

Section 10 contains a regulation-making power, and whatever the existing regulations may say there is nothing to preclude the Assembly, in their regulations, prescribing maxima, minima or anything else they want. It is a proper function for the body which is in control of education to be in control of the conditions in which education is given; that is all that exists, and this is what the noble Lord is suggesting should be removed.

Baroness ELLES

I should like to join in this exchange of views. I am very grateful to the noble Lord thinking that a contribution might be welcome from this side. As I see it, this section gives the Secretary of State powers to prescribe standards, to make regulations which impose standards across the country. I think the point my noble friend was making, and I thought extremely clearly, was that there is nothing derogatory in the Secretary of State holding powers which impose a universal standard; that is, a minimum standard below which no part of the country should sink. This is what we are all concerned with, that the schools throughout the country, whether it is England or Wales or Scotland, should be of at least a certain standard. If we take away this power from the Secretary of State and devolve it to another body, that new body will not be obliged or bound to have any particular standard. I am not saying that they will not in fact reach the same standard as other parts of the country, but there will be nothing in the Bill that will impose on the Welsh Assembly any duty to the people of Wales to provide that minimum standard. That is what we are concerned about.

However good they may be, however honest they may be, however willing they may be, they will nevertheless be in charge of a certain sum of money which they cannot increase. They have got to use that sum of money, which comes from the consolidated fund to be allotted to the Assembly, for certain specific purposes for the Welsh people, and beyond that amount of money they will not be able to go. If they decide, quite rightly possibly, for some reason, to spend a large sum of money on developing opportunities for employment in parts of Wales, it may mean that there will be less for education. It may mean, therefore, that they will have less money to spend on maintaining a certain minimum standard for the premises of the schools the noble Lord has mentioned. It is, therefore, for this reason that we feel that for all children in all parts of the United Kingdom—and this is a principle which I believe has always been shared by Members of the Party opposite—there should be at least a minimum equality of standard. We should like to see that minimum standard maintained, and we are concerned that by devolving this particular power in this section these children may be deprived of that right.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I cannot quarrel in any way with the noble Baroness's wishes, because they are mine and they are the Government's. The position is really very simple. There is at the moment in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales the duty to exercise the powers under Section 10; this duty is to maintain the standard as it is, and, as he may think fit, to improve it or otherwise. We are asking simply that this duty should be transferred to the body which is responsible for education, bearing in mind that under this Bill the Secretary of State for Wales will no longer be responsible. I do not feel that we are at all far apart in this. I do not feel that what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are putting forward can be regarded by a Welsh Assembly as anything but a derogation, even though I do not believe it is meant as such. I would hope that the noble Lord would not find it necessary to press this Amendment because I believe it cannot be regarded otherwise than as a derogation.

Baroness ELLES

Perhaps I should clarify that in no way am I speaking in terms of it being any derogation from the Welsh Assembly. I am only saying that it would be limited by the financial circumstances of the money allotted to it. I have known a personal colleague of mine who, when she was Minister of Education, managed to press money out of the Treasury for what she believed was essential to this country, which was nursery education. She managed to get a larger budget to improve nursery schools—and very well done. But the Welsh Assembly will not be in that position; they will be limited by the financial circumstances which circumscribe their activities. That is the only thing I am concerned about.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

If I may have a last word, in a sense this is what the whole of devolution is about. If in every difficult situation you say, "Of course, if they cannot get the money out of their block grant they can go to the Government", you have not got devolution. We had a discussion about purchase grants for art and so on. This Bill is about devolution; it is about giving a block grant to the devolved country—in this case Wales—which will in the view of the Government be adequate for it to do what it ought to do. I do not think I can go further than that.

Lord ELTON

We have scratched the surface of what is perhaps a larger subject than we thought. At some stage, obviously, we are going to have to exercise a principal function of this House, which is to give the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss subjects which they have not yet discussed. I am very tempted to take this particular Amendment to a Division as a means of doing that. I am, on the other hand, aware of the dangers of moving the first Division after dinner in a euphoria of certainty that it is correctly drafted. It may be that we shall find a better topic on which to provide the same opportunity to the Commons. Therefore, with what I must confess is a certain reluctance, I will take this away with me, but on the understanding that something quite like it may come back at a later stage, unless we encounter something even more like it later this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.50 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46C:

Page 39, column 2, line 42, at beginning insert— ("The functions under section 13(4B) of the Education Act 1944 (c. 31).").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 46C. This Amendment is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 108D, provided that there has been no change in the revised Marshalled List which betrayed me before. I should explain that this is an Amendment to Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, the principal Act with which this part of the Schedule deals. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will be very familiar with the provisions of that section.

However, your Lordships should be aware that it is that section of the 1944 Act which provides for the establishment and discontinuance of county and voluntary schools and which enables the establishment of a new county school, and the maintenance …as a county school any school which at the time being is not such a school";

or the cessation—and this of course is the ground with which the noble Lord is as sadly familiar as I am and which became highly contentious during the great programme of comprehensivisation from which we are all emerging—under Section 13(1)(c) …to maintain any county school or, save as provided by the next following section of this Act, any voluntary school".

This is a sensitive issue and it is always possible that there may be a similar conflict, although on a different matter, in the future which might or might not be the direct result of the educational policy of the Welsh Assembly.

At the outset when I was looking at this part of the Schedule, I was tempted to suggest that during the Committee stage we had a debate on reserving the whole issue of Section 13. However, I take the point that the Welsh people should be masters in their own house. I do not take the point that the householder should be above appeal. Therefore, I sought to devise a method whereby, if the judgment of the Welsh Assembly aggrieved one of the parties affected, the aggrieved party would not through devolution lose his right of appeal to the Secretary of State as regards whom presumably one would be dealing with a different set of advisers. Of course, we have not yet reached the part of the Bill—in fact, some of us have not identified the part of the Bill—which will enable us to find out which group of advisers will be giving what advice to whom.

However, assuming that the educational function devolved to the Secretary of State for Wales is part of the Home Civil Service relating to the Ministry of Eduation, that is a separate body and an appeal to the Secretary of State would not be an appeal therefore to the body which had initiated the policy. Nor, as I said in the last debate, would it be an appeal outside Wales, because the noble Lord himself has pointed out that this function now rests with the Secretary of State for Wales.

Therefore, I cannot see that this can be classified as is in any way derogatory to the Welsh. Nothing is being taken from Wales or the Welsh. What is being provided is a means by which people who feel themselves aggrieved by the Welsh Assembly may appeal for a final judgment to the Welsh Secretary of State. I do not think that that is contrary to devolution. Therefore, I do not feel that it is a part of the great principles that the noble Lord adduced so eloquently at the beginning of this series of Amendments. He adduced them on the assumption that a derogation from the Assembly was a derogation from Wales. But, in this case, that is patently not true, because it will be a derogation from the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff to the Secretary of State, quite possibly also in Cardiff.

As to how this is to be done, your Lordships will see set out on the Order Paper the functions—Amendment 46C—under Section 13(4B) of the Education Act. If I may explain, a trap which I have had to avoid, I hope successfully, is that of providing an appeal system and then failing to reserve it in Schedule 2 because all the functions of the person hearing the appeal would be once more devolved to the Welsh Assembly. So, in Amendment 108D your Lordships will find new Clause 4B comes into Section 13 of the 1944 Act. It provides that, where the functions of the Secretary of State under subsections 4 and (4A) of Section 13—that is, the function of hearing objections to proposals for new schemes of education —have been devolved or have been discharged by the Welsh Assembly (and only in that case), then the people who in the original Act under subsection (3) are entitled to make objections to the Secretary of State, who has become, of course, transmogrified by the effect of devolution into the Welsh Assembly. If they are entitled to appeal to the Welsh Assembly, they are, by this subsection, entitled to appeal to the Secretary of State. In order to enable them to do so, we have to have a period during which they are entitled to make an objection and also we have to make them aware of what it is they have to object to and how long they have to object to it.

Therefore, the new Clause 4A—to go into the 1944 Act which is devolved—refers to the Secretary of State. But, as it is not reserved that reference to the Secretary of State, as elsewhere in the section, is a reference of course to the Welsh Assembly. This sounds tortuous, but it is the way that the Government have designed the Bill and we can only follow our way through the labyrinth seeking the Minotaur.

The Secretary of State under Clause 4A therefore gives notice in the person of the Welsh Assembly of his decision to approve proposals to which people have objected. Then, if it is the Welsh Assembly that is doing this, that approval remains provisional until either the expiry of the time allowed for an objection, which is two months, which is a common period throughout the Bill, or until the determination of an objection or an appeal on objection whichever is the later. That is how it will work.

The noble Lord said almost critically that some of the Amendments were somewhat detailed. Of course, legislation that is designed to work must be detailed. I am sure that the noble Lord with his spanner which we know so well will soon show that it will not, but in my view as I now stand advised, it would work. As I have said, I do not think that the principles which he adduced with so much eloquence at the beginning are affected because this is not an appeal outside Wales. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say. I beg to move.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

May I crave the indulgence of noble Lords in the Committee as I have had the Amendments for only a fairly short time. I am making no criticism at all. However, I have not had the opportunity to consider fully the effect of the proposed Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, in his admirable introduction to Amendment No. 46C, used the words "conflict arising"; he talked about "aggrieved persons"; and he also referred to dealing with a Minotaur. I fully appreciate that there will be difficulties as a result of these concurrent powers. There are bound to be difficulties, but they are not difficulties which are insoluble under the arrangements in the Wales Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, spoke about conflicts, aggrieved persons and the Minotaur; and I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was trying to indicate that he was the Minotaur and I reject that suggestion at once. But would he give us specific instances in relation to the education circumstances where the kind of conflict which he has in mind arises?

Lord ELTON

With the greatest of pleasure. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, should need reminding of recent events within which these conflicts have arisen in the United Kingdom. They arose in England between an English local authority and parents who felt that their schools should not be changed and that the way in which a plan was put forward was not in accordance with the Act. Later we shall have cause to refer to the Enfield case which I am sure the noble Lord remembers reading about and which resulted in legislation. These things happen. I am glad that the noble Lord has raised this point because it has nothing to do with it being in Wales.

