Lords Sitting of 14 July 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Air Crash: Investigation
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the crash of the Dan Air 748 aircraft carrying mail on Friday, 26th June last.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the accident in question was the subject of a special bulletin issued by the Accident Investigations Branch on 10th July 1981 and I am placing a copy in the Library. The Chief Inspector of Accidents has ordered an inspector's investigation.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. May I ask him two questions? Whatever the cause of the accident, is it not time that the Queen's Flight was up-dated, not only for the sake of the peace of mind of Her Majesty but also for Ministers in this country and other heads of state who fly in these particular aircraft? Secondly, if it is a question of finance, is it not possible to merge the Queen's Flight with No. 32 Squadron so that the Government departments using it could have the cost spread over them, rather than that the Ministry of Defence should itself have to pay the whole cost?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of re-equipping the Queen's Flight goes, if I may say so, rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but I can assure the noble Earl that there is no question of any difficulty with the aircraft presently operated by the Queen's Flight, and that of course the matters arising from this particular accident have been closely attended to in respect of those aircraft.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if it is the case that this accident might have been due to a cargo door becoming dislodged at the rear of the aircraft and getting stuck in the tailplane, can my noble friend say how many such cases might have occurred in the past? Can he also say whether the Civil Aviation Authority have recommended any modifications, and whether indeed any of these modifications have been mandatory modifications?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there have been some similar incidents, I regret to say, in respect of this door fitted to this particular type of aircraft. Clearly this is a matter which will engage the close attention of the
1114
investigators. A number of minor modifications have been called for to the door system on this aircraft in the past. So far as I know, none of them was made mandatory.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, in spite of this tragic accident will the Minister confirm that the 748 is a remarkably fine aircraft that has been exported to nearly all of the countries of the world, and has been, and is, in fact a tribute to British production of civil aircraft?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is of course quite correct. I think 300 or so of this particular type of aircraft, or close derivatives of it, are in service around the world and have given very remarkable service.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, as I am not certain whether my noble friend heard my second supplementary, may I ask whether he did? If not, it was to ask whether he would agree that the Queen's Flight might be merged with No. 32 Squadron, thereby saving costs?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I did hear what my noble friend said, but like his first supplementary it had little to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

Prescription Charges and the Unemployed
2.40 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the result of their continuing consideration of exemption from prescription charges for the unemployed and other groups (Official Report, 29/6/81; col. 7).
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, there have been no developments since 29th June to change the Answer I gave on that date. The Government have always been concerned that no one should be deterred, on financial grounds, from seeking the treatment he needs and, for this reason, on each occasion when the prescription charge has been increased the income level at which people may claim low-income exemption has been raised. The Government feel that by this method help is available to a far wider section of the community who are living on a low income than would be the case if help was restricted to specified groups—many of whom have other resources.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, and encouraged by the fact that the lower income groups might stand a better chance of relief from the pain and suffering that everyone endures when there is an illness in a family. May I please ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that after the most fearful war in world history this nation created a completely free National Health Service which became part and parcel of the texture

1115
of our way of life, and that that now seems to be run down? And in these days, when so many people are unemployed, would he not agree that it must be a blot on any society if people have to decide whether they can have pain relieved because they may not be able to afford to?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, this really does seem rather wide of the Question. The National Health Service is in no way run down. It is one of the very few growth industries in the country today, with more real money made available annually. Therefore, I do not think I can answer the rest of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Spens: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how the prescription charge of £1 relates to the average cost of the service which is being provided?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Yes, my Lords. The average cost of a prescription is currently £3·37, so the £1 charge is considerably under one-third of the cost.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government's policy of increasing prescription charges so frequently, and at such a very high level at the moment, is imposing considerable hardship, particularly upon people who need to have more than one drug? This is something I hope the Government will reconsider.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, the Government are well aware of that, and in inflationary times this is pretty difficult to avoid. I would say that out of all the prescriptions—and there are something over 300 million per annum in England—68 per cent. are given free of charge and 6 per cent. are provided on the basis of prepayment certificates, or season tickets as they are better known.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is it possible for the Government to make known these facilities to people on lower incomes, in view of the fact that large numbers of them are completely unaware of these facilities at the moment?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: This is a continuing worry, my Lords, not only in this case but in all matters of benefits. The Government make strenuous efforts to make this information available. It is of course well known in all the offices around the country, but the question of take-up is a perpetual worry which does not apply just today but has always applied.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to inform the House of the cost of administering the collection of the £1 prescription charge and of administering the exemptions, and how one compares with the other?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I wish I could, my Lords, but I am afraid I cannot.

Law and Order: Ministerial Responsibility
2.44 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider appointing a Minister for law and order, owing to the general increase in crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, with the support of his ministerial team, is responsible for matters relating to law and order.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that short Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that my Question certainly implies no reflection on the Home Secretary? However, if we take the multitude of problems, apart from crime, with which the Home Secretary has to contend, may I ask my noble friend whether he thinks it is fair or possible to expect him today to be responsible for countering the rising amount of crime and violence which we are witnessing? Further, would my noble friend agree that, if we had a Minister for law and order, he could concentrate entirely on those subjects and inquire into the causes to see whether any groups are spreading sedition and misleading our young people?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is the responsibility of the Government in this country to see that the agencies of law and order can do their work effectively, and I certainly join with my noble friend in his wish to see that their work is done as effectively as possible. I think it is fair for me to claim that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has shown very effectively that the necessary equipment is being made available to the police for them to deal with those who are rioting and looting, and as your Lordships will have read in the newspapers, the courts are dealing with cases arising from recent violence effectively and swiftly.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, would the Minister be kind enough to tell the House the comparative costs of employing another Minister instead of employing a few more policemen?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to the first part of that supplementary question is that I do not think anyone could get better value for money than they get out of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. As for the second part, it might be of interest to the House to know that we now have 7,000 more policemen in this country than we had in May 1979.
Lord Shinwell: Yes, my Lords, but does the Minister not realise that it is not just a question of numbers? It is a question of organisation, will and policy. That is what is required, along with anticipation, which is

1117
perhaps more important than any other quality. Is the noble Lord aware that that is where the Government have been lacking?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the Government have not been lacking here. The whole basis of the Answer to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard is, as the noble Lord with his long experience will know much better than I do, that in this country the police cannot be directed, for good reasons of democracy and freedom, in what they do; it is the chief constables who are responsible for their operations. And the courts cannot be directed by any member of the Government in what they decide. However, where I absolutely take the noble Lord's point is that it is up to the Government to see that matters work, and I would add to the information I have already given that one of the valuable things which my noble friend has set in train is a co-ordinating system which is based here in London, so that different forces around the country can decide where and how police should be moved between police forces.
Lord Barnby: My Lords, reverting to the Minister's first Answer, may I ask him to discuss with the Secretary of State the possibility that, even at the taxpayers' expense, more publicity should be given to the sentences imposed for rioting, associating with that publicity details of the length of time that habitually occurs between the committal of an offence and the sentence being imposed?
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend for that supplementary, my Lords, and his comments at the end of it were of the greatest importance. My noble friend may have noticed from today's newspapers that the courts are dealing swiftly, and I am sure effectively, with the very serious troubles which have been occurring in the last 10 days.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether from the reply to a question asked of him recently it would be right to infer that the situation regarding law and order under the present Government in the past two years has necessitated increasing the police force by 7,000?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords. I said that the police forces taken nationally have increased by 7,000 men and women since May of 1979. May I point out that the increase had begun before the time of the general election and resulted in the Edmund-Davies inquiry set up by Mr. Merlyn Rees. So that there is no misunderstanding, I would add that that has brought more or less all the police forces throughout the land up to establishment, except the Metropolitan Police, which is still below establishment, but is recruiting month by month.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, would not my noble friend agree that if any Government are to be criticised for lack of foresight in the training, organisation and equipping of our police, it should be the previous Government, who did so little when the signs were so clear? Would not my noble friend also agree that
1118
much credit should be given to the present Government, who have done more than any of their predecessors in helping over the organisation and training of reserves and in the provision of new equipment, such as is widely used on the continent, and which will all make such a difference to the security of the people of this country?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend refers to very serious matters which have been of great concern throughout the 1970s. However, I would point out that I did refer to the action taken by Mr. Merlyn Rees under the previous Government, and I do not detract from one word of what I said with reference to the right honourable gentleman.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the last general election the great plank of the Conservative Party, in attacking us, was that they would restore law and order? Even the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made a lot of noises about law and order, but it is worse today than it was when we were in power.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is the most law-abiding noble Lord in the country. Both my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, would surely see the force of the fact that there are now 7,000 more men and women in the police forces throughout the land than there were two years ago. This is of vital importance at the present time.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I think perhaps we should move on to the next Question.

Unemployment
2.52 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now adopt a policy to rid the nation of the spectre of unemployment based on the recent proposals enunciated by the right honourable Michael Foot, Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the Government are determined to provide a lasting solution to unemployment by persevering in our efforts to create a stable economic and financial climate, where more resources may be released for industry to generate wealth and jobs, and by giving substantial aid to individuals and industries caught in the painful machinery of an economy changing gear. This solution cannot be achieved by the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The proposals include a substantial increase in public expenditure, financed by increased borrowing, which could not be reconciled with the lower interest rates which the right honourable gentleman has promised simultaneously.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that very brave and courageous reply, which is about as far from the truth as Sydney is from London; but it was not a bad effort. What some noble Peers will do for their party is amazing! Does not the noble Earl realise that the policies of the present Government are debasing the conditions of life for millions of our fellow countrymen, and that if the Government pursue such policies that will continue to be the effect? Is the noble Earl really not aware of the horrible social tensions that this policy has created? Is he not aware that there is a smell of decay throughout this island—
Several noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Molloy: It is a a good one, too, my Lords. Outraged unemployed youth is reacting. Do the Government know that silent degradation will produce no response, and that the only way to overcome all these problems is at least to follow some of the proposals of the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition?—which I believe both sides of industry and all thinking men would approve. Should not the Government at least consider that?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as an employment Minister, and, if I may say so, a bigger spending Minister than I should like to be, I am well aware of the high costs of social problems in our economy. That is why I should like a more competitive and more wealthy economy, in order to be able to distribute the money. With regard to the points about the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I would say that it is quite fair and right to put forward alternative policies, but it is not fair nor is it right to try to put forward alternative arithmetic.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the "recent proposals" referred to in the Question are really the old proposals which, when the present Opposition were in Government, resulted in 1½, million unemployed, with the figure rising? That was at a time before the world depression which has made things so much more difficult.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is certainly true that, when the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition last held high office, unemployment doubled, and he and his Government were in the hands of international creditors, in the form of the International Monetary Fund, within 19 months.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, can the noble Lord help us as to what would be the effect on the unemployment figures if the defence policies of Her Majesty's Opposition were adopted?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that the effect would be fairly devastating indeed, and I take the point that the noble Lord makes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl really saying to the House that there are no alternatives to the policies now being followed by Her Majesty's Government? Is he aware that judged by every criterion enunciated by the Government
1120
themselves, the policies of the Government have been an abysmal failure? Is he also aware that that feeling is not confined to this side of the House, but that even within his own party there is a feeling, which has recently been articulated, that the policies are disastrous? If the noble Earl is unable to say that the Government themselves are at any rate considering some alternative policy, will he take the decent course of handing in the seals of office before the Recess?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not think that that was a very helpful supplementary question. The noble Lord asked me what I thought. I must confess that I have always been an agnostic about policies. What I find is that the intractable arithmetic of a trading economy in a world recession cannot be easily bucked. No matter how painful it may be, one must secure a more competitive economy which can trade more evenly with its overseas competitors, in order to be able to restore the levels of social spending that this economy appears to demand.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are several of us on this side of the House who would like to spend more on this and that, but then we find that ultimately the money has to come from somewhere, and does not grow on trees? To think that money does grow on trees results only in printing money, creating far worse unemployment, and finally in going the way of the Weimar Republic. Furthermore, is my noble friend aware that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is very similar to asking Saladin, instead of Richard I, to join in the siege of Acre?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend in both his agricultural and historical metaphors.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that if next week we could return to the level of unemployment and the rate of inflation left by the Labour Government to the incoming Government, that would mean a massive improvement in the economic situation of the country? That is what that would mean. Bearing in mind that there now seems to be a permanent crisis which is creating bewilderment for people on both sides of industry, does not the noble Earl realise that, while perhaps he cannot go all the way in accepting the proposals enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition, there are people on both sides of industry, in all walks of life, who believe that something along those lines should now be adopted before our nation gets deeper and deeper into the Slough of Despond created by the Tory Government?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I really feel that the noble Lord must be a little more analytical. Successive Governments of various political persuasions have seen unemployment rise during their tenure of office. The sad fact of the matter is that Governments do not create very much employment. The success or failure of an economy determines employment. We are trying to establish the conditions in which the economy can become more successful.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available today at the usual time. The Committee stage of the Education (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for a short period. During the adjournment the Antigua Termination of Association Order, the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1981 and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1981 will be taken.
London Transport Bill
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
South Yorkshire Bill
Read 3a, and passed.

Education (Scotland) Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Duty of education authority to comply with parents' requests as to schools]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) if the number of pupils being educated or to be educated in the specified school or at the same stage of school education in that school as that at which the child would be placed in pursuance of his parent's placing request has reached the maximum number, if any, fixed in relation to that school or stage by the education authority under section 28B(1)(c) of this Act;").
The noble Lord said: I think it would be useful to the Committee if we took Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. Before I begin may I apologise to noble Lords who have not studied the Bill very carefully. They will find it very difficult indeed to follow. Indeed, I wonder whether both Houses should not have a look to see whether or not their procedure in respect of Bills and discussions on Bills should be changed if Governments and draftsmen are going to carry on in the way they have done in the case of this particular Bill.
Clause 1, with which we start, incorporates into the principal Act eight new sections. Generally speaking, when we come to the Question, Whether the clause
1122
shall stand part?, we go through those parts and get from the Government an understanding of what each clause means; and points of confusion are cleared up. But how can we do this with eight separate sections all lumped together in one clause? That is Clause 1. Clause 4 incorporates 11 new sections. Indeed, last week, in respect of England and Wales, we had the full Bill given a Second Reading, a whole day's debate, and probably a part of another day—and this again in this strange, codified way.
Of course, this will be helpful when we come to consolidation, but from the point of view of discussing a Bill in this Committee and going through it, how can you do adequate justice to a coherent discussion on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part? when that clause consists of 11 sections? Of course, Clause 6 incorporates four new sections; so there you have three such clauses which we are supposed to discuss on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part? People get very worried about the amount of time that Scots take in your Lordships' House, although they were very anxious to retain the discussion of Scottish business and did not want it to go to an Assembly in Scotland. How on earth are you going to do justice adequately, on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part?, in the case of three separate clauses when these three clauses incorporate 23 new sections? I think that if draftsmen continue in this way and the Committee allows them to do so, we really ought, when discussing a clause of eight new sections, to discuss the new sections one by one on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part?, and that is a point that I think the Procedure Committee might well consider.
When we come to the amendment that I have set down, it deals with a part of Clause 1, which is the so-called parents' charter. Governments—and this happens to Governments of both sides—must now proclaim great slogans in relation to what they are doing. We must have great new charters. This one is the parents' charter in respect of selecting a school to which their child may go or be transferred at various stages of his career. I have been interested in Scottish education for a long time, and I can assure Members of this Committee that there never has been any doubt about parents' rights in respect of Scottish education. They have been in Act of Parliament after Act of Parliament, and were finally in the 1960 Act and then the 1980 Act.
The parent has the right of choice of school, and there are only two qualifications. This has been so for decades. The two qualifications are, first, that the education so selected should be in keeping with the educational needs of the child, and, secondly, that it should not cause unreasonable expenditure on behalf of the local authority. The fact is—and this came out on Second Reading—that in respect of, say, Strathclyde, I think that out of thousands of appeals against the selection of the local education authority only about a hundred were refused. The same thing was true in Central Scotland. I do not think there was even that number. Over 95 per cent. of the parents were satisfied with the fairness of the local authority. This is traditional in Scotland. But, no, we must have a new charter.
So the new charter lists, for the first time, the reasons

1123
which will be acceptable eventually to the courts as to why a local education authority should refuse parents a specified school in respect of their child. As soon as you list A, B, C and D, you get less flexibility—flexibility which is working fine at the present time. There has been no great body of appeal against it; so to some extent there will be a certain measure of restriction on parental choice, probably more so than there is under the present system, because it may well be that local education authorities who in the past were fairly free, fairly flexible, especially in the present situation, may now decide to go by the letter of the law.
So far as I can understand it, there was little or no disagreement in respect of the qualifications that were put down to parental choice. There was agreement between COSLA, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and the Government. This went through the other place in Committee without a change; and then, at the last minute, on Report stage, an amendment was brought in by the Government, without consultation with the local authorities, which had virtually agreed the clause, and these two paragraphs which are in my Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 were dropped from the Bill.
At the present time, the position with falling rolls—and these falling rolls apply to secondary schools as well as primary schools—is that the Government are pressing local authorities to rationalise their school accommodation. Local authorities are busy working with the Government at the present time. There was a working party and advice was given to the education authorities in respect of primary schools, which "feed" secondary schools, and in respect of those secondary schools, in order to be able to get rid of the accumulation of different sites, hutted accommodation, extensions and outside main buildings, which cost a very considerable sum of money for maintenance and keeping in existence. The local authorities have been co-operating with the Government in order to get rid of them.
The only way that they can plan ahead is to say that this will last a certain length of time: "The maxima roll for this particular school will be so many". Now the Government, having enshrined that as one of the reasons why they could say to a parent, "I am sorry, the maxima has been reached", take it out of the Bill. If you take that out of the Bill, it means that the local education authority cannot plan ahead in respect of what provision is going to be made in areas for secondary schools and primary schools.
So we are getting uncertainty. This has to be sorted out on appeal eventually by the sheriff, whereas it was part of the statutory obligation laid upon local authorities that they would fix the maxima and it allowed them to get on with it. This is unfair. I have read the discussions that took place between the Minister and the local authorities. The Minister said on one occasion that there is no great change in what is being done. In other words, it started out by being window-dressing.
We are putting into statutory form the best practices of the local authorities in Scotland. But now, where local authorities can see their way ahead to plan and save money to make the best use of their teachers by
1124
taking these things out, it leaves the whole situation vague and the balance has shifted from the local authority to what may well be an unreasonable parent and it may mean keeping in existence, at considerable expense, the hutted accommodation and rendering nugatory the forward planning that the local authority can do.
If the local authority is going to plan education in its area—it has the responsibility for this, not the Government—it has to look seven years ahead. When a child starts school which school will it go to after it finishes its seven years of primary education? What will happen in the five years after that? It is a long way ahead; but if there is no stability in respect of what it knows it can do then that planning is completely undermined. I do not know whether the Government realised when they made this change without consulting the local authorities the damage that they were doing.
It is not political; it is common sense. Bearing in mind the attitude of the Scottish local authorities over this period in relation to placing children, the schemes they presently have to work by have to be approved by the Secretary of State. I am sure Members of the Committee will have noticed the paper which may be obtained from the Printed Paper Office in relation to the transfer scheme of the Lothians.
I remember the Minister in Second Reading saying that one of the reasons why they were doing this was because the Lothians had not been so good lately. I do not know whether he realised it, but the Secretary of State for Scotland approved—not on 7th April, that is my birthday!—on 8th April of this year a scheme modified by the Secretary of State as satisfactory for the transfer of pupils. So the matter, if there was anything wrong, has been put right. But if we must replace something which is satisfactory, which I think we are doing, let us do so with the agreement of all the people concerned and not imbalance the procedures to the disadvantage of improving education at the present time, With spare accommodation at the present time children are moving from one zone to another, and local authorities are approving that.
It is very seldom that a parental choice is turned down. These are the facts of Scotland at the present time. This charter waiving is not improving matters. It may be politics but it is not good education. I beg to move.
3.16 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: May I first deal with the point as to the construction of the Bill. I have no doubt that those Members who have knowledge of these matters will know and appreciate that the Bill owes a lot to the distinguished Committee which was chaired by my noble friend Lord Renton. I for one appreciate that at first blush when one comes to look at a Bill such as this it reads somewhat differently to what one has been brought up to read. It could be said that it is more difficult to understand at first reading.
If I may say so, the noble Lord rather overstated his case. Regarding debates on "clause stand part", as the noble Lord knows very well, that is quite a good way of discussing the merits of an entire clause. It is only one way of doing it. In this particular instance,

1125
let me take Clause 1 of this Bill simply as an illustration of what I mean. If, for instance, the noble Lord wished to discuss new Clause 28B in isolation or if he wished to go further and invite the Committee to exercise it from the Bill, there is absolutely nothing to stop him putting down an amendment to that effect. For the purposes of the debate and of focussing the minds of Members upon whatever the noble Lord wishes to bring out, there is absolutely no difference between having a short Clause 1, or Clauses 2 and 3 and saying, "leave out Clause 2" and doing it in this new and different manner, taking it part by part. I cannot accept that the quality of our debates is in any way going to be prejudiced by the form in which the draftsman has composed the Bill.
Now I come to the actual amendments. The noble Lord queried whether these particular provisions in the Bill are necessary. As I told him on Second Reading—and I do not believe that I have to repeat myself—the unfortunate facts of the matter are that, as the rolls go down, so do the apparently uncontested choices which parents make. Putting it another way, the education authorities are making life more difficult for those who wish to choose the school at which they wish their child to be educated.
My right honourable friend has had a great deal of complaint from those who are disaffected. In the case of Lothian, there is evidence that a lot of people are simply not bothering to apply. They know full well the reaction they will get from the education authority. Therefore, in my submission, there is every reason why this legislation should be brought up to date so that everybody, and not least the local authorities, should know where they are.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is quite right: provisions identical with these amendments were deleted on Report in another place and there has been a certain outcry, if that is the word, or possibly pressure from the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for their restoration. The absence of such provisions in the Bill—and one must be sure about this—means that an authority would not be able to refuse a request by a parent for his child to attend a particular school on the grounds that the school or the state of education in which the child would be placed had reached any maximum number imposed by the authority. If I may say so, the noble Lord went wildly further than the meaning of the effect of this part of the clause. The noble Lord in effect does nothing more nor less than seek to restore these grounds for refusal for a placing request in the Bill.
In our view, the absence of such provisions in the Bill does not materially affect the balance of interest in favour of parents making placing requests and away from education authorities; and parents, even in the absence of such provisions, will have an absolute right of choice of school because there would be the implications for expenditure or the efficient provision of education in the event of capacity being exceeded. In other words, the various exclusions in the new Clause 28A(3) play just as much part. In addition, the circumstances under which placing requests could be refused on the ground that the school or stage of education had reach a maximum imposed by the authority
1126
are really largely covered in these other grounds of refusal to which I have just referred. They would operate in the case where acceding to the request would entail the authority in significant expenditure on extending or altering the accommodation or facilities in the school or, for instance, where it would entail the employment of an additional teacher.
The decision in the other place that provisions identical with these amendments should be deleted was taken in view of the widespread misinterpretation of their intentions which was becoming apparent. The view had arisen that the maximum roll fixed by an authority would not be open to challenge by parents and that the authority would have an absolute and unchallengable right to refuse a request where the maximum had been reached. It was being said that authorities could have used these provisions to deny access to the so-called "popular" schools. Of course, that was a view which was quite mistaken; but under the Bill a parent may refer a decision by the education authority refusing his request to an appeal committee, and thereafter to the sheriff if the appeal committee confirms the authority's decision. If a parent's request had been refused because a maximum had been reached, the parent could have argued to the appeal committee and to the sheriff that the maximum roll had been fixed too low and they could have upheld his request if they agreed with that view. Nevertheless, as confusion had arisen on that point, it seemed best to the Government to remove any confusion on Report in another place, and the best way of doing that was to delete from the Bill the provision of maximum rolls. So I would suggest to the Committee that this was a right and sensible decision. What it has done is to remove from a possibly recalcitrant authority what I might call a bogus decision for refusing a request—
Lord Ross of Marnock: A bogus decision?
The Earl of Mansfield: If the noble Lord will listen, he can of course come back in a few seconds, but—
Lord Ross of Marnock: I just wanted to make sure whether the noble Earl the Minister did say "a bogus decision".
The Earl of Mansfield: Yes, I think the noble Lord's hearing was perfectly accurate on this occasion. But let me clear up one other possible confusion. The deletion of these maximum roll provisions by the Government does not mean that the authorities will be prevented from calculating maximum rolls or intakes from the schools; but it does seem that the fact that a maximum roll had been reached will not be a legitimate ground for refusal of a placing request under the new Clause 28A(3), and authorities may continue to calculate such maximum rolls informally as part of their administrative arrangements and planning. They may well indeed be of assistance to parents who are considering the likely availability of places in a school. Therefore I reject the claim by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that education authorities will not be able to plan ahead. What this amendment in another place meant was that they can plan ahead just as well and just as easily as they could before; but, as I said, it will remove a possible rather unfortunate let-out for an

1127
education authority which was trying to deny parents the essential right of choice which we believe they should have.
Baroness David: I think the Minister has argued against the amendment very much in the terms I expected, partly by saying that there are enough safeguards in the Bill in subsection (3)(a), but I would say there is a situation where you could have too many children in a class but four or five more will not mean there has to be an additional teacher, and four or five more in a class would not mean that accommodation had to be altered. It can mean that the education provided for that class will be not nearly so satisfactory. Indeed, I should have thought that although the authorities can still plan, if there is not some power behind the plan and some muscle in the law, their planning can be really turned to nothing. The Government are always asking local authorities to be economical and to close schools. If you are going to plan for a closure you have to plan very far ahead. It needs excellent planning, and if there is no back-up in the law it is going to be extremely difficult for the authorities. I would strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I have listened with great interest to what has been said because I spent quite a long time of my life as chairman of an education committee, doing the sort of planning which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, speaks of and which was necessary, particularly in a rural area, when the population changed. Numbers might go down and it was therefore necessary, rather reluctantly on my part, either to amalgamate two rural schools or to close one and take the children to a school in a nearby town. But it did not really worry the education authority, because in fact they only did it because it was necessary and because the parents wanted it, and therefore it all went quite smoothly.
Of course I realise it is quite different organising things in an area where the population is very small: when you get to cities like Glasgow or Dundee you are in a very different position. On the other hand, the population in schools is going down, as we all know. The birth rate is going down and there are fewer people to cater for. How long it will last we do not know, because populations fluctuate; but I think the Government are right in giving full opportunities for parents to choose schools and to have a safeguard, which is that if conditions in an industrial area become very difficult to fulfil they will have opportunities for making different arrangements. But, on the whole, this is a fairly simple and straight forward way of dealing with the matter.
I do not think it is necessary to get very excited about the fact that it is interfering with the parents or the local authority, because the co-operation between the two—certainly, in areas that I know in Scotland—has always been very good. This will make it easier and is, on the whole, quite satisfactory. So I support the Government in this clause and in the general principle of parental choice which they are continuing. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that, of course, we have always had parental choice in Scotland. That has been going on for years and has, on the whole, worked very well. This decision will not interfere
1128
with that principle, and it may improve on it. So I support the Government in this matter.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am sorry about the reply from the Government, which was very unhelpful indeed. I begin to wonder why on earth the Government put in these two sections in the first instance. If there has been any confusion or any misunderstanding, it is the Government's decisions that created it. They put in the sections. They discussed clause stand part in Committee; they went through it week in and week out, and there was no indication from the Government that there was any dissatisfaction or any raising of the standard of parental revolt in respect of the oppression of local education authorities. Indeed, I think that the confusion is in the minds of the Government themselves.
The trouble starts with their having embarked upon this charter in this way. Once you make things statutory, you introduce restriction. But having done that, you have to be fair in respect of the powers that you put in—powers in respect of parental choice and powers in respect of the right of the local authority to decide. I was very disappointed, once main, and I am afraid that this happens with Bill after Bill that we discuss. I have described the Minister before as the master of the infelicitous phrase. He gave us another today—the bogus decision; it is the local authority that is bogus, because it makes the first decision. Then there is an appeal structure which the Minister is setting up in this clause and in Schedule 1. He is now saying he has no faith in that, because local authorities will make bogus decisions.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, still agrees that there is co-operation between all the parties concerned, when a Government Minister speaks in this way. I do not know whether it was in his brief or whether it was off his cuff. In future he had better scrub his cuffs before he comes into this Committee. The noble Baroness was talking about a situation which exists, and I referred to it and praised it. It is traditionally Scottish. The fact is that there is no overwhelming demand for this kind of thing. There may be one or two people, but there are probably one or two people whom you will never satisfy, and who will not be satisfied with what the Government have said.
But the Government sat down with the local authorities, hammered it out and said "This is all right" and they were quite satisfied with it. I was satisfied with it, local authorities were satisfied with it and, except for one or two, parents were satisfied with it. So the Government made a change. It is unfair to castigate local authorities for making bogus decisions. It is just not true. The figures for Lothian, which I quoted on Second Reading, do not justify that. If there was a deterioriation in the circumstances, the fact is that the Secretary of State approved a transfer scheme—I do not know whether or not he consulted the Minister of State—in the month of April, three months ago. I have it here, but I do not want to delay the Committee by reading it all. He was so satisfied with the scheme that he approved it, with modification, as is his right. Then the Government come along with this kind of thing. The speech insults all local authorities by talking about bogus decisions. We come down to the

1129
position that the Government have used this as a let-out.
Any Act of Parliament is subject to interpretation by the courts and the right of appeal to the sheriff was always there in Clause 1. He himself could have made his judgment about the rightness or wrongness of the maxima laid down. But, at least, it was a guide, not only in relation to transfer schemes, but also in relation to forward planning and to where a local authority is going to close a school or to get rid of accommodation that is useless.
We see it with secondary schools all over Scotland. They want to be able to get rid of useless accommodation, but they will not be able to do so, if a parent comes along after they have suggested maxima, which are related to getting rid of accommodation which should be wiped out, and says "You have got a hut there and you can use that." It is not a question of making changes in respect of accommodation; it is making changes to get rid of accommodation and to rationalise the scheme, now that they have the opportunity; and now that they have the opportunity there is more freedom in relation to parental choice. These are the facts. The Government have got it muddled and are being unfair to local authorities.
I am afraid that I am not at all satisfied with the Government's justification of what they have done. There is no explanation as to why they did not consult local authorities—who had already agreed this—when they went down to the other place on the Report stage and made this change. I hope that I shall have the support of quite a number of your Lordships in the Lobbies, to make the Bill what it was when the Government first printed it and set out this power.
3.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 132.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Bacon, B.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

McCIuskey, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Blease, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Blyton, L.

