Lords Sitting of 17 April 1986

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

European Airlines: Competition
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, further to their Answer on 23rd January (cols. 327–8) concerning the European Commission and European airlines, they will make a statement on the decisions reached and recommendations made at the meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers held on 17th March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, at the Transport Council on 14th March my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport stressed that there must be real liberalisation of fares, capacity and market access, before airline agreements can be considered for exemptions from the competition rules. The council instructed officials to continue work urgently on an overall package covering all these elements.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, having paid tribute on many occasions to what the Government are trying to do in all this, may I ask whether the Minister is able to elaborate at all on what he told us on 23rd January as to the progress the Commission had made in what the Minister described to us as the "detailed preparation of possible court cases against member states"? Does the Minister recall that he himself said that such cases might be useful if the council continued to block progress? Could he comment on that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we should like to reach agreement within the council and by voluntary means. As the House will know, because I have said it before, at the moment we have the Dutch presidency, to be followed by our own, and if we do not make significant progress by the end of the year we shall probably have to resort to other means to get liberalisation of the air market.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, in view of the fact that Mr. Spicer said last week that it was outrageous that competition in aviation matters in Europe was still so severely restricted, and in view of the opposition that our country is meeting in our European colleagues, could the Minister say whether we have been able to do anything additionally by way of bilateral agreements to hurry these matters up?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are making a little progress in creating a more realistic attitude among our friends in Europe. But notwithstanding the progress that we are trying to make in Brussels we have recently secured Italian agreement to the introduction of a new service to Milan by British Caledonian, and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that we have recently secured Spanish approval for 14 new routes, mostly from regional airports in the United Kingdom.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, one hates to be repetitive on this matter, but if I do not ask the question the noble Earl will think that I have forgotten all about it. In the list of matters which he said the Secretary of State raised at this meeting he did not refer to the question of keeping essential co-ordination—and I am delighted with his last answer on the use of regional airports. Was that matter also raised in the consultations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think a repetitive question deserves a repetitive reply. Government policy remains consistent with what I said before.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, was the Minister saying obliquely in his answer that if no progress is made in the coming months the British Government are prepared to take this matter to the European Court?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that indeed is one option.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is it not more than an option? Am I not correct in remembering that we have always been told that as the British Government would be in the chair for the last six months of this year, they would quite definitely deal with this matter if the council were not able to deal with it beforehand?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed we shall do our best to secure agreement when we are president of the council. If we fail in our attempts we shall try by every other means possible to liberalise the air market, of which one means is certainly going to the European Court.

Mr Alan Bristow: Alleged Knighthood Offer
3.5 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of subsequent developments, they will reconsider their refusal of 10th February (H.L. Debates, cols. 5–6) to inquire into the allegations of Mr. Alan Bristow that he was offered a knighthood in return for certain commercial actions.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, as my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General stated on 8th April in another place, an investigation into these allegations has been initiated.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Is he aware of the fact that his noble friend the Leader of the House on 10th February (at col. 6 of Hansard), in answering a question from my noble friend Lord Stallard, described this alleged offer of an honour to Mr. Bristow as "gossip and tittle-tattle"? How long has it been the custom of the law department of this Government to refer gossip and tittle-tattle to the police? Will the noble and learned Lord note that my Question has nothing to do with any case, or any police action, but is based upon the necessity of an inquiry by this House into the allegations that were made?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not in any way dissenting from what my noble friend the Leader of the House said on 10th February. However, I think that the noble Lord has momentarily forgotten the provisions of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, which was passed through Parliament, I believe, when my father was Attorney-General. Section 1 of that Act reads as follows:
"If any person accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other purpose, any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."
The Attorney-General's investigation is very different from that which was put in a Question to my noble friend.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, if Mr. Bristow has in fact been offered a knighthood he will have had a letter from the Prime Minister asking whether he was willing to accept one. Does he suggest that he has such a letter?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not hear the question.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, the question was whether Mr. Bristow suggests that he had in his possession a letter from the Prime Minister asking whether he was willing to accept a knighthood. If he had been offered one, he would certainly have such a letter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not know the answer. It seems to me to be highly unlikely. When I was chairman of the Conservative Party there was a man going about London saying that if anyone was prepared to pay me £10,000 I would get him a knighthood. He asked two people to my knowledge. One laughed him out of court, and the other was so shocked that he told Mr. Gaitskell.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, perhaps I may take the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor back to the original Question that was asked by my noble friend. Since I raised the Question on 10th February, when I asked for an internal inquiry to take place into the allegations, I was hoping that we would get some reply today which would tell us what has changed between then and now to convince the Director of Public Prosecutions, no less, that it ought now to be investigated. What has changed from the tittle-tattle position to it now being a serious issue which ought to be investigated by the DPP?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I suppose that even tittle-tattle can result in a misdemeanour at law.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware of the theory that there has been a gross misunderstanding and that the offer made by the two mysterious Peers was not of a knighthood but of a night out, and that it was a matter of seats for the opera or for "Cats"?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that would come within the terms of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, if every stupid suggestion of a possible honour or anything else had to be referred to a member of the judiciary, can the noble and learned Lord suggest just how many judges we would have to have in this country?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that I should have to water the brandy a bit!
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, with regard to the other allegations reported as having been made by Mr. Bristow, unrelated to the knighthood question, was any consideration given to whether these allegations, if true, involved a contravention of the Prevention of Corruption Acts of 1906 and 1916?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think I can answer that question; but I thought that the Question originally asked in February, and probably that which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred to the potential use of honours as an inducement. If the noble and learned Lord wants a definitive answer to the question he has just asked, I am afraid that I cannot give it to him now.