All that we are seeking to do here is to establish that there shall be an appeal from what is either a very small legislature or a very large local authority—nobody has actually said what it will be—but from a body consisting of elected people and committees to a Secretary of State, a Minister of the Crown, advised by the Civil Service of Her Majesty's Government. It will take the grievances which arise; and the grievances themselves have nothing to do with the Bill. In recent years we have experienced them very sharply. They do not arise from this Bill. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, imagines that I am saying that this Bill will produce this sort of grievance. On the contrary, I am saying that this kind of grievance will occur whether or not we have the Bill, but it should not be resolved by the Welsh Assembly. There should be an appeal from the Welsh Assembly to another authority, which incidentally will take the sense of grievance further away from the aggrieved person. That seems to be eminently reasonable to me. I do not wish to make a meal of this, but it seems that everybody else does.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

We are really back on the same topic. I do not want to continue to say the same thing the whole evening, although I think that I shall probably have to. The Bill transfers education from the Secretary of State to the Assembly. A dispute which takes place between a parent and a local authority in Wales will be referred to the Assembly in exactly the same way as it is referred in England to the Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State for Wales is changing his powers—giving over his powers to the Assembly.

In this country there is no problem whatever about an appeal. If there is a row between an individual and a local authority, they have recourse, not to an appeal to anybody but to the courts. The same is available in Wales. It is exactly the same situation as we spoke about before in a slightly different context. If the Welsh Assembly is to have power to ensure that the citizens of Wales get a proper education, it must be able to deal with the thing as a whole. There cannot be an appeal against it to a third tier. That is something quite new and quite unnecessary. Certainly differences in the systems between England and Wales might be ironed out by having them exactly the same in this way, but that is really against the whole philosophy of devolution.

We believe that the elected Assembly should have the right to change the system within the framework of primary legislation, without the fetters that this scheme would impose. The noble Lord says that we could not make up our minds whether it was a "local authority large" or a "legislature small". We have said fairly clearly that it is not a "legislature small"; it does not legislate; it does not have legislative powers.

Lord ELTON

The noble Lord's noble friend earlier said that it was not a local authority.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I think that my noble colleague was clearly right. Why should it be either? It is not. It is an Assembly which is a new body serving a new function which is of great interest to all of us. In the course of our discussion, I am absolutely determined that I shall not let the noble Lord gradually remove its powers to do its job properly. I cannot agree to this Amendment.

Lord ELTON

This has been very profitable. It certainly has not brought

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

9.13 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46D:

Page 39, column 2, line 42, at beginning insert— ("The functions under section 14(5A) of the Education Act 1944 (c. 31).")

agreement. However, it is an important principle. The noble Lord accepts that it is an important principle, and it is a principle in a part of the Bill which the House of Commons has not had a chance to discuss. Therefore, I think that we should be doing no service to anybody not to insert one of these Amendments, and many people would like to do it sooner rather than later. If none of my noble friends wishes to restrain me or to add to what I have said, I shall press this Amendment.

9.5 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 46C) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS
Alport, L.	Faithfull, B.	Northchurch, B.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Falkland, V.	O'Hagan, L.
Belstead, L.	Falmouth, V.	Onslow, E.
Bradford, E.	Fortescue, E.	Pender, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Gainford, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Gridley, L.	Rochdale, V.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Sandys, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Harvey of Tasburgh, L.	Selkirk, E.
Crathorne, L.	Kilmany, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Long, V.	Swansea, L.
De La Warr, E.	Lyell, L.	Swinton, E.
Denham, L. [Teller]	Margadale, L.	Trenchard, V.
Drumalbyn, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Tweeddale, M.
Elles, B.	[Teller]	Tweedsmuir, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Moyne, L.	Vickers, B.
Elton, L.	Newall, L.	Ward of North Tyneside

NOT-CONTENTS
Champion, L.	Janner, L.	Stedman, B.
Collison, L.	Kaldor, L.	Stewart of Alvechurch, I
Davies of Leek, L.	Kirkhill, L.	Stone, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Lee of Newton, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. [L. Chancellor.]	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Gardiner, L.	McCarthy, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Gordon-Walker, L.	McCluskey, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Greenwood of Rossendale, L.	Melchett, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller]
Gregson, L.	Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.	Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller]
Han worth, V.	Oram, L.	White, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Ritchie-Calder, L.	Winterbottom, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Seear, B.

The noble Lord said: Having discussed this principle at some length, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said earlier; that is, that we do not wish to go over the same ground the whole time. However, it is worth noting that the provisions of Section 14 of the Education Act 1944 are different from those of Section 13. This deals not with objections to proposals to change the nature of a school, to open or close it, but disputes between managers and governors of voluntary schools who are not happy with the directions given to them by the local education authority.

Again, this is a matter which generates a great deal of heat in local affairs, and again I think some of my colleagues would feel that to take that heat further away from the locality than merely to the Welsh Assembly would be a good thing. I do not doubt that the noble Lord, being a prudent man, has adduced other reasons for resisting this Amendment than the general reason of principle which he adduced at the beginning, which I hold to be invalid. I should be obliged if he would let us know what they are.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

This Amendment gives a right of appeal by governors or managers of schools against a requirement made by the Assembly; under its terms they can go to a Government Minister over the heads of the Assembly. I cannot think that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, believes this is not in some sense or other a derogation from the powers of the Assembly. At present under the Bill there is no appeal except to the courts, which is the same as the position in England. If one puts in an extra appeal one is clearly showing a lack of confidence in the Assembly.

Such a provision would make the Assembly's administration of the education system in Wales a hollow shell, because those involved would know that if they did not get their own way with the Assembly they would always have the ultimate ability to appeal to a higher authority. We have heard much in these debates, and in those on the Scotland Bill, about extra tiers of Government. I can only think that noble Lords opposite are now attracted to such an idea. For my part, I remain of the view that the devolved Assembly should be allowed to get on with the day-to-day administration of the education system; the efficiency and responsiveness of that system would be reduced by the cumbersome mechanism proposed by Lord Elton. I hope he will not feel it necessary to press it. I believe it would be absolutely wrong.

Lord ELTON

I had not thought of it as cumbersome, expressed as it is in soft few lines of print. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I think attributes more importance to it than I do in this case, and I do not think we should go on arguing about what is a derogation; presumably the noble Lord would say it is a derogation for anybody to have an appeal to a higher authority, and I could not accept that.

We have opened up the principle of the matter and it was open to us to have used any one of several of these Amendments. The noble Lord merely adduced the same objection to it as he did before and there would be a certain logic in marching through the Lobby again to establish the point; but we have opened the door to exchanges in another place, from which we will learn what the other place thinks of this part of the Bill, which nobody has been able to discover hitherto because the opportunity has not been given to them. As the Committee may wish to proceed at a smarter pace, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.18 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46E:

Page 39, column 2, line 42, at beginning insert— ("The functions under section 29 and Schedule 5 to the Education Act 1944 (c.31).").

The noble Lord said: We come now to something rather different. The Minister and others will be pleased to hear that. This is a probing Amendment which deals with the functions under Section 29 and Schedule 5 to the Education Act 1944 and proposes a reservation of them in order to enable the noble Lord to give us the current thinking of Her Majesty's Government on the oversight of religious education in Wales, and indeed elsewhere if he wishes.

The function of the Secretary of State as affected by the Amendment is, if I have it right, merely restricted to paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of Schedule 5, and those paragraphs have the force of enabling him to set out an agreed syllabus of religious instruction when the conference appointed by a local education authority cannot agree. I should be interested to know, if the noble Lord has the facts at his fingertips, how often in the past this power has been invoked.

I should also like him to give an indication of the way in which the adminis- tration of religious education may differ in the Principality. It is a different set-up —the Church is not established for a start—and obviously (I do not think "colour" is the word; "breadth" may be the word) religious education in Wales is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a different problem and it is proper that it should be devolved. I hasten to say that, and I do not wish to derogate anything from anybody, but we should like to know what the Minister sees the field in which this power will be operating. I beg to move.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

The noble Lord asked me whether I could say how many times the power had been invoked where the conference disagrees. My position here is rather disappointing, because when we had debates on this matter in your Lordships' House I had the facts at my fingertips, but now I simply cannot remember; so I shall write to the noble Lord about it. But I think that the occasions were not very often. Obviously, the disestablishment of the Church in Wales at the time of Lloyd-George and thereabouts—which we read about with such interest—has already led to different approaches to the syllabus on each side of the Border. Schedule 5 of the 1944 Act itself allows, as the noble Lord has suggested, for different representation at a conference convened by an education authority in Wales from that convened by an education authority in England. I think that the main difference is that in England the Church of England must be represented, while in Wales the Church of Wales need not.

Given the different character of religous life in Wales—and I do not think that I can go into a discussion on exactly what the differences are, but I think that anybody who has been to a Welsh chapel will know that they are considerable—it seems only right to us in the Government that the Assembly representing the people of Wales should have the power to deal with a situation in which such a conference, set up to determine the syllabus of religous instruction, has failed to reach a unanimous decision. I can see no valid case for denying the Assembly these powers. I do not think that the noble Lord feels at all strongly that we should deny these powers to the Assembly. I can see no case for it, and I hope very much that the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press the Amendment which, as he said, is of quite a different kind to most of the others.

Lord ELTON

I almost never press Amendments which I have announced in my first breath as probing Amendments, and I do not intend to do so this evening. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the information he has given us, which I shall read with attention tomorrow, as it has not been possible to take it all in this evening. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.22 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46F:

Page 39, column 2, line 42, at beginning insert— ("The functions under section 33 of the Education Act 1944 (c. 31).").

The noble Lord said: Before the noble Lord opposite can say "derogation", I shall say "equality". Section 33 of the 1944 Act deals with the education of pupils requiring special educational treatment. Principally, the section contains provisions for handicapped children, though that is not the only matter it contains. It seems to me that this is probably a matter of wider importance outside the educational service itself than other Amendments with which we have already dealt, because I think that the provision for handicapped children extends beyond the Department of Education into the Department of Health and Social Security; but I am prepared to be corrected on that. I suppose that the noble Lord has a point about a continuing character in these Amendments; we were concerned earlier with the provisions of so many yards of playground.

I am very chary of any scheme to adopt variations of provision on each side of the Border, unless it can be justified more than by an appeal to Welsh amour propre, which is a subject of frequent appeal during these debates. We saw in the debate on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, a very clear indication—not accepted by the Government, but accepted by many of their colleagues, as well as mine—that there can be unfortunate administrative difficulties arising from a difference of provision on each side of the Border.