Milford, L.

Bowden, L.

Oram, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Pargiter, L.

Clancarty, E.

Parry, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peart, L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Reilly, L.

David, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Shinwell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gregson, L.

Stone, L.

Hale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson, L.

Strauss, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kaldor, L.

White, B.

Leatherland, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Listowel, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

1130

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Atholl, D.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Avebury, L.

Loudoun, C.

Avon, E.

Luke, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lyell, L.

Barnby, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Berkeley, B.

Mancroft, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Mansfield, E.

Marley, L.

Byers, L.

Mayhew, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clwyd, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Crathorne, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Northesk, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Daventry, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

De Freyne, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Porritt, L.

Dormer, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Dudley, B.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Richardson, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Roberthall, L.

Elles, B.

Rochdale, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rochester, L.

Exeter, M.

Rugby, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Saint Brides, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrier, L.

St. Germans, E.

Fortescue, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gage, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, L.

Seear, B.

Garner, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Shannon, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gormanston, V.

Sligo, M.

Gowrie, E.

Soames, L.

Greenway, L.

Somers, L.

Gridley, L.

Spens, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stamp, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Stedman, B.

Hailsham of Saint

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hampton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hankey, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Thurso, V.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Trenchard, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooson, L.

Vickers, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Ilchester, E.

Wade, L.

Ironside, L.

Westbury, L.

Kilmany, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kimberley, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.50 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 18, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment

1131
No. 3. Paragraph (c) relates to the regulations which the Secretary of State is going to draw up to determine:
"the kind of information which is to be so published or which is to comprise the information so made available or supplied to parents".
The suggestion was made to explain how things should be done in respect of Clause Stand Part and new clauses. It is purely and simply a device, and it is not one which I am very happy about or satisfied with. I am using that device in respect of a subsection which allows the Secretary of State by regulation to prescribe or make provision for the determination of the kind of information to be supplied to parents who are looking around for a school for their child. This may be a primary school or a secondary school. I want to find out from the Government the nature of that information.
We are asking local authorities to economise, but we are giving orders to them to publish. I do not know what is meant by "publish". Is publication to be by leaflet or by prospectus for every school, or is it just to be information which is to be made available to parents on demand? So far as I can see, no guidance is given here. I want the Government to tell me what information they think it is necessary for parents to have which is not already given by local authorities. In Scotland, local authorities make absolutely plain what their transfer schemes are. I instanced the one at Lothian which was published recently. That scheme is quite clear, it is available here, and it is dated 8th April 1981. This is the local authority which has been condemned by the Government. It says:
" The local authority, the council, shall make available on request from any parent details of their policy for settling priorities".
This is to be on request from any parent. But that is not what is set out in paragraph (c). Are there to be two lots of information? Is there to be information which is published to everybody and is there to be information which must be given on demand?
Can we be given some information in addition to that already there? I will read what it says here. The Lothians have got to publicise, to give to parents,
"their policy for settling priorities for admissions: Where the number of out of zone applications for a particular school or for a particular stage of secondary education exceeds the places available the council shall deal with such applications in accordance with their policy on priorities for admission".
What other information is there? Is it the colour of the headmaster's hair? His temper? His reputation? The discipline in the school? Is it all the various activities of the school? They are all the kind of things that some people might want to know, but I presume that in the mind of the Government as well as the odd parent—and I do not use the word "odd" in any qualitative way—there is the kind of information on which they might want to make their determination as to whether the school is satisfactory for their children. So may we have the thinking of the Government in relation to subsection (2)(c)?
Is it for examination records? There can be nothing more misleading than examination records, as any teacher will tell you. This might well be a piece of useful information to be published—the policy of the school in respect of examinations. Some schools will only present children for examinations if they
1132
know that they are going to pass, so they turn out a 100 per cent. record. To my mind every child who has made a study of a subject has a right to go forward for examination. He may not do very well but at least he should have the opportunity. Or there are the others who take the more liberal point of view and put forward every child in the class to see how they all do. They may do very well and yet not get a very high mark in the examination.
That is for one year, but what about the next year? Any teacher will tell you that he can have a terrible class one year but the following year he may have a class of brilliant pupils, so the record changes from year to year. It is not a matter that will do anything other than confuse parents if they only ask for selective information in this respect. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what is in the Government's mind. What is the information that has to be laid out in regulations that the parents have a right to know generally and in relation to particular requests from parents? I beg to move.
Baroness David: I wonder whether I may ask one further question before the Minister replies. In what form is this information to be given? Is it going to be in a brochure for each school? Who is to pay for that: is it to be the school or the authority? It might come to quite a considerable sum. I should be glad to have answers to those questions.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for raising this matter. Of course, my right honourable friend's letter which was dated 8th April accompanied a decision on the transfer scheme which had been the subject of an intense debate and a great deal of negotiation as between Lothian and the Scottish Education Department. It is only indirectly connected with this particular provision.
The Government have made it clear all along that, in order to exercise a reasoned choice of school, parents will need to have certain information made available on the general educational arrangements of authorities and on individual schools, and the purpose of this particular new subsection (3)(c) is to enable the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations the kind of information to be made available to parents to assist their decision. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has published a consultative paper which sets out proposals for regulations on information to be made available to parents. Of course, a number of schools already publish such information, sometimes in the form of quite an intensive brochure and that is naturally done at the expense of the local authority.
When my right honourable friend drew up his proposals he sought, on the one hand, to provide for the reasonable needs of parents, and on the other hand, to keep to a minimum the possible additional burden on education authorities. Naturally enough, the proposals have been criticised by local authorities on the ground that they laid down too much detail; and on the other hand by representatives of parents, who have asked that additional items should be added. My right honourable friend therefore has the task of giving careful consideration to all the comments which he has received. The fact that some bodies think that the

1133
proposals go too far and others think that they do not go far enough seems to suggest that the balance is probably about right although there may well be room for improvement in the detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, asked—or at any rate implied—whether this was not a matter which could be left to the discretion of the education authorities as opposed to being the subject of a paragraph in a subsection of the Bill. The Government take the view that it is essential to the proper operation of these new provisions in Clause 1 of this Bill that parents throughout the country should have a right to the same information about the general arrangements made by the authority and about individual schools. There will be room for schools to put their own individual gloss on the material they produce, but to prevent misleading comparisons the basic facts they incorporate should cover the same items in each case and this the regulations will achieve.
So far as the timing of all this is concerned, although we think it is essential that the Secretary of State should have power to prescribe in regulations information which is to be made available to parents, we do not intend to be unreasonable in what we ask authorities to do. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have expressed their concern to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about the difficulty of preparing all the information set out in his consultative paper in time to have it available early in 1982.
Ideally the information should of course be available then, since it is still my right honourable friend's intention—subject always to the further progress of the Bill through this House and its enactment in due course—to bring the provisions of the Bill with regard to placing requests and the right to appeal if those requests are refused, into operation by February and March 1982 respectively, in time for the start of the procedure for allocating places for the 1982–83 school session. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend has accepted that authorities would have difficulty in implementing at one and the same time the new requirements with regard to booklets of general information for parents, brochures on individual schools, and so on.
The Scottish Education Department have, therefore, informed COSLA, today I think, that the major part of the requirements relating to information for parents will not be brought into operation until January 1983. I hope that this will allay at any rate part of the concern. So far as the detail of the requirement is concerned, the type of information which will be provided, the Government will study COSLA's comments with care before the regulations are made in due course. In so far as the proposed requirements merely reflect existing good practice in many areas, much of the information parents may want is already available, and I hope that wherever possible it will be given to those who ask for it, even though there will be no statutory obligation to provide it in the initial year of the operation of the new procedure.
I think no one could deny that in this particular instance the Government have paid and are continuing to pay most careful attention to the views which have been expressed and no doubt will continue to be expressed by the convention. I would hope, therefore, that the Committee would feel satisfied that there has
1134
been a due meeting of minds so far as the Government and COSLA are concerned, at least on this ground. So far as the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady David, is concerned, I hope I have answered her as to content. As to cost, there will be no change from the present arrangements.
Lord Ross of Marnock: In other words, the cost will be met in the usual way, through the rate support grant, to the extent of whatever the particular local authority receives. It may be anything from 60 per cent. to maybe, in the Orkneys and Shetlands, about 95 per cent., which still leaves the local authority to find 5 per cent. The noble Earl will be aware that at the present time there is considerable pressure being exercised by the Secretary of State on local authorities to cut down the amount of money they are spending, and he should be very conscious indeed that here, within this section, is a demand on the local authorities to spend money. The noble Earl says it is not going to be applicable until January 1983, which means it would then be available for the 1983–84 intake of children. So parents are going to be denied the benefits of this great new charter—which, as I suggested earlier, is quite unnecessary, but if we are going to have it, let us look at it—for another three or four years or so.
The noble Earl says the Government do not intend to be unreasonable. With all due respect, we have no guidance on that because he has not told us anything. He told us that there had been discussions with COSLA in respect of the proposal. Well, we knew that. Those discussions, I thought, had finished. In many cases, the Government, having discussed with COSLA, having come to agreement, changed the matter in another place in respect of the last amendment. But now the noble Earl says, "we shall not be unreasonable". Can we trust the Government in respect of being unreasonable or otherwise? Certainly there are many people who feel that, at the present time, in respect of pressures on local authorities to reduce expenditure, the Government are already unreasonable. To come along now with another scheme that is going to cost them money, with no guarantee that they are going to get increased amounts of money to meet that cost—a scheme which the Government are going to say must be carried out, is itself unreasonable.
The noble Earl has not given us any indication at all of what the details are. He talked about brochures and booklets, all of which cost money, all of which the local education authorities cannot readily provide. As a matter of fact, at the present time and under the pressure of the Government to reduce expenditure on education, this is the kind of thing that is being cut, desirable as it is from a parental point of view. In come the Government, and say, "This is going to be mandatory, you have got to do it. We are going to produce regulations; we are not going to give you the money or guarantee the money, but you have got to do it." If they try to raise the rates, the Minister will use his draconian powers under the last Local Government Act which was passed a month ago to ensure that they cannot put the rates up.
Local government in Scotland is becoming quite chaotic by the muddling meddling of this Government. These powers and the suggestion put in here are quite

1135
reasonable, but there is nothing reasonable in the lack of co-operation, which it has come to, between the Government and the local authorities in respect of paying for desirable activities. I am afraid that this is far from satisfactory. Can the Minister take another opportunity of justifying to us the kind of details he feels are essential? I spoke about examinations and examination results. I can assure him there are certain authorities in Scotland who see this great new charter as something with which they are going to hammer the local authorites and hammer certain schools, and create unpopular schools and show how others are so wonderful, which could be done by issuing misleading information.
I want to know what kind of thing is going to be in the mandatory information that local authorities or schools have to supply. Can the noble Earl tell me clearly what is the nature of the information that is to be made general and give an estimate of the cost of that? Can he give details about the kind of information a particular school has to supply and what is likely to be the cost of that?—because I can assure him that, so far as I know, headmasters at the present time are considerably restricted in respect of the expenditures they can incur applicable to their own particular school. If the noble Earl can give me that information I shall be very grateful.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am sure the noble Lord would not expect me to go into the details of what has yet to be worked out. As I have tried to say this is a matter upon which there is quite intense controversy as between those on the one hand, who say that the proposals in the consultative paper are far too wide, and those, on the other hand, who say that they are rather too narrow. The Government have to steer a course doing the best they can between the differing points of view.
I think, if I may say so, that it is possible to make rather heavy weather of this. The noble Lord, with his vast experience, will know the sort of brochures. That was the noble Baroness's word and I am not sure I like it too much, but I cannot think of a better one; I think "information pamphlet" would probably be a better phrase. I have just got to hand the rather attractively produced Rector's Report, as it is called, of the Garnock Academy for the session 1980–81, which lists the school in general, the area, details of the staff/parent liaison, the curriculum, organisational matters, external examinations, extra-curricular activities, rules for visitors and miscellaneous. I am just quoting from the contents page near the front. It is, indeed, 29 pages of excellently produced, but not expensively produced, information material. May I say as extra consolation—if that is the right word—for the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that the Financial Memorandum in paragraph 1 makes it plain that, in fact, additional provision has been made for the additional expenditure which will fall on education authorities on producing the information which will be mandatory by virtue of this subsection.
I should like to think that this is a sensible provision which we are including. If we are to have parental choice—and I think that almost everybody in the Committee would agree that that is an excellent provision
1136
—and if we are to tidy up the law, so to speak, and make it uniform throughout Scotland, it is obvious that parents must be given approximately the same sort of information and the same amount of information whether they live in Lerwick or Gatehouse-of-Fleet. This is the type of way, taking due consultation that we hope to achieve it. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: No, I am afraid that I cannot do so. The Government say that they are steering a narrow course and they talk about heavy weather, but they have not told us anything. They have told us that there is controversy over this matter, but discussions are still continuing and the Government have not made up their mind. It is a bit much for the Government to ask for powers and to ask for the trust and confidence of this House, or any other House, in respect of education matters in Scotland in respect of which they have no majority and no mandate and say, "Leave it to us, we are steering a narrow course. We must not make heavy weather of it".
I am not satisfied at all about the Government's activities in respect of this matter. I thought that I would receive a reasonable answer. It is no good coming along and suggesting that what they do in the Garnock Academy, which I know very well, and which I applaud, is their justification. With all due respect, the noble Earl should have told us about the schools that produce nothing, not about the ones that are doing something satisfactorily. After all, once they get going in respect of this it may well be that the Director of the Garnock Academy will not have the money to produce this well-produced, efficiently produced and not too expensively produced report at the end of the session. No, I am not satisfied about this at all, and I think that the Government could have gone a bit further in informing the Committee. I must press my amendment to a Division.
4.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 123.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hughes, L.

Bacon, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Birk, B.

Kaldor, L.

Bishopston, L.

Leatherland, L.

Blease, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Blyton, L.

Listowel, E.

Bowden, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Briginshaw, L.

Brockway, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McCluskey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Collison, L.

Milford, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Northfield, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Hale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Parry, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peart, L.

1137

Phillips, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Strauss, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Reilly, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Rhodes, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

White, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Stone, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Killearn, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilmany, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kimberley, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Alport, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Atholl, D.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

Loudoun, C.

Avebury, L.

Lyell, L.

Avon, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Baker, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Banks, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Barrington, V.

Mancroft, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mansfield, E.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Berkeley, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mayhew, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clwyd, L.

Newall, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Crawshaw, L.

Northesk, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Daventry, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

De Freyne, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Derwent, L.

Orkney, E.

Dormer, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Perth, E.

Dudley, B.

Porritt, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elles, B.

Rochester, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rugby, L.

Elton, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Energlyn, L.

St. Davids, V.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

St. Germans, E.

Exeter, M.

Saint Oswald, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sandford, L.

Falkland, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Fortescue, E.

Seear, B.

Gage, V.

Selkirk, E.

Gardner of Parkes, Ly.

Sharples, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Soames, L.

Gormanston, V.

Somers, L.

Gowrie, E.

Stamp, L.

Greenway, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hampton, L.

Thurso, V.

Hillingdon, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Trenchard, V.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vickers, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 4:
1138
Page 7, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert ("the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I think that we can take one or two of the following amendments which deal with exactly the same point. It may well be that I have not covered all the instances where I wish to omit mainly the word "sheriff" and apply instead the words "Secretary of State".
First, there is the decision by the education authority; then there is an appeal to an appeal committee. Thereafter, according to the Bill, there should be a further appeal to the sheriff. I know that all the assembled lawyers on the other side o the Committee—indeed, maybe behind me—will approve that the sheriff is the right person to decide the school to which a child should go. For my part, I think that it is wrong to bring the sheriff into this kind of adjudication. That is why I have suggested that instead of the sheriff we should adopt the Secretary of State for Scotland.
It is not unusual that the Secretary of State should be brought into these matters. Indeed, who better knows just what is in his mind in respect of regulations about the transfer schemes that he has to approve and in relation to, as he sees it, the fairness of local authorities? However, it may well be that I am wrong. If a Secretary of State can, through his mouthpiece in this place—the Minister of State—describe the decisions of local authorities before they have even made them as "bogus decisions", it may well be that the Secretary of State, so advised, is not exactly impartial. It may be that I am wrong in suggesting that this should go to the Secretary of State.
But Secretaries of State change and so do Ministers of State—Ministers of State probably quicker than Secretaries of State. Indeed, I used to work out statistics about the mortality rate of the various departments of the Scottish Office, and those with the heaviest mortality rate were the junior Ministers and the Under-Secretaries of State. There are still some Secretaries of State here. I see the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who was, I think, the first Minister of State for Scotland. It is nice to think that despite his other concerns, his most onerous concerns in his long political career were those when he was Minister of State for Scotland. But Ministers of State change more frequently—I shall not go into all the statistics here—and there is justification for a change when off-the-cuff statements, such as we have had today about bogus decisions by local authorities, are made.
On a more serious note, from my experience in this kind of field, where it is a question of a parent and a child applying for a particular school and being turned down, appealing through the appeal procedure as set up under this committee, being turned down again and then taking the matter to the sheriff, by that point it becomes a matter of public concern to the parents and it may well be an embarrassment to the child. I know this to be so in particular cases because there has always been the right to go to the sheriff on a point of law, and that will still remain. But from the point of view whether or not the decision is right, that is a matter that can properly be handled by the Secretary of State. He has handled this kind of thing in the past and, to my mind, there is no justification for taking it to the sheriff, quite apart from the fact that it means legal proceedings. It probably means

1139
an expensive procedure for someone who is not in receipt of legal aid. I presume that legal aid will be available in such a case. But it will be expensive from a state point of view, and also perhaps from a parental point of view.
However, from the point of view of principle, I am in favour of the Secretary of State dealing with this final appeal. I know that the Scottish Office has given advice on matters of this sort before. It could do so again. I am perfectly sure that there will not be all that many cases that will involve great expenditure on the part of the department itself. That is the simple reason for this amendment. It is a simple amendment to get rid of the law so far as this is concerned and to leave the matter with the Secretary of State, with the advice that is available to him, with the inquiry that he makes in ensuring that everything has been carried out properly. If all that were done, I am perfectly sure that his word would be accepted as decisive in this final matter of appeal. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: First, I should like to deal with the personality part of this. Of course, junior Ministers in the Scottish Office are indeed mortal; some Secretaries of State run through more junior Ministers than others. I think it depends on how they are treated. I am not quite sure what the record of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in this direction happens to be. I rather detected the wish being the father of the thought in this connection, but I hope that I was wrong about that.
Lord Ross of Marnock: No, the grandfather!
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord founded his argument on two bases. I think that he was longing to say that the sheriff was not an appropriate person to hear these appeals. But not least because of the presence of his noble friend Lord Mishcon behind him, and the presence of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern beside me on the Front Bench, I do not think that he quite dared to. But, again, if it is his unspoken wish in this connection, I must say to him that my contention and that of the Government in this particular instance—and we are talking about a second stage of appeal where the parents have, as it were, been turned down by the education authority and by the appeal committee—is that it is peculiarly proper that, in fact, a sheriff should entertain this form of appeal. The parents will be frustrated and, after the appeal committee, they have no other recourse unless—as they can at the moment—they withhold their child from attending school until the authority serves an attendance order, and then they can be summonsed before the sheriff anyway. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that to that extent—however we may disagree about the mechanics of the operation—the present arrangements will be an improvement, in that damage to a child's education may well be caused by sometimes prolonged absence from school while these things are worked out.
I would argue that a sheriff is an entirely suitable and appropriate person to deal with these appeals.
1140
He has in the course of his duties many cases of a family nature, as they are now called, concerned for instance with custody of the children of the family, and he is well able to weigh up representations as to the interests of the child, as to the parents' wishes, as to the administrative difficulties which those wishes might cause, and the financial problems which might be caused to the authority in giving way to the parental wishes.
Naturally one hopes that there will be very few of these appeals to the sheriff, and one hopes that parents will be satisfied that their cases have been properly heard and are fairly dealt with by the appeal committees. But I myself, and indeed the Government, have every confidence in the sheriff's competence to deal with those few cases where parents want to pursue matters to a second stage of appeal. May I answer a small point which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, made? Yes, of course, legal aid will be available to parents if all their circumstances meet the necessary requirements.
Now I want to turn the coin over, and I hope demonstrate that the Secretary of State really would not be an appropriate appellate body in matters of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, if I may say this in parenthesis, said that he would be wholly satisfied if the Secretary of State was, as it were, the final arbiter in a matter of this nature. I wonder whether in fact his honourable friends in another place would agree with him in their comments which they made to the particular junior Minister who happens to deal with education in Scotland and who, in effect, within his competence under the Secretary of State, would deal with this sort of appeal.
The Secretary of State has never had any involvement in these kind of disputes concerning which school a child should attend. I do not think it would be at all easy to set up the machinery, nor indeed would it be appropriate to involve him at this juncture. The sheriff in effect will have to hear oral evidence. The matters probably will concern local issues involving the highly individual circumstances of parents and children; localised questions about particular schools, and the sort of education that a particular school provides. Assessments would have to be made of the reasons given by parents for their choice of school; the ground of refusal given by the authority, and the overall circumstances of the case.
I must not pique the noble Lord, Lord Ross, any further than I have already this afternoon, but one of the things which the sheriff will have to weigh up is how valid the grounds of refusal by the education authority may be. The likelihood is almost certainly that oral evidence will be required, and the sheriff can make use of existing practices and existing expertise. For both these reasons, first that I believe that sheriffs are peculiarly well equipped both mentally and in their capacity as a sheriff to hear these cases, and, secondly, because I do not think that the Secretary of State has either the facilities or should have a locus in this particular instance, I must ask the noble Lord on reflection to withdraw this amendment and the amendments which are identical in form. If he does not, I hope the Committee will agree with me and decide accordingly.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I was interested in what the Minister had to say about my off-the-cuff reference to junior Ministers and mortality. He will be disappointed to know that mine were also well treated; that even those who served me in 1964 are all alive and well. I am afraid that cannot be said for all the Under-Secretaries of State who served Conservative Ministers. I remember at least two old friends of mine dying in office. But I will not trouble the Minister of State with these morbid details of Gil Leyburn and Dick Brooman-White and others. Let no one think that the Secretary of State for Scotland has the easiest of jobs, but it is certainly sometimes much more difficult to serve under one and see legislation through, and I really took exception to the reference made to the present Under-Secreary of State in charge of education. Political matters apart, I think that the noble Earl should not have made that oblique reference that people would not be satisfied that he was handling matters in respect of appeals.
The noble Earl suggested that I should think about this again. I have thought about this. I remember a case where parents took matters to a sheriff court in relation to the placing of a child. I can also remember the amount of publicity that was given in the local papers. It was very unfair indeed. The parent was following out what were his rights. But the publicity he got, the publicity the child got, did not do that person any good. He was in a professional capacity, and as a matter of fact he left Kilmarnock very soon after. He is a friend of mine, and I still know him well.
My feeling started from that time, that where you have a child involved in an appeal in respect of a school, it is far better to be held in the confidential area first of the appeal committee set up under this Bill, or as it was already there approved by the Secretary of State; and then certainly not, if there must be another appeal, to the sheriff. It is at that point that you get local publicity, and local publicity on a point like this can be embarrassing and harmful in respect of the attitude taken up by the public, and it may well be by local newspapers, and all that arises from that. I have thought about it, and it is because I have thought about it that I came to the conclusion that this could be done, and should be done, by the Secretary of State.
It is done in other instances by the Secretary of State. In fact we shall be coming to it in the course of this Bill, because appeal to the Secretary of State comes in later on in respect of special educational needs, although certainly in the placing of the school once again it goes to the sheriff. I shall be back on the same point when we come to that matter. The noble Earl suggests that it is the wrong thing in respect of which the Secretary of State should come in. Who is it who is drawing up the regulations? Who is it who has laid down the grounds on which the parent should be refused the specified school placement for the child? It is the Secretary of State.
Then who better knows what he intended, both in language and in spirit, as to whether or not it has been right and fair? Who is it who has taken out the maxima that was enshrined in the statute? It was the Secretary of State and his advisers. Therefore, he should know
1142
exactly whether the local authority are being sufficiently flexible in relation to the circumstances. He has the inspectors of schools. Remember, inspectors of schools in Scotland come under the Secretary of State; in England they come under the local education authority. We have a more centralised system in Scotland, so from that point of view all the information can be with the Secretary of State in quite a short time, and he with his advisers can take the necessary decision.
When I think of all the other decisions a Secretary of State has to make, I assure the noble Earl that this would not be the most onerous. I do not anticipate, under the present procedures or under the procedures as they will be when Clause 1 passes into legislative form, that there will be all that many cases, and I am sure that the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State could adequately deal with them. It is not the junior Minister but the Secretary of State who carries the can, so let us not have any remarks about not being happy with a particular Member of Parliament who happens presently to be an Under-Secretary dealing with this matter. I should be quite happy to leave it with him, because he will be properly advised; I know most of the civil servants at the Scottish Office and I have always had the highest regard for them. Indeed, I would say that the quality of civil servants in Scotland is very much higher than elsewhere; we draw on the cream, not from English public schools but from Scottish public schools, which are really public, and we are proud of that.
As for the Secretary of State not having any locus in this matter, if there is one man who should have locus and concern here, concern to see that right is done, it is the Secretary of State. In my view he is the right man, and the sheriff is very much the wrong one. Not that the sheriff could not come to an objective decision; it may be that the sheriff is not familiar with all the local circumstances. Mainly from the point of view of the effect on the parent and the child from the attendant publicity that will always occur if this matter goes to the sheriff court, it should not go to the sheriff court but should be settled in the way which has far more confidentiality and less likely embarrassment for the parent and child, and indeed for the local authority.
Will the Minister think again about this? I take the matter very seriously. I do not know whether it was raised in another place, and if it is said that it is a bee in my bonnet, then I assure the Committee that that is not because I have anything against sheriffs. I knew most of them, and I have the highest regard for them, but I think this educational matter should be dealt with within the educational structure, from Secretary of State down to education authority. If the Minister is not prepared to say he will think about it again, I am afraid I shall have to press it to a Division.
The Earl of Mansfield: The temptation is always there to say, "Let us move on. I will go away and think about it", but this matter has been considered and thought about very extensively by the Government. It is the overriding policy of this Government to relax the Secretary of State's control over local authority affairs, and therefore even to consider the noble Lord's suggestion in this matter would be contrary to that policy. Beside which, I think the sheriff is the better