Housing Corporation: Special Funding
3.13 p.m.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will allot special funds to the Housing Corporation to be given to housing associations to build housing for rent in London docklands.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the three docklands boroughs—Newham, Southwark, and Tower Hamlets—are among the 80 housing stress areas in which the Housing Corporation are concentrating new fair rent approvals for their 1986–87 programme. In 1985–86 the Housing Corporation approved new fair rent and low cost home ownership schemes with a value of over £13½ million in the docklands area of these boroughs. We have no proposals at present to allocate further special funds to the Housing Corporation for new fair rent schemes in docklands.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the Act of Parliament which set up the corporation it is not allowed to build houses except

755
those for sale? It has always been the desire of the corporation that there should be housing for rent for that vast element of the population which cannot afford to buy a house but wishes to rent. I have some experience, but as I understand it the only people interested in building houses are the housing associations, which are very reputable. There are at least ten sites available to be built on at this time, but unfortunately, we are told, the Housing Corporation does not have the funds to give to them. What else can I do but put down a Question to ask the Minister?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that this is quite correct. The total population of the eight square miles of the London Dockland Development Corporation's area is 40,000. Approximately 75 per cent. of those 40,000 people live in council accommodation, 15 per cent. are owner-occupiers and the remaining 10 per cent. have other forms of tenure. On the fair rent approvals in the £13½ million that I have mentioned, this amounts to £8.2 million. Money is also given by the individual boroughs, and they are also building houses themselves.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, with great respect to the Minister he does not seem to understand the question. It is not a question of where people are living now. The fact is that we are unable to build housing for rent, and there is a demand for that. I am simply saying to the Minister that the only way that money can be obtained is through the Housing Corporation, which has nothing to do with us. I do wish the Minister would not be naive, because the local councils, such as Southwark, could build houses tomorrow on land made available, but because of their political prejudice against us refuse to do so. If the Minister does not know that story it is about time he did. Therefore, all I know is that a lot of people—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Mellish: I am therefore asking the Minister whether he will help the housing associations to overcome this very serious problem, my Lords.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have to say, as I did in my original Answer, that £13½ million was given by the Housing Corporation to housing associations in docklands for the sort of schemes that the noble Lord suggests. I fully understand, and he has been at pains to point out, the political situation in Southwark, but it is interesting to note that the comparison for extra housing association money in the three London boroughs concerned has risen from £2.2 million in 1984–85 to £4.9 million in 1985–86.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, while not demurring for one moment from the request made by my noble friend Lord Mellish for additional funding for housing in London docklands, which would be a good investment, is the Minister not aware—he must be aware—that some of the areas of highest housing deprivation in the country are in the big cities other than London? Is it not a fact that cities such as Manchester, which submitted proposals for a £90 million spending plus in the current year, received only one-third of the allocation it applied for? I
756
understand that a similar situation applied in other cities, such as Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool, and in other London boroughs not concentrated round the dockland area. Will the Minister give an undertaking that if any additional funds are to be made available for public sector housing these areas of high priority will receive the utmost consideration?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I can willingly give that undertaking. This is why the Government have asked the Housing Corporation to identify and to concentrate resources on the areas of particularly high need, including Manchester, parts of Bristol and elsewhere in the country. It has produced a list of 80 stress areas, which I have mentioned. It is right that within the resources available the areas to concentrate on should be those where the needs are greatest.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it not a fact that Sir Hugh Cubitt, the director of the Housing Corporation, in a report in July, complained that programmes for housing for the most direly in need were desperately under-funded; and surely it is up to the Government to produce more funds for the Housing Corporation when it has been made quite clear in a great many reports how disastrous the housing situation is?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is true that the Housing Corporation's preferred option in its first corporate plan was to double the current programme, but it is right to point out that this would cost £1,150 million a year, and, as I said in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on 4th March last, this has to be done within our general and very successful economic policies.