Quite apart from that, there is the question of common justice and humanity. One does not see why, for instance, the Welsh should be able to classify as a simpleton somebody whom the English would regard as perfectly normal. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, might feel that that would be a common occurrence—but that is nationalist chauvinism, I think. The point I am making is that there must be a reason for it beyond the mere fact of wishing to give the Welsh everything that they can possibly run themselves. If I am wrong, I shall be disappointed, but I am at least interested. I beg to move.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

I want to ask the noble Lord a question about this. I find it rather difficult to follow these Amendments because I do not have a copy of the Education Act 1944. I therefore did not realise that this Amendment was about handicapped children; but, through voluntary organisations, I have a good deal to do with handicapped children, as I also had when I was chairman of the Education Committee in my own county at home. One thing about handicapped children is that different types of handicap are very often dealt with in different types of schools. You cannot say that there is a boundary and that children who are handicapped in Wales cannot go to a school for handicapped children which is in, say, Cheshire or Lancashire, even though that happens to be the school which is best able to deal with their particular handicap. Equally, I do not think you could say that children living in England—in, let us say, Cheshire, or some area near to Wales—cannot go to a school for handicapped children which is in Wales even though it might be the one which could best deal with their handicap. I think that to try to divide education for handicapped children by the use of boundaries between the two countries would be a mistake.

I do not know whether this Bill does that, but if it does then I think it is a great mistake, because I think you must deal with the handicap of any child in the best way possible. Sometimes, of course, they can go to their own local school, where they may have a class for handicapped children which they can pass through and then get into the ordinaryschool; but some times there is a handicap which requires special treatment in a special school, and I would ask the noble Lord to say, when he replies, whether, under the Bill as it is at present drafted, there would be this inability to exchange schools because they happen to be in different parts of the country.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

Before the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, speaks, may I answer this particular point while it is in my mind? The position today is that the education of handicapped children in Wales is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales, and the suggestion in the Bill is to transfer this to the Assembly. There is no other change, so everything else is as it was. I think that answers the point which is worrying the noble Baroness.

Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD

Then can the Welsh child who wants to go a school in Lancashire go there?

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

By arrangement between the two.

Baroness ELLES

Perhaps I may intervene on this because I think the point being made by my noble friend is that, here again, we are coming back to this dual standards business; that is to say, where you have a school providing special treatment for handicapped children in Wales which will be controlled, under the present Bill, by the Welsh Assembly—and, indeed, why not?—they will have different regulations, different standards and different criteria by which to judge whether a child is handicapped in a way which is met by the special treatment provided in this certain school. I think the point that my noble friend is making is this. Would a child who is in a school in, say, Lancashire receiving special treatment provided for under the authority of the Secretary of State be able to get the same treatment, the same provision and the same standard, in a school in Wales? It is not that the Welsh Assembly might not give it, but just the fact that there is a possibility of having different standards for different parts of the country. I think this is what concerns us all, and I am sure we shall be coining back to this question again. Once more, it is no derogation of the Welsh Assembly; it is merely the possibility that they may create different standards, different criteria, for a section of the population which needs particular care, help and attention.

I think this is the point that my noble friend is making, and we should like to be assured that there will be some way in which the Welsh Assembly is statutorily obliged to provide this standard. We quite accept that they must make the decision, but they must ensure and undertake to the people of Wales that this minimum standard will be attained. I t may be that Clause 34, the overriding powers of the Secretary of State, is the answer. It may be that if the Welsh Assembly, for some reason—not of course, that we have any doubt in that regard, but for some reason— do not reach that standard, possibly under Clause 34 the Secretary of State, the overriding power, will be able to stop them from doing something or make them do something which they would not otherwise want to do. If the noble Lord can tell us that this is so then a lot of our doubts and worries will be removed.

Baroness FAITHFULL

May I ask an allied question of the Minister? There are a number of voluntary organisations dealing with handicapped children. The headquarters of those voluntary organisations are not in Wales. I am speaking particularly of Dr. Barnardo's and I am Vice-Chairman of Dr. Barnardo's Council. If Dr. Barnardo's are dealing with or giving a service to local authorities both in Wales and in England and their headquarters are in England, to whose standards do they subscribe?

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

The idea that the standards are going to be so different is rather ungenerous. They may deteriorate or may improve. If you give somebody freedom, you take the risks of freedom. This is the point of devolution. Clearly, if Dr. Barnardo's is run from England, then Dr. Barnardo's makes an arrangement with the local authority, wherever it may be, to be paid for the work it does. It must conform with the standards of that local authority which, again, must conform with the Assembly's standards.

Baroness FAITHFULL

Perhaps I used the wrong words when I said "standards". I meant regulations and procedures more than standards. An organisation like Barnardo's would not allow its standards to drop. If they have to subscribe to different rules and regulations in Wales from those in England, what is the position?

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

It is simple. I think we are making assumptions that they would be very different. I have no reason to think that they will be different, but, if they are, they will have to conform to them. There is a different law in Scotland from that in England. A number of things are quite different there. If you, as an Englishman, go to Scotland and do something then you conform to what is going on there. The same will apply.

Baroness ELLES

May I be permitted to intervene on this and support what my noble friend has said? I can see what difficulties might arise. I am sure the noble Lord can see them. Dr. Barnardo's is an organisation which everybody knows and admires not only in this House but throughout the country. They demand certain criteria to be applied for their children wherever they are. At the moment if certain criteria are not observed or if there is some variation, Dr. Barnardo's can go to a Member of Parliament or direct to the Secretary of State and say that such and such a home is not up to the standard which they would require. They have a means of complaining.

One of the questions that concerns some of us is this. If a Dr. Barnardo's home is under the care of a local authority in Wales and that is, perhaps, being controlled by the Welsh Assembly under devolution, to whom could Dr. Barnardo's go in order to get the matter put right? Do they go to the elected body as a whole, to the committee within the Welsh Assembly responsible for this particular area of devolved matters or to the leader of that committee? I think at the moment that it is the anonymity of a body that does not exist—one cannot imagine what it is going to be like, who will comprise it, how it will run, and who are the officials who are going to support it—which legitimately causes us concern. This Parliament has gone on for 700 years; we know how it works and whom to go to. The worry of some of us on these Benches is: what this thing is going to be like, whom can we go to if something goes wrong and how can it be put right?

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I appreciate the noble Baroness's point. I am not going to lay down, without any authority from anybody, exactly how the future will be. We do not know; this is new. Nobody thinks that it is cut and dry. I will tell you what I think will happen if I were the official of Dr. Barnardo's and I was functioning in a home in Wales which seemed to be going wrong. I should go to the parents of the children and tell them to get hold of their Assembly Members and raise hell. I should do exactly the same thing in England: tell them to go to their Member of Parliament and raise hell. I cannot see any difficulty about this. Obviously, if the Assembly is absolutely no good, nothing will happen—as sometimes occurs with us—but it is quite unreasonable to base any objections to this piece of devolution on the ground that there is not a proper channel for complaint, because it clearly would not take the average Welshman 10 minutes to find one. I do not believe that this is an adequate ground for worry.

We return to the view that the Assembly is being given the power to run education in Wales. Education will be its responsibility. Surely, there cannot be any point in denying the Assembly the power to make those regulations under which local authorities can make provision for children to attend special schools, or the requirement to be complied with by a school wishing to be classed as a special school.

Lord ELTON

The noble Lord has just whizzed past the part that I was asking about: making regulations defining the several categories of people requiring special educational treatment—in other words, who is and who is not educationally subnormal? Is there going to be variation between the Kingdom and the Principality? He left that out of his list.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I left it out because I do not know the answer at this stage, and neither does anybody else. At the moment, there is a perfectly clear definition within medical circles. If Welsh doctors, under their new devolution, choose to diverge, we cannot stop them, and I do not think that we ought to do so. It is most unlikely that they will do so. I believe this is a will-o'-the-wisp. I do not think that your Lordships want me to pursue it. It seems perfectly clear that arrangements at the moment of a medical kind in different parts of the United Kingdom are standard. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that they are going to change.

Baroness FAITHFULL

May I raise something here about which I am very worried? At the moment there are nine categories of handicapped children under the Education Act 1944. We know that the Warnock Committee Report makes different recommendations. If those recommendations are accepted in England, will they be accepted in Wales? If they are not, there will be two separate criteria: the criteria for handicapped in Wales and the criteria for handicapped in this country. That being so, I come back to my original point of voluntary organisations having to work to two separate criteria for handicapped children: one in Wales and one in this country.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I have just been informed that there are at present different standards in Scotland from those in England. So we are already in that situation. I did not know this before, otherwise I would have said it. Would the noble Baroness remind me of the other part of her question?

Baroness FAITHFULL

It was that at the moment under the Education Act 1944 there are nine categories of handicapped children. The Warnock Committee is recommending that those categories are done away with. Supposing the Welsh Assembly does not agree that they be done away with, but the English Parliament does. We shall then have two different sets of criteria obtaining in regard to handicapped children, yet very many of the organisations concerned with handicapped children deal with them throughout the country.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

Why should you suppose that the Welsh will reject the Warnock Committee, while the English do not?

Baroness FAITHFULL

Personally—

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

They may. This is the whole point of devolution; they have the power to do so. If they do so there will be different standards. I do not think that one can legislate for the fact that what is in the 1944 Act, which at the moment is in the power of the Secretary of State for Wales, and which we are proposing to transfer to the Assembly, is already covered until the Welsh choose to change it, which of course they can.

This is pushing matters rather far. It seems to me perfectly clear. If one is against devolution then this is a wrecking Amendment. If it is not meant to be a wrecking Amendment, you must assume that people will carry on in a more or less normal way. If they do not, then you can deal with the situation; but we have given them the power not to and I do not pretend we have not.

Lord GRIDLEY

May I make one point on what the noble Lord has said regarding this divergence between powers in the United Kingdom and the proposed Welsh Assembly? The noble Lord has said that if there is a divergence it is up to the people in Wales to complain to the Assembly and get the thing put right. An example was given of there being some difference of opinion on a situation arising in connection with Dr. Barnardo's Homes, and that kind of thing.