1143
man to decide at this juncture what could be rather difficult family considerations. Accordingly, I should be misleading the noble Lord if I were to say I would take the matter away and consider it again.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: There is another aspect of the matter on which the Minister might usefully reflect. I resisted the temptation to meet any of the arguments presented in support of his amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, because I thought the amendment was entirely misconceived. Indeed, I thought the noble Lord was completely wrong—I will not develop the argument because in my view it is self-evident—in suggesting that it was more appropriate that the decision on an appeal from the committee should go to the Secretary of State rather than to the sheriff.
However, the noble Lord made one good point about the effect of publicity on the children and parents. I should have thought it would be a simple matter to provide by regulation, under the Sheriff Court Rules, that these hearings should be in private. The Minister might like to reflect on that possibility to meet the only point of the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, which had the slightest validity at all.
Lord Hughes: I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, in that suggestion. As the Committee will know, I recently presided over a Royal Commission investigating legal services in Scotland. Something that was very much impressed on us by one of our colleagues, who happens now to be the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission but who then was a judge, Lord Maxwell, was how, in considering divorce cases in particular, judges are more and more taking the view that the important parties are the children. I apologise for referring to what was in our recommendations, but we were very much impressed by what he said about the harmful effects of publicity; and it was obvious from what my noble friend Lord Ross said that he was animated more by avoiding harmful effects, both to children and to parents, in his suggestion that the Secretary of State was the better person to deal with this matter. As Lord Wilson said, there is a procedure by which these cases can be handled privately—I suppose by the sheriff in chambers—and if the Minister would undertake to follow Lord Wilson's suggestion, that would deal effectively with one of the points my noble friend made.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: While we should not forget the harmful effects that publicity can have on the child, nor should we forget the good effects publicity can have on education committees, particularly those which are absolutely sure of their own virtue. Therefore, publicity need not always be harmful. On the contrary, the fact of airing something in court often does more good for the future of other children than the actual decision. Indeed, education is now so highly charged with political content that it appears to me that the sheriff in this case is a suitable person to hear the appeals.
Lord Hughes: I do not object to publicity being given to the decision of the sheriff, and if it was adverse to the local authority then the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, would be made. The harm is done when it involves individuals. While there can be no publicity—because it is easy enough to determine, as in divorce cases, that the children and parents shall not be named in court—if it is in open court one does not know how many people will be present. I do not think any harm would be done in publicising the decision, particularly if the sheriff wants to be critical of the local authority, but that is not a necessary part of it if, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, seems to wish, the whole thing were dealt with in public.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I support the Government on this issue. It is a long time since I was closely associated with the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State, although there was a time in my life when I was married to a Secretary of State, and never in my life have I seen anyone who has more matters referred to him. I cannot imagine not wanting to cast off some of the work covered in the phrase "referred to the Secretary of State". The Secretary of State has to adjudicate on, and express opinions about, an enormously wide range of subjects, and I should have thought that it would be marvellous to cast off some of the responsibilities to someone else. Undoubtedly the sheriff, if he was a local sheriff, would know the local conditions very well, and if publicity would be detrimental to the parent or child, anonymity could be preserved. I consider that in this instance the sheriff would be a very suitable person to make the final decision, and I support the Government in what they propose.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for raising this point, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and other noble Lords who have spoken. The noble and learned Lord will know that under new Section 28F(3) an appeal will be dealt with as a summary application, and that means in effect that the case will be dealt with under such procedure as the sheriff thinks fit. Nevertheless, I feel that the noble and learned Lord has here a real point which we need to consider. Everyone is agreed that the welfare of the children concerned is the primary—indeed the only—consideration, and we shall have to have consultations, not least with my noble and learned friend. Perhaps by one means or another we can return to this matter at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Ross of Marnock: There are lawyers in front of me and sheriffs behind me, and as a simple layman I am pleased that at last they have entered into the debate on education. I do not think that sheriffs are the best people to make the decisions about a child's education. I do not think that sheriffs are the most suitable people to determine matters relating to a child's age, aptitude and the rest, because it is an educational decision that is being made. Irrespective of what is in the Bill, the parents can take a point of law to the sheriff. That is fair enough. But I do not think that the sheriff is the right person to make decisions on the child's education, on what can be provided,

1145
on how the child can be helped, and on the question of whether the expense to the educational authority is reasonable or unreasonable.
Sheriffs are not at present the least employed people in Scotland. Had the noble Baroness read the gruesome reports of the number of cases at present delayed in the Sheriff Court of Glasgow she would be the last person to suggest placing more duties on the sheriffs, who, I gather, are the busiest such people in the whole of Europe. The sheriffs are not unemployed, and are not likely to be unemployed, so far as I can see. In the present situation, it is frightful to think that people would wish on the sheriffs more work—and not necessarily work that they, and they alone, can do; nor indeed are they the best people to do it.
I approve of casting off some of the burdens of the Secretary of State. There is no reason why I should not approve of that, and I have much sympathy for the present holder of the office. The Minister of State said that it was wished to relax the situation in relation to the local authorities. I would ask what was the local government Bill about? It was concerned not with relaxing the position of the Secretary of State vis-à-vis the local authority, but with the Secretary of State becoming increasingly involved in the more important matters relating to local authorities, telling them how they shall or shall not raise their rates, and what they shall do and shall not do. So, if responsibilities are to be cast off, it is a question of who they should be cast off from. The final decision could have been left to the appeal committee that hears the parents' case against the local education authority. That could have been made final, which is the situation in England. I do not necessarily say that we always follow England. It is much more likely that sooner or later England will follow what we do in Scotland, and so keep its lawyers busy.
I am not satisfied with the answer that has been given. The question of the publicity is vital. The likelihood of publicity arises from the fact that the appeals are to be to the courts. If the appeals were not to be to the courts, there would be no worry about publicity. That was my main argument. There would be no worry about publicity under my proposal. I must insist that we take this matter to a Division.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 109.

CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Foot, L.

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Blease, L.

Hughes, L.

Blyton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bowden, L.

Kaldor, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Leatherland, L.

Brockway, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McCluskey, L.

David, B.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milford, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Molloy, L.

1146

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Stone, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Parry, L.

Strauss, L.

Peart, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Shinwell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Alport, L.

Lawrence, L.

Avon, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Baker, L.

Long, V.

Balerno, L.

Loudoun, C.

Banks, L.

Lyell, L.

Barnby, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Berkeley, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boothby, L.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mansfield, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Mayhew, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Newall, L.

Daventry, V.

Norfolk, D.

de Clifford, L.

Northesk, E.

De Freyne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nunburnholme, L.

Derwent, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Dudley, B.

Orkney, E.

Eccles, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Perth, E.

Elles, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Roberthall, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrier, L.

Rochester, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rugby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Davids, V.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Germans, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gormanston, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Selkirk, E.

Gridley, L.

Sharples, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Somers, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hampton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sudeley, L.

Hillingdon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Holderness, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hooson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vickers, B.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

Kilmany, L.

Westbury, L.

Kimberley, E.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.4 p.m.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, leave out lines 35 to 38.
The noble Lord said: Let me cheer up the Government. Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 will

1147
automatically fall because of the decision that we have just made; but Amendment No. 6 is to leave out the words:
"On good cause being shown, the sheriff may hear an appeal under this section notwithstanding that it was not lodged within the time mentioned in subsection (3) above".
In other words, it has got to be in within 28 days, which I should think is a fair time to give anyone to make an appeal to the sheriff; and allowance is duly made in subsection (3) for posting on Friday or Saturday, when it is presumed to have arrived on the Monday next following. So, with all that time it is difficult to understand exactly why subsection (4) is there. What kind of circumstances would there be that enabled more time to be given, or would justify the discretion being exercised so that the sheriff could go on and hear an appeal in spite of the fact that it had not been "timeously" received by him, to quote a word from a previous statute? I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I can give the noble Lord one or two examples which I think will show that in fact the subsection is perfectly logical and fair in its intention. For instance, if an appeal is lodged out of time because the parent is ill, or because the child's parents are abroad during the period in question—on holiday, for instance, or working abroad—and whoever is looking after the child cannot get the necessary instructions from the parents in time to lodge the appeal within the prescribed time limit. In my experience almost all appeals to legal authorities have an escape clause so that the appellant, who may be appealing out of time but who may nevertheless not have been at fault, or even negligent, can obtain relief.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that is a perfectly satisfactory explanation, and we can all understand it. But here we are into the business of appellants, legal advisers and all the rest of it—just the kind of thing we should not get into in respect of a simple case of a decision about where a child should go to school. However, the Committee has decided that this is how it should be done. I have no objection to the explanation which has been given, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 not moved.]
Lord Hughes Lord Hughes moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 25, after first ("the") insert ("appeal").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 11 is, I think, one which the Minister will accept, because it appears to me to be rectifying an omission. In every other part of the clause, before the word "committee" the word "appeal" appears, but in this particular instance it seems to have been missed out for no reason. Unless for some reason which I cannot understand it is not a reference to the appeal committee but to another committee altogether, then the word "appeal" ought to be inserted. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am obliged to the noble Lord for a constructive suggestion. Far from the heated exchanges of another place we scrutinise
1148
legislation here with our customary calmness, and I invite noble Lords to accept this amendment.
Lord Hughes: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I hope I have not deprived my noble friend of the only time when the Minister gives way.
Lord Ross of Marnock: May I say that I knew the Minister would give way and it would have hurt me, which is why I did not make any appeal to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Children and young persons with certain special educational needs]:
5.9 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 14, line 3, leave out ("an education authority") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: I am sure it will please the Government and those in charge of the business here to appreciate the way we are getting through this Bill. It will surprise many people. But in Clause 4 we come to an entirely different subject altogether, and it is one which, generally speaking, has the support of everybody in the Committee. It concerns meeting the special educational needs of particular pupils who have specific or complex educational needs.
Much of this stems first of all from the importance of the early discovery of those particular needs which will mean making an assessment of children in nursery school, and I hope acceptance of the need for the assessment of children even under the age of two. This is a new departure that we are making. It is absolutely vital that we get the acceptance of this need by parents, by doctors, by social workers, by teachers and by a whole range of people who come in contact with the children at the various ages and stages.
The Government place the responsibility on the education authority to disseminate information in their area regarding the importance of the early discovery of the special educational need. I am suggesting that that is not a matter purely for the education authority. It is a matter for all these people and all these bodies that I have mentioned, and the person best to undertake this obligation—important from the point of view of meeting the need or getting at the need and persuading people that this should be done—of the early assessment of children who may require special educational treatment, is the Secretary of State.
My amendment that follows applies not to the area but to throughout Scotland. We need a continuing campaign throughout Scotland on this point. It may well be that in some areas some education authorities, some doctors, some local health services, some social work departments are already seized of the importance of this matter. However, there may be other areas where they are not. If we are going to meet the needs of these children we must have the information available to all the people concerned, for that to be distributed

1149
and for the persuasive powers of everybody concerned to see that the early assessment is done.
With all due respect, this is not a political point. I have thought long about it. This is something which the Scottish Education Department could do rather than the local education department. I remember that we had a special educational unit; we probably still have it. They are the people to do this. I hope that the Minister will appreciate the reasons why I put this forward. It is for the best reasons in the world: I want this to be successful. But I do not think that we should leave it to the local education authorities. They are pressed for money at the present time. This is something else which is going to cost money. The last matter we discussed, additional information to be given to parents, was going to cost about £300,000. We do not want to leave to chance that this also is going to be met within the rate support grant. If it is within the rate support grant, then the local authority can ignore what the Government want. They are under pressure, and regarding the things that will go, it might be last in, first out. It might be new expenditures which are the ones that will go or will not be undertaken.
The Government really mean this departure in relation to special educational needs. It is a new and very desirable departure and they should take the obligation upon themselves. They have the staff; they have the wherewithal; they have the special advice and they should reach the whole wide public of Scotland through education authorities, through health visitors, social workers and everybody concerned, so that the pressure of information and the pressure of need should be brought to the parents and families to have these early assessments made.
That is the reason why I move the amendment. I hope that it is one which the Government will think about. Unfortunately, we are now at the point where the Government want the Bill within a fortnight. I am glad that I have just heard the Minister say "No"; that he is prepared to take time. Probably what I heard, that we were going to consider the next stage of this Bill in a week's time, is wrong. I am glad of that. It will give me more time to write down the necessary amendments that we have to put down arising from the helpful answers that we have had from the Minister of State.
This matter is important; we want it to be a success, and the best way is for the Government to accept the responsibility and, through the officers they already have, to mount this publicity and keep it going. It will be essential to review this year after year until it becomes something accepted in respect of the welfare of children. Parents, doctors and everyone else should look out for the first sign of the possibility that a child may require special educational needs. I beg to move.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, on the great importance of notification a very early age of any disability or handicap in children, whether mental or physical handicap. That is extremely important. It is only after many years of publicity from voluntary organisations dealing with the mentally handicapped,
1150
the autistic or whatever the handicap may be, that the public are becoming aware of the great importance of finding the disability as early as possible and trying to find out, through doctors, education and so on, the best way to handle the children that are handicapped.
I do not agree that the local authority, with the education committee and the social work committee, are not the best people to do it. Speaking from my own experience, in our education area we had people—both teachers and social workers—who were continually on the alert to find out the best way of helping the severely handicapped or the children who might become worse if they were not treated early, and so on. I cannot imagine the Secretary of State being able to do it anything like so well as the local people: the local committee, the local authority, knowing the local conditions under which people live, their neighbours, and so on.
The responsibility should be put on them to find the children and then, after that, it is the responsibility of the education committee or the social work committee, as it may be, to find the right way of treating these children. I do not agree that this is a matter which should be done through some central authority. It is a job that should be done—and is done—locally, by people who know the area, the children and conditions. I support the Government in their view on this.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The noble Baroness has misunderstood what is at stake here. It is not the action to be taken in respect of the children; we are dealing only with the dissemination of information:
"It shall be the duty of an education authority to disseminate in their area information as to the importance of the early discovery…".
It is only information. May I say to the noble Baroness that things have changed since she was on a local authority. There may well have been a school medical service then.
This is why I suggest the importance from the information point of view of letting people know, letting parents know; and they can only get to know through a variety of organisations of people who are in touch with the families. It should not be left purely to the local education authority; it should be a matter that the Secretary of State should take up, and so on.
The Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong, but we have got an education unit—that is another thing that this bright Government have probably got rid of in order to save a few pounds or so. To my mind, it should be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, as it is in many other cases, to disseminate information. He has a wonderful information office: I was amazed at the amount of money that office managed to build up in the period between 1970 and 1974 when there was a lapse—but we can forgive the public—and there was a change of Secretary of State. But the one thing they did build up in expenditure when they were cutting other things was the information service, the cost of films and all the rest of it. They have the people and they can probably do it far, far better than leaving it to the local education authorities.
I think the noble Baroness will know the pressure that the local education authorities are under at the present time through rate support grant. The Government can lay down priorities as to how that rate support

1151
grant is spent. They provide the money and then the priorities in respect of where cuts are made, and where cuts are made they are made by the local education authorities. What I am afraid of is that local education authorities will not embark on this expenditure or, if they do, will quickly cut it; but if the duty is laid on the Secretary of State for Scotland he will need to carry it out as one of his prime responsibilities.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. It may be that I am not as up-to-date as I ought to be, but the general principle that it is the local people and the local authority who can both disseminate information and know where the information should go is, I think, still the most important thing.
The Earl of Mansfield: I was interested to hear the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, as to why he seeks to transfer to the Secretary of State a duty which is long established, as he himself will know. This clause in fact restates, though with distinct differences, Section 60(2) of the 1980 Act. In fact this is a duty which has rested with the education authorities since 1945 and it reflects the need and the opportunities, which my noble friend Lady Elliot has emphasised, for local communication.
The Government are not aware of any dissatisfaction with the location of this duty and the way it has been carried out. There was no suggestion made that the duty should be transferred to the Secretary of State by the Warnock Committee, for instance; and in the widespread consultation processes that have followed that report and during these legislative proposals which have been discussed, again there have been no suggestions made that there should be any transfer of this nature. Both directly and in association with other agencies such as health boards and voluntary bodies, we believe that education authorities can get the message across to individual parents much more readily than in fact the Secretary of State can. They can display the basic information needed by worried parents; they can make that information available locally and can tell such people where to seek help for their child. We do not believe it would be appropriate to withdraw those requirements which have been working so well for so long at this stage.
Of course central Government has a part to play. They can promote a general awareness of the importance of early educational intervention, and in the guidance which he will issue on the discovery and assessment of special educational need, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will certainly emphasise the part to be played in all this by public services concerned with children's welfare. But that would be no substitution for the direct communication with parents which the Bill requires education authorities to continue and which we think should continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, mentioned a special education unit—yes, I am sure the noble Lord realises that it is the Health Education Unit—and this kind of role is not a job for that unit, as I am sure he appreciates. If the Secretary of State were to take on this duty he would also have to take on extra staff. But
1152
that is by the way and is perhaps just clearing up a point of misunderstanding. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is concerned, it does not detract from the argument, and I hope that on reflection he will agree that it would be better to leave matters as they stand.
Lord Ross of Marnock: No, I am not entirely satisfied. We have experience of the Health Education Unit and the campaigns that from time to time they carry out throughout Scotland. It would be all very well if we were satisfied that the job is being properly carried out at the moment; but from the fact that we put this amendment down here at the present time and that the whole problem has been highlighted by Warnock, makes it, I think, more conceivable to ensure that the job is done and the responsibility left with the Secretary of State. Of course there could be national campaigns in respect of the information, but part of that is to inform the local education authority what they have got to do, and also to tell the local health authority what they have to do.
Certainly at nursery school age and in primary schools, the teachers and the education service are in touch with respect of the parents and the children and see what special educational needs are required for a child; but in the ages before that it is not the education authority which is responsible or which could be in direct touch. It is much more likely to be the social worker, the health visitor or the local general practitioner. It goes wider than education and it may well be that we have been slipping up because we have not highlighted the importance of the matter at the present time. Certainly the guidance is going to be given by the Secretary of State—to whom? It is going to be given not to one of those agencies but to the whole lot of them, I trust.
That is why I think the initial responsibility should rest with the Secretary of State. Certainly, from a parliamentary point of view we have no one to question about it. He would be responsible, though not necessarily would he do all the work. He would pass the work along to the local education areas and to the health boards and, through them, to health visitors, to nurses and to those visiting the family and, it may well be, to the general practitioners as well.
That is the purpose of my suggestion and I think it would be much more likely to be successful. Of course, the question of money would not arise. It would not be a question of priorities of the local education authorities. The duty is placed by Parliament on the Secretary of State, and he would need to be answerable to this House and to the other place for how he is conducting it. I still think that is probably the best way of doing it, especially in these present days, and if the Government are not going to think again I am afraid we will need to tread the Lobbies.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I wonder whether it would be possible to avoid treading the Lobbies. There has been a good deal of that on this Bill, and I hope that we shall divide on matters of fundamental importance. This amendment refers to an administrative device, and I am not convinced, having heard the argument, that questions of important principle arise. I am influenced, as a former member of an education committee of a local authority, by the fact that these

1153
committees are fairly close to the needs of the communities which they serve, and are probably in a better position to advise and disseminate information according to the needs of a community.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has said that if we transfer this responsibility to the Secretary of State it will enable Parliament to question the Secretary of State. I presume that Parliament—although the noble Lord has much more experience than I have in this regard—questions the Secretary of State on the whole area of educational responsibility in Scotland, and it is no excuse for the Secretary of State, on any occasion, to say that a local authority is not carrying out its duty.
In Scottish local government, at the moment, we are in a very interesting phase. We are in a period when the powers of the Secretary of State and the local authorities are running into some difficulty. I should have thought that this device, which decentralises responsibility, might have appealed to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, rather than the centralisation of authority in St. Andrew's House. I appeal to him to accept the explanation given and to save us from treading the Lobbies.
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is a very touching appeal from my noble friend. But I can assure him—and he will be the first person to appreciate it—that education authorities take different views of their responsibilities. As you go through Scotland, you find that what appeals to one local authority as important does not have a similar appeal to another local authority. If you appreciate the importance of this for, say, a child in Orkney, the Western Isles, the Borders, Glasgow, Edinburgh or anywhere else, you want to make sure that something as important as this is not left to the whims of local authorities.
This, to me, is a matter of principle. We are starting new ground. Hopefully, all we are doing is providing the framework. We are not providing the money. We are not even given the kind of assurances about the use of existing monies that were given by the Secretary of State for Education in England and Wales. We in Scotland have already been told that no more money will be available for this great new charter to meet the special educational needs of unfortunate children. I want to get it right. I do not want to leave it to individual local authorities to decide "We are going to spend money on this or that".
We place the responsibility on the Secretary of State and he must do it. No question of rate support grant arises with him. He gets his grant direct from the Government. You could call his record, in respect of spending money, a better one or a worse one. But, proportionately, he spends far more money than the local authorities who are dealing with education, local government and everything else. Their record in saving money is far better than the Secretary of State's. It may be that his extra expenditure is related to the extra duties placed upon him by Parliament. He cannot dodge them. I suggest that this is one of them. It means that he works through all the bodies; not just the education authority, but the health board as well.
As I suggested, it is at an important part of a child's life that you want an assessment. The health board is more in touch with the family than the education
1154
authority. That is why I suggest that it should be the Secretary of State. If we really mean to make a start and get the structure right in relation to the education of the handicapped—be they physically or mentally handicapped, or seriously or not quite so seriously handicapped—who have special educational needs, the first requirement is to get through to the parents the importance of an early assessment. It is sometimes not easy for the parents to accept that, but it must be done and it can be done only with co-operation.
The person who will achieve co-operation with all these bodies in Scotland is the Secretary of State, because he is the Minister for Health and the Minister for everything else in Scotland. He can unify the approach and can use all these agencies which he has at his command, be they health, education or anything else. It would probably not be appropriate in England, where there is a diversity of various Secretaries of State coming in. But where you get the one all-wise and all-powerful man at the top, embracing about seven different departments which each require their own Ministers in England and Wales, it is a very different matter.
We have the chance to do it right in Scotland. Let us take the chance to do it right. I think that it is a matter of greater principle than my noble friend believes, and I hope he appreciates that I am not nitpicking about this. I am concerned about getting the right structure and getting the advance. All we are getting now is the structure. Let the structure be right. If we cannot do all the other things that we want to do in respect of educational needs, we can surely get started with the business of getting the assessment and getting the proper dissemination of information.
5.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 102.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kaldor, L.

Barrington, V.

Leatherland, L.

Beswick, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blease, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blyton, L.

McCluskey, L.

Bowden, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Molloy, L.

Brockway, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Parry, L.

Collison, L.

Peart, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shinwell, L.

Fulton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hale, L.

Stone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strauss, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Whaddon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Jeger, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

1155

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alport, L.

Killearn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilmany, L.

Annan, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Avon, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Baker, L.

Lawrence, L.

Balerno, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Long, V.

Barnby, L.

Loudoun, C.

Bellwin, L.

Lyell, L.

Berkeley, B.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Caccia, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mancroft, L.

Chitnis, L.

Mansfield, E.

Craigavon, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mills, V.

Daventry, V.

Mottistone, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

De La Warr, E.

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Derwent, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dormer, L.

Orkney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dundee, E.

Perth, E.

Eccles, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elles, B.

Rochdale, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rochester, L.

Faithfull, B.

St.Davids, V.

Falkland, V.

St. Germans, E.

Ferrier, L.

Sandford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seear, B.

Gainford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharples, B.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gormanston, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Greenway, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gridley, L.

Thurso, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hampton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hanworth, V.

Vickers, B.

Hillingdon, L.

Vivian, L.

Hives, L.

Westbury, L.