I cannot quite agree with what the noble Lord has said about this. I should have thought that we had a responsibility here in the devolution of these powers to see that the powers were devolved in such a way as to create the minimum of disagreement or interference between England and Wales. That is really what my noble friends on this side of the Committee are trying to do, rather than seeking to interfere or being distracted or worried about what powers can be devolved to the Assembly.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

If noble Lords really think that by creating a new body, the Assembly, and giving it specifically the duty of running education within the Principality and then taking away one after the other— three, four or five—of the functions of education, they are not going to produce a lot of friction, I believe they are sadly mistaken.

Lord ELTON

I think there is more feeling about this either than I expected or than the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, recognises. I think it is more reasonable than he recognises: maybe he is blinded by principle, if I might so put it, to practical results. It is all very well to say, "You are taking away some great and important function of the authority when you take away from them the duty of deciding what is or what is not an educationally subnormal child or a handicapped child". I suspect that the effects of the Amendment we are now discussing might ramify further than I had supposed they would when I drafted it, in the light of what has been said. Because much of what we have heard has been new to me and very valuable—and here I must say I am much obliged to my noble friends—I should like to consider the matter before we take a decision as to whether or not to go further with it. I therefore beg leave, at this stage and without committing myself to a final withdrawal, to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.43 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46G:

Page 39, column 2, line 42, at beginning insert— ("The functions under section 37(4A) of the Education Act 1944 (c. 31).").

The noble Lord said: I do not think we need spend quite so long on this pair of Amendments. Amendment No. 46G is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 108G: and next to it I have 46H, which is a paving Amendment to 108H. These are again reservations of an appellate function, but that does not exist in the 1944 Act because it is devolved and therefore it is necessary first of all to create it.

The first pair deal with the right of parents aggrieved by an attendance order, and the second pair refer to an appeal by parents aggrieved by a requirement to attend a special school. The latter pair, 46H and 108H, have a certain bearing, of course, on what the noble Lord has just been saying, because a special school is where you send a child who is in that category which specifies that it is right for it to receive special education. That is a right which the noble Lord has jealously reserved to the Welsh. That, I think, is the extent of the coincidence of the two Amendments.

I am not sure that it is fair to tempt the noble Lord to his feet yet again on this principle. However, I think he will accept that in the first of this quartet we were dealing with bodies of ratepayers aggrieved by plans for changing schools; in the second we were dealing with managers and governors of schools who had fallen out with the local education authority, and in this third group we are dealing with individuals who, in a sense, have the weakest voice of all and, as the parents of handicapped children, possibly the greatest emotional strain and, one might feel, need greater protection, I would not expect the noble Lord to cede the point.

I wish to put it on record that we are here, once again, looking at not a derogation of powers from Wales, but a role of supervision for the Welsh Secretary of State. I do not think we shall ever get that point accepted on the other side of this Table and that is a pity, because it is our position. I do not know whether the noble Lord has anything to add at this stage on these Amendments, but I should like to give him the opportunity, and indeed to give my noble friends an opportunity, before I withdraw them. I beg to move.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I would only repeat that we think the insertion of a third tier is wrong. We believe that in each of these cases the individual has the same recourse to the courts as he has in England, when the person to whom he appeals—who in England is the Secretary of State and in Wales will be the Assembly—gives him a decision which he does not like. We think that it should be left at that.

Lord ELTON

I do not think it is fair to say that this is the introduction of a third tier. The Secretary of State is already there; the Welsh Assembly is not. If there is a new tier, it is the Welsh Assembly. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about administrative justice. The noble Lord seems to be convinced that a right of appeal from something which someone had done to anybody other than the ombudsman is, in a way, a derogation. What we are looking for is an umpire, and games are usually better played with an umpire. However, the noble Lord persists in regarding this as a third tier and a derogation. I believe that the Pope has a word for his condition, which perhaps the noble Lord would think was derogatory, so I shall not use it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 46H not moved.]

9.48 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46A: Page 39, column 2, leave out lines 42 to 46.

The noble Lord said: We now come to what I spoke to at the beginning. This is a probing Amendment, as I recall, and the noble Lord therefore need not expect me to press it. This is a very peculiar provision, because it seems to relate to a kind of educational institution which barely, if at all, exists in Wales. The right reserved from the Welsh Assembly is the innocent one of requiring offices of local education authorities to communicate freely with local employment offices. It was a kind of collector's curiosity which prompted me to put down this Amendment, because I cannot think what on earth is in mind in reserving that esoteric function to the Secretary of State, when so much of greater significance has been given away. I beg to move.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

It is a curious Amendment, because it is the other way around from all the others we have had, which, at any rate, makes a change. The effect would be to devolve to the Assembly the power of the Secretary of State for Employment of England to instruct local offices of that Department, with regard to consultation between those offices and local education authorities. As we all know, it is an important job of local education authorities to consult with the Department of Employment. But the Department of Employment is run by the Secretary of State for Employment, and it would be very odd indeed to take this power away from him and give it to the Assembly. I do not think that the most ambitious devolver—as I am —would wish to do as much as that. I hope the noble Lord will not find it necessary to pursue this any further. It seems to me not to make sense.

Lord ELTON

It is very pleasant to have brought a smile to the noble Lord's lips. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46J: Page 39, line 43, leave out ("the Education Act 1944 (c. 31)") and insert ("that Act").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment which was tabled in the anticipation that we might by now have carried something, and we have. Therefore, I take it that this is what we want. The words that I have struck out, "The Education Act 1944 (c. 31)" seem, in the light of what we have put into the Bill, now to be inappropriate since they were already contained in the Amendment we have carried. In their place we wish to put "that Act". I beg to move.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I think I have no alternative but to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.52 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46K:

Page 39, column 2, line 46, at end insert— ("The functions under section 67(1), (2) and (4) of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: I apologise for the fact that we have here a rather rambling group of Amendments. As I understand it, Amendment No. 46K goes with 46R and 46S. They are various combinations of ways of dealing with the reservation or otherwise of the power of dealing with disputes between local education authorities and managers and governors. One way, of course, would be to cut out the Assembly and make the appeal direct to the Secretary of State—and, understandably I think, that would bring a cry of horror from the noble Lord. Some of these cases are more difficult than others. The one which is probably of most importance is that under Section 67(4): If in the case of a county or voluntary school a question arises whether a change in the character of the school or enlargement of the school premises would be a significant change or enlargement, that question shall be determined by the Secretary of State".

I think that a very small debate on this Amendment ought to centre on emphasising the importance of this question about whether or not a change of character of a school has arisen—and here the noble Lord will recall the Enfield case. In the light of what the noble Lord has said, it is evident that he will not think that anybody but the Welsh Assembly should determine this matter. I take it that in no circumstances does the noble Lord think there will ever be an occasion on which an appeal ought to lie from the Assembly in administrative terms and not in legal terms. In other words, the state of aggravation of somebody living under the administration of the Welsh Assembly has to be such that they will go to court before there can be any appeal.

If that is the case, of course there is not much more to be said, but it would be interesting to know whether the noble Lord thinks at the end of this series of Amendments that that is the case—that he can never conceive of occasions on which there ought to be machinery in which somebody other than the local authority can have the final say. For instance, compare the responsibilities of the Welsh Assembly with those of the Greater London Council. Would the noble Lord be equally content to leave the final words, "in administering justice in all fields", in the hands of the Greater London Council, from which the power of appeal at present lies to the Secretary of State in, I think, all of the fields which we have so far discussed? It is an interesting point. I am surprised to find the noble Lord so resolutely entrenched upon it, because it shows, I think, not a commendable trust in the Welsh people but—dare I say it?—a slightly naive trust in human nature.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I should not wish to deny a naive trust in human nature. I think that to some extent I have one, and we are hearing many doubts about this matter which I myself do not feel. The position is as it has been all the way through. If one sets up an Assembly and tells it to do something in place of somebody else who is doing it, and if there is no appeal to the somebody else who is doing it, it is clearly a derogation of what one is giving it to do if one puts an appeal above it. That is what we are doing. The Secretary of State has powers. There is no appeal beyond him. The Assembly is to have the same powers. There will be no appeal beyond it. I believe that this is logical and correct and that anything else will be damaging.

May I make one remark about something which the noble Lord said earlier. He said that the effect of the Bill was that references to the Secretary of State in Schedule 11 would be converted into references to the Assembly, unless specifically reserved. That is not the case. Schedule 11 sets out the position as it will be after devolution. That is, references to the Secretary of State will remain as such.

Lord ELTON

I am sorry, but I should like the noble Lord to take me through that a little more slowly. I did not quite follow him. He is saying, is he, that the powers in the Schedule are not devolved? Are they reserved and, if so, where?

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

The noble Lord suggested that the effect of the Bill was that references to the Secretary of State in Schedule 11 would be converted into references to the Assembly, unless specifically reserved. That is not the case. Schedule 11 sets out the position as it will be after devolution. That is, references to the Secretary of State will remain as such.

Lord ELTON

Are we speaking about Schedule 11 to this Bill?

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

Yes.

Lord ELTON

The noble Lords says that the amendments of an enactment in Schedule 11 are therefore exempted from the effects of the listings in Schedule 2. Where is that stated in the Bill?

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I am a little confused about this. Perhaps I had better write to the noble Lord. I have been given a note on this, because it was thought to be important to explain it to the noble Lord. As I have failed to explain it to him, I had better do so in writing.

Lord ELTON

Yes. I think that this is important. I should be obliged if the noble Lord would write to me, because it affects the drafting of other Amendments.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

Yes.

Baroness ELLES

May I come in here once more? If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord said that whereas now there is an appeal to the Secretary of State, under the devolved powers appeal will be to the Assembly and that from the Assembly there will no appeal. There is no appeal now from the Secretary of State. Consequently, there will, in parallel, be no appeal from the new devolved body, the Welsh Assembly.

The fact of the matter is that one cannot compare both bodies. If the Minister of State appears to make a decision which is contrary to natural justice he can be sacked by his boss, the Prime Minister. There can be a row in Parliament. Complaints can be made. In the last resort, I assume that in either case one could go to the High, Court, under the new Order 53, for judicial review. We are arguing a hypothetical case, because in either case the individual can appeal. I suggest that the way in which the noble Lord put it was not quite correct, in that there is always an ultimate appeal from an administrative action to the courts.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

Of course.

Baroness ELLES

That is very important because what we are concerned with are the rights of the individual on this and it would help noble Lords on all sides of the Committee, because when one is talking about the right of appeal one is talking only in a circumscribed way with regard to the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly. In fact, the individual will always have a right of appeal to the High Court when injustice has been done. The point that I want to make is that it is not the same thing to appeal to somebody who is appointed to a position as it is to a political body which, after all, is elected for a term of years. If one gets injustice from a Minister of State, as the noble Lord himself was advising the people of the country to "make hell", you can make hell against X and say that he has been incompetent and so on, and he may in the end be removed. But you cannot do that against an elected body which is there for four years whether you like them or not. I am not saying whether they are going to be more incompetent or more efficient, but the situation is not comparable and one cannot say that it is.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I think the situation is certainly comparable although I do not think it is identical. After all, the position of an elected body is that it has electors; it is very sensitive to its electors, and this is the way one has to deal with it. Four years is only true for a week; after that it is four years less a week because the time runs out. I really think that one has a perfectly good defence with the courts behind one. On each occasion I have objected to what I call the third tier of appeal, and I have always justified that by the fact that one has recourse to the courts.

Lord ELTON

I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46L:

Page 39, column 2, line 46, at end insert— ("The functions under section 67(5) of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: This is a pair with Amendment No. 108J and I have to apologise to your Lordships for a misprint in the latter. In subsection (5) as it is there printed, the reference to subsection (2) should be a reference to subsection (4). I would not therefore be able to press this Amendment in any case and in fact the noble Lord may have been sitting absorbing to the best of his ability a brief on the wrong subject. Great as is the temptation to get him to commit himself further to it without revealing any toils under which he is travailling, I shall resist it. Therefore, as it is also a question of an appeal from the Assembly I do not think that we should drag out the discussion further on this, beyond my saying that I cannot agree with the noble Lord that a chap who is the Secretary of State is the same animal as a lot of chaps, which is an Assembly, and to treat them as though they were is not advisable. However, we have been over that ground already.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46M:

Page 39, column 2, line 46, at end insert— ("The functions under section 68 of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: This deals with Section 68 of the Act and it is a very wide power which used to be discharged by the Secretary of State for Education; in Wales it is now discharged—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—by the Secretary of State for Wales and if this Bill is enacted it is going to be discharged by the Welsh Assembly. It gives the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly the power to prevent unreasonable exercise of functions.

If your Lordships pause to think, you will see that that is a very wide power indeed. If the Secretary of State is satisfied, either on complaints by any person or otherwise, that any local education authority or the managers or governors of any county or voluntary school have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act, he may make such directions as appear to him to be expedient. Your Lordships will see the most inquisitorial —if that is the right word; I think it is not though I have searched for the right word: the adjective that would go with the French "intendant" in the ancient regime would be the right word, but I do not know what it is—possibilities.

I cannot think there is anything more like the power of an intendant than that of being able to decide that a local education authority or the governors of a school are proposing to act unreasonably, without even having their proposals complained against to him; that is a very large power. It is a catch-all clause. The Secretary of State has only to be satisfied—and the case of Robinson v. The Minister of Town and Country Planning in 1947, to quote only one example of many, makes it beyond doubt that he only determines whether or not he is satisfied—so he is here the absolute final arbiter of all things in the operation, as I see it, of the 1944 Act and subsequent Acts.

I should like to know how an Assembly determines whether it is satisfied. If the noble Lord is in doubt about his satisfaction, at the end of reflection he makes up his mind one way or the other. To the rest of the world, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is satisfied 100 per cent. If the Assembly is in doubt as to whether or not it is satisfied, it presumably goes to a vote, and perhaps a casting vote. I do not know whether this is so. I do not know—and I am sure the noble Lord w ill tell us, as he has told us before, that he does not know, either—under what rules of procedure this important function will be discharged; whether it will be remitted, as it may be, to a committee. I have seen no place in the Bil1.where that power is denied. I do not know whether, within that committee, it is proposed to remit this to an individual, thus overcoming the difficulty of having somebody like Lord Donaldson declaring himself 100 per cent. satisfied and maintaining his doubts in secret.

This is an extraordinarily interesting section of the Act. If ever there was a derogation to the Secretary of State from everything else in the Act, it is this. The temptation to us would be—and I suppose might be in the light of what is said afterwards—to dispense with other Amendments about appeals and substitute this one, because that would cover the whole range of the activities of the Act. My view is that the noble Lord would find that less tasteful than what we have already asked him to swallow. But I think the principal points of interest are these: one, the final oversight of everything in the Act which is devolved is devolved to the Assembly, which must surely be a reassurance to the noble Lord about our intentions as to whether devolution should be real or only apparent; and secondly, what is the difference between a decision to be satisfied of an individual and a decision to be satisfied of an Assembly, and whether in fact there are legal implications within that which would not be known to laymen such as myself and some of my noble friends. I hope the noble Lord will impart those parts of the contents of his brief to us as well. I beg to move.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

My brief does not contain a description of how the Assembly will work, I am afraid, but I can tell the noble Lord what I think, which is exactly what he said. I think there will be cornmittees; it is laid down that there should be. There will be sub-committees who will deal with particular things, and reports will be made to them in exactly the same way as they are made to people in the Department of which one is a Minister. Then instead of coming up to the Minister for decision they will come up to the committee for decision, and they will be ratified by the Assembly. Your Lordships may say it is a clumsy way of dealing with it, but it is a perfectly honourable, democratic and well-tried way. It does not worry me, and I am sorry it worries the noble Lord.

As regards the Amendment we are talking about, this, like so many of the others I have been talking about, is simply removing a most important power, and the noble Lord has said how important it is, from the body that we are asking to be responsible for education in Wales and giving it to the Secretary of State, or letting the Secretary of State keep it. In other words, we are saying: You can have the whole responsibility for education in Wales, but we are not going to give you this very important power; we shall keep it for the Secretary of State". If they do not think that that means because we do not trust them, I shall be very surprised. However, in either case I think that it would be absolutely wrong, because I do not think that they can do the job properly without it. It is essential, if we are to give the Assembly powers to run education in Wales, that it should have all the powers, and not bits and pieces. I have said that about six times this evening, so I shall not say it again.

Lord ELTON

And the noble Lord has done so very elegantly and with great patience, too. In the light of that not very revelatory statement—but at least it was friendly—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.11 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46N:

Page 39, line 46, at end insert— ("The functions under sections 70, 71 and 72(3) of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 46N. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that we are in pastures new. We enter the field of non-maintained or independent schools. The Amendment is a probing Amendment which seeks to reserve the functions under Sections 70, 71 and 72(3) of the 1944 Act. I regret to say that the last of them deals with the determination of complaints which the noble Lord will say is the same, but of course there are different people complaining from a different system. The other two deal with the registration of independent schools and complaints within the system as opposed to complaints from the system.

It would be very nice to draw from Her Majesty's Government some indication of their intention of establishing or otherwise any uniformity of policy towards private education in the United Kingdom. They are always enigmatic —perhaps I should say less than enigmatic —in their approach to private education. They are now splitting off a whole chunk of an area, in which policy development is in a sensitive stage, to a devolved Assembly. It is sensitive in a number of ways.

Questions have been raised about whether or not private educational establishments shall remain registered as, for instance, charities and have charitable status. There is also the recent and, I think, most regrettable decision to suspend or terminate—I am not clear which—the process by which independent schools have hitherto been recognised as efficient. One is also interested to know what process of inspection of independent schools will continue, because the provisions of the 1944 Act requiring inspection have not been repealed, although the recognition of efficient service has been withdrawn.

Will the Welsh Assembly be in any way expected to attune its procedure and its policy to that of the United Kingdom? In the remotely improbable event of a landslide victory for the Conservative Party in the Welsh Assembly, would it be allowed to reinstitute direct grant schools, to decomprehensivise—I do not know that it would wish to do so—or indeed to build a lot of schools with public money and make them independent? Will there be any correlation in this area or none?

Those are perhaps somewhat fanciful speculations, but what I think is needed from the noble Lord, of a more serious nature, is some indication of what the Government's attitude will be to the future of private education in Wales. Moreover, I suppose that if the provisions are to differ on either side of the Border we may have emigration beginning. Can the noble Lord tell us anything as regards the whole sphere of the future of private and independent education in Wales? I beg to move.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I shall not be induced into a discussion on the general policy about independent schools. This might take longer than we have, and is absolutely nothing to do with the Bill. What I can say with complete clarity is that the supervision of independent schools is part of the integrated education system, and to divorce these powers from all the others devolved to the Assembly would make no sense at all. How can it work out a coherent approach towards the provision of schools if it is denied any powers in relation to the independent sector? The Amendment seems designed to cause difficulties, not only for the Assembly, but also for the Secretary of State, who would be faced with administering a corner of the schools' programme by himself. That is really quite unthinkable.

The answer to the more general question which the noble Lord asked is as follows. If these powers go to the Welsh Assembly, it can use them and, as the noble Lord said, in the very unlikely and rather disagreeable possibility of a violent change of politics, it can act on them. This is what devolution means, and we must not pretend that we are not giving the Assembly that power. This is what devolution is and we are not backing down from it.

Lord ELTON

Brief, stark and illuminating is how one would describe that. In other words, it will be open to the Assembly to withdraw the registration of independent schools as a follow up to withdrawing the recognition of efficient service. Can the noble Lord tell us whether the Assembly will be able to make any change in the policy about the charitable status of schools? This must he a matter of importance. If the noble Lord does not have the answer before him, perhaps he could let me know, because I think people will want to know.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I should like notice of that question because I think that the Charity Commissioners are part of Great Britain and are not devolved. However, ever, I shall write to the noble Lord on that because I am not sure of the answer now.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

In another place, it would be out of order to go too far into the latter part of the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as to what would happen to private and other schools. As someone who went through the Welsh educational system, I have no fear whatever that any Welsh Assembly would neglect the possibility of giving first-class education to the children of Wales. Not being a class society, we have no class distinctions in Wales. It is far from our minds to think of private education. Our old-fashioned elementary schools which took the trouble to teach mathematics, physics and even philosophy to the children were so good. The scholarships given by Wales and, for example, the County of Glamorgan, in the days when Glamorgan existed, were first-class. I would have no fears at all about Welsh or Scottish education. If we had anything, although we were poor, it was a first-class education system.