Holderness, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Hunt, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
5.46 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 14, line 22, after ("Record") insert ("of Needs").
The noble Earl said: While moving this amendment, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 18. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also turn my attention to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 19, which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, because they are all on the same subject. I express at once my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for putting down his amendments. My reason for saying that is because the amendments which we have tabled are based on his proposal and I hope that they will have precisely the same effect. I shall explain in a moment why it comes about that we have not simply accepted his amendments.
The objection to the term "Record" was expressed in another place and I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, referred to it on Second Reading. Some people seem to feel strongly about the use of the term "Record". Others do not feel anything at all about the use of such a term. For myself, I see little force in the objection. I do not think that the word, "Record", necessarily can be taken to mean a criminal record; it can mean a number of different things. However, I have to realise that there are some people for whom it is a natural association of thought. If such a term is to be brought into general use in the practical administration of the education service for handicapped children, then one must clearly, if one can, improve it if such an improvement is desirable. Therefore we are happy to attempt to do so.
Building upon the noble Lord's suggestion, we prefer the terminology "Record of Needs" because the document in question will be a good deal more than simply an assessment. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that a record of assessment looks back, whereas a record of needs looks into a child's future. The record will contain the education authority's proposals as to the measures to be taken to meet the child's special educational needs, and usually it will contain a proposal about school placing. For that reason, no one would feel that "Record of Needs" is a less acceptable term than "Record of Assessment", as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock.
We have made the amendments in subsections (2) and (3) of new Section 60 rather than in subsections (2) and (4), with the omission of subsection (3) which is what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, suggested. The reason for this is that for drafting purposes it is desirable to retain subsection (3) as the authoritative interpretation of the word "Record" and of other expressions associated with the word "Record" which very frequently appear without any qualification in the succeeding provisions of the Bill. So I hope that the noble Lord—and indeed the Committee—will feel satisfied with the amendments, which represent a constructive reaction to the very helpful suggestion which in effect the noble Lord has made. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am very grateful to the Minister for his remarks about my amendment timeo Danaos et dona Ferentes. I am beginning to wonder what is behind all this. The fact, of course, whether we like it or not, is that "record" has a connotation, especially when one starts to talk about a child with a record. I think the people most concerned about it would be those who at present know nothing about it but would suddenly discover in two or three year's time that they had a child who had a record.
I am afraid I am not entirely satisfied even with my suggestion; probably "record of assessment of needs" would be the proper thing. In England they dispense with that altogether and use the word "statement". It does not convey much of the meaning of what has happened, but it gets round the difficulty of the word "record" and it may well be that there is some justification for them departing from "record" and using the word "statement". I do not know whether the Scots thought about this and decided that they would not follow the English in respect of this, but

1157
probably in deciding simply to call it a record they were wrong.
The Minister disappointed me when he decided to keep in subsection (3). One only has to read subsection (3) to realise that it should never be in a piece of legislation:
"In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, 'record', when used as a noun means a record open and kept under subsection (2) above and 'recorded' and other cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly".
What does that mean to ordinary people? Of course, it all stems from the fact of' using the common word "record" instead of a unique phrase which would be self-explanatory and probably less offensive. I do not think we have met the difficulty by saying "recorded needs", although it really stems from the assessment, which is why I have suggested "record of assessment".
However, I am happy that the Government have gone as far as they have done, and even admitted that they have thought about it. One can only accept that and hope that they will not stop thinking about it because I do not think it is satisfactory yet. I shall not bend my mind to it, since, according to the Minister of State, we shall have more than a week to think of our next clutch of amendments for Report stage. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is away, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, is here and he is a master of phraseology and is much more familiar with "record" in its more generally accepted criminal sense. A "child with a record" is usually considered to have a record of truancy or of being at school and misbehaving. I hope he may be able to think of a more felicitous phrase—I cannot ask the Minister to get a felicitous phrase—to meet this particular purpose.
But let the Minister not weary in well doing. He has made a start and I am prepared to drop my amendment in favour of the one that he has put forward, but we should remember that we have scattered all through this clause "recorded children". I do not think there is any humanity in our draftsmen and certainly very little imagination as to how families will react to having a "recorded child" in the family. One only has to say these things aloud to appreciate how wrong they are, so let us not be satisfied with the position we have reached. However, I suggest that we accept the Minister's amendment, and I do not propose to move mine on this subject.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I think there is a valid point about "record". Is there any reason why we should not use the word "assessment"? We might simply use "assessment of needs", perhaps explaining it in subsection (3) as to what exactly it means.
The Earl of Mansfield: I hesitate to answer the noble Lord because really it is a matter of literary taste. I do now know whether he followed the proceedings in another place, but they managed to occupy themselves on this subject for longer than one would have thought possible and even such words as "log" were suggested. I do not know how seriously that was put forward, but if one says to oneself "a record of needs" it seems to me to take away the unpleasant connotation, if such exists, of the single word "record". There is no point of principle about this, still less of obstinacy
1158
on the part of the Government, and we shall be delighted to consider the matter afresh, although I really think it is a matter of literary preference.
Baroness David: Was the word "statement" considered and turned down and, if so, why?
The Earl of Mansfield: Yes—we thought the English got it wrong! I think I can say without fear of contradiction that nobody liked the idea of the word "statement". It did not convey what is being done to try to help the child in these circumstances, but I consider that "record of needs" is better than "statement".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dement): I must point out that if Amendment No. 17 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 18.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 14, line 26, after ("Record") insert ("of Needs").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved manuscript Amendment No. 19A:
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("14") and insert ("29").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that, as I am going to suggest altering the number of "14" to "29", which is what it is in the English Bill, the same remarks will not be made as about the word "statement". In exactly the same place in the Bill which deals with England and Wales the number "15" was changed to "29" during the Committee stage of the Bill and that is the period during which parents have a chance to make representation. I think that 14 days is an extremely short period of time in which to receive a letter, to consult and to get advice and to respond and 29 days would seem much more reasonable. Perhaps I might remind the Minister that, when speaking to Amendment No. 6,
"the sheriff may hear an appeal under this section notwithstanding that it was not lodged within the time mentioned".
That was 28 days. I think the Minister made a very good case for the length of time there. It seems there is an equally good case for changing "14" to "29" here. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: The Committee will understand, this being a manuscript amendment, that the department, and certainly I, have not had an opportunity to consider it as one would wish. There is every difference, of course, between appealing out of time and responding to a notice, but I am not going to weary the House with that sort of semantics. I quite frankly do not know why the noble Baroness chose 29 days, rather than 28; it seems to me an extraordinarily clumsy period of time. I am afraid that all I can do at this moment is respond by saying that, if she will leave it with me, I will take stock of the situation. She might for the record perhaps just tell me why

1159
29 rather than 28, or one calendar month, or something a little neater.
Baroness David: I took 29 because it was the figure which the Government accepted in the other Bill. I shall be very glad, having had the assurance that the Minister will look at this, to withdraw the amendment at this moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 15, leave out lines 38 to 46.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 20 seeks to leave out subsection (4) and words before it of this particular clause. I think its new number is going to be No. 61. The words are
"If any parent on whom a notice has been served under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above"—
that is to say a child of school age—
"fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirements of the notice, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50".
I put down this amendment to leave that out to give the Government an opportunity of justifying why they bring in this particular power, that if a parent does not respond, does not present the child for examination and assessment, they resort to this penalty of £50 on summary conviction. I think the less we bring the law and compulsion into this, and the more we have reliance upon persuasion and the effectiveness of the information that has been given out by the area education authority, the better. The information no doubt will include this kind of information as well—that they should be liable to a penalty of £50. I am just probing why the Government feel that this will be more successful with this kind of provision, rather than working on the basis of persuasion. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord will know, of course, that this is a situation which has existed in special education since 1945. We did, therefore, look very seriously, in considering our new approach to the handicapped and how it should be reflected in educational legislation. I do recognise that the noble Lord's proposal, in effect to delete this provision, would on the face of it be entirely consistent with the idea that one tries to promote partnership between parent and education authority where children have special educational needs. The education authorities that we consulted have stressed their belief that in fact the present informality of the relationship will continue, and indeed no one can recall an instance in recent years of the use of this penalty clause. But the point has been made that mention of its availability has on occasion been effectual in persuading a reluctant or a bad or neglectful parent to take action.
It is a fair point in regard to most penalty provisions that the fact that they have never been invoked does not necessarily mean that they serve no purpose. I think we have to accept the advice of the education authorities on this matter, that while they will always do everything in their power to enlist the co-operation of parents, and have no doubt generally speaking that
1160
that co-operation will be forthcoming, they would still wish to be able in the last resort, and in the interests of the children concerned, to point to a specific sanction.
Having said all that, I am bound to say, when one reads the clause that it may be too rigidly expressed. I am sure it is the practice of education authorities to make allowances where circumstances prevent parents from responding to the original invitation to present the child for assessment, and I think this might well be specifically provided for in the legislation. I therefore propose to consider an amendment for Report to establish that the machinery of compulsion, if I may so call it, will not be set in motion unless there has been a failure on the part of the parent and that failure has been without reasonable excuse. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for directing our attention to this difficult matter in a difficult area. I hope that, on the assurance that I have given, he may at this stage withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am very grateful to the Minister. He appreciates the reasons why I put this down and the attitude I adopted. I think that in the Warnock Report it was stressed time and time again that we shall not make any inroads into this problem and meet the real needs of children unless we get co-operation at every stage. To wield the big stick, and so obviously, not even hiding it behind their back, I found rather offensive, and I did not think it would be helpful in obtaining that co-operation.
This takes us back to the amendment that was moved, certainly belatedly, by my noble friend Lady David about the 14 days, and I think gives more justification for acceptance of that particular amendment. If the noble Earl wants to make it 28 days or 30 days, except in February, when it can be 28, or at other times it can be 31, then so be it. I am glad that he has taken this up. Deterrent, yes, last resort, yes, but this gives the impression that they are going to use it "right away unless". We want to get away from that. I am grateful to the Minister for the attention he has paid to this and his appreciation of the inherent difficulties of the present wording. I look forward to seeing the amendment he will put down at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 25, line 18, leave out ("12") and insert ("6").
The noble Baroness said: I apologise for putting this amendment down late. This has to do with the review by the education authority of a decision to record information, and in particular it has to do with the parent of the recorded child being able to ask for a review of the record or statement. The Bill as it stands say that they cannot ask for this:
"earlier than the expiry of the period of 12 months from the date of that decision or the most recent review of that decision".
That was also in the Bill dealing with England and Wales which is going through this House at present, but the 12-months period was, in fact, reduced to six months in Committee in another place. Indeed, 12 months is a very long time in the life of a child whose development is very fast. It was thought that six

1161
months would be a much more appropriate time after which to be able to ask for a review. I hope, that, if the Minister cannot say at once that he will accept my amendment today, perhaps he will take the same line as he did with the matter of 14 days. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: This is a matter to which we have given attention already, notwithstanding the noble Baroness and her manuscript amendment. As she has said, this amendment would place on the education authority a duty to review a recording decision every six months, instead of every 12 months, on parental request. Therefore, it would mean that, in order to carry out this duty, they would have to reassess the child, subjecting him, as well as anything else, to a renewed medical and psychological examination.
I am afraid that we disagree with the noble Baroness in her assessment when she says that 12 months is too long a period. We think that it would be highly unlikely that major changes would take place as quickly as that. It could happen that if, for instance, an over-anxious or unreasonable parent insisted on exercising this right, it might be very hard on a sensitive child—and I do put that proposition forward seriously. It certainly, on occasions, could be a waste of scarce professional resources and it could also lead to delay in the initial assessment of other children. I think that we must consider the resources which are available. It is not, therefore, only in the interests of such children upon which I base my argument, but in the interests of other children as well.
I would remind the noble Baroness that authorities have a general duty under new Section 65A(1)(a) to keep cases under consideration and to review their decisions whenever expedient. So although I appreciate her understandable English concern to have uniformity throughout Great Britain, we in the Scottish Office think that the period which we have set is one which will be fair on the child and at the same time make the best use of our limited resources. For that reason, although I understand the motives which prompted the moving of her amendment, I am afraid that I must resist it.
Baroness David: The Minister mentioned the new Section 65A(1)(a), and under that it is when the authority decides that it is expedient. My contention is that it is the parent who probably is seeing the child day in and day out and night in and night out who is much more aware of what is happening to that child than the authority, or even perhaps the teacher who sees the child for part of the day. Therefore, I do not believe that there are many parents who would want to put their children through this unnecessarily. I cannot say that I am convinced by the Minister's response. I still think that it should be possible for the parent to have an earlier assessment and I should like to press this amendment.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 93.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Balogh, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bowden, L.

Molloy, L.

Brockway, L.

Parry, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peart, L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rhodes, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hale, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Alvebhurch, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hughes, L.

Stone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Willis, L.

Kaldor, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kimberley, E.

Alport, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Arbuthnott, V.

Long, V.[Teller.]

Avon, E.

Loudoun, C.

Balerno, L.

Lyell, L.

Barrington, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bradford, E.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cathcart, E.

Margadale, L.

Chitnis, L.

Marley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mayhew, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Norfolk, D.

de Clifford, L.

Northesk, E.

De Le Warr, E.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L.

Perth, E.

Derwent, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Rochdale, V.

Eccles, V.

Rochester, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elles, B.

St. Germans, E.

Elton, L.

Sandford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Seebohm, L.

Ferrers, E.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrier, L.

Sharples, B.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Soames, L.

Gainford, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gormanston, V.

Sudeley, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Thurso, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hampton, L.

Vaizey, L.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

Killearn, L.

Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
6.23 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is not my intention to oppose the motion that Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill, but there are one or two points that must be made. If we look at the final new section which is part of this clause, new Section 65F, we learn that:
"the Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing standards and general requirements relating to the conduct of schools making provision for recorded children or recorded young persons".
Can the Minister give me any indication as to the nature of those standards and general requirements? Does he imply by that the actual size of classes? Does he imply by that the qualifications of teachers and other forms of guidance and help? Lastly, will the prescribing of these standards mean the expenditure of more money by the local authorities, and how much?
The other point I want to raise arises on the previous page, page 27, in new Section 65D, subsection (1)(e) where it says:
"the persons to whom an education authority—

(i) shall, at the request of such a person, disclose a Record: and

(ii) may disclose a Record, and the manner of such disclosure".

I cannot think of any uglier conjunction of words which entirely fails to convey the limitations on this very important matter. It would be a good thing if between now and the next stage the drafting of that was looked at, so that the intention should be more clearly expressed than it is at the present time.
There has been concern in respect of this whole field that the parents should be kept informed. Once they have agreed to have the child assessed—and in many cases it will take a bit of persuasion, but for the benefit of the child it is essential—I think that it is essential to keep the co-operation of the parents and that the parents should have access whenever they want to the record of needs, as we now call it, of their child. It does not explicitly say here that the parents shall have access to their child's record of needs. Is it the Government's intention that, in regulations, they will ensure that that record would be available to the parents?
Secondly, who else shall be able to get sight, on demand or as of right, of these records? Once again, I think that the parents should know who is looking at these records. Therefore, to my mind, the parent's rights should not just be their access, but they should know who else is having access. In some circumstances, there might be a case for agreeing that access should only be with the consent of the parents. I hope that the Minister of State is following me in this because I think that it is one of the most serious points as regards the whole matter. We are anxious to get co-operation. We must have the co-operation of the parents. If we have the co-operation of the parents for assessment, they must know the results of that assessment and they must know the results of the assessment of needs—what is on this record of needs—although, indeed, it may be changed over the years. But the parent must have free access to it, and should also know who else has access to it, and the purpose for which they have access.
Before the parents are told this I think that Parliament should have access to the Government's thinking
1164
about this. To whom will they disclose, first, "at the request" of that person? Then there is the rather ugly phrase, and you have to go back to the beginning again:
"the persons to whom an education authority — may disclose a Record"
evidently without any application at all,
"and the manner of such disclosure".
The Earl of Mansfield: First, I should like to turn to the new Section 65F, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the standards and other requirements relating to the conduct of special schools and other schools making provision for recorded children or recorded young persons. It is intended that regulations will be made under this power and they will extend not only to public schools, but also to grant-aided schools and the independent sector. Obviously, the regulations will have to take account of existing regulations in this field, including the Schools (Scotland) Code 1956, the Schools (General) (Scotland) Regulations 1975 and the Residential Special Schools and Orphanages (Scotland) Grant Regulations 1948.
However, the point that I want to make to the noble Lord is that as regards all these regulations throughout this part of the Bill there will have to be extensive consultation. All the subjects to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has referred will be the subject of regulations but there will have to be a great deal of consultation with COSLA. So far as the new Clause 65D(1)(e) is concerned, parents will have access to a copy of the report. I can make a firm commitment so far as that is concerned. Who else? Obviously the assessment team will have to be provided with the necessary information, but all these are matters which have yet to be decided.
On reflection, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that there has to be consultation before the Secretary of State is in a position to make these regulations. If I may, I will study the Official Report tomorrow and if there is anything in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, which I have not covered, albeit rather compendiously, then I will write to the noble Lord before the next stage of the Bill.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Parry: Perhaps your Lordships' Committee will forgive the intervention of a Welsh accent in what is principally a Scottish domestic debate. The principle that I wish to speak to for a moment is a part of this debate but at the same time it is general to two fears which are held in education about this particular section. It is clear that if the noble Lord the Minister has not yet made up his mind and if his principal has not yet made up his mind about who will have access to the information contained in records, the Committee should be aware that a major change has taken place in our accounting system in education and that change is absolutely relevant to the discussions of the Committee at this stage.
It seems to me, anyway, after many years of teaching, that if the examination system itself is in question, and if the recording system for examinations is itself in

1165
question and is changing, as we know it to be, then it must be borne in mind that no one has confidence either that the recording system as at present financed, funded and staffed is equal to the task of replacing or even augmenting the examination system that it is replacing in many areas of education.
It seems to me fundamental that this sea change, this grand change, if I may change my metaphor, which is taking place in the assessment of a pupil's abilities at a level of education in Scotland should not take place if the Minister has not yet made up his mind what form of access to the records there will be, when the records themselves do not satisfy educationalists, teachers or parents that they are truly able to report the ability of a child at the correct age as required under the original Education Act.
Baroness David: Before the noble Earl the Minister replies, I should like to ask a further question about attitudes towards how much information parents will have—information leading to decisions that will appear in the record of needs. Will the parents be given access to the professional reports and to the other evidence on which the assessment was made? I do not believe there is anything in the Bill about whether they will or not, and it will be interesting to know the Government's attitude to this.
Lord Parry: I must apologise because I should have made it clear to your Lordships' Committee that I understand that this falls within the area of special educational needs. It is an area of particular interest to me and an area in which I myself serve, and therefore my intervention came in that context.
Baroness Faithfull: It is a matter of practice rather than putting anything into the Act. My experience of dealing with such children is that if there is complete openness and a relationship between parents and the doctors, schools, social workers, assessors, et cetera, at every stage of the child's development, the parents are not particularly worried whether or not they see the written report. I know that this does not help but I make a plea to doctors, parents, teachers and social workers to have a good relationship and be honest with the parents at every stage.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for his Welsh thrust. My right honourable friend's mind is by no means made up on this matter. I do not know whether I misunderstood the noble Lord opposite, but I thought he was talking about the examination system when in fact what we are talking about is assessment.
Lord Parry: Perhaps the noble Earl the Minister will kindly give way, since he has asked the question. I was in no doubt in my own mind and I apologise if I left any doubt in the Minister's mind. I was actually saying that the whole examination system is under revision and our assessment of results in the examination system has been in question for some time. Since that is being increasingly augmented by a recording and assessment system it is absolutely vital that we should not introduce doubt into the minds of your
1166
Lordships' Committee as to how the Secretary of State shall replace the system.
The Earl of Mansfield: I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has said but all these matters will be the subject of consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether the parents in these instances will have access to professional reports. I am informed that this is firmly opposed in England and I understand that it is not the intention, at the moment at any rate, that parents will have access to professional reports in Scotland either.
Baroness David: That is certainly the position in England as the Bill stands, but I should like to emphasise that all the organisations which deal with the different sorts of handicap are very exercised about this and are absolutely as one in wishing the situation to be changed.
The Earl of Mansfield: I cast no aspersions, but if an amendment had been put down on this particular point then I would have had my tackle straight and I might have been a great deal less ignorant about these fine points. Of this amendment, I can only say that I will repeat my offer to write to the noble Baroness if it appears on reflection that I have not answered any point that she has raised. If we have to come back to this at Report stage, then we shall do so.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I appreciate that there are bound to be difficulties for the Minister of State in explaining what the regulations might be, but, after all, the Minister is putting forward a Government Bill requiring powers to make regulations. It is a wee bit much to expect us to give him a blank cheque to carry on and do all this when he cannot tell us what the regulations will contain.
The Earl of Mansfield: With respect, that is quite un-true. I have said that the regulations will be the subject of consultation, not least with COSLA, and indeed with a number of other bodies such as those to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred when she was talking about professional reports. As I understand it, the whole point of a Committee stage of a Bill is that it allows noble Lords to probe the Government about their intentions in detail. The power to make regulations is set out, but what form the regulations will take will be the subject of consultation and agreement—and that occurs frequently in all forms of legislation.
Lord Ross of Marnock: In actual fact, consultations about this Bill have been going on since before the beginning of the year. I thought that there would be some indication of finality about the regulations. This is not the first time that the Government have told us that there is controversy, that the Government are steering a narrow path, or we are making heavy weather. But we as an Opposition are no further forward. I asked a simply question on clause stand part. It would be easy to put down amendments; I could spatter the whole place with amendments. I explained the difficulty about conducting a coherent debate on clause stand part. We have got 11 new clauses. The difficulties are not of my making; they are of the Government's making. We have in these

1167
11 clauses what was an English Bill, and we are expected to hurry up, to get on with it. This is how you treat Scottish legislation, and I am expected to take this place seriously? And noble Lords from Scotland who have been here long enough are prepared to accept it? I have been here for only a year or so, but it is not my idea of how legislation should be dealt with.
I have asked in clause stand part who are the persons to whom the education authority will disclose the record at the request of that person. Who are they? Surely the Government must know at this time. Who are the other people to whom they may disclose a record? It does not say they ask for it. This part of the Bill is so badly drafted, or so vaguely drafted, that even the draftsman should have known that somebody would ask what it all meant. I have not been able to get an answer yet from the Government. They have not even suggested that they would look at the drafting of this. It is quite wrong.
Then when we come to the question of the record itself, and we are in order in dealing with the record on clause stand part, we are told it is going to be in four parts. A summary of the child's impairments. Some of us thought we were getting away from categorisation of children, but here we have gone slightly on the way back to it. A statement of special educational needs arising from that; and then the statement of the measures proposed, and, where appropriate, the nomination of a school to be attended by him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—I am sorry she was not here earlier when we were discussing matters relating to familiarising the public with the importance of this, and the importance of early assessment—emphasised the importance, as did Warnock, of the absolute need for maximum co-operation; parents, teachers, doctors, and everyone concerned. That means that you should not hold anything back from parents. They should have a right to know. It is their child. Their child's future. They are the people who are concerned about it. They are the people giving the co-operation. Well, they should be getting it all back.
We have a right surely to ask who are the people who are going to see these records and what the records are going to contain, and why such people have been singled out for the privilege and the right to see these records. That is not much to ask for. I would have thought that the Minister would have been able to tell us that, and not say, "Oh, it is all subject still to negotiation". Remember that regulations are capable of being changed at any time. They must have some initial thought. You start with your initial thoughts. There is many a committee on which I have served where you ask the Government to produce their draft regulations to see whether or not the House agrees with them. But that has not been done in this case. We have been given the minimum of information about something that many people see as a breakthrough. Let us start by having the co-operation of the Government and the Committee itself, and we shall, I hope, be able to make progress quickly.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am always fascinated by lectures from the noble Lord. He finds it difficult to distinguish between primary legislation and regulations.
1168
If I told him what was going to be in those regulations before we had consulted, for instance, COSLA and some of the other appropriate bodies, he would have been the first to say that this was a denial of democracy; that it was flouting the rights of parents; that it was Government by diktat; that we had no mandate in the Western Isles, and every sort and kind of argument which he produces so effectively so often. But when I tell him that we are minded to produce these regulations and they will be as a result of consultation and therefore, we hope, by agreement, then of course he has it both ways by saying "Why can't we know now? The Government are not governing".
What I can tell him is what the Government are proposing in relation to this matter of disclosure. This is not to be taken as finality, but it will give the noble Lord an idea of what is in the Government's mind, if that is what he wants. It is part of the consultation document, and it is proposed that the education authorities are to be required to allow access to the record at all reasonable times, first to the parents of a recorded child, and, secondly, to a recorded young person or his parent, if appropriate. Where a reference has been made to the Secretary of State in respect of a recorded decision or to the terms of the record, it will be necessary for an official of the Scottish Education Department to have access to the record.
It is suggested that the education authority will be empowered to disclose the records to the head teacher of the school attended by the child or young person, with the agreement of the head teacher any other teacher at that school who is concerned with the child or young person's education; thirdly, the school doctor; fourthly, an educational psychologist concerned with the welfare of the child or young person; and the medical officer and psychologist who are conducting examinations for the purposes of any review of the recorded decision, or the terms of the records, are also to be required to be allowed access at all reasonable times. Those persons to whom a record is disclosed will be permitted to inspect it and to extract any information which they require.
The education authority, it is suggested, are to be empowered to provide information from the record on request to an officer of the social work authority, an officer of the health board, a children's panel, the child's or young person's general practitioner, an appeal committee which is considering a reference made to them in respect of a recorded child or young person under the appeals provisions in the Bill, or a sheriff who is considering an appeal relating to a recorded child's or young person's school placement. But the education authority would not be empowered to disclose the record to other persons and bodies unless they are satisfied that it is in the best interest of the child or young person to do so, and they have first obtained the written permission of the parent or young person. The Committee will see that this is a somewhat complex and highly technical part of what will be the regulations, which no doubt will have to be thought through in depth.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think the last speech of the Minister was not technical; it was very informative. It even answered the point I asked on my first intervention

1169
as to the cases where the parents' consent would be required. I am sorry he took so long to find that part of his brief. I know it is a long clause, but that is not my fault. I can tell him that he gave the perfect answer, but it is a great pity that he had not been given that answer much more quickly.
I am quite satisfied with that answer. It is the kind of information I sought and asked for. It is the kind of information I never get. It is when I do not get it that the Minister will get a lecture, and he will continue to get a lecture, because I have been the subject of many lectures from many Tory MPs in the Scottish Grand Committee in another place, and it was not all done within the confines of an hour-and-a-half, I can tell him. It taught me that I must know my Bill before coming before Parliament with it so that I might be able to answer any points raised. As I say, the Minister finally gave the perfect answer. Perhaps he will be rather quicker about it as we go on and will not lecture us as we do our duty in examining this legislation.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Assisted places at grant-aided and independent schools]:
6.51 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 28, line 24, leave out ("to benefit from") and insert ("to attend and receive").
The noble Lord said: We have a change of scene and a change of clause and come to the question of assisted places, an import from Scotland into England. We are not blessed—perhaps I should say "cursed"—in Scotland with so many public schools. All our public schools are public; they belong to the people and are run by the education authorities, and I am sorry if, when talking about public schools, I am confusing English noble Lords.
We had for a time grant-aided schools, many of which were semi-independent, many of which were originally public schools and many of which were originally (although they aspired eventually to independent status) charity schools, left for the education of the poor burgesses of Glasgow and Edinburgh, but after a time they burgeoned forth and became different types of school altogether, and some of them salved their consciences by having a few foundation places.
The grant-aided schools in Scotland were supported by the Government with a direct grant, and it will be no surprise to noble Lords to learn that when I was Secretary of State we decided to end that—not end the independent schools (I do not believe in the ending of independent schools and I do not think one could do so, as I said on Second Reading) for many of the independent schools of a particular character carry out a tremendous amount of initiative work in education for special pupils—because there was no real justification for giving money directly to them to enable them to lower their fees for all the people concerned. And to the extent that assisted places deal only with people of certain incomes, it is an improvement, but to my mind not much of an improvement.
I believe that, especially at a time when the Government are short of money and are cutting grants to
1170
every education authority in the country, including Scotland, to provide more money to independent schools is an absolute offence to the whole Scottish tradition of education. I am not dealing with the whole wider question; that will come on later amendments, or when we debate the clause stand part. I must say, however, that I am surprised that the Government should try to justify what they are doing by starting the provision with the phrase:
"For the purpose of enabling pupils who might otherwise not be able to do so to benefit from education at grant-aided and independent schools".
Benefit from it? What a presumption to say that anyone would benefit from any school! My amendment is not designed to wipe them out or be a wrecking proposal. It is designed to make things much more factual by saying "to attend and receive" in place of "to benefit from", and I hope the Government will accept it.
Who made the suggestion that every child, or every selected child, would benefit from being at what, in England, they laughingly call a public school, an independent school? To my mind, in some cases it could be positively harmful to them, and there are plenty of examples around to justify that theory. But fancy assuming that everyone will "benefit from" it—not even "in the opinion of the parents" or "in the opinion of the school"; just blandly that they will benefit from it. That is a wrong thing to say and is certainly not a phrase that merits a place in legislation of this character, introducing into Scotland something that is absolutely opposite to the whole tradition of Scottish education.
Even John Knox would be annoyed about it, remembering that he set up the Scottish education system on the basis of freedom for all and the establishment of a school in every parish. Mind you, it was a long time before that was achieved, although he certainly had the right idea. But now to suggest that we must make special provision for some people—we do not yet know who they are or how they will be picked—who might not otherwise be able to so benefit from education at grant-aided schools is wrong, presumptuous, arrogant and, I think, offensive to the 95 per cent. of all other children in Scotland who go to the local school, the ordinary school where my kids went and where I went. Did it do me any harm? I do not say I would have benefited from going to any of the other schools that are lauded in the phrase which the amendment would delete.
Thus, the purpose of the amendment is simply to put the statute right. We are making provision to enable people to receive education, whether or not they benefit. In any event, that is something that only history over a long period of the child's life will tell. The phrase I wish to delete condemns ordinary, public education in Scotland and uplifts, quite unjustifiably, the merits of what I call private education.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for tabling the amendment. It does not alter the substance of the scheme but it does help to clarify a point which opponents of the scheme seem to have found difficulty in appreciating, and I welcome the noble Lord as an ally in this because the scheme's opponents, both inside and outside Parliament, have