Lord ELTON

I am sure that the noble Lord is right, but I am also sure that he will understand that anyone concerned with private education in Wales will wish to know exactly what the future may hold. That the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has been kind enough to tell us, in so far as he can without prejudging the issues at stake. I think that that is probably all that we can gain from this, and I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46P:

Page 39, line 46, at end insert— ("The function under section 72(2A) of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: I think that there is an error in this Amendment and I shall not move it.

10.19 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46Q: Page 39, line 47, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 62 and").

The noble Lord said: Here we are on really very important ground on which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will be able to enlighten us. Section 62 of the 1944 Act, to which this Amendment relates, is the section which imposes upon the Secretary of State the duty of seeing that there is sufficient provision for the facilities for the training of teachers for service in schools, colleges and other establishments maintained by local education authorities. The noble Lord will be well aware that we on this side of the Committee are very interested in the programme of the training of teachers. I know that the noble Lord will come out again with this question of derogation of powers, but I think that there is a different issue involved here. What we are concerned with is that throughout the United Kingdom, and particularly in England and Wales, there shall be an adequate supply of adequately trained teachers: adequate to maintain the standards within the profession; adequate to enable teachers who have, as one might put it, burnt out, to retire early.

That statement in itself has two implications. One is that there must be some indication of how many—I gather we cannot adjourn. I understand that events at the other end of the corridor to my left, which might have led us to be able to adjourn proceedings at this stage and enable some of us to go happy to bed, have been forestalled, no doubt by the friends of the noble Lord on my right: five of his friends.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

Can the noble Lord be more explicit about the matter to which he is referring so secretly?

Lord ELTON

If the noble Lord has difficulty in understanding what I think the rest of the Committee has understood, I gather that a vote at the other end of the corridor has determined by five that the present Government should remain in office.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.

Lord ELTON

I must say that it is rather nice to go down in the record as bringing news to the Liberal Party of the vital role which they play in the politics of this day. I could only wish that I approved of the role more heartily.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

I thank the noble Lord for that tribute, but I am making just a probing request to the noble Lord on a statistical matter as to what the number of the majority was.

Lord ELTON

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, would have pointed out, if he had been in this place, that this is beyond the bounds of what would be permitted in another place, and we must return to our muttons.

This question is one of considerable importance because the quality of education in this country depends almost exclusively upon the quality of the teaching force. In my view, the proportion of children in Wales to the rest of the United Kingdom, as such, is such that to split off that area and make it responsible not only for standards—we have been over that ground now, and the noble Lord knows that I do not agree with him and I will make no more of it— but also as to the sufficiency of the numbers of teachers, does not seem to us to be a viable decision.

What happens when you have training places in surplus in Wales and in deficit in the United Kingdom? Who decides, when there is an overall deficit, what part of it shall be made up in Wales and what part in England? Moreover, as to the actual content of the training given, will it be necessary in Wales to devote such a proportion of time for training in Welsh that the standard reached in other topics by students in major subjects will not be acceptable in the United Kingdom? Is the career prospect of a teacher trained in Wales going to be different from that of a teacher trained in the United Kingdom? I am sure the answer to this will be, yes. Will the qualifications given by one authority be accepted by those of another?

It is difficult to see how the Government propose to run a system of acceptable standards throughout the United Kingdom by this devolved method, and I do not know whether we can hope to get from the noble Lord more than yet another attribution of general principle; but we are talking about people, bricks and mortar, and beds and books. We want to be assured that the plans as set out in this Bill will not act against education in the United Kingdom and, a fortiori, against education in Wales, because you will not get people flocking eagerly to teach in Wales if they feel that their careers are going to be limited; and that in itself must cause some alarm on the other side of the Border.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

I trespass on the time of the Committee at this late hour to point out that the debate on this Amendment is valuable because it enables us to point out that there should not be any disparity in educational standards throughout the United Kingdom. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would, if he were in his place—because he went through the same educational system—agree that years ago there were various matriculations. The Welsh matriculation was different from the London one, and those of us who went through those examinations recall that we had to pass in every subject; if one failed in, say, mathematics, one did not get a certificate. The situation today is very different.

We must not allow devolution, be it in Scotland or Wales, to interfere with the educational opportunities available to British children. If that were to happen we should be doing a disservice to the future of Britain in its standing throughout the world. Whatever happens to this Bill, I hope we shall have enough sense —I mean everybody throughout Britain—to ensure that examinations throughout the country are of the same standard, and that the same names are given to them in the English language, whether they are speaking Welsh or Gaelic. We must do that if we are to maintain the unity of Britain and the charisma of Britishness.

Baroness ELLES

Following that stimulating speech by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, I return to the question not so much of equal standards as of equal opportunities, an aspect that has not been raised at this juncture. I say that advisedly, because I am probably one of the few in your Lordships' House who has had the benefit of education, by chance rather than by design, at two Welsh universities, one year at Aberystwyth and one year at Bangor. That was at the beginning of the war when London University was evacuated. I have therefore had the benefit of sharing in the benefits of Welsh education, and I must mention the very high standard of the young undergraduates who came from schools of all types throughout Wales and among whom I am happy to say I had many good friends.

Many of those undergraduates were to become teachers and they were anxious about their jobs; they realised there would not be sufficient jobs for them in the Welsh schools in which to earn their living. The same position will probably continue to apply. If we have different educational methods, books and subjects, as my noble friend suggested might happen, in teachers' training colleges in Wales, what chance will Welsh teachers trained in Welsh training colleges have of getting jobs in other schools throughout the British Isles? This point must be of concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about universal standards throughout the United Kingdom and I think we all agree that whether it is the Welsh Assembly or England or Scotland dictating standards—the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said this on many aspects of this subject—this is really an act of faith. We must assume they will be as efficient and capable as other parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, I hope they will be more efficient and effective.

That may be so, but at the moment we do not know and I am not saying whether it will be better or worse. But if it is different, then not only will we be seeking to destroy a certain unity of the Kingdom —I would emphasise, say, the teaching of history, the use of certain types of history books; noble Lords will be aware that that can be a means of political manipulation, and I am not saying whether it is good or had or which Party it is or which attitude is being taught—but by allowing different methods and controls and different people controlling teachers' training colleges, we should be destroying for the people of Wales who want to be teachers the opportunity to move throughout the United Kingdom and have an equal opportunity with other teachers trained in other parts of the Kingdom to have jobs.

I should have thought that localising this particular vocation is a great mistake, unless the noble Lord can assure us that there will be some method of co-ordination between the civil servants in Cardiff and the civil servants in London, who work both in the Welsh Office and in the Department of the Secretary of State for Education. We have had no assurance from the Government that there is to be any system of co-ordination, at any level, for all the subjects that we have been discussing. This is what has been missing from the debate, and I should be very glad if the noble Lord can help us on this particular aspect.

10.30 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

Honestly, this Amendment strikes at the heart of the devolution of the education service. Its acceptance would mean that the Assembly would be deprived of the ability to make arrangements to train teachers for its schools. It would place this power on the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State would have no other responsibilities for the administra- tion of the schools themselves. The effect, once more, would be split responsibility for the education service in Wales. I would remind your Lordships that earlier this year responsibility for further and higher education was transferred from the Department of Education and Science to the Welsh Office, in order that the education service in Wales could be dealt with as a whole, the previous arrangements having been the source of complaints by local education authorities, who were previously having to deal with two Departments. Surely, it could not be right to split the responsibility once more.

I appreciate that sonie noble Lords are concerned that the transfer of these powers to the Assembly could somehow empower that body to place requirements on English education authorities. Perhaps I should explain that the effect of the Wales Bill is to split the provision of teacher training facilities between England and Wales. The Secretary of State for Education and Science will remain responsible for such facilities in England, and the Assembly will take on these responsibilities in Wales. The Assembly will be able to give directions only to local education authorities in Wales. This would not, however, preclude the Assembly entering into an agreement with authorities in England for the provision of places; and of course teachers can apply for a job in England as easily as they can apply for a job in Wales, and vice versa—

Baroness ELLES

May I intervene? My whole point is that it will not he as easy for the teachers because they will not have had the same kind of training. They may have been trained in completely different subjects, and in completely different ways of education; and so they will not have the same opportunities.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

The noble Baroness is saying that the development of education in Wales—which has been very well described by my noble friend behind me as being as good as that anywhere else—will suddenly change. Well, it may; and if it does I accept that devolution gives the right to do that. I have said this probably eight times this evening, and I say it again: the Bill has that eject. We do not pretend that it does not; we mean it to have that effect. We have absolute faith that it will be w ell used. I think that many noble Lords opposite have the same faith. But it would be absurd to pretend that one can give people the power both to run the education service and, at the same time, take great chunks of it away; and teacher training is an absolutely fundamental chunk. I agree that at the moment training requirements are dealt with on an England and Wales basis, but the fact remains that a very large number of teachers are trained in Wales, and matters in Wales have always been very different from matters in England. Thus there is not a close similarity.

It will obviously be in the interest of the Assembly and the Secretary of State for Education and Science in England to consult closely on these matters, but it would be, as mentioned, a source of discord if the Secretary of State made assessments on this matter in Wales, when he would not be responsible for the education service as a whole. The reservation of pay is not a relevant comparison because it is not concerned with numbers of teachers, only with the pay that any individual teacher in England and Wales receives.

There is a certain plausibility in what the noble Baroness has said. Clearly, if standards changed very much there would be a new situation; but I do not think one can go into devolution saying that if there is any change we are going to put it back again. You had much better not start it—which is a view certain people have, I know. But I have said before this evening that, viewed in their literal sense, a number of these Amendments are basically wrecking Amendments. I know that the noble Lord does nct mean them to be, but the noble Baroness has just said that she would be glad if they were. I am afraid I cannot budge on this. I think it would be a real derogation from the powers we are offering to the Assembly to do a proper job in education.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

Before my noble friend sits down, may I say that I did not think the noble Lord intended to wreck. I thought it was exploring, as a matter of fact; that is why I entered into it.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I quite agree.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

Of course my noble friend quite agrees. I should like to point out, though, something about the educational system as it now is. I might remind the Committee before I sit down that a relative of mine said that when he left school he was not going to university; he was going to go for his higher Welsh, woodwork and scripture. When we asked him, "What the devil is the use of that to you?", Welsh as he is, he said, "Don't worry; I'm going to be a businessman. I'm going to be an undertaker in Aberystwyth." There are great opportunities in the educational system for those who are not privileged with the grey matter that some other people have; but, for goodness' sake!, do not think that the Welsh are morons.

Lord ELTON

Nobody in this Committee, knowing the ancestry of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, would accuse the Welsh of being morons. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has gone quite far enough in revealing what the results of this new arrangement will be, particularly on the question of how we shall arrive at the numbers of teachers trained. Is it no longer a national problem? Will it be only the Welsh who have to supply the right number of teachers, with the much less flexible margins they will have because it is a very much smaller market they have to supply? It really is very small. How is that going to be arrived at?

I share the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in examinations. I am in fact a councillor of the City and Guilds of London Institute, and, naturally, one of its functions is to secure uniformity across borders. I think that will be useful under forthcoming circumstances. But the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has not mentioned, for instance, the functions of the National Council for Academic Awards, which secures the standards, basically, of university education and teacher training college education, because most colleges are either departments of education within universities or else have their degree courses, at least, validated by the universities in association with which they operate. Is that body going to be split? Is there going to be one NCAA in England and another in Wales? Will the standards vary, and will that not matter, either?

Three things, really, concern us. There is the volume of the actual unit, the group of teachers required to service the Welsh schools. That is a rather small unit, and it will have to operate within tight limits. It means very accurate planning of the number of teachers trained if it is going to be a separate unit. Is it going to be separate in that there will be no national accounting for the number of teachers required, as there is at present? What about the Council for the Training and Supply of Teachers? Is that going to be divided, so that there will be separate advice for Wales and for England; or are they going to be treated holus-bolus? That is one thing. The second thing is a career structure. Is a student teacher who is embarking on teaching in Wales going to be faced with a different—a longer, shorter, wider or narrower—ladder than his colleague in England? That is the second thing. If the noble Lord could tell us more about that, I would be disposed to go away and think about it. I am not quite sure whether he has given me enough to think about at present.

10.40 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

If the noble Lord will really go away and think about it, I will try to say a little more. First, over the number of teachers, the situation is that today there are a certain number of teacher training colleges in Waies with a certain number of trainees being taught. This will not change the moment we have devolution. They will behave in the same way as any teacher training college behaves. They will try to fill themselves and if they find they are teaching more people than can find jobs, they will reduce; and if they find they are teaching fewer people than can find jobs, they will increase. This is natural. There is no change; this will go on in the normal way. Quite a lot of trainees who go to Wales will be English and quite a lot of Welsh trainees will come to England. None of this will change. The Welsh Assembly will have responsibility for providing the facilities and the places for teachers in Wales. This seems to me a perfectly understandable and simple situation which need not worry anybody.

Over the ladder, the ladder is not confined in any sense to Wales, in that a teacher can apply for a job at a school in any part of England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, today and tomorrow. If, as the noble Baroness fears, standards become different, we may, in 20 or 30 years, run into a problem; but not within that time, I think.

Lastly, the noble Lord referred to universities. Universities are not being devolved. I cannot tell the noble Lord the answer to the academic awards, but I will find out. I should have thought it would remain national and advice and attention would be given on both sides of the border, but. I shall have to take advice on that.

Lord ELTON

While the noble Lord is taking advice, I shall take thought. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 46R and 46S not moved.]

Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46T: Page 39, line 47, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 68A and").

The noble Lord said: We have dealt with something like this Amendment. This relates to Section 68. We have covered the ground to the satisfaction of almost everybody, I think.

Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46U: Page 39, line 47, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 68AA and").

The noble Lord said: Again, we come to the question of complaints. It is Section 68. Again, I think I would be wasting the time of the Committee if I moved this Amendment. The drafting is very similar. It was produced at two different times on two very late nights.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46V:

Page 40, line 5, at end insert— ("The functions under section 92 of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: This is very much a probing Amendment. I hope the noble Lord will enlighten me. It is really based on a desire to know whether the receipt of a report and return is, in fact, a function in the sense in which the word "function" is used in the Bill. If it is—and this is information which will be useful later on—then what would be lost by the devolution of this function? The principal section, I should tell noble Lords who do not have the benefit of the Act before them, is Section 92. It is very short. It says: Every local education authority shall make to the Secretary of State such reports and returns and give to him such information as he may require for the purpose of the exercise of his functions under that Act.".

I shall be raising this again on a later Amendment. It seems to me that when reports are made as a matter of course in some areas within the system, perhaps by Her Majesty's Inspectors, or when visiting special schools, for instance, it would be as well if the Secretary of State were to know what was going on and to have a copy thereof. There are particular instances of that which I should like to raise later. But on this particular point, which I have done is to insert the reservation of Section 92 of the 1944 Education Act to discover whether it is a function and what would be the results of devolution if it is devolved.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

The answer is very simple: the Secretary of State has power today to require such reports and returns, and that power is devolved by the Wales Bill to the Assembly. The section in the 1944 Act contains a function of requiring the report, and that is a function. The Amendment would be disastrous. As it is probing, I cannot do more than ask the noble Lord not to press it.

Lord ELTON

The noble Lord must become accustomed to probing Amendments being disastrous; it is only a moment of apprehension if he does not know whether or not they are probing that ought to concern him. I am obliged to him. I see the function in the terms of the Act is the requirement for the making of reports. That explains that. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.46 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46W:

Page 40, line 5, at end insert— ("The functions under section 93 of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: This is a similarly obtuse request for information about Section 93 of the Education Act 1944. All I have written in my brief to myself is, "Explain, please". Section 93 is the power of the Secretary of State to direct local inquiries. All the clause says is that the Secretary of State— may cause a local inquiry to be held for the purpose of the exercise of any of his functions under this Act; and the provisions of … the Local Government Act, 1933, shall have effect".

I should like the noble Lord to tell us —and the lawyers among us will know this already—what is implied by the power to direct a local inquiry? I take it that a local inquiry is a particular legal procedure, and that it is normally exercised by a Minister who wishes to extract information under certain rules of evidence. I am not particularly alarmed by this, but I think that those of your Lordships who are not familiar with the law will be obliged for a shorthand explanation of what is being given away. I beg to move.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

The noble Lord has put his finger on an interesting point which, I hasten to say, I will take away and consider. It is a matter which needs consideration. The position is that, under the Bill as it stands, the power to hold an inquiry is devolved outright; but the Secretary of State will have some residual powers, and it should be possible for him to hold an inquiry in relation to them. I am not quite sure of the best way to deal with this. I should like to come back on it. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his constructive Amendment.

Lord ELTON

I am astonished and delighted by what the noble Lord has said—and grateful, too. What he appears to be saying—is he not?—is that this ought to be a case for concurrent powers. Perhaps we could come back to this question at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46X:

Page 40, column 2, line 5, at end insert— ("The functions under section 99 of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to Section 99 of the Education Act 1944. I do not want to delay the Committee on this Amendment. We already know the answer to one matter that I wished to raise, which was whether or not the Assembly would be a local authority under the meaning of the Act. Section 99 of the Education Act 1944 is one which allows the Secretary of State to act in default of local education authorities or managers or governors when they fail to carry out a duty. I do not see the objection to their doing this as a devolved function.

I had it in mind to ask the noble Lord one question, which was whether historically the Secretary of State had had to make use of his power on a recognisable number of occasions. I have not heard of its being done, and it would be interesting to know whether he has that information, because we could then know the extent of the power that is being devolved. I am not wishing to resist this.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I have not the information but I will get it for the noble Lord before we meet again. I think from what he has said the noble Lord is satisfied that this power should be devolved. So there is nothing between us. However, I will find out the use that has been made of this power in the past.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

If I may take just one minute, I think there is a point in this, because noble Lords will remember there is an old-fashioned system of school managers. In some rural areas all over Britain you may get some old curmudgeons as school managers who, instead of wanting children to have an education—I had better be careful in what I say—may want the children at ploughing time or potato-gathering time, and thus interfere with their educational opportunities. It has happened in some cases that the central authority has had to come down fairly heavily where children have been misused at certain times and seasons of harvests. I am not going to say in which countries it happens or in which counties, but it is universal.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

I would, if I might, intervene on a technical matter. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his dialogue with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said from time to time that he will be writing to him with information. Would it be possible for me to have a copy of the information?—because certain interesting matters have been raised and we should like to consider them further.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

It will be a great pleasure.

Lord ELTON

Many a crop of potatoes would not have been lifted in days gone by were it not for the procedures which would have fallen before this sector! However, the mechanisation of agriculture seems to have helped towards the improvement of education. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 46Y not moved.]

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46Z: Page 40, leave out from beginning of line 6 to end of line 14.

The noble Lord said: I shall be very interested to hear how the noble Lord will play again the tune which says that if you take anything away from the Assembly you are in fact derogating from it and that what is left is a hollow shell. Amendment No. 46Z proposes leaving out certain lines on page 40 relating to reserved functions: these refer to functions under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act: so far as relating to terms and conditions of service, pensions, gratuities or allowances payable on retirement or death, or compensation for loss of office or employment or loss or diminution of emoluments".

In other words, the Government have, properly in my view—of course, this is a probing Amendment—reserved the right to establish nationally what are to be the standards of pay, emoluments and conditions of service of the teaching service. That is a vital function in education. The educational profession is in competition with other professions for recruits. Recruiting is determined by two things, if you set aside the old adage which says: Those who can, do: those who cannot, teach".

If you set aside that, then there is competition for employment in education, as in other professions, and the supply of teachers will be largely controlled by this provision. Earlier, the noble Lord gave us to understand that the supply of teachers is something which is of peculiar interest to the Welsh Assembly and it ought not to be derogated from them. How in fact does he square what he says now about the one bunch of principles with what he is about to say regarding the other?

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I do not think that this is very difficult. The Scotland and Wales Bill contained provisions to devolve the powers to fix teachers' pay and related conditions to the Assembly. But after representations from the teachers' unions and others, the Government decided that the balance of advantage lay in reserving teachers' pay, so as to maintain the present uniform arrangements for England and Wales.