1171
tried to sell the idea that the scheme is elitist and alien to Scottish tradition in that it is only for the so-called "brightest" children. As the record in another place will confirm, the Government have always rejected that assertion.
The scheme is aimed primarily at widening parental choice of school for families with lower incomes and not at pupils with the kind of ability which would in any event have secured them a place at a selective school. The only relevance of ability to the scheme is that to qualify for an assisted place the pupil must be capable of benefiting from the education provided at the particular school of choice, which may, of course, be a wholly non-selective school. As the amendment goes some way presentationally towards removing any implication that the scheme is selective, based on ability, I am happy to accept it.
Viscount Thurso: Surprise, surprise!
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am not surprised at all. After all, this is the second amendment we have had accepted, so the people who will be surprised are those who support the Minister blindly on everything, sometimes without even knowing what is being discussed. I said my amendment made the provision much more factual in relation to the scheme. I did not say I supported the scheme. Far from it, and we have other amendments to come about that. However, light seems to have dawned somewhere; they appreciate that they made a mistake, and it took us to put it right.
We shall not weary in well-doing, and there are other amendments that will even further improve the clause, if the Government really mean what they say about parental choice. But I now give due warning that, when we come to consider the Question that the clause shall stand part, I shall move that we do not allow the clause to become part of the caucus of Scottish educational legislation. May I say "Thank you" to the Government for what they have done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think that we have probably reached the right moment to adjourn, and I would suggest that we resume the Committee stage, if the other business is completed, by 7.50. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Antigua Termination of Association Order
7.1 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order will be made under Section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967, which requires that any order made under that section be laid in draft before Parliament and approved by Resolution of each House. The order will terminate the status of association between the United Kingdom
1172
and Antigua. It is proposed that it should take effect on 1st November this year. Antigua will then become a fully independent sovereign state. I am glad to inform the House that the Antigua Government intend to apply for membership of the Commonwealth.
Antigua and Barbuda, as the independent state is to be known, is the fifth associated state to seek to move to full independence. Grenada became independent in 1974, Dominica in 1978, and St. Lucia and St. Vincent in 1979. Under the terms of the West Indies Act 1967, associated statehood ended the colonial relationship and Antigua assumed full internal self-government. The British Government retained responsibility for defence and external affairs only. The concept of associated statehood was to provide an intermediate stage before the assumption by the islands of full independence.
In 1978 the then Antigua Government indicated that they wished to move forward to independence. They were reminded of the two main criteria which needed to be satisfied; namely, that the change should be clearly shown to be the wish of the majority of the people of the associated state, and that there should be a constitution protecting fundamental rights and freedoms. A general election was held in April 1980. The manifestoes of all three major parties included a commitment to early independence. The Antigua Labour Party won 13 seats at the election, to the main opposition party's three seats. The remaining seat went to the independent member for Barbuda. The election result thus satisfied our first criterion for independence.
A draft independence constitution was debated in the Antigua Legislature in July 1980. It was subsequently published and widely distributed throughout the state. A resolution was then passed requesting that the British Government convene a constitutional conference. The conference met at Lancaster House from 4th to 16th December 1980. A report on the proceedings is contained in Cmnd. 8142. The conference considered in depth the draft from Antigua and accepted certain changes proposed by the Opposition. The revised draft emerging from the conference satisfied the British Government's second criterion by providing the necessary safeguards for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in an independent state. That document was approved by the Antigua Parliament in April and May 1981. A copy is available in the Library of your Lordships' House.
I must explain the special attention which has been given to Barbuda in the preparations for independence. Barbuda is an island of some 62 square miles, which is 25 miles north of Antigua. There is a population of about 1,200 souls, some 400 of whom are adults. In recent years the Barbudans have raised complaints about the inadequate level of their economic development under Antigua and, generally, about the unsatisfactory working of the relationship between the Barbuda (Local Government) Council and central Government. The Antigua Government's decision in 1978 to seek independence intensified those complaints and led to demands from the island for secession. The Minister of State, with the agreement of the Antigua Government, invited a Barbudan delegation to participate in the Lancaster House Conference and to air their grievances again there. Accordingly, nearly

1173
half the time of the conference last December was devoted to the special problems of Barbuda. The Barbudan delegation were able to achieve very substantial advantages for their island, including substantially increased devolution to the local Barbuda Council of responsibility for the running of the island's affairs and much greater financial autonomy.
This year the Antigua Government have taken steps to implement the conference decisions. A revision of the 1976 Barbuda Local Government Act of the Antigua Parliament has been introduced to give effect to the new provisions, and safeguards for Barbuda's future have been provided by entrenched clauses in the new constitution. Although every effort is being made by the British Government, and will continue to be made, to urge the Antigua Government to maintain a constructive dialogue with the Barbuda Council on points which remain at issue, we are satisfied that the future social and economic development of Barbuda has now been properly and constitutionally provided for. Meanwhile, the measures which have been taken this year will confer on the tiny adult population on the island of Barbuda a unique degree of devolution of authority to allow them to conduct their own affairs within the state. This does not exist anywhere else in the Commonwealth Caribbean.
The British Government have, of course, given very full consideration to various Barbudan requests for separation from the associated state before Antigua becomes independent. We are satisfied, however, that separation would not be justified for a tiny island of 1,200 people, which was an integral part of the colony for over 100 years, and which has been an integral part of the internally self-governing associated state for the past 14 years.
The general election of April 1980 was a clear demonstration of the wish of the large majority of the people of this associated state for independence. A constitution has been prepared which protects the basic rights and freedoms of all the people of the independent state. It now falls to Britain to complete the process towards independence which was started in 1967, and to terminate the status of association with the United Kingdom. I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House when I say that we wish her people well as they take this final step into full nationhood, and that we look forward to a relationship of continuing close co-operation within the Commonwealth. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th June be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
7.7 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, while we on this side of the House warmly welcome the independence of Antigua and respect the rights of the Antiguans to self-determination and wish them well, unhappily the rosy picture that the noble Lord has painted of the contentment prevailing in Barbuda does not correspond with the facts as those of us who have been in recent touch with those who have just returned from there have reason to believe. Our welcome for the order is highly qualified by the fact that the overwhelming majority of Barbudans at any rate are strongly opposed to a Whitehall-imposed association with Antigua.
1174
In this context I cannot help recalling my memories of the unhappy events in Anguilla when I was Attorney-General. We sent out there a Minister to try to maintain the involvement of Anguilla with St. Kitts and he had to make a somewhat indecorous departure from the island. I remember that during that period it became necessary for us to land several hundred paratroopers, marines and London policemen to try to terminate the rebellion. The matter ended ultimately by Anguilla being established as de facto separate from St. Kitts, and that was confirmed in the Anguilla Act 1980. What we fear is that to impose a shot-gun wedding on Barbuda and Antigua might well have equally unhappy consequences.
The Barbudans themselves are descended from the slaves who were transported there to provide food and crops for the Antigua plantations. They are a peaceful agricultural and village community—as yet they are not in any sense bellicose—and as such a community they are capable of being self-sufficient, They have been left alone there for many years indeed, and they survived the last war without any help.
What is complained of now is that what was promised by the Antiguan Government before and after the constitutional conference simply has not been fulfilled. They have apparently not allowed the Barbuda Council to exercise the powers given to it under the 1976 and 1981 local government ordinances; the Barbudans have not been given the money which was voted to them—apparently they have had no money since June 1980—the promised flying doctor has not arrived; and so there is an acute sense of discontent and dissatisfaction with the arrangements that are to be made permanent by the terms of the order we are now considering.
What I have to ask is this. What is the United Kingdom's interest in compelling the Barbudans to become part of Antigua, or to be directly involved with them as part of one state? The Barbudans have tried their best to prevent this coming to pass, and they have done so peacefully. They strongly opposed what was proposed at the constitutional conference; and the members of the Barbuda Council favour a separate Barbuda. Most of its inhabitants have signed the so-called Barbuda Declaration, giving notice of their intention to establish a separate territory if and when Antigua becomes independent. The Antigua Opposition now supports the Barbudans in their resistance.
Barbuda is by no means essential to Antigua itself, and it surely cannot be good for either of these communities to be forced (so far as the smaller of them, at any rate, is concerned) into an unwanted marriage imposed from Whitehall. Therefore, even at this late stage we greatly hope that further assurances can be given by the Government to resolve the anxieties and fears of the people of Barbuda, and that perhaps even at this stage they will think again over the whole transaction.
7.13 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, this evening we are being asked to approve the Antigua Termination of Association Order. This, when it has been approved, will give independence to Antigua, and to that no one will object. But, as we have seen, the Government are also asking Parliament and this House (although

1175
it does not specifically say so in the order which lies before your Lordships) to approve the inclusion of the island of Barbuda as part of the new state. This inclusion is passionately opposed by the vast majority of Barbudans—as we have heard, a peaceful agricultural community who want to remain British.
The present draft Order in Council follows closely on the heels of the Antigua constitutional conference, which we have been told about, which took place at Lancaster House in December 1980, where there were four-sided negotiations involving the United Kingdom Government, the Antiguan Government, the Antiguan Opposition (the Progressive Labour Movement, or the PLM, who were the governing party until the 1976 election) and the Barbuda delegation. At that conference the Barbuda delegation sought a separate future for its people. Their position was broadly supported by the Opposition, the PLM.
The conference itself ended without resolving this question, though the Minister of State said that nothing had been finally determined and that the parties were engaged in "an on-going negotiation"—and those were his words. The talks have not been resumed since last December, so the on-going negotiation did not go on very long, unless, as indeed I hope, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, also hopes, there may yet be a change of heart on the Government's part.
The Barbudans' ancestors were brought from Africa as slaves, and most people have heard of Barbuda only because Sir Simon Codrington, whose ancestors used to own the Barbudans, sold his family's papers, which trace the Barbudans' roots back to the 17th century, at Sotheby's last December. But if the United Kingdom were to retain Barbuda, or were to allow the Barbudans to remain British, the Barbudans would in fact look after themselves, as they have done for 200 years, at insignificant cost to the British taxpayer. The Antiguans would lose nothing in real terms; indeed, the Opposition party, the PLM, which formed the last Government, supports that position.
It seems that the United Kingdom Government have learned nothing from the Anguillan crisis in 1969. Then, 5,000 Anguillans refused to accept a similar package to that now being proposed in this order. As we have heard, they expelled their police in a boat and sent them out to sea. The Government had to send paratroops and London policemen to restore order. The Barbudans are in exactly the same position as the Anguillans except that they have not resorted to force.
The Barbudan people have never been asked if they wanted to become part of Antigua—this was just foisted upon them without any form of referendum or sounding of opinion being taken—although Barbuda has been separately administered since 1900. Furthermore, the present Antiguan Cabinet has made a mockery of local government since it was introduced into Barbuda in 1976 by interfering in Barbudan affairs, and has not kept the promises which it made to the Barbudans.
The Antigua Parliament passed the 1980 financial estimates for Barbuda which contained a provision for 400,000 dollars for the Barbuda Council under the heading, "Contribution from central Government". Out of this sum, only 90,000 dollars has been received
1176
by the Barbuda Council; and the last time any part of it was paid to the Barbuda Council was in June 1980, when the Council received 20,000 dollars, according to the information which I have.
Responsibilities that were supposedly allocated to the Barbuda Council, such as agriculture and the maintenance of Government buildings and equipment, are carried out by Antiguan officials without local council consultation or supervision, contrary to the Barbuda Local Government Act 1976. Tools, materials, equipment and personnel for public works and services authorised for Barbudan projects fail to reach the island, prove defective on arrival or are removed episodically for private Antiguan ventures. Vital and long overdue public works remain unfinished. Barbuda still has no public electricity, sewerage or water supply systems. All of this is a perfect echo of the Anguillan complaints of 14 years ago.
The Antiguan police presence in Barbuda carries out no normal constabulary functions. It appears to be there solely for the purpose of harassment and intimidation. It can be seen, therefore, that the Antiguan Government has not allowed local government to work under the Barbuda Local Government Act 1976. So how can Barbudans expect anything better after the passing of this order, even with entrenched clauses to protect their interests? What guarantees would ensure that local government powers would be respected and local government costs defrayed after independence in November 1981, when we know the past history of relationships between Barbuda and Antigua?
Barbudans fear that the Antiguan Government want their island principally in order to use its resources for their own benefit. They fear that this would ruin the island, which has been their home for three centuries, and they have good reason to fear that the constitutional guarantees which they are offered will not afford them any real protection; that they will be condemned to the status of third-class citizens.
When one sees a story like that, and when one realises that we are taking a firm hand in forcing this upon these islanders, one feels a deep sense of shame at being unable to do more than plead with the Government over a matter like this. I feel a deep sense of shame that my Government involves me in this type of high-handed imposition upon these people, and I feel a sense of shame that our Foreign Office cannot do a better job of looking after the small independent communities and a more humane job in seeing to their future. I therefore hope, along with the noble and learned Lord who spoke from the Labour Benches, that indeed the Government may be able to give us better assurances than we fear exist or indeed the Government may be able to show a change of heart.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships and in particular to the noble Lord sitting on the Government Front Bench that I missed his speech as I have been at a memorial service at Westminster Abbey. Nevertheless, I feel strongly about this matter and I should very much like to support the viewpoint put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and by my noble friend Lord Thurso. Mr. John Macdonald, the Queen's Counsel who appeared for the Barbudans at the constitutional

1177
conference, used words like this in his final address: that it was inconceivable that either the Government or Parliament would impose upon the Barbudans the constitutional settlement with Antigua against their will.
That address was followed almost immediately afterwards by the final address of the chairman of the conference who was of course the Minister of State. He used the words which have been quoted by my noble friend Lord Thurso saying this was an ongoing-conference and no final decision had been taken. May I ask the question: When was the final decision taken and upon what grounds was it taken? If the Barbudans were led to believe, as other participants in the conference were led to believe, that this was an on-going negotiation, when was the final decision taken?
It seems to me very odd that a country with our heavy responsibilities takes a decision without apparently recalling the participants to negotiate further and without satisfying them about the doubts that they had raised. Here we are in this House facing the prospect of putting 1,500 people in a distant island into an alliance which they do not want and for the reasons which they have expressed without any of their doubts and the questions they have raised being satisfactorily answered.
Surely this House—as indeed the other place—has a duty as a trustee to these people. We are after all their trustees. Who else can they look to if they cannot look to this House? If as a matter of simple convenience we are brushing the problem under the carpet and say that it would be administratively convenient to make sure that Barbuda goes together with Antigua, and to turn a blind eye to what is going on at the present time, then I think that this House would be failing in its duty. Anguilla had a problem which was different in degree from the problem that has been raised here. Eventually the Anguilans resorted to force and eventually we had the Anguilla Act which as it were reversed the Government policy, granted an association under this country to the inhabitants of Anguilla. After all, it is only an island the same size of the island that we are considering here. It is 5,000 people as opposed to 1,500, but otherwise the situation is very similar. I think that we are right in this House to express extreme disquiet at what is happening. I think that the people of Barbuda can look to this House and should be able to look to us for some protection. I hope that the Government will pay heed to what has been said here this evening.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence on this particular order because I have never been to Antigua or still less to Barbuda—and I apologise for saying that that is a name that was not familar to me until fairly recently. However, I have been to other Caribbean Islands, including St. Lucia, Barbados and Jamaica. It may well be that part of the problem here is the granting of independence to these islands, many of which have relatively small populations. I am thinking particularly of an island such as Dominica with a population of about 60,000 which has had considerable problems due to hurricanes, and so on, since this happened.
In this case I would content myself by wishing
1178
Antigua well. From what I hear of it as an island it is a particularly beautiful spot with a great tourist potential. I hope that becoming a member of the Commonwealth it will continue to get all the support from this country possible. So far as Barbuda is concerned, of course somebody like myself and many other people who do not know these people must obviously be disturbed that a situation of this kind arises. Although 1,500 people is a small number, they are people who matter. It is the duty of the British Government to do all that they can in these circumstances. The problem seems to me to arise that if they do not go in with Antigua and there may well be—and I have studied the debate in the other place—that there are problems if they do, who else will take them on?
Having said that, I hope that my noble friend—as I am sure he will—will take note of what has been happening. The Caribbean is the subject of much discussion at the present time, as this House knows, much of it misrepresented I may say. I believe that they are charming people, lovely islands with a great potential. I wish Antigua well for the future. It deserves every success in its new venture and I hope that the problem of Barbuda can be overcome very soon.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, may I welcome this order and thank the Government for at long last stopping a fragmentation of the Caribbean. I have had to live through all this. We started out with a federation. Then a Secretary of State for the Colonies allowed Jamaica to vote to get out of the federation. The federation was still in existence but that Secretary of State agreed to allow Trinidad to leave it. Subsequently, there was an attempt to keep the other islands together. I must say that I have more sympathy with Barbados than the previous two and the Barbadians became fed up with the degree of negotiations that were taking place. Then they too went. We have had these islands one after the other becoming independent.
Every time we have had becoming independent an island which has another island attached to it we have this talk about the little island wanting to be independent on its own. The Trinidadians have the problem with Tobago. They found a way in that they have given Tobago a great deal of devolved power—much as the Antiguan Government has done with Barbuda. But if we go on with this fragmentation, we shall create little micro-states—this time it involves 1,200 people. We have the Union Island, which has about 100 people on it, talking about independence. Where do we stop? I must congratulate the Government on calling a halt to the fragmentation, and tonight I want to appeal to the Government to start to reverse the process.
The little islands I am worried about that have been becoming independent one after the other—microstates—have begun to try to come together. There is what is now called the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. It is an attempt to bring all these states together, and if Her Majesty's Government will give maximum support to that attempt it will be a movement in the right direction, because Her Majesty's

1179
Government can play a part in that, because one state is Montserrat, which is still a colony. Another state is St. Kitts Nevis, which is an associated state. Therefore Her Majesty's Government have some part they can play in this matter.
What I should like to see—I am sorry to have to disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench and other speakers—is something quite opposite from what is being demanded. I want to see an attempt by Her Majesty's Government to try to bring about a union of these little islands so that together they can become a state. If an island of 1,200 people can brief an eminent Queen's Counsel to put its case, one has to ask where the finance is coming from. I have lived in the Caribbean: it was my home until I came here and I am still in touch. There are elements that are anxious to have a base somewhere in the Caribbean, and those elements are encouraging every little territory to try to become independent on its own so that they can control it. It is for Her Majesty's Government to recognise that fact and to stop fragmenting the Caribbean. We have suffered much too long from this fragmentation.
I mentioned what happened after the federation. But there was another occasion when we could have created an even better unity than the federation, because Trinidad offered unitary state to any of the territories willing to join her. Grenada offered to do that, and then Her Majesty's Government failed to agree with the Trinidadian Government as to how it should be done, simply on grounds of finance. So an opportunity for creating a unitary state in the Eastern Caribbean was lost, because I would ask your Lordships not to forget that if Grenada had joined Trinidad at that stage the chances are that St. Vincent and St. Lucia would also have joined, and perhaps even Antigua and St. Kitts, and there would have been created a unitary state in the Eastern Caribbean.
I mentioned here once before that what is required is some programme, some plan for knitting the Eastern Caribbean countries together, but all we are ever get is some talk. With an island of 100 or 200 people, it is the easiest thing on earth for a demagogue to influence those few people; and this is what happens in these territories. After all, in the election 35 per cent. of the people in Barbuda voted for the Antigua Labour Party anyway. No, we must try to think differently in these areas. We have an area comprising a lot of little islands. Even the Bahamas had a problem the other day. On one of its little islands there was some movement to try to extricate it from the rest of the Bahamas. That is a danger in that territory. It is a real danger and it is a danger which will grow and become a monster unless we recognise it for what it is. Therefore I appeal to the Government to stick to their guns.
I have listened to speeches suggesting that the present Government of Antigua is not in fact implementing the Local Government Act, but it is the present Government of Antigua which passed the Local Government Act for Barbuda: it had never had one before. The council did not exist before this present Government passed a Bill in 1976 to establish it. You hear all this talk about the fact that the people who have established this council bear it ill will. The contrary
1180
is the case. I have a copy of the Government of Antigua's proposal for development and a great deal of it is devoted to the development of Barbuda. It is really nonsensical to talk as though the Government of Antigua in fact has this ill will. Of course, Barbuda is not well developed. Most of Caribbean islands are not well developed—and this is after how many hundred years of British rule? For 14 years Antigua has been ruling Barbuda and Barbuda has not been developed; but for a couple of hundred years Britain was ruling Barbuda and did nothing about it.
Let us be clear as to what we are talking about in these matters, because I am afraid we are in danger of doing a tremendous amount of harm to the Caribbean—an area which needs unity. Because there are a lot of small islands it is easy for demagogues to have influence in an individual little island. If matters continue as they are I can assure your Lordships that we will have created a monster in that area and I beg the Government not to pay heed to these petitions, because they will get them all the time. That is why some time ago I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, the question of the promise the Minister of State gave to Nevis, because I think that was a bad promise. I hope the Government do not give a similar promise to Barbuda. We want to encourage the maximum amount of unity. Again, I say that Britain can play a major role in uniting this area. For Christ's sake! stop attempting to divide it. I personally welcome this order and I also want to congratulate the Government on at last saying "No more fragmentation."
7.39 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that was a very powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, which has ended our debate. I must say I agree with him: most certainly we welcome the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. I would not go quite so far as the noble Lord as to see in the future a single country, a single state. But I see it as a trading and political bloc and force in that particular area, so I would certainly go that far with the noble Lord.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, would not the continuance of Barbuda as a colony, as British within an association of the kind that is being talked about, be practicable and possible?
Lord Skelmersdale: Give me a chance, my Lords. The noble and learned Lord was pre-empting me by about 500 words which I am about to say. First, are the British Government casting Antigua adrift? This is not so. As I said, associated statehood was conceived as a stepping-stone to independence. A majority of people of the territory have voted for full sovereign independence. This new status will enable Antigua and Barbuda to obtain aid and technical assistance from a wider range of international sources, yet will permit an even wider participation in the regional fora, such as the new organisation which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, mentioned. The British Government's relationship with Antigua and Barbuda will not, of course, end with the termination of association, but will continue to be a close one.

1181
We have been accused tonight of brushing the problem under the carpet, of a high-handed attitude and of imposing a shot-gun wedding. We are doing absolutely nothing of the kind. What we are doing is continuing an association—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said—between the two islands, which has been going on for a considerable time, and was recognised as such by the British Parliament when it passed the 1967 West Indies Act. We see absolutely no justification for the separation of Barbuda from the associated state. In any event, separation could be effected only at the request and with the consent of the state Government, which is firmly opposed to such an event.
This Government would not think it right to introduce in this Parliament a Bill for a new Act to effect separation. Let me explain why. Relationships between the central Government and the island council are solely an internal matter. Britain has not had any responsibility for this since the colonial link was severed in 1967. Any attempt now by the British Government to intervene unilaterally would be rightly resented and opposed by the Antigua Government and by other Governments in the Caribbean which look to Britain to behave honourably in such matters.
Fourteen years ago Parliament conferred associated statehood on Antigua, recognising that it created a new relationship in which Britain retained only very limited responsibilities, and which was intended eventually to lead to independence. To suggest that we should seek to put back the clock and to renege on arrangements which were freely entered into at that time, and which have been honoured in full by the Antigua Government, is irresponsible and I am surprised that noble Lords should lend their support to such a dubious proposition. I cannot reject it more totally.
We have been asked to compare Barbuda to the island of Anguilla, but that is a completely different situation. We simply cannot accept that what happened in Anguilla is, in any way, a precedent for Barbuda. Anguillan demands for separation in 1967 represented resistance to the change from colonial status to associated statehood—that is, the stage before this. Barbuda has been part of the associated state of Antigua for 14 years.
It should be noted that the then MP for Barbuda participated as a central Government Minister in the 1966 constitutional conference, which settled the arrangements for Antigua, including Barbuda, to move to associated statehood. The question of a separate status for Barbuda was not raised, despite the clear understanding at the time that associated statehood represented an entirely new, non-colonial relationship which was intended to lead eventually to full independence. Formal recognition of the Anguilla case in the form of the Anguilla Act, and the subsequent separation, had the support of the St. Kitts-Nevis Government. There are, therefore, no comparisons to be made between Anguilla and Barbuda, either on these grounds or on grounds of size, population, economic or political viability or physical distance from central Government.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked about the financial arrangements between Antigua and Barbuda. I can say that following the constitutional conference a British financial expert was sent
1182
to the associated state in March, at the Antigua Government's request, to consider with the central Government and the Barbuda Council what changes were necessary in the existing financial arrangements between the two bodies, to take account of the council's newly devolved responsibilities.
The Antigua Government accepted all the recommendations in the expert's report, and these were duly reflected in the 1981 Barbuda Local Government Act and in other administrative action by the central Government. The Barbuda Council, although reported as being satisfied with the expert's work, have never commented on his report or on his recommendations. These recommendations were designed to achieve a balancing of the budget between the recurrent expenditure required for maintaining a proper level of services or Barbuda, and the revenue derived from trading and other activities. To meet the shortfall, the Antigua Government have agreed to subsidise the council to the extent of 44 per cent. of the hospital's running costs, and 56 per cent. of the costs of other public health, medical and sanitary services.
I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to the paper Comments on the Barbuda Memorandum, although he did not refer to it as such, in which it was stated that Barbuda can manage its own affairs: it has done so for many years and has no need of Antiguan help. The facts simply do not support this claim, nor does it sit well with Barbudan protests about alleged Antiguan failure to pay over moneys due. The plain fact is that Barbuda would not be viable on its own and needs Antiguan support, which has been promised through the medium of the constitutional conference and subsequently.
Another point raised in that paper was that considerations of fragmentation and colonial devolution are no more compelling today than they were in 1967. This is, I must admit, a matter of opinion. We think that they are. But, more importantly, the majority of Caribbean Governments hold the view that fragmentation is a destabilising factor. I am not aware of any single Government which supports the Barbudan claim. The underlying suggestion that Barbudans are a race apart from the Antiguans, with nothing in common, is not the case. Many Barbudans live and work in Antigua. Many Barbudans and Antiguans are related, and many Barbudans—
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I am sorry to interrupt, my Lords. Will the noble Lord confirm that the wife of the Prime Minister of Antigua is from Barbuda and that, therefore, his sons are half-Barbudans?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am unable to confirm that without notice. But I know that a member of the Antigua Government—I think their equivalent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—was born in Barbuda. So that bears out what I was saying.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, he is a son of the Prime Minister.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. The link, therefore, between the two islands is not simply a matter of history. It involves

1183
people, many of whom in Barbuda have shown that they do not wish to sever this link.
Finally, perhaps I should turn to the matter of the Antigua police and defence force. The force is competent to deal with small-scale disturbances in its public order role. During the Antigua constitutional conference in London in December 1980, the strength of the force in Barbuda was increased from eight to 16, but has since been reduced to 11. The strength has not been increased in the past week, as was alleged recently—not in your Lordships' House, but elsewhere—and it is not, I am told, armed with machine guns. It really cannot be said that we are doing anything improper in this matter, and I hope I have said enough to prove it to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1981
7.49 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe it has been agreed through the usual channels that we should take both the two remaining orders standing in my name at the same time. In order to save more time, perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if I were to move these formally now and, later, answer any questions that your Lordships may have upon them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd June be approved—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
7.50 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, in the brief time available may I make one or two comments and ask one or two questions. The two very important conventions in these orders which we are discussing require international co-operation over the development and monitoring of facilities and natural resources. In the case of the order relating to weather forecasts, forecasts are of considerable economic and financial importance, for they help agriculture, construction, shipping and other aspects which depend upon the weather. Turning to the order relating to the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, it was agreed in 1980 that all possible steps should be taken to bring the convention into force as soon as possible, so as to harvest the Antarctic marine living resources and to co-operate broadly and comprehensively in their development.
In the moment or so available for discussion of these orders, can the Minister say what progress there has been since the last report was made to the House on these two important conventions and what action has been taken to achieve the respective objectives of these two very important international projects?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. The purpose of the convention for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources is in particular to help to protect the stocks of krill, a shrimp-like crustacean which is the principal foodstuff of Antarctic whales, thus reinforcing the protection already provided by the Whaling Convention. The United Kingdom signed that convention on 11th September of last year and it was laid before Parliament on 30th April. There are 15 original signatories, including the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties.
The convention has already established a commission, with its headquarters in Hobart, Tasmania, which is charged with the tasks outlined in the convention. These include measures for the maintenance of stable populations of marine life and of the ecological balance between harvested and dependent populations. The convention keeps open the possibility of exploiting Antarctic marine resources by the British shipping and food processing industries. It is progressing but it has not got off to quite so fast a start as we might have hoped. However, I shall keep the noble Lord and the House fully informed of any progress that is made regarding that establishment.
Turning to the second order, that on the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, I am afraid that I am unable to tell the noble Lord very much except that the European weather centre is now issuing daily for evaluation by its members forecasts for the entire world. The objective of the centre is to provide economically useful forecasts 10 to 12 days ahead. Their current forecasts, which show some skill at five or six days, represent a praiseworthy step forward. So they are getting there. However, one knows from experience of listening to weather forecasts anywhere in the world that they are notoriously unreliable.
The order deals with the pension rights of people serving in the centre. It makes a small extension to the privileges already granted to the staff. Currently, staff who are neither United Kingdom citizens nor permanently resident here are exempted from the payment of contributions to our national social security scheme. This type of exemption is fairly frequently accorded to international organisations which make their own arrangements for social security. The staff are affiliated to what is known as the Co-ordinated Organisations Pensions Scheme which provides common benefits for the staff of a number of European organisations. The object of the exercise is to make sure that they do not have to pay contributions twice. I am not sure whether I have answered in full the noble Lord's question. However, on the assumption that I have, I hope that the House will agree the orders.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In my remarks, which necessarily had to be condensed in view of the time available, perhaps I should have said that we support the immunities and privileges granted by these two orders. I am sure that the House is grateful for the brief progress report on the conventions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1981
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move the final Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd June be approved.—[Lord Skelmersdale.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Scotland) Bill
7.57 p.m.
House again in Committee, on Clause 5.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 28, line 41, leave out ("have regard to the desirability of securing") and insert ("secure").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 23 deals with that part of the new scheme, at line 41, which states that
"the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of securing an equitable distribution of assisted places throughout Scotland and between boys and girls".
We have heard a great deal about parental choice: It is going to be open to everybody to do this, that or the other. However, it sticks out a mile to anybody who knows Scotland that in order to give parents a choice there must be a school there, or thereabouts, to which their children can be sent.
We have to take into account the position in Scotland. There are about 1 million children in the Scottish public schools—that is, the ordinary education authority schools. In the independent schools which are scattered all over Scotland—laughingly called "public schools" in England—and in the grant-aided schools there are, as against the 1 million children in the care of the local authorities and the Secretary of State, only 32,000 children. An opportunity is now going to be afforded, with the assistance of the Government, to certain children to attend and receive education in these independent schools. I am glad that now it is not said that they will benefit from this kind of education.
If so few pupils, 32,000, are attending private schools in Scotland, have they been built up so that opportunities are available for the parents of the other 1 million children to rush to get places in those schools? How many of them will get a place? It is not very much of a parents' charter if so very few children will manage to get places. We must remember that we have been told that the Government will pay tuition fees, and perhaps certain travelling expenses, but that the Government will not pay boarding fees. In other words, only day pupils will be accommodated by the scheme.
Apart from a Roman Catholic Church school in Fort Augustus, I do not think there is one other school in the whole of the Highlands of Scotland. So, how many people in that area will get the benefit of this great scheme? I do not know whether there are any in Argyll and when we consider the whole scheme we discover that mainly the schools which are going to
1186
take in these assisted pupils are in Edinburgh or around Glasgow, mainly, of course, around Edinburgh. We have the list of schools, I think there are about 41 because there has been a slight change. There used to be 42 but somebody has had second thoughts and now there are 41. We have the sums of money that are going to be laid out on them and no equitable distribution is possible. It says that the Secretary of State must:
"have regard to the desirability of securing an equitable distribution of assisted places throughout Scotland".
As to all his paeans of praise about the value of this education and what the Government are going to do, it is not a question of having regard to; they have got to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of assisted places. Otherwise, the thing is a sham. It is whitewash to declare that it is available for everybody in Scotland; it is not.
I think a suggestion has been made that if you are within about 25 miles the Government will be prepared to pay the travelling expenses. If children travel 25 miles to school in the morning, at what time do they start out One should bear in mind that they are not all living beside a railway line which will take them directly to the centre of Edinburgh or of Glasgow, And, thereafter, of course, they have bus travel to the chosen school. Some of these schools tend to be rather out of the way.
So, when we boil the whole thing down it becomes a simple proposition to see that there is no fairness and no possibility of fairness as between parents living in certain parts of the country and others living in Edinburgh or Glasgow. This is not a scheme that will meet the needs, if needs there be. It may well be that certain parents aspire to have their children in independent schools, but with the best will in the world the Secretary of State cannot create schools which are not there, so from that point of view the scheme will fall down. It will not be equitable; it will not be just; it will not—owing to the pure geography of the situation—be open to the Secretary of State to meet his obligation. His obligation is so tied up that he will just have regard to it. Nobody will blame him if he fails, although I think from the point of view of how this has been written up in the press and the proclamations of the Government's party in Scotland as a great breakthrough to freedom of parental choice, it does not stand up to examination.
I want the Government to accept the challenge that they should not just have regard to it but should secure an equitable distribution; and if the Minister tells me that he cannot accept that, he means that there cannot and will not be an equitable distribution and this great new scheme is only for a limited number of people who live in a certain place and the scheme is unfair because the rest of Scotland will have to pay for it. People will have to pay for it by way of taxation and will not get any benefit from it. The people in the Highlands, the people in Argyll and the people in my part of Ayrshire will not get any benefit. All they will get is the opportunity, but there is no school there and the Secretary of State is not going to ensure that there is one near at hand. The whole thing is a bit of a sham, and for that reason I challenge the Government to accept this amendment and to prove that they are going to do something about the equitable and fair distribution of these particular places. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, answered his own debating point in almost the last sentence of his peroration, when he said that, even with the best will in the world, the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot create schools which are not there. That of course is the key to what lies behind this amendment. Even if there were a greater number of suitable independent schools spread evenly across the country this amendment would still be much too demanding.
There are in Scotland fewer than 120 independent schools of all types and some of those could not qualify for participation in this scheme. They include special schools, preparatory schools and so on. But 41 are participating in this scheme, which is quite a high proportion of the possible total. It stands to reason that most of these participating schools are in and around the cities where the bulk of the population lives, and to place the Secretary of State under an obligation to secure an equitable distribution of places throughout Scotland would be to demand the impossible.
Obviously the Government would wish the scheme to be as widely accessible as possible in geographical terms and that will continue to be our aim. I do not want to have a geographical argument with the noble Lord. I do not quite know what his definition is of the "Highlands". There are certainly two participating schools in the Highland region. I do not know whether he counts Crieff as the Highlands—Morrison's Academy is there. Gordonstoun in Morayshire is not physically in the Highlands, but it is not very far away—
Lord Ross of Marnock: But—
The Earl of Mansfield: If I may just finish, Rannoch in Perthshire, where I spent a number of happy years during the war, is certainly not lowland country. Nevertheless, I must doubtless take the noble Lord's amendment as seriously as he means it to be taken and invite your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Well, Gordonstoun is Gordonstoun; I had the impression that Gordonstoun did not take day pupils, but I am open to correction. It may well be that they are going to change the rules in respect of this.
The Earl of Mansfield: I did not give way to the noble Lord and there is no reason why he should give way to me, but I forgot to point out one of the errors of his argument. Of course, the fact that the scheme does not embrace boarding school fees does not mean that the children will not go to boarding school.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It only means that the Government will not pay and that the parents will need to pay. I think that is the conclusion. I am very glad to have that further support for my argument that the parental charges will be very strictly limited in those particular cases, because the parents will have to meet a considerable bill. I know that something has been laid down, to which we shall come later on, about the parental contribution according to the income of the parents and I believe there is support in relation to the tuition
1188
fees, up to an income of, I think, about £9,000 a year at the present time, although as school fees go up, doubtless this will be a movable scale.
So the Government now admit that they cannot make this scheme available to all the children in various parts of Scotland whose parents would like to avail themselves of it. So that a limited number of children from one area but none at all from great areas of Scotland will be able to avail themselves. It may well be that those are the areas of Scotland where there is less choice of education in the public sector, which we spoke about earlier, so that they will be doubly penalised. It is good to have this information from the Minister—that of course it is a sham scheme in the sense that it is open to everybody but not available to everybody because of the very nature of the location of the particular schools.
The noble Earl wondered what I considered the Highlands. I tend to consider the Highlands according to local education authority areas. I may be wrong. Maybe I should have included Perthshire. Even Stirling counts itself as the gateway to the Highlands. But I think the noble Earl knew quite well what I was referring to in relation to the Highlands generally and that was to the area covered by the Highland Regional Authority. Of course, I could have said the Islands as well, because they have their own educational policy. There is Orkney and Shetland. I do not know that they are within easy reach of such schools. If the noble Earl tells me that most of what they are going to pay is just tuition fees and that does not rule out somebody else paying the boarding fees, I would be interested in knowing just how people even on those incomes are going to be able to afford the boarding fees.
The Earl of Mansfield: I wonder whether I could interrupt the noble Lord again. I am much obliged. It is most important that we should not make a mistake on the record about this. Where boarding schools are offering places they, the schools, will find the boarding fees from their own resources. Those schools are Gordonstoun, Rannoch, Fettes, Strathallan, Loretto, Merchiston, Fort Augustus and Glenalmond.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am very glad we have got them on the record, because I want this to support further arguments later on in relation to what else they will need. I have a long list of prices supplied by Caird, not unknown to the noble Earl, because if he was at that particular school there are only certain particular places where you buy the uniform. Of course the demands in relation to clothing in respect of this are very clearly listed for that particular school. I have the detail of them all and what the cost of them will be. But what about all the others? How many boarding places are there going to be altogether in these few schools of the 41 that the noble Earl mentioned?
I do not think it affects my argument to any great extent. So far as I can see, the number of places that are going to be available are going to be very few indeed. I wanted it confirmed by the Minister and he has confirmed it, and I am glad it is on the record. The people of Scotland will know exactly what a sham this particular great new scheme of theirs is. I will not press it to a Division. I will not even ask for it to be

1189
negatived, out of kindness and generosity to the hard-pressed Scottish Office. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 28, line 43, at end insert ("and in respect of the need for denominational education").
The noble Lord said: I feel that there is something else that the Government should bear in mind if they are going to be fair to everyone. They have not only to take into account the geographical spread of availability of places under this scheme. It does say boys and girls, and most education in Scotland is co-educational, which is, to my mind, a good thing. But they have not put in the other thorny question about places in denominational schools. There are denominational schools in Scotland. Most of them are ordinary local authority schools. That was decided well over 60 years ago, when the local authorities took over all the Roman Catholic schools, and all the Church of England schools for that matter, and any other denominational school that wanted to come in; from that time forward they have been treated for all practical purposes as local authority schools, though certain rights and pledges were given in respect of religious education and who controlled it in the Roman Catholic schools which had been taken over by the local authority. All that has been very considerably to the benefit of education in Scotland generally. Anyone who can cast their mind back far enough to those days would appreciate the very considerable difference there was in standards of schools and standards of education. It has been to the benefit of Scotland that we have reached, quite a long time ago, very high uniform standards of education in all the local authority schools, whether denominational schools or ordinary schools.
But if we are going to make provision for assisted places, you have to remember there is a large Catholic population in Scotland, and even on a numerical basis there has to be a distribution of the places to meet their needs. There are Roman Catholic independent schools. I mentioned the Fort Augustus one; there are others, some for boys and some for girls. From that point of view I think we should put this in, to ensure that everyone is being fair, everyone is being considered. It is not going to be open to all, but those that are open to some are going to cater for all the various demands and needs in respect of education. Where there is demand for education with a religious bias, then that, too, should be written in, if this scheme is going to be at all fair or reasonable or even meet some of the demands of some of the people.
My idea is that if we have to have this scheme let it be the best we can get. So far it has fallen down on distribution of places geographically available to parents who aspire to this sort of education for their children in Scotland. The same thing must be done in respect of denominational aspects. Elsewhere in this Bill the Government can realise their importance. They are important all through the educational provision. When they are providing assisted places at independent schools they must be sure that they give their fair share of places to the Roman Catholic
1190
community as well. This is why I suggest this amendment should be made. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I confirm at once that one of the objectives that we have kept in mind in designing the assisted places scheme is the desirability of providing places in schools of as many different kinds as possible so as to cater for the wishes of as many different kinds of parents as possible. And this, of course, includes provision of places in denominational schools. But it would not, I suggest, be appropriate to place the Secretary of State under a statutory obligation to carry out that policy, and it certainly would not be appropriate to give him a duty to achieve this policy to the extent of 100 per cent.
The argument is similar to that in relation to the last amendment. The scheme can only extend to include the participation of such schools as exist. As I have said, the total number of independent and grant aided secondary schools in Scotland is small. In fact, we have enlisted the co-operation of most of them. The list includes all, or very nearly all, the denominational schools—mainly, of course, Roman Catholic—and we are very glad to have their co-operation. If new denominational schools were founded, we would be very happy to consider them also as participating schools; but, as I said, you cannot invent schools where they do not at present exist.
But let there be no doubt about Government policy in all this. We share with the noble Lord appreciation of the value and importance of religious education, whether in denominational schools or in schools that regard themselves as non-denominational. But we do not think that it is either necessary or desirable to include a statutory provision of the kind that is envisaged by this amendment. So bearing that in mind, I can only suggest that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The Government on the last amendment resisted certainly the very arduous task that I had placed upon them not "to have regard to" but to act—to "secure" the equitable distribution. The noble Earl resisted that amendment. He wanted the freedom to say, "I have had regard, but I cannot possibly because of the circumstances". He is further resisting the situation here. He thinks that the amendment is right to draw attention to the situation and he says, "We are seized of it and we want to do this, but we are not even going to put it in this time". Why is that so? He resisted the last amendment, so if we insert the present amendment it would read:
"…have regard to the desirability of securing an equitable distribution of assisted places throughout Scotland and between boys and girls and in respect of the need for denominational education".
With all the pleas about the concern of the Government and of the Education Department for places in denominational educational establishments, why will the noble Earl not even put this in? It may well be that some other Government will come along with different ideas and the Minister will say, "There is nothing in the statute that says that I have to have regard to the need for denominational school places for children being assisted as regards that kind of education". It would have cost the Government nothing, but it

1191
would have shown once again the feelings in Scotland that were enshrined in the 1918 Act and in the transfer provisions in Clause 16(1) of the principal Act, and that concern and consideration will apply to the assisted places scheme.
I see no justification for the noble Earl not accepting this amendment. In fact, I thought that I was going to have the difficult task of getting up and thanking the noble Earl for accepting the amendment. No, he has disappointed me again. It would not have cost him anything; it would have been a proclamation and that is all. It says "distribution…between boys and girls" and "distribution…throughout Scotland". The noble Earl knows that that means nothing—nothing at all. So once again he has proclaimed the poverty of the whole thing and the fear of the Secretary of State and of the Government that people will see it for what it is—just a glorious sham. No, I cannot withdraw this particular amendment. I think that we shall need to move forward through a Division.
8.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

McCluskey, L.

Blease, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Parry, L.

Collison, L.

Peart, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rhodes, L.

Hughes, L. [Teller.]

Ross of Marnock, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strauss, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

White, B.

McCarthy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Glendevon, L.

Avon, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Baker, L.

Hives, L.

Balerno, L.

Hunt, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Inglewood, L.

Bradford, E.

Killearn, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lawrence, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Loudoun, C.

Chelwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Margadale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Crathorne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

de Clifford, L.

Perth, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Donegall, M.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rochdale, V.

Eccles, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Elles, B.

Selkirk, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sharples, B.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Soames, L.

Ferrier, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

1192

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Vickers, B.

Tranmire, L.

Windlesham, L.

Trenchard, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 29, leave out line 26.
The noble Lord said: This amendment leaves out line 26 which says:
"tuition and other fees the payment of which is a condition of attendance at a particular school"—
that is what the Government are to pay—
"but excluding—
(i) boarding fees".
I suggest that we leave out the words "boarding fees". I suggest that if the Government really mean to give an opportunity to people all over Scotland to attend such schools, they should pay the boarding fees as well. We have just been told by the Minister of State that there are five schools, including Gordonstoun and Rannoch School, for which he has a special regard, which, out of their own monies, will provide boarding fees. That is good enough.
But what about the rest? What about all the other colleges? What about Fettes? What about the many that are listed in all these publications, which set out just exactly how much are the boarding fees?—anything up to about £1,000 a year, and some even more when you consider that the fees are payable by the term. Apart from those who will be helped in respect of these places, it means that no one from the Highlands and Islands, the Orkneys, the Shetlands, the Argyls, the Galloways and all the far out places will have a chance. If the Government mean to make the scheme available to any one in Scotland, they must provide for this. It means that if the money is limited and they provide more money to cover the cost of one particular child, by having to pay boarding fees, fewer people will be able to take advantage of the scheme, because of the stinginess of the Government in pursuing their great plan, that they will do it but that they will have to limit the amount of money.
Perhaps the Minister could tell me how much these particular schools that he mentioned will get from the Government in the first year. I do not want to give him the information; I want him to give the Committee the information. If I have the information, as I have it here, he could probably inform the Committee about it. Then we would have an indication—and we could get the cost of boarding fees—of just how many people will be assisted in this way. We would get a rough idea. I think that we should be staggered at how few they are in number, which of course brings this whole subject down from shadow to substance, and we appreciate just how little it all means and how ill-advised the Government were to embark on this idea in the first place.
This is an English import, alien to all the traditions of Scotland and Scottish education. But a group of Ministers are prepared to accept the diktat from else-where and apply it to Scotland. We already know that it will not apply to a great many people, who will be

1193
ruled out because there is no school in the area. In answer to that the Government say that they can be boarders. The Government say that they will pay anything else, but that they will not pay that, which means that those people are ruled out. So the Government have created the great charter and the great myth of this scheme being available to all children in Scotland. Time after time they say, "No, not to them". No doubt the Minister will say that the Government could not afford it, that they cannot justify it. They will show that the whole principle is utter nonsense, because they deny the one thing that is absolutely essential for people who do not live near a school, that they should board at the school and that the Government will pay the fees.
The effect of my amendment is that the Government would pay boarding fees. It is not that people should not go to such schools, but simply that the Government should pay the boarding fees. If the Government mean what they say about places being available, they must face that fact. It is a natural consequence of what the Government say they want to do; what the Government say they should do. The Government say that it will be to the great benefit of all the people in Scotland who can achieve a place in these schools if the Government pay boarding fees. This may be a strange argument coming from me, but noble Lords must remember that I am only accepting this if it will be passed into law. If it is to be passed into law, let us make it as fair as possible. I shall vote against the clause when the opportunity arises later, but meantime, as we go through the clause and seek to amend it, I shall seek to improve it if it eventually is to go on the statute book. Could we have the Government's answer as to why they will not pay boarding fees? I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I recognise the desirability in theory of paying boarding fees so as to make assisted places available in residential schools. The aim is to make the scheme available to as many Scottish families as possible. One must keep that in the forefront of one's mind. Given that travelling expenses can be paid for a distance of up to 25 miles—and we have heard a great deal from the noble Lord, Lord Ross, about, so to speak, the geographical features—it is perhaps fair to point out that there is a participating school within 25 miles of the homes of 85 per cent. of Scottish families.
On top of that a number of boarding schools have, of their own accord, offered boarding places on the understanding that if the scheme will make the appropriate contribution to tuition fees, they will, from other sources, meet the boarding fees. I gave a list of eight boarding schools which are participating. In fact, there are nine; I left out one, Keil. So the coverage of the scheme is, as I suggest, very satisfactory. If it were possible, we should be glad to increase it still further by making provision under the scheme for the payment of boarding fees for a certain number of places, but we must have regard to what is possible and to the fact that boarding places are much more expensive than day places. With the resources presently available for the scheme we consider that it is essential to concentrate on day places in order to cater for as
1194
many pupils as possible. On that basis the noble Lord's amendment is, I fear, unacceptable.
Lord Hughes: The noble Earl the Minister mentioned that nine schools were paying the boarding fees out of their own resources. Can he say how many of the remaining 32 schools, if any, are boarding schools or are schools taking only day pupils?
The Earl of Mansfield: I can give the noble Lord a list of all the participating schools if he really wants it.
Lord Hughes: But how many of the schools are boarding schools?
The Earl of Mansfield: I have told the noble Lord that nine of the schools are boarding schools, and so the remaining schools are not.
Lord Hughes: Unless I misunderstood the noble Earl the Minister, he told us that nine schools were providing fees from their own resources. What I want to know is whether there are any boarding schools which are not providing boarding fees out of their own resources.
The Earl of Mansfield: I think the answer is that, if there are, they are providing places on a day basis. I hope that the noble Lord follows me. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, asked how much money the boarding schools were getting in cash terms and how many boarding places there are. In cash terms the boarding schools are receiving approximately £100,000. I cannot answer how many places that represents because it will depend on the amount of money that is remitted by way of fees, and that will depend on the amount of the remission to which the parents in any particular instance are entitled.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Let us take, for example, Rannoch School, which was one of the schools mentioned by the noble Lord the Minister as making available a boarding place out of its own money. I presume that the bid in respect of Rannoch School related to tuition fees has been met. The school's bid for tuition fees was for £5,000. The senior school fees are £715 per term, and £665 for the junior house per term, although I presume that we are only talking about secondary pupils. The result is that Rannoch School will not be handling a great many pupils. I should like to know how many boarding places are being made available by Rannoch School. Will they be for all or only for some? At a figure of £700 a term—although the figure is probably nearer £1,000 now—does that mean that 10 pupils will be going to Rannoch School? These are the kind of figures we are talking about. Or will the number of pupils be less than 10? Will only some of the pupils be boarded? According to the Minister, many of the schools are going to make eight places available. Gordonstoun, which has no day places, is, I presume, getting £12,000, which relates to its fees. How many pupils will that be? Will it be 12 pupils? One can imagine that everyone will be racing to send their sons to Gordonstoun, but there will only be 12 places. Is that parental choice? It is parental nonsense. Why it was ever smiled upon by the

1195
Scottish Office or brought into Scotland at all I shall never know. This was a political decision. It may well have been because this measure was being taken in England it was dictated that it should also be done in Scotland.
I do not doubt that people will be found to apply for places, but they will not be parents who are unemployed and on national assistance. I am perfectly sure that will not be the case. If the Government really mean what they say, they should be giving this opportunity to people who could only send their children to such schools if their boarding fees were met. Those boarding fees are not going to be met other than through the charity of the school in respect of some places. This is a shoddy deal to put up; to say to the Scottish public that there will be assisted places at independent schools for anyone who wants them—there will not be. There are going to be a very limited number of places indeed. The fact there will be no payment in respect of boarding fees will limit it further except for a few, although I do not know how they will be selected—perhaps in those cases the parents will have to be unemployed in order to qualify for a boarding school place for their child. But we do not know because the Minister cannot tell us. The Minister cannot give us any numbers. There is very little that he can tell us.
I am not going to divide your Lordships over this amendment, but I hope that I have convinced some people that this is not such a golden opportunity for Scottish girls and boys as the Government would have us believe. It is far from it. It is not going to fill the need that is so vociferously and obviously there. It is just going to lend a bit of a prop to independent education. The facts are that in the past three or four years for which I have received figures the number of children attending independent schools has decreased. Now the number will go up again, thanks to the financial prop that is to be provided by the Government. But if the Government were to be fair to the pupils, and fair in what they have said about giving pupils a real opportunity, then the Government would support those children in respect of holding those fees. If the Government really believed in this scheme they would do that, but they know it is really a bit of a sham and they want to run the scheme as cheaply as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 29, leave out lines 27 and 28.
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the next line in the clause. The Government are going to pay the tuition and other fees
"the payment of which is a condition of attendance at a participating school but excluding—

(i) hoarding fees; and

(ii) such other charges, if any, as may be prescribed by regulations".

Here again we come to regulations which are going to be laid down by the Secretary of State but about which we know nothing, and I doubt very much whether the Secretary of State knows anything about them either. Or it may be that he does, because I believe the regulations have already been passed.
1196
We do not have them readily available here, but I have seen them and it is rather interesting when one does examine them. For the benefit of anyone who has not seen these regulations, it is wonderful, for example, to read the demands made by Rannoch School. A pupil there must have a blazer, he must have grey flannels, and he must have a kilt. Once the pupil is at school, regular wear will be the kilt. Not to mention a sporran and all the other accoutrements, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, as he well knows, when he gets himself suitably accoutred for a Burns' Night at the Caledonian Club or elsewhere.
The amount of money given in respect of clothing would be an interesting point if we get that from regulations, so that the Committee will know exactly what the Government are going to give towards these uniforms, and the rest of which has to come from the parents. It will be fascinating to find out what the whole bill will be in respect of someone who is boarding in Rannoch School. The last time I saw the sum of money estimated as the cost of those articles which were exclusively demanded of people boarding it came to well over £400.
I know that the Government are going to give something in the first year which is higher than that in the succeeding years, but could the Minister give us an idea as to the other charges they are going to meet, the cost of uniforms and the rest of it, and what they are not going to meet? When people go to these schools they are expected to turn up for rugby and to have a pair of boots, at least one pair of socks, and at least one shirt, probably two. It all means money. Who is going to meet this if the Secretary of State is not? The school out of their generosity are not going to meet this as well. Surely they are not going to fob them off with second-hand rugby boots? They may be all right with a cricket bat, or something like that that has been left over by somebody, but what about sweaters, T-shirts, all the other things that are going to be demanded if they are to play a full part in the life of these schools to which they are being assisted by this generous Government?
Later on I have information that must be given to the parents. Parents who are going to apply will require all this information. I hope that the Government here will be able to tell us, and through us everyone in Scotland who is avidly waiting for this information, as to the other charges that may be prescribed by regulations which the Government are not going to meet, and which will have to be met by the parents, or be assisted, or by the grannies. It may be they are going to take a collection round the family for those lucky enough to get an assisted place in one of these renowned establishments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I will deal with the amendment. The fees to which the scheme applies are in subsection (7). Fees, the payment of which is a condition of attendance. One of the things which has become apparent while this scheme has been prepared, and which has become apparent from our contacts with the participating schools, is the wide variety of fees that could come under that description. Schools by their nature tend to be complex organisations and they impose charges on pupils for all manner of things

1197
which vary; for instance, restoration fund for the school organ, or a fund to provide some kind of gratuity or memorial for a teacher who has retired or died. In certain circumstances the payment of contributions of that kind could be legally regarded as a condition of attendance at the participating school. While we would not necessarily object to that we want to have the power to keep control over that kind of thing.
Another aspect of this is that at some schools various charges get tied up with tuition fees although they are not for tuition at all. They might even be for school meals. Apart from the limited provision we are making for low income families we do not intend any general assistance with school meals, and we certainly want to have power to exclude them. Some of these exclusions may be done without resort to regulation, simply by dealing with them in the individual determination with the schools to be made under Section 75A subsection (2), but it may be that there will be a need also for general exclusions by means of regulations.
So far as the cost of uniforms is concerned, which is not strictly within the terms of this amendment, Regulation 13, as the noble Lord well knows, of the regulations in fact covers it. What in fact it says is that there is a grant of £80 in the first year if the parental income falls below £4,600; £60 in the first year if it is between £4,600 and £4,800; £40 if between £4,800 and £5,000; and £20 if it is between £5,000 and £5,200. I shall come back to this if and when we have a debate on clause stand part, but it is very easy to pour scorn on this scheme. Of course it is. One can find lots of quite witty holes to pick in it, but if one regards it really as a form of state scholarship which enables children of families, who otherwise would not be able to afford it, to attend these types of schools which their parents choose for them, the whole thing falls into perspective.
The object of the Government, which is modest enough, is one which is entirely praiseworthy. If we devoted more money the noble Lord would be the first to complain, and complain that we were, as it were, robbing the poor to pay the rich, as I am sure he will later on. But the fact is that it is not costing the taxpayer a penny more than at the moment is being paid to the grant aided schools, and gradually being phased out. In that context the scheme should be seen for what it is, as a kind of scholarship to a number of families who otherwise would not be able to afford this type of education.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is not my scheme; it is the Government's scheme, and they are going to claim great credit for it. But how it is going to be done and how it is going to meet the needs of the poor I do not know. There are certain things that the Government are not going to pay for. It may well be additional music lessons. It may not be music; it may be teaching them an instrument. Even in the local authority schools that I know in Strathclyde we supply the instrument as well as supply the teacher. We have a splendid youth orchestra in Scotland. Many of the members learned their music in the ordinary schools, but if they go to one of these schools then because music is not one of the compulsory subjects in respect
1198
of tuition it is guaranteed that they are not really going to meet the needs of the child.
I look at this as to what they do. They might as well do it now when we talk about fees and things that the Government are going to pay. We have not got the legislation but we have the regulations. In actual fact the Government have already introduced and passed the regulations under powers of another Act. They do not really need this. The education allowance for assisted places in secondary education schools was made on 26th March, laid before Parliament on 29th March, coming into operation on 15th May. So there we already have it. We are told that the highest payment in the first year in respect of clothing is going to be £80.
I have before me the demands of Rannoch School. We are talking about a school the Minister knows, and let us consider some of the items. A kilt—"tartan of own choice"—will cost anything between £80 and £100. And the kilt does not go alone because, irrespective of any mystery that is made about it, the next item on the list for this school is a pair of trews, £1.50, and a sporran of plain leather, about £5; and so one goes on through the list of items demanded or suggested. I said earlier that it would cost about £400, but I think the minimum for day pupils would be about £500. Remember, too, that many of these items must be renewed year after year; yet in the first year the maximum is £80 and in the second, £40. Anybody who tries to clothe a child today knows that these are very unreasonable figures indeed.
When one takes into account the special demands of this kind of school, not to mention all the optional items, the figures are quite unrealistic. For this particular school, the optional items comprise a bicycle, skis, ski boots and ski pants, and they are all available through Caird Sports, Aviemore Centre, Inverness-shire, not forgetting ice skates, sledge, cricket bat, fishing rod and lifejacket. If I were to read out all the expedition gear, one would begin to realise that the child who goes there and does not meet these needs would not be able to play his part in the school. He would be seen to be a child who is different—he would be out of it—and unless the Government are more generous, that will be the position.
I am trying to prove to the Government what a sham this is. They are introducing something, probably with the best will in the world, but they are completely ignorant of how ordinary people live and react. Those people will not be able to meet this sort of bill, and I hope the Government will tell the people who apply and make inquiries, plainly and straightforwardly, how much it will cost them to take advantage of this great new parents' charter for Scottish children; that is, the very few who get there.
What is it that I am trying to prove with all these amendments? First, regarding geographical distribution, there is none; in relation to denominational schools, that does not exist; and as for tuition fees, the sums that will, or could, be left for parents to pay will be such as to rule the thing out of court for a tremendous number of parents.
The Earl of Mansfield: Has the noble Lord appreciated that this is not a free places scheme but an assisted places scheme? Does he also realise that there are