We believe that the provisions in the Wales Bill for dealing with the arrangements for fixing pay and related conditions of service, like superannuation, in respect of teachers in Wales are fair and satisfactory to all concerned. At present there are uniform arrangements for dealing with pay in England and Wales, and it is our intention that these should continue after devolution. The principal teachers' unions have supported reservation of pay negotiations and settlements —that is, for the continuation of the present England and Wales arrangements—although they recognise that there may be representation for the Assembly in these arrangements. Likewise, the arrangements have the support of the employing local authorities. Moreover, the Government also see considerable advantage in ensuring that there should be no hindrance to mobility within the profession, arising from any discrepancy in pay and related conditions. These are strong arguments which, in the Government's view, justify making an exception to one of the principles of devolution; that is, devolving where possible those areas of activity where decisions primarily affect people living in Wales. The noble Lord ought not to make too much of my doing in this case what he has wanted me to do on every other, and I shall be surprised if he can really make that one stick.

Baroness ELLES

While allowing my noble friend to have one minute's rest, perhaps I can come in on this Amendment. As the noble Lord has said, the question of teachers' pay is an area which he is specifically reserving to the Minister. I perfectly well see the reasons for it, and they are quite justifiable. But the noble Lord will realise that there will be a dichotomy if, as I suggested earlier, there is any radical change in the type of teacher training that goes on, because there will be the same pay for, perhaps, totally different standards, qualifications, ability and training. This is not a question of conflict between the Welsh Assembly and the Secretary of State; that has nothing to do with it. But it might be a matter of conflict between teachers who have been trained in one part of the country and teachers who have been trained in another part, who are getting the same wages and conditions of work, but are providing totally different services and have totally different abilities. If one has one, then one should have the other.

I accept that certain matters have to be devolved. But it is not a question of derogation, because the powers have not yet been given to anybody. But how are you to provide a viable system for the country, and for Wales, in particular? In view of what the noble Lord has said, there is a very strong argument for, at least, considering again the question of teachers' training. Or perhaps the noble Lord can assure us that there will be some co-ordination—I do not say that there should be control—in the pattern of training between England and Wales.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

In a way, standardisation on pay between England and Wales will ensure some liaison. Obviously there will be liaison in any event. We have a Department of Education here and we have the Welsh Office, which have always been in the closest touch; and the Welsh Office has recently taken on new powers. So I do not have the faintest fear that there will not be liaison. But this will ensure it, and I hope that what I have said will go some way to put the noble Baroness's mind at rest.

Lord ELTON

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and to my noble friend, for that exchange, which was very illuminating and will make rather good reading. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 46ZA not moved.]

11 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46AA:

Page 40, line 14, at end insert— ("The functions under section 112 of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: I hasten to assure the noble Lord that this is a probing Amendment. It is an odd provision, is it not? Section 112 of the 1944 Act requires all regulations made under this Act to be laid before Parliament, and a great many of the regulation-making powers have been devolved. I want to ask the noble Lord whether it is his intention that all the instruments generated by the Welsh Assembly are intended to be laid before this House and the other place. It makes quite a lot of difference. And what is all this about people breathing over other people's shoulders, when in fact in future we shall have to endorse everything that comes out of the Assembly?

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

The effect of the Wales Bill is that this provision ceases to apply in Wales, but that any regulations made by the Assembly must normally he made in plenary session.

Lord ELTON

Could the noble Lord direct us to this very valuable and important passage in the Bill which has escaped my notice?

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I will see if I can come to it. I shall have to look into this because it is a very long Bill and I cannot tell exactly where this provision comes. It is Clauses 76 and 23; I am sorry to have delayed the information which was not at my fingertips. The Amendments are not very clear, but the effect of this probing Amendment would be to require Assembly regulations to be laid before Parliament in the event of an objection. This surely would not be correct constitutional practice. We do not want to bring in another level of executive decision in relation to something entirely devolved. My first comment has probably satisfied the noble Lord on this.

Lord ELTON

I am obliged to the noble Lord. There is a limit to what I can discover for myself, and it is helpful of him to have sent for it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

Before the noble Lord speaks to the next Amendment may I make a correction? It was not Clause 23 but Clause 20.

Lord ELTON

I have that, my Lords, and it will be in the record.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46AAA:

Page 40, line 28, at end insert—

("The Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948 (c. 40).

The functions under section 6.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment, together with Amendment No. 46 AAB, deals with the question of recoupment of expenses by one authority when it has educated somebody who is the responsibility of another. The first Amendment relates to the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948, Section 6. In this section we read that where provision for a primary or secondary education is made by an LEA in respect of a pupil who does not belong to their area they are entitled to recoupment of an amount equal to the cost to them of the provision; if the pupil belongs to the area of another such authority from that authority the amount in that case being determined by agreement between the authorities or in default of agreement by the Secretary of State.

As I read the Act, if it is not amended as I suggest, the function of the Secretary of State under this section will be discharged by the Welsh Assembly. The question which then suggests itself to me is this. What happens when a child from Cardiff is educated, for one reason or another, in a special school in Hereford or Worcester? In a case where the Cardiff authority and the Worcester authority cannot agree, the arbiter will be the Welsh Assembly. I should have thought that here a degree of partiality might be suggested, even if it did not exist, which would not be acceptable.

The next Amendment, grouped with Amendment No. 48AAC, amends the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. In Section 7, again we get recoupment to the local education authority of the cost of providing further education for persons not belonging to its area. The provisions are approximately the same. I am asking the noble Lord to explain why it is, if I am right, that the Welsh Assembly is thought to be the right body to adjudicate in a dispute between one authority which is subordinate to it and another one which is not. I beg to move.

11.7 p.m.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be very surprised to hear that I do not think that he is entirely wrong! In general, the powers are certainly ones which seem to us to fall squarely within the functions which ought to be devolved. Given that the effect of devolution will be to allow differences to develop between England and Wales, there should be few, if any, cases where cross-Border problems arise. However, it appears to me, on serious consideration, that some such cases may occur. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to these provisions, and I undertake to reconsider and return to the matters in question at the Report stage.

Lord ELTON

I am grateful to the noble Lord not only for the generosity of his reply—indeed, for the good sense of his policy—but also for at last vindicating the burning of the midnight oil. We have gone three Amendments beyond the ones which my daughter had been sticking into my book of briefs, and where she had written "Hooray!", because last night we thought that that was as far as we were going. If the noble Lord gives that undertaking, of course I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46AAB:

Page 40, line 28, at end insert—

("The Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948 (c. 40).

The functions under section 7.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948 and the functions under Section 7. These are Amendments which are designed to modify the requirements of conformity to prescribed standards of school premises. Noble Lords will recall that we had a debate on this requirement rather a long time ago, at the beginning of the exchanges between the noble Lord and myself. This is correctly to be considered as a linked Amendment. However, it occurred on a later print of the Marshalled List, and when I made out my list of linked Amendments it was not there; so I did not put down the link. We have covered the subject adequately. Unless, therefore, any of my noble friends wish to intervene at this stage, which I do not think they do, I will not move the Amendment.

[Amendment No. 46AAC not moved.]

11.9 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46AAD:

Page 40, line 28, at end insert—

("The Education Act 1962 (c. 12).

The functions under section 3.").

The noble Lord said: We come now to an Amendment of the Education Act 1962; we are getting rather closer to home. It deals with the functions under Section 3 of that Act. With your Lordships' permission, I shall refresh my memory about it. It deals with the provision of State grants for the training of teachers and awards for postgraduate courses and to students over the prescribed age.

I find this provision to be confusing. It may only be that it is late at night and that it was late at night when I first came to it. But we have been told that provision for teacher training is to he devolved whereas provision of university education, which must in fact include postgraduate courses, is not devolved. It therefore seems to me that this section which I have put down as a probe for reservation, actually does the splits on the division between what is devolved and what is not devolved.

I know it is late at night and I apologise to your Lordships for introducing minutiae, but this is our only opportunity—indeed anybody's opportunity—to understand the minutiae of the Act; and if you are a lecturer in a college of education, as I once was, it is of great interest to know who will be paying your salary cheque, as it is if you are a student, as I once was, to know who will be paying your grant. Could the noble Lord relieve the anxieties of those who are now in a similar position? I beg to move.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

Once again, the noble Lord has raised a point in regard to a difficult situation, and I will look at it again. I will not give the text saying why, as it is late and all the noble Lord wants is the satisfaction of knowing that he has raised a point which we think requires further thought.

Lord ELTON

I think the noble Lord is almost accurate in his assumption of what I want, although it is not always like that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 46AAE:

Page 40, line 30, at end insert—

("The Remuneration of the of Teachers Act 1965 (c. 3).

All the functions Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: This relates to the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 and I take it that the term "the Education Acts 1944 to 1972" includes this. This is the machinery by which teachers' salaries are negotiated. I do not know the extent to which the situation has changed since the Act was drafted or my copy of it was annotated, but as I understand the position this is a national body, and in view of the reservation of powers as to remuneration that we discussed earlier in column 2 of Schedule 2, I take it that the functions of this committee will remain undevolved and so therefore will any involvement of the Secretary of State with it. We find the Secretary of State mentioned in subsections (4), (5) and (6). If this is all part of the machinery which is to be operated to bring about a non-devolved function it seems odd that this is not itself reserved. There may be an explanation of it, and that is what I should like to have from the noble Lord. I beg to move.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

On this particular Amendment, once again, I should like to look at it further and come back to the noble Lord.

Lord ELTON

The noble Lord has not been quite so generous: he has not said that I have a point. He has merely intimated that he aoes not know the answer.

Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE

I am not quite happy with it as it is.

Lord ELTON

That is marginally more generous, and at this late hour I will accept that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46AAF:

Page 40, line 30, at end insert—

("The Education (No. 2) Act 1968 (c. 37).

The functions under section 1(2).").

The noble Lord said: I think this is the one that we have been waiting to see come over the horizon. This is an Amendment to the Education (No. 2) Act 1968 and it is a suggestion to reserve the functions under Section 1(2), which is a function in relation to the changes in character, size or situation of schools, and your Lordships will recognise, I think with relief rather than resignation, that this is ground that we have already trodden.

Your Lordships have been very patient with me. I hope you will not feel that I have trespassed too much upon that patience. We have, after all, like tiny nuggets, discovered in the great mass of sand we have sifted this evening one, two or possibly three points upon which the noble Lord will take advice, and a great many more about which he is going to write to me and sundry other noble Lords, not forgetting Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. The noble Lord must remember that others have been at the wicket before him, and the postman's bag will be heavy. I am grateful. I shall not move the Amendment.

Lord STRABOLGI

I beg to move that the House be resumed.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.