1199
parents who are prepared to make a financial sacrifice to buy the kilt, the trews, the sporran, the skis and deprive themselves of, say, a foreign holiday or two in order to advantage their children?
Lord Ross of Marnock: Of course I know there are people who do that; but I also realise there are people who, with the best will in the world, would like to do it but cannot. I hope the noble Earl appreciates that it was not I who started this scheme. Nor was it I who paraded it, saying it was available for every child of all classes and of all abilities. It was the Secretary of State who did that on Second Reading. Will every child be able to meet these commitments? Is the noble Earl aware that today in the ordinary schools parents are having to make a considerable sacrifice to make provision to keep their children at school? My parents did it when they could ill afford it. The element of sacrifice is still there for parents keeping their children on at ordinary schools over the age of 16.
I assure the Minister that when all the extras are taken into account to purchase the items on the sort of list I have read out, they will not be met by the Government, and therefore demands are being made that people will not be able to meet. It will be the people at the top end of the scale who will more readily be able to meet this bill and not, for example, parents who are unemployed, a growing number of them, who already are making sufficient sacrifices to keep their children decent.
The noble Earl should not lecture me about sacrifice. I do not know what sacrifices his parents had to make to educate him. I know the sacrifices my parents had to make to educate me, and I shall receive no lectures from him on what working-class parents in Scotland have to do for their children. I assure noble Lords opposite that lists of items of that sort put the whole thing way beyond ordinary folk. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Denham, say something. Does he wish to intervene?
Lord Denham: I am sorry, but I did not hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I did not hear what the noble Lord said and wondered whether he wished to intervene.
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord was not meant to hear it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I know I was not meant to hear it, but it is very bad manners indeed, especially for a Minister on the Government Front Bench, to come in, sit down and mutter away, obviously complaining about the time we are taking over this Scottish business.
Lord Lyell: Really!
Lord Ross of Marnock: Let us remember that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, was one of those who wanted the affairs of Scotland to be kept here at Westminster, where it is all nice and cosy and where everybody takes part in the debates. We must not let Scottish education be discussed in Scotland; it
1200
must be dealt with here. Yet now he grudges us every minute we take.
Lord Denham: I am extremely happy that the noble Lord should be discussing this matter, but I think that 18 minutes is rather a long time in moving an amendment, and I think the Committee is feeling that.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Unfortunately the noble Lord was not here when the Minister replied to my rather curtly-put amendment. If he would train his Ministers to be precise and provide us with the information we want, instead of it having to be dragged out of them, we should get on very much faster. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, comes in to see us only every now and then. He must not judge the importance of a subject by the amount of time it takes.
Lord Denham: I do not.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I assure the noble Lord that he has not heard anything yet. Judging from the replies we have received from the Government today, it is going to be a very interesting Report stage, if we are to be allowed a Report stage; but perhaps I had better leave that matter.
I have been satisfied with what the Minister said, since in the amendment I have been trying to prove how useless is the whole scheme from the point of view of the ordinary people in Scotland. It is a sham. I thank the Minister for his reply. I thank him for the information that was given to us by Parliament. We have been told about the sum of £80 in the first year, £40 in the second year, with the parents having to meet the rest, with all the optionals that might be demanded of the child. If these are not met by the parents, the child will feel very much out of it. It is quite ridiculous that this scheme should be put forward as being a genuine great advance in Scottish education. It is nothing of the kind! However it is there; we have seen how empty it is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 29, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) the kind of information which the participating school must, on request in writing, supply to parents of an applicant e.g. the school rules regarding school discipline; the latest estimates of cost of required clothing; and of expected expenses not covered by grant or remission of fees.").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment because here we come to the question of parental rights. We have laid down today what rights as to information the parents should have even where the child is going to a local authority school and I want the parents to have the same kind of rights in respect of the private, independent schools. They should have all the information that they require in order to make up their minds whether they should send, or seek to send, their child to the school. I do not think that the Government will object to that, and indeed it might well be that, having seen my amendment on the Marshalled List, and having heard what I said on Second

1201
Reading, the Government, too, are thinking about the question of whether parents should be given a certain amount of information. I notice that an amendment has been tabled by the Minister—I think it is the next amendment on the Marshalled List—intended in certain respects to meet the point that I am raising.
In my amendment I suggest
"the kind of information which the participating school must on request in writing, supply to parents of an applicant…the school rules regarding school discipline; the latest estimates of cost of required clothing; and of expected expenses not covered by grant or remission of fees".
That is the kind of thing I have been talking about. A parent ought to know all these things, he ought to know the obligations that he is likely to meet; he might not want to send his child to the school. I have heard of some of these schools descriptions so horrifying that no self-respecting parent in Scotland would want to send their children anywhere near them. The descriptions have usually come from people who have attended these highly expensive schools.
Parents should have the right to a certain measure of information. My amendment contains only suggested items of information. Many people are concerned about the code of discipline in the private schools. We do not have caning in Scotland in our local authority schools; there is very little corporal punishment at all nowadays. I should like to know exactly the nature of the discipline at the selected schools. Surely this is not useless information; it is desirable information. I should like to hear what the Government have to say about my amendment and whether they think it a good or a had idea. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I have a fairly large family of both boys and girls who have attended various schools in Scotland and in England, and I have never at all had any difficulty in obtaining from the schools all the information of the kind that the noble Lord opposite proposes should be made a requirement in the Bill. I hope that such a requirement is not included in the Bill and that we are allowed to collect the information, which is readily given to us when we ask for it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I appreciate the concern of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. He should have been here earlier. We inserted in the Bill a provision requiring this kind of information from local authority schools. The noble Lord was not interested—that is what is wrong.
Lord Strathclyde: That is quite incorrect, and the noble Lords knows it. He and I served together for many years in another place, and he knows very well that I got all the information that was required and that I asked for in connection with the ordinary schools in the country, of which I am very proud so far as Scotland is concerned.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Hear, hear!—so am I; and I suggested it was not necessary to put it into legislation, but that wicked Government, those people sitting in front of the noble Lord, with his support said, "Yes, the local authorities must provide it". That was whether or not the parents ask for it; and that was done today. I am sorry I missed the noble Lord's
1202
support, but there you are. It may be that the next time, when we come to Report stage, he will be in his place at the right time and we will have a stout Galbraithian speech from him in respect of what is required.
But his speech here was mistimed, I am sorry to say. He had better look at the next amendment that the Government are going to move. He will find that, once again, this wicked Government are paying no attention to his point of view and are going to demand that the schools give information. Their amendment is nearly the same as mine, but not quite. Their amendment is general; mine is one that gives certain details of the kind of information that might be required. I know a lot of information is available. All you have to do is to get the advertisements and the list of school places. It is all here; I have got it already. They are not all participating, and the list is not always up to date. It may not tell the parents exactly what they want to know.
It may well be that when the school replies to the parent all they will do is send this brochure, but if the noble Lord is interested in any of these schools I will gladly give him the information that they presently provide. But it is the information which is not in here that the parents want, and I hope that that is the kind of thing which, when we come to the next amendment, the Government say they are going to provide.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am very grateful to my noble friend for his support, but I have to confess, I suppose, that in this instance, at least, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has a point; and it was because of that, in fact, that we tabled Amendment No. 28. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would have moved his amendment reasonably shortly, and we could then have put mine into the Bill without more ado.
I do not think that, strictly speaking, either amendment is necessary because the Bill already contains a general power enabling regulations to be made about—and I quote—
"such other matters as appear to the Secretary of State to be requisite for the purposes of the [assisted places] scheme".
Having said that, I think that the intention of the noble Lord is desirable; but his amendment would correspond with the regulation-making powers contained in the new Section 28B(3) relating to the provision of information with regard to schools in the public sector, and that, of course, depends on a previous provision creating a duty to give information which is missing in the assisted places provisions. Furthermore, if I may say so, it is unusual drafting practice to give examples, as the noble Lord does in his amendment.
Therefore agreeing, as I do, with the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has put forward, and wishing to achieve it, I have tabled my own amendment which will achieve the effect that we both want, and perhaps I could invite him to withdraw his amendment. I might conclude by saying that it is the Government's intention to make the same provision as to the supply of information by participating schools as is made for schools in the public sector, with only such differences as are necessary or appropriate because of the different circumstances of the two cases.
Lord Hughes: I appreciated the extent to which, in his amendment, the Minister was covering the ground stated by my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock, but omitting the specified items which my noble friend gave as examples—because, as he said, they were only examples; they were not meant to be an exhaustive list. But what I wonder is that, the reference having been made to the regulations which are to be made for the local authority schools, in the local authority case the information has to be made available, but, for some reason, in relation to the second group, the assisted places, the words are added "if requested in writing". In the one case, therefore, there is the degree of compulsion, that the information should reach the parents, and in the other case it will reach only those parents who ask for it.
It may be perfectly reasonable, if the parents are not sufficiently interested to ask for the information, to say that there is no point in giving it to them; but why the difference, then? Because in the one case it is going to be thrust at them whether or not they want it, but not in the other case, where the sums of money involved, if my noble friend is right (and I have no doubt, as he was not contradicted about Rannoch, he is right at least so far as that school is concerned), the expense, for one thing, may be very considerable. So why are these words in the new amendment:
"on request in writing"?
The Earl of Mansfield: The difference is that in the public schools the parents are exercising a choice. It is a choice which can be exercised and it can be changed after 12 months. It is rather a different matter when parents are considering whether they wish to enter their child—if that is the correct phrase—on an assisted places scheme. The two schemes are entirely different and different considerations apply.
Lord Hughes: I would have been happier about the Government amendment if it had been the information which participating schools supply to the parent of a pupil who is eligible for an assisted place so that there would be a very broad similarity then between the requirement in the two different parts of the Bill.
The Earl of Mansfield: I do not think that I can improve on the answer that I originally gave. It is the distinction, if you like, between the public sector and individual applications for assisted places.
Lord Hughes: I know that the Minister has already said that he cannot improve on his original reply, but that is not a commendation of it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that a mistake the noble Earl the Minister made was to relate it to schools in the public sector. It is entirely different. The whole question of fees outside of those that are compulsory, the whole question of many aspects of discipline and the like, are very different because individual schools in the independent sector have their own ideas, whereas, generally speaking, there is a code of conduct which applies to all schools in Scotland so far as, say, corporal punishment is concerned. He should have concentrated on the difference. It was wrong to say that they want to apply the same kind of principles to
1204
the information that is applied in respect of independent schools as in respect of public sector schools. That was the mistake that he made and he muddled us about it.
The kind of information depends entirely upon the parents. It is not every parent who is going to apply for it. This is one of the differences. It is only the parent who wants their son to go to that particular school and it may be one of half a dozen to whom he is applying for information. There is nothing to say that he can only apply to one school for an assisted place. He can apply to a dozen schools. It may well be that from different schools he will be asking for different information. What I am concerned about is that, generally speaking, he will get it.
The Minister was right in saying that generally when we put this kind of amendment down we put in a few examples which are not exhaustive:
"Without prejudicing the generality of the power…they shall provide information about A, B, C and D".
This was my shorthand way of dealing with it.
I am reasonably satisfied with the reply I received from the Minister. His aim seems to be the same. The trouble is that now it is left entirely to the Secretary of State and there is no guidance in it about the information whatever. It is only what the Secretary of State himself comes up with. I do not know with whom he is going to discuss this matter. I do not know whether there is any organisation of parents or whether one has been set up since the Bill has been introduced: an organisation of parents who seek to send their children to independent schools through the assisted places scheme. It may well be that there is such an organisation and he would then probably talk to them about it.
He is obviously going to talk with his department about this. But do not think for a minute that it is exactly the same information that is supplied in respect of the ordinary schools. It is relevant information that we want. I shall now withdraw this amendment and gladly support the Government in the next amendment, Amendment No. 28.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Drumalbyn): Amendment No. 28: I think this should refer to "Page 29, line 41".
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 29, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) the information which participating schools, on a written request from the parent of a pupil who is eligible for an assisted place, shall supply to that parent;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 29, line 45, at end insert—
("(c) a right of appeal by parents to him against the decision of a specified school not to admit a pupil to an assisted place.").
The noble Lord said: Once again we apply ourselves to the merits of this great assisted places scheme to which every Scottish child will aspire and every Scottish parent will wish to apply to their children. There is

1205
one right that the Government should stipulate by regulation, and let the schools know: that is, that the parents whose child is turned down by any such school should have the right of appeal. I do not specify to whom the right of appeal would be: it could be to the Secretary of State. Could it be to the sheriff? I see that the sheriffs have all disappeared from the Back-Benches: the hour is too late. I do not know, but I am sure they would agree with a right of appeal for parents who have got all the information and have sized up the position and said: "Yes, we could do this or that", and they are prepared to make the sacrifice the Minister lauded—and then the application form is filled in and the school sends it back and says: "Sorry: we are not accepting your child".
If the parents need to have rights in this wonderful new scheme, surely they should have a right of appeal. Why not? Why should they not have the right of appeal? The money is going to be expended and somebody is going to get the assisted place, I presume. I think parents should have the right of appeal to someone to satisfy themselves that they have not been unfairly treated in respect of what has been laid down in Parliament, and indeed what will probably have been in the next election manifesto of their Tory candidate when they laud this scheme as a great advance in Scottish education. The parents apply for it and they are turned down with no right of appeal. Let us have common justice for these ordinary folks. Let us see what the Government say about that. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to give any parent whose child had been refused admission to an assisted place a right of appeal against non-admission to the Secretary of State. The noble Lord mentioned the sheriff but, as drafted, it would not be to the sheriff or anybody like that; it would be to my right honourable friend.
I can appreciate that the noble Lord is suggesting that, in accordance with the policy of giving as much parental choice as possible, parents who try to get their children into schools which are participating in the assisted places scheme should have a right of appeal, on the same basis that parents who are refused their choice of school in the public sector have a right of appeal. However, I shall try to show that the two cases are not really parallel.
One of the essential principles of the assisted places scheme is that the schools which take part in it are free to operate their normal recruitment procedures; and that, I suggest, is really one of the attractions of the independent sector to many parents—the very fact of its independence and the freedom and diversity of practice that grow out of that independence. It would be quite wrong for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to take to himself a right to overrule schools and tell them that they must admit this or that pupil. Besides being wrong, it would be impracticable. The scheme is at this stage a very small one, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, does not tire of telling us. Nevertheless, I expect that it will grow in the years to come. But, at present, it is inevitable that schools will not be able to admit all the pupils who would like to have assisted places. It would, I suggest, be logistically quite impossible for
1206
the Secretary of State to set himself up as some kind of appellate body.
Some might say that schools should not be allowed to pick and choose among their applicants, in ways which might be foreign to the spirit of the scheme. I suppose it could be said that they might discriminate against applicants from the lowest income groups. I do not myself believe that this will happen, or that it is a serious danger. But if there were evidence of such discrimination, there would be a remedy without the necessity of an amendment of this nature.
The new Section 75A requires the Secretary of State to make determinations with participating schools and these determinations may contain such conditions as he thinks fit. Therefore, it would be impossible for a determination to contain conditions about the admission of pupils. Any school which does not abide by the conditions of a determination can, in accordance with Schedule 4, be expelled from participation.
As I have said, I do not think that such is likely to be necessary. I can assure the Committee, however, that the situation will be kept under review and, if any corrective action is necessary to see that the scheme continues in a fair way, that action will be taken. But I hope that the Committee will see that it will be not only wrong but impracticable to saddle the scheme with an appeal system such as the noble Lord advocates.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We must make up our minds whether we are going to mean what we say about giving parents rights in this respect. The noble Earl said that they do not need a right of appeal; it would be unfair and wrong. I do not think it would be wrong. I think it would be right. He said that it would be impracticable. Why would it be impracticable? The people who will pick and choose the children—we do not know how they will pick and choose the children—are the people in the school. It is the school that will say how many it will take; it is the school that will say whom it will take, and it is the school that will be paid. Where do the parents come in? They apply, they get some information and too many of them, alas!, will discover that, even with the best will in the world, they cannot face it.
But suppose that they are prepared to sacrifice, and are prepared to do it. Their child could be the brightest one in the town, for all that matters, and the school could say, "No; we don't want you". As things stand now, the school does not need to do anything more than send a letter saying, "No". The parents have no recourse at all to any appeal. They have a right to be told exactly what happened to their application and why it was turned down, and they should have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. That is the only way in which the Secretary of State himself will get to know whether or not the scheme is working, and working to his satisfaction or otherwise. The noble Earl says: "Let us rely on it. There has to be a regulation in respect of determination, and the Secretary of State can put in conditions". He does not think that any such conditions will be put in. Yet he asked me to accept that this is something on which we can rely, and that everything will be done fairly.
This right of appeal has become part of the great

1207
charter of freedom in education. We have it in Clause 1—not only one appeal but two appeals, finishing up with the sheriff. We have it in relation to special education. We can appeal about the assessment; we can appeal about the placing. But when we come to the great new Tory scheme to provide a handful of children with assisted places, even though a child may be deserving of a place—indeed, it may be the most deserving—it can be turned down by the school. And the parent must accept it and say nothing. It reminds me of Burns:
"The tenant farmers
They must stand wi' aspect humble
And hear it all and fear and tremble".
They have no come-back. I do not think it is fair. Nor do I think that it is right. I did not put in the word "sheriff ". I was prepared to leave it to the Secretary of State. It is his scheme.
One of the ways to find out whether or not a piece of legislation is working is to get on to the Minister. If appeals go to him, he will get to know whether his favourite scheme is working. When we introduced the new Inland Revenue department at East Kilbride, with new computers and the rest, I sent every complaint which I received to the Minister. He came to me and said, "Please don't send them to me; send them to the manager". I said to him, "No, I'll send them to you; then you'll know whether it's working or not, and you'll take action to make sure that it does work". If appeals go to the Secretary of State and there are far too many of them, he will realise that something is wrong with his scheme and he will take action. It is a discipline upon the Secretary of State as well as upon the school.
That is why I insist upon this. If the Minister will not change his mind about it, I must ask the Committee to record its dissent in the Division Lobbies.
9.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blease, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Peart, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

David, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gregson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hughes, L.

Stone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Cockfield, L.

Avon, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Balerno, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bellwin, L.

Crathorne, L.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bradford, E,

de Clifford, L.

Brookeborough, V.

De La Warr, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Donegall, M.

1208

Drumalbyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Norfolk, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Elles, B.

Perth, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrier, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Glendevon, L.

Selkirk, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Inglewood, L.

Soames, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Trenchard, V.

Loudoun, C.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lyell, L.

Vickers, B.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Margadale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.45 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ross of Marnock: There is much I could say about this clause and please do not tempt me. Much has been said, and noble Lords will have gathered that we on this side of the Committee do not approve of this clause. We think it is an utter waste to spend money in this way. It is probably this year about £5·4 million between the grant aided schools and the independent schools. The Minister has told us that he expects to see it rise. I think this aspect of it this year is going to cost us about £800,000. As the grant aided fades out and more and more people come into this, this scheme is going to cost us many millions. If the hopes of the Minister of State are attained, which I hope will not happen, it is going to cost us many millions more.
To do this at a time when you are depriving the local authority schools of vital money, to support the hoped for progress to attain higher and higher standards, really is quite sinful and cannot be justified at all on educational grounds. From that point of view I feel that this is a clause that really should not be in a Scottish education Bill, and those who put it in have very little true feeling for Scottish education as it is and as we hope it to be. I would ask my noble friends on this side to vote against the clause standing part.
Lord Hughes: Very briefly I wish to support my noble friend in this. Like him, I do not think it is necessary for much to be said at this stage to justify our opposition because he has spoken so forcefully on so many different aspects of the scheme that it would be a waste of the Committee's time to repeat those arguments. All I want to say in justification of my own vote on this matter is that if we were going through prosperous times, if the economy was in good shape, I could see justification from a Conservative point of view for an experiment of this kind being carried out, because the Minister has made it perfectly clear that the scheme is so limited in its financial aid that it cannot be regarded as anything other than an experiment, or to give it an even more favourable description from

1209
the Government's point of view, a small start. But to do this at a time when educational expenditure generally in Scotland is being cut in the way it has been, particularly during this past year, and the way in which it is to continue to be cut, at least in the year ahead, seems to me to be nothing less than obscene. I could not in all conscience bring myself—even in the knowledge that the Government are still going to carry the clause on a Division—to refrain from voting against it.
Viscount Simon: I should like to say from these Benches, after consulting my colleagues who are more directly concerned with this Bill than I, that I would merely recall that on the English Bill we opposed this scheme. We think it is a bad scheme, and we shall certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in voting that this clause do not stand part.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: We on these Benches have tried to assess the various amendments and have tried to encourage the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in supporting general principles rather than what we regarded as minor amendments. However, this is a matter of fundamental importance and we on these Benches would certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
As has been said already in this debate, we are facing a crisis in local authority financing in Scotland. It is extremely difficult for local authorities to spend money within the rigid cash limits that have been set. As a result, very important services, particularly in education, are having to be cut in order to meet those limits. In the middle of that situation, for the Government to spend money outside of the normal educational provision in what we call the public schools is, I think, unfortunate at this stage. We on these Benches would certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in the Motion which he has already put forward.
The Earl of Mansfield: The debates on these amendments have certainly not been devoid of a certain amount of passion. I have been very interested to try to read the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and his reasons why he opposes the assisted places scheme. Of course, the schism between the parties is complete. Of course noble Lords opposite do not want, whatever they may say, the independent sector to flourish. They do not like the idea that parents from lower income families can avail themselves of what generally is regarded as a high standard of education. During the last matter over which I faced the noble Lord, Lord Ross, across the Dispatch Box the noble Lord accused the Government of dragging the country down into the bargain basement. Of course the contrary is the truth. What the Government are trying to do is to provide a ladder so that people can climb up it.
I was very interested on Second Reading to try to find out what the Social Democrats thought of the independent sector, because various wings have given various different public expressions. I was under the impression, at any rate, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, was not totally averse to the independent sector; I still do not know whether
1210
the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe is, because he apparently is against the assisted places scheme on the matter of finance and will be with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in the Division Lobby, if we go there.
This year the assisted places scheme will cost £800,000 out of a total of £900 million which will be devoted to Scottish education. Doing the best I can, prepared as I was many years ago at Rannoch School (which then cost some £65 a term, which my father thought was outrageous), that strikes me as being 0·11 per cent. of the amount which is to be spent on Scottish education. If the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is condemning the scheme because he thinks, under those circumstances, that it is outrageous to take money out of one sector and put it into another, then I shall be content that he takes that point of view, but I think that it is one that we should all know about.
So far as the Liberals are concerned, we have not been treated by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, with any reasons, but I gather that because in England they did not like it, so in Scotland they do not like it either. It would be a regrettable step if Clause 5 were to be excised from the Bill. The assisted places scheme is an innovation in Scotland. It is certainly being welcomed already by those for whom it is primarily intended: lower income families who would like their children to have the same chance as children from better off families for entering fee paying schools. Many of these families are single-parent families. Whether noble Lords opposite regard the choice as being wise, is, in my submission, neither here nor there. It is their choice and it is their opinion that matters, and that is what the Government are trying to assist.
We think that the scheme is a real step forward in social justice and I can justify that by saying that I think even the noble Lord, Lord Ross, had a good word at the beginning of this debate for the independent schools. If that is so, if they have their role to play in the educational scheme of things, why not remove the right only of the rich to go—that exclusive right? Why not enable children from poorer families to go there? Anyone who is sincere in wanting to see a social mix should, I suggest, see that it must be beneficial to start that social mix in our schools. So what is the Opposition afraid of?—because if the scheme is as bad as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, says it is, it will soon wither away in Scotland for want of customers.
We have had a series of debates on this matter. At one time the grant-aided secondary schools were referred to as the bridge between the public and the private sectors, and they can no longer maintain that role, mostly because of rising costs and falling grants. Therefore, the fees are beyond the reach of the lower income families. The assisted places scheme represents an effort to rebuild the bridge which once existed. I suggest that it is an effort which should be praised and encouraged. This is a scheme which will be an exciting experiment. Of course it will cost the parents of children who send their children to these schools money. It will represent a real sacrifice on the part of some of them, but I am quite certain that already a large and growing number of families in Scotland will think that those sacrifices are very well worthwhile.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The noble Earl said it was a ladder. Then it became a bridge. It is a nonsense.
9.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51: Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Faithfull, B.

Balerno, L.

Ferrier, L.

Bellwin, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Belstead, L.

Glendevon, L.

Bradford, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hives, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Inglewood, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cockfield, L.

Long, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Loudoun, C.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mansfield, E.

De La Warr, E.

Margadale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Norfolk, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Perth, E.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Elton L.

Rochdale, V.

1212

St. Aldwyn, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Trenchard, V.

Selkirk, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sharples, B.

Vickers, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Soames, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

Peart, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hooson, L.

Simon, V.

Hughes, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hunt, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Winstanley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 5, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 6 [Consultation on, and consent for, changes in certain educational matters]:
10.5 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 32, line 30, leave out ("or any part of such a school").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend, perhaps I might explain that it is intended to correct a small point which has been raised on the present drafting of new Section 22A(2) in the Bill before us tonight. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities suggested that the provision as drafted requires the Secretary of State to prescribe proposals for closure or change of site of a part of a school—in the sense of a physical part of a school.
On that particular interpretation or view, a proposed closure or removal of such a thing as temporary hutted accommodation would become a matter upon which the education authority would be required to consult in terms of new Section 22A(1). It is not our intention that such proposals should mandatorily attract the requirement to consult, and to clarify the matter the amendment seeks to delete the reference to part of a school from the provision specifying the kind of proposals which the Secretary of State must prescribe in the regulations to be made by him.
I should like to make it clear to the Committee that my right honourable friend's practice under the present legislation has been to require education authorities to submit to him for his approval proposals to close part of a school in the sense of a stage of education, such as senior 5th or 6th in secondary schools. But he has not required education authorities to seek his approval for such proposals as the removal of temporary hutted accommodation or similar buildings within the school.
If the Committee were to accept this amendment it is the intention of my right honourable friend to prescribe in the regulations to be made under this new section that a proposal to close part of a school in the sense that I have described—that is, a stage of education—will be subject to the new consultation requirements, but it is not our intention that the regulations to be made under subsection (2) of the new Section 22A will extend to closures or changes of sites of part of a school—in the physical sense—like this temporary accommodation. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This new clause lays down that there shall be consultation in respect of prescribed proposals. I do not know how many people have read subsections (1) and (2), but we have proposals—
"of a prescribed kind, they shall, in such manner as may be prescribed".
Then they:
"consult such persons as may be prescribed".
Then:
"In this section 'prescribed' means prescribed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by regulations and in so prescribing kinds of proposals the Secretary of State shall include …"—
and so on. We have about six references to "prescribed" and "prescription", and the rest of it. No
1214
one could read that and understand what it means. We start off with the prescribed kind, but that is for the Secretary of State and we have not been told anything about it. In any case, what are they? Then we have the manner in which they are to be published; that has to be prescribed and we have not been told about that. In fact, we have been told nothing about this and it is very difficult to understand what it is all about and why the provision is there. Please will the Government tell us?
The Government want to leave out "or any part of such a school" and we are told they want to do that because of something said by COSLA about something being misleading in the phrase which, the Minister said, could refer to the "stage of education". Could it be the cutting out of a primary department altogether? That has been done in the past. Or might it apply to limiting the intake from secondary up to the third or fourth year? That happens when schools are aspiring to become sixth-year schools. It could mean that, or it could mean all sorts of things.
If, on the other hand, the Minister wants to delete these words, but they mean something else, then what other words will he have to put in their place? Nothing makes a great deal of sense from the explanation we have had so far. I suppose that, "part of such a school", could refer to nursery classes, and there would be considerable need for consultation if it was the intention to cut out nursery classes in a particular school. We have already passed a great new clause relating to special educational needs and it was said when we debated that that there might be classes in ordinary schools to meet special educational needs. That, then, would be part of a school. Could that be construed with this amendment and, if so, what would be the effect?
Would it be easier or more difficult to achieve what the Minister has in mind, or do these words mean nothing at all in respect of the procedures that will have to be gone through with the Secretary of State? Or does the Secretary of State not come into it? Once he has made his prescribed list, is that the end of it? Frankly, I do not know what this means. That may be due to the lateness of the hour; I suggest it is about time we adjourned and met another day to complete this stage of the Bill. Please could someone on the Government Benches have another try and tell us what the amendment means?
The Duke of Norfolk: Perhaps I could give some explanation, though I give it without knowing fully the exact technical details. The situation is one which concerns the Catholic schools, the Church schools, and if the noble Lord, Lord Ross, looks at Clause 6(6) he will see that it refers to the Acts of 1918 and 1962. The 1918 Act was when the Church schools of the Roman Catholics in Scotland and, I understand, the Jews, were handed over to state control.
Lord Ross of Marnock: And the Church of England.
The Duke of Norfolk: I apologise if I am putting this badly. Would the noble Lord care to intervene?
Lord Ross of Marnock: I was referring to the Episcopal Church in Scotland.
The Duke of Norfolk: I apologise deeply for any error I have made in describing the Episcopal Church.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It has nothing to do with what we are discussing, anyway.
The Duke of Norfolk: Under the Act of 1918 the schools of the Roman Catholics in Scotland were transferred to the state and under the 1962 Act the new schools that were subsequently built were treated similarly. The prescribed words relate to the fact that the schools want to be under the control of the Roman Catholics of Scotland and not under the control of the local authorities of Scotland.
I ask the noble Lord to forgive me if I am using the wrong words, since no one is more respectful than I of questions concerning Scottish nationality, bearing in mind that my wife is Scottish. If I have used the wrong words, I apologise deeply. But the matter is about what I have just mentioned, and that is really why I am here. Very often I am here for other things, but I feel that the noble Lord must know of these points. I think that other noble Lords and other noble Baronesses opposite know what I mean.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Not only has the noble Duke used the wrong words, but I think that he is on the wrong amendment. We are dealing with an amendment to the new Section 22A relating to,
"Consultation on certain changes in educational matters".
The matter that concerns the noble Duke, and which equally concerns me, conies under Section 22C, relating to,
"Consent for certain changes affecting denominational schools".
The Duke of Norfolk: I think that I am not wrong. We are on Amendment No. 33:
"Page 32, line 30, leave out ('or any part of such a school')".
The noble Lord was asking what the word "prescribed" meant and I had hoped that I was telling him.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The noble Duke will see that the word "prescribed" is defined in subsection (2) of new Section 22A. The subsection states:
"… 'prescribed' means prescribed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by regulations and in so prescribing kinds of proposals the Secretary of State shall include proposals to discontinue or change the site of any school under the management of an education authority or any part of such a school".
So far as I can see, the word "prescribed" as used in that subsection has nothing to do with any particular type of school. It refers to the type of proposal that is to be laid down by the Secretary of State. With all due respect to the noble Duke, I suggest that he has been a little premature.
The Duke of Norfolk: I have to admit that perhaps I was a little premature, but I was informed about this
1216
matter, and I must confess that I am not an authority on this particular clause.
Lord Hughes: I can understand why the noble Duke made a mistake; one must read the Bill very carefully. The Bill includes clauses which create a number of new sections to be inserted in an existing Act of Parliament. The present amendment relates to new Section 22A, which will become part of the principle Act. The amendment deletes the last few words of new Section 22A. In relation to the definition of the word "prescribed" it is specifically stated that,
"'prescribed' means prescribed for the purposes of this section …"
and, as my noble friend Lord Ross has said, the term "this section" refers to Section 22A. We would almost need to be a Committee composed entirely of lawyers in order to understand the way in which the Bill is drafted.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may suggest that the reason why my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk was in advance is that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is so ponderously slow, and we all want to go faster than he does. We should like to get gathering. He said, "Let's bring this to an end". But he has slowed down the whole process of the Bill in a ridiculous fashion. If the noble Lord would be more abrupt and make his points sharply, as is the custom in your Lordships' Chamber, we would get on with, and complete, our business. The noble Lord's slow, ponderous way, in which he says, "I must call your attention to this matter" is out of keeping with your Lordships' House, if I may be allowed so to say to such an eminent noble Lord. If only the noble Lord would get on with the business, we would deal with the Scottish Bills much more quickly.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am sure that if I were not here your Lordships would deal with the Scottish Bills very quickly indeed, but in such circumstances I doubt whether this would be a proper investigative Chamber in terms of looking into Scottish Bills. When the noble Duke does not even know that the matter with which he is concerned is not covered in this particular new section, I ask the Committee please not to blame me. I doubt very much whether there is an English Peer here who has read the clause. Was he complaining the other day, when a whole Bill which is incorporated in this as part of this Bill was dealt with in more time than has been given to the Scottish business? I am sorry if he does not like the amount of time we take on Scottish business, but I can assure him that it is not always my fault. He should hear some of the explanations we are given. We have not yet had an explanation of this. Has he read this clause? I ask the noble Lord: Has he read the clause that I am complaining about at the moment?
Lord Mottistone: I hope the noble Lord will give way to me. Yes, of course I have read the clause; but what I am talking about is the slowness with which the noble Lord conducts business. That does not apply particularly to Scottish Bills, Welsh Bills or English Bills, but to the pace at which he handles things, which is incredibly boring to other noble Lords.

1217
That is the thing that matters. The noble Lord may have been very eminent in another place, but if he would only hurry things up everybody would be happier. All that matters is that it is important to get to the point, and you must get to the point quickly. You do not have to drone it out and make sure that everybody goes half asleep before you make your point. It is important to make the point.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not know what the point of that remark was, but the noble Lord did not come to it very quickly. My opinion about Scottish business in this House, so far as I can find, is that people just cannot be bothered with it. I have suggested before that if you insist on having Scottish business here instead of at an Assembly in Edinburgh, then I want to see that the clause is thoroughly debated and thoroughly understood. Clause after clause of this is never properly understood. Does the noble Lord realise that within one clause there are 11 sections? He asks us to treat the thing gently, to go on nicely, let us get it through quickly and everybody will be happy. If we are given time we shall do the thing properly; but I can assure the noble Lord that, so far as I am concerned, the clause will be understood, at least by the Minister. If he does not know it at the start he will understand it at the finish, and so will I. But I still have not had an explanation of this clause, and I should like it.
Lord Mottistone: To answer the noble Lord quickly, there would be many more Members in this Chamber at any time of the day if we were not so bored with what came on this subject from the noble Lords who debate Scottish affairs.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I can assure the noble Lord that Scottish education is a very boring matter. It is a very boring matter indeed to go into the details of it. It is very different from the English; and, of course, you do not understand it.
Lord Mottistone: It need not be.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It will be if this kind of debate goes on, I can assure the noble Lord. We have not seen him all day. He has not contributed a single sentence to any Scottish legislation that I have known come before us, although he has taken his time on other matters. But he has not shown the slightest interest in these things. I am sure the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, does not think that the consideration of denominational schools is a boring matter. When we were here discussing denominational schools in relation to assisted places and I moved an amendment to ensure that consideration was had for denominational education in that respect, the noble Lord was not here. But when I was not satisfied with the reply I received, was I wrong to divide the House? I am sure the Roman Catholics in Scotland thought I was right to divide the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.24 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 32, line 37, leave out from ("regulations") to end of line 39.
The noble Lord said: Now we come to Amendment No. 34, which is to omit the words,
"and the Secretary of State may prescribe different kinds of proposals in relation to different education authorities".
All I want to know is: what kind of different proposals? I want to know why, because there is nothing that concerns people more than when they are not being treated alike. There must be some justification for it. We do not yet know what the proposals are; they have not been explained to us. It might have been very boring to the noble Lord to find what the Secretary of State is going to do, but it is not for the Scottish local authorities and it is not for anyone interested in Scottish education. We do not know what they are going to do, but we are told that they might do different things for different authorities. Are we not entitled to be enlightened? That is what I want to know—why and what. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said that he wanted an explanation. I hesitated to intervene in the volley of comments that were flying across the Committee, but in Clause 22A(1) and (2), and similarly in Clause 22B(1) and (2), it is crystal clear to me that subsection (2) seems to explain in part what goes on in subsection (1) of both the clauses. The noble Lord, Lord Ross (and I think this is very relevant to his Amendment No. 34), asked what changes would be prescribed. These particular changes are set out in a consultation paper which has been issued by the Secretary of State. This is a procedure which will be familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, of all people. There are copies of the consultation paper which will detail the regulations. These are available in the Library.
I think that I ought to give a brief explanation of the Government's feelings on Amendment No. 34 which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. Whether it will satisfy him or not, I do not know. At least I must have the courtesy and make an attempt to do so. The amendment could deprive the Secretary of State of a power which in certain circumstances I am sure Members of the Committee—and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock—would wish him to possess. The part of this subsection which the noble Lord's amendment would remove enables the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations that his consent will be required for different kinds of proposals in relation to different education authorities. The provision was originally incorporated in the Bill as part of the safeguards which the Government sought to provide for denominational education in Scotland. However, as a result of further discussion with the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Scotland the Government decided that such safeguards should be couched in different terms, and these are now to be found in new Clause 22D.
But the provision enabling the Secretary of State to prescribe different proposals in different areas did not thereby become otiose. The situation could arise in which the exercise of that power might be necessary. For example, one out of the 12 education authorities in Scotland might decide, for expenditure reasons, to abolish all nursery education within their area. That was mentioned in an earlier amendment. The provision which the noble Lord proposes to delete would enable

1219
the Secretary of State to prescribe that in relation to that particular authority any proposal to close a nursery class or school must come to the Secretary of State for approval. In this situation there would clearly be a need for the Secretary of State to exercise some power of intervention in the proposals by one authority, but no need for him to exercise a similar power of intervention in relation to other authorities.
The provision is, therefore, part of the overall pattern of checks and balances which the Government have incorporated in this Bill in order to secure the maximum possible freedom of action for authorities to decide on local arrangements in the light of local needs—and that is very important—while preserving safeguards for parents and other interested bodies.
That has been perhaps a fuller explanation than Members of the Committee would have wanted, but I believe the Committee wanted an explanation—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would want a full explanation—on why we find that this particular amendment is unnecessary, I would not say otiose.
Lord Hughes: I am beginning to sympathise even more with the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, because I am myself confused now. The amendment which my noble friend has moved—
"Page 32, line 37, leave out from ('regulations') to end of line 39"—
proposes leaving out words in the new Section 22B, which has nothing to do with denominational schools. All the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, have been in relation to denominational schools, which are referred to in the next new Section 22C. So why was he talking about denominational schools when they have nothing to do with this amendment?
Lord Ross of Marnock: Can we have an answer?
Lord Lyell: My remarks were possibly a little long for the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, but I did point out that 22B and 22D hung together, that 22B was specifically at the behest of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Scotland and that 22D spelt out everything in far more detail. However, 22B is very definitely concerned with many matters, and one of them is denominational schools.
Lord Hughes: My noble friend has put no amendment down, so far as I can see, relating to 22D, which is the bit relating to denominational schools. However, I do not want to prolong this in case both the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and I join the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in the bad books of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think really what we should do is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for an explanation of the explanation that has been given. He has guaranteed to be precise and not to be boring. If he heard anything more boring than the explanation we have had, I do not know what it was. But, having listened to the explanation, he might realise why we are not making a great deal of progress.
Lord Mottistone: It might be the case that in order to make quite certain that the Government can provide a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, they have to have that sort of answer because it might prevent his responding to it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 33, leave out from beginning of line 3 to end of line 47 on page 35 and insert ("related to the closure of any nursery school, nursery class, primary or secondary school in respect which agreement to the closure plan has not been fully agreed to by parents of children who are pupils, or would become pupils of that school.").
The noble Lord said: May I warn the noble Duke that this is the amendment in which he is really interested and it is one that I am interested in, too. It concerns page 33, line 3. The words at the top of the page begin:
"(2) A proposal to which this section applies is one which"—
and then the rest that follows relates to the denominational schools which were taken over by agreement in 1918. It was one of the finest things that happened in Scotland, both for education in Scotland and for the education of the Roman Catholic children. It was a good bargain. I hope this is not too boring for the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Lord Mottistone: Not yet.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not know whether he knows what happened. There was for long enough a battle in England as to how much the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Anglicans could get in relation to financing their schools. It was not necessary in Scotland because of the agreement made very sensibly in puritan, Protestant Scotland in 1918 to take over Roman Catholic schools and treat them for all practical purposes as local authority schools. But in relation to religious education certain guarantees were given to the hierarchy, which remain today, in respect of religious education. There has never been any complaint about it as far as I know, and for eight years as Secretary of State I upheld that position. So let the noble Lord not think that in the amendment I am moving I am trying to do down the Roman Catholic system. But the Government are making changes. Until this Bill is passed, the Government have to approve the closure of any school in Scotland, whether it be a Roman Catholic school, a Protestant school or a non-denominational school. Now a change is being made in the law and the Roman Catholics said, quite rightly, "If you are going to change the law, you are not going to change it so far as we are concerned." That is the position in the Bill.
I do not think it is fair. It is not popular to close schools, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, said earlier today. There has been a very considerable row going on about a proposal to close a school in the Gorbals in Glasgow. It is a school for which the school at which I taught was a feeder. It is a secondary school at Adelphi Terrace. I gather a decision has been made that it will continue as a school and have community arrangements as well.
But, beside that school, there is another one which is a Roman Catholic school, and when this Bill is passed

1221
the position will be that the local authority could close one school without reference to the Secretary of State, but not the Roman Catholic school. Is there anything better guaranteed to create lack of harmony? Why change the position at all? I hope that the Secretary of State will continue to shoulder the burden. It may be a tough one. What he is doing is passing the dirty jobs on to the local authority. He is saying "Look at how relaxed I am. I am giving the powers." But he is giving the powers he does not want to the local authority.
The Roman Catholic hierarchy are quite right to insist on their rights, but, at the same time, in respect of all the other schools, from the point of view of harmony and everything else, the same rights should apply there. That is my purpose and that is why I put in the words:
"related to the closure of any nursery school, nursery class, primary or secondary school in respect which agreement to the closure plan has not been fully agreed to by parents of children who are pupils, or would become pupils of that school.";
in other words, back to the status quo. That would satisfy the Roman Catholic hierarchy, I am sure. They were aroused to action only by what the Government proposed. That is why I suggest that the amendment be made. I beg to move.
The Earl of Perth: I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, but I am very worried that what he proposes will change the status quo in relation to Roman Catholic schools. If he does not want that, then the fact that the others are going to get different treatment should not involve for Roman Catholic schools different treatment from what has been hammered out since 1918 and in every Education Act since.
What he is saying is that it has not been fully agreed to by parents. As he knows, at the present time the arrangement is not for the parents to do it. It is for the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to do it. I can only tell him that this amendment, as it stands, would be very worrying and would be opposed by the hierarchy and by most of the Roman Catholics there. So I hope that he will think again from the angle of the hierarchy and of the Act, of which he, very rightly, is proud.
He suggested earlier an amendment which specifically mentioned denominational schools. I did not vote with him, because I understood from the Government that the whole included the lesser part. Therefore, it seemed to me to be unnecessary. But, in this case, what worries me is that if his amendment goes through the fat will really be in the fire in relation to this matter, and the 1918 Act will no longer stand. So I hope that he will think again.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It was not my intention to make worse the position of the denominational schools. The reason for my amendment was that the Government made the changes. In order to circumvent these changes, the hierarchy eventually persuaded the Government to put in these new clauses. That may help the hierarchy. It may help the Roman Catholic schools. But it still leaves the other schools in a worse position than their present position.
1222
I hope the noble Earl is not going to suggest that the situation is satisfactory. It is satisfactory from the Roman Catholic point of view, and I applaud them for what they have achieved by the pressure they have exerted upon the Government. I can assure the noble Earl that it was not done willingly. But what about the position of the others? In a city like Glasgow, in an area where school rolls are falling, it will be possible to close a non-denominational school without reference to the Secretary of State for his eventual approval or disapproval. That will be the situation for one lot of schools but not for the next.
One of the things I am proudest of in Scotland is the maturity which the people there have shown in relation to sectarian troubles. I was worried, as everybody else in Scotland must have been, about sectarian troubles, because Northern Ireland is not far away. We have not had that kind of trouble. Instead there has been a very considerable measure of discipline, co-operation and understanding which many people thought would never be found in the West of Scotland. But it is there, and I do not want it to be endangered in any way. This is just unnecessary meddling. That is why I do not like what is being done. I cannot vote against the clause. If I did, there would be nothing left, apart from what the Government have already done. I should like the Government to think again. I do not know whom they consulted. Latterly they had to consult somebody. But the fear which I am expressing was expressed in another place, not by me (I am not there, so I could not) or by any Church of Scotland adherent but by a very staunch Roman Catholic from Glasgow who saw the difficulties and the dangers.
This may be boring the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, but I can assure him that it is very important in Scottish terms and in educational terms. The trouble stems from what the Government have done. I admit that there may be a weakness in my amendment. I do not intend to take it any further tonight. I shall withdraw it. However, I want the Government to realise what they are doing and the dangers they are running into. The break may not come now. It could almost have come in a part of Glasgow which I know very well; I taught in it. I sincerely hope the Government will think again. It is not a necessary change which they have made. I think it is a dangerous one.
The Earl of Perth: May I answer one point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. These are not new conditions, new clauses. They already exist, and they are being repeated. This has happened again and again. To that extent one must not say these are new conditions for the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It is something which has always been accepted. I agree with the noble Lord that we do not want to create differences over something we are all very proud of; namely, that all the schools in Scotland are treated in the same way. But the amendment as it stands would not have that effect. It would cause a great deal of trouble, something which the noble Lord does not want, any more than I do. In saying this I know that I am speaking for the hierarchy of the great majority of Catholics in Scotland. If the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is agreed to, it will cause great upset. I

1223
was glad to hear him say that he does not intend to press it to a Division in its present form. I can well understand that he may want to obtain further information from the Government. So long as the noble Lord accepts what I am saying in relation to the Roman Catholic and the other denominational schools—there are others, as he and I know—then I shall not press the point any further.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The noble Earl need not worry about that, but—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, because this is a matter of great importance not only in the educational field but also because of its repercussions on the whole of the social structure in Scotland. I do not share the view that there should be separate schools for Roman Catholics and other denominations in the Scottish educational system. Where over the years since 1918 we have been able to live with that system it has created within our community, right from the outset, substantial divisions not unlike the divisions which exist in Belfast, where Catholic children are segregated from Protestant children at a very early age. That is at the root of a great deal of the troubles that follow therefrom, but that is another side to it.
All I am saying is that the Roman Catholic hierarchy should be extremely careful about seeking certain privileges, such as are provided in this Bill. It is an uneasy relationship. The Roman Catholic community in Scotland is still a minority community and the hierarchy have been very jealous of their rights in the educational system, even pushing those rights to an extraordinary extent. I have known of cases in the City of Glasgow where there is a Roman Catholic school and a Protestant school side by side, the latter not yet completed, but children in a new housing estate were unable to attend at the Roman Catholic school because although there were places vacant the Roman Catholic hierarchy insisted upon the complete segregation of their schools.
I suggest that the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Scotland should be extremely careful about pushing their special or privileged position in this case, and so far as possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has endeavoured to do in this amendment, we should ensure that where the closure of schools is concerned their schools should be treated like the other schools in the educational system in Scotland. I hope the noble Lord will be supported.
Lord Hughes: I also should like to join in briefly on this. My former home town of Dundee probably has the highest proportion of Roman Catholics in its population, after the city of Glasgow. I am speaking of proportions—not numbers. If I remember rightly, one in six of the population of Dundee was a Roman Catholic, but there has never been any trouble there between Catholics and Protestants. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, the position in Scotland is that we have not had trouble of this kind. The noble Earl said that he was speaking for the Roman Catholic
1224
hierarchy in Scotland, and the other day the noble Duke referred to his relations with the hierarchy south of the Border. I suggest that it might be worth their while, before the next stage of the Bill, to discuss with their religious colleagues whether any change in the position of schools in Scotland, either denominational or non-denominational, is necessary and what is wrong with the situation which has obtained up to the present time, because if it has worked until now it would be much better if this Bill left the position in relation to all of these schools totally unchanged.
Lord Lyell: Once again I find it somewhat startling to intervene in the rising tide of religious and denominational schools. Possibly I should declare an interest in that I went to a denominational school, I suppose, from the age of eight until 12, but I must be one of the few people, certainly on these Benches, speaking on this matter who, according to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, must take care. He said the figure was one in six in Dundee; I do not know what it is in Scotland as a whole.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and the Committee will accept that this amendment would delete from the Bill those provisions which safeguard, in certain circumstances, the position of denominational schools and education, and instead it would provide that every proposal to close a nursery, a primary or even a secondary school, whether denominational or non-denominational, would require the consent of the Secretary of State if the proposal was not fully agreed by the parents of pupils at the school, or indeed parents whose children would become pupils at the school.
Perhaps we should not at this hour dwell on the drafting of the amendment and the definition of "fully agreed" and those who "would become pupils of that school". I mentioned that the amendment would be scrapping safeguards for denominational education. These safeguards have been thoroughly discussed and, I think very importantly, agreed with the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. Also consultations were held at detailed level with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, together with the Episcopal Church in Scotland and the Jewish Board of Education. I think the Committee and the noble Lord would accept that there have been very detailed consultations with anybody who would have any interest in denominational education in Scotland.
The main arguments against the amendment which the noble Lord has moved is that it would do no more than maintain the present position in which the Secretary of State's consent is needed for any school closure. The Government's policy on the other hand is to relax controls over local authorities, and to allow education authorities to make their own decisions in the light of local circumstances and local knowledge, subject always to certain safeguards. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has suggested that his amendment would free authorities from central control because closures which have the agreement of parents will not be subject to the Secretary of State's control. Things may have been slightly different when the noble Lord was Secretary of State, but in the present Session 80 per cent., which is a substantial proportion, of all closure proposals have been opposed. In earlier years the figures have been as high, if not higher. This is

1225
not to say that the Government think that objections to closures proposals should be disregarded. Many objections lodged by parents are deeply felt. On the other hand, it is clear that the decision as to local provision of education is one that must be made locally.
Decisions of this sort, closing schools or any part of any schools, or major changes, are not easy, especially given the falling school rolls which will point in the direction that some schools will inevitably have to be closed. But in the Government's view it is important that the granting of freedom to education authorities should not deprive parents of the opportunity of a full and effective hearing of their views on closure proposals. We intend to provide a statutory obligation on authorities to consult parents and other interested bodies not only about closure proposals but about other proposals, and to have regard to any views expressed before they take a decision on those proposals. Noble Lords will have noticed that the proposed new Sections 22A and 22B enable the Secretary of State to prescribe both the persons who are to be consulted, the proposals on which they shall be consulted, and the manner of consultation. The consultation paper setting out my right honourable friend's proposals for these regulations was issued to a wide range of bodies, and copies are available in your Lordships' House.
I hope the Committee will not form the view that the consultations will be a mere sham. That is a word that has been bandied about this evening. We hope the Committee will not think that authorities will merely decide to proceed with their original proposals after consultations have been carried out. We do not believe that education authorities will behave in this way. On the contrary, we expect that authorities will think deeply and seriously before coming to what will be their decision on any proposal. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will know from his own experience, decisions like this can never be taken lightly.
Lord Mottistone: Before my noble friend sits down, does he not think that that could have been said in about a third of the time if he had been suitably briefed? Perhaps the Scottish Office could receive the type of advice which I have been trying to indicate to the noble Lords opposite.
Lord Lyell: The Scottish Office does, in fact, read very carefully the comments that are made from all parts of your Lordships' House, and I have no doubt that they will read the comments of my noble friend as well as the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and others through the ages.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I accept all the criticism of the quality of my drafting. It was done very quickly. Having taken out something that I thought was unfair, I had to put something in its place. It obviously was not sufficiently accurate. The noble Lord can make inquiries, because somebody will tell him that it was never my intention to press this amendment, for, of course, it would have removed the protections that Roman Catholics had fought for and that were there. Why did they have to fight for them? They had to
1226
fight for them because of the changes that the Government are making. They were perfectly happy the way things were. My noble friend was right. They should have left well alone. Now we are told that it is right that they should make this change. Local decision on education should be with the local people. That was not exactly the argument which was put forward a short time ago when it was finally left to the sheriff to decide what the local decision should be.
There is no appeal here—in fact, the appeal has been taken away. He spoke about being sure that local authorities will think deeply and seriously—all this has nothing to do with the amendment by the way; it is not within the amendment. He spoke of men of property and so on. It was his noble friend sitting beside him who, about three hours ago, talked about bogus decisions being made by the education authorities. It has not been boring all day. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, should come more often; he should be less selective. He should not come in late at night—we have been at it all day. Indeed, we have missed him. Mind you, I have missed an awful lot of his boring speeches too. I was proud of myself when, having read it, I thought of the people who had to suffer from it. No, the trouble stems from the Government; they meddled unnecessarily.
The Roman Catholics did the right thing; they put these clauses in. I should like to take them out and return to the status quo. That is all. I cannot do it with this amendment. I do not propose to press the amendment, but I shall look at the matter again, as I hope will everyone who is concerned about the discriminatory position that now arises because it is there. It is unsatisfactory, and it may well be that the Government will regret what they have done. Of course they want to get rid of the closure of schools. It is the most unpopular thing that you can do. Remember the riot that we had in here about the treatment of rural schools. I think that that was the last time I saw the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. I remember the speech he made on that occasion. We were in the same Lobby no doubt and we defeated the Government. We shall do it again sometime, and fairly soon I hope.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Removal of certain controls in connection with denominational schools]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
House resumed.

Northumbrian Water Authority Bill
The Queen's Consent signified, reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Wallerawang Collieries, Limited Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments to be printed.

Peterborough Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Preston Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments considered and agreed to.