Heating Allowances and Comparative Expenditure
3.19 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much was spent by the DHSS on assistance with fuel bills in 1985; the number of houses they estimate could be brought up to the current thermal standards by an equivalent expenditure; what savings would result from such expenditure and whether there is adequate co-ordination between departments to ensure cost-effective public expenditure in this area.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the cost of supplementary benefit weekly heating additions was approximately £400 million in 1984–85. This includes expenditure on age and health-related heating additions which could not reasonably be redirected to a combination of thermal insulation measures.
The cost of relevant thermal insulation measures varies widely according to the size, type and state of repair of the dwelling, but for a medium size home in good repair it could cost between £500 and £3,000. Such a programme would be unlikely to bring significant public expenditure saving. I am satisfied that there is adequate co-ordination between the

757
various departments concerned with home insulation measures.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. She will accept that my arithmetic is not as good as it used to be. I am not able to work out immediately how many homes at £500 each that enormous figure of £400 million could insulate, but it is quite a tidy number. That seems to confirm my view and that of many others that we are spending far too little on conservation and insulation and wasting scarce resources in the way that we did last winter and the winter before.
Does the noble Baroness agree that what we need is a co-ordinated approach among the three departments, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Energy, to get the most cost-effective programme of conservation and insulation, as well as financial assistance for those in need; and that we ought to start that planned and co-ordinated programme now and not wait until the middle of next winter?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Indeed, in Energy Efficiency Year this is something that the Government are concentrating upon. We have started an energy efficiency campaign which has been promoted on television. Leaflets have been distributed, and they provide advice for all households on how to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. In addition, government funded voluntary sector insulation projects are expected to double in number from 200 to 400 during 1986.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, after the recent cold spell in February, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Government are to review their arrangements for special emergency payments in such situations? I have read the guidelines. They are extremely confusing and give rise to random results. Will the Government take that to heart and look at their guidelines?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, during that period the Government looked, and certainly in future crises of this sort will look, at every way possible to make the system more efficient.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness what role the voluntary organisations can and do play in helping to co-ordinate the Government's policy over these matters?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the voluntary sector insulation projects which I mentioned earlier are a good example of different government departments working together to improve the thermal efficiency of low income households. There is the Community Programme and the Manpower Services Commission funded programme in regard to financing the labour; start-up costs are financed by the Energy Efficiency Office, while materials are financed by the DHSS for draught-proofing and the Department of the Environment for loft insulation. I believe that this is a good example of co-operation among government departments supported by the voluntary sector.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many general practitioners have been gravely concerned about the risk of hypothermia for elderly people during the recent unexpectedly cold spell, particularly bearing in mind high fuel costs and the tendency of elderly people to turn down their heating appliances to dangerous levels? May I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of the new scheme pioneered by the Electricity Council, whereby a single room is insulated and heated? This is being explored and pioneered as a pilot scheme in certain electricity board areas and many of us would like to see that scheme extended to other areas.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, while I think that this point is slightly outside the terms of the original Question, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for drawing the attention of the House to the scheme, which I feel will be more generally supported in future.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that if she were to give serious consideration to the suggestion of my noble friend it offers the possibility of employing on insulation schemes many tens of thousands of unemployed people? That is relevant after the publication of the worst figures for four and a half years which were made available yesterday. Will she reconsider this, particularly bearing in mind that for every person put hack into employment the Government would save about £6,000 a year on unemployment benefit?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not sure that I completely understood the relevance of the noble Lord's supplementary question, but voluntary sector insulation projects which are being supported by Government funding, and, in particular, the wages of labour under the Manpower Services Commission scheme, are helping, in addition, with the unemployment problem.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether what she was saying about cost-effectiveness of public expenditure means that there has to be a net saving from this expenditure, despite the fact that it could bring enormous benefits in regard to hypothermia, the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, current building regulations are set by the Department of the Environment and they specify a thermal standard for lofts and walls, as well as a limitation on the area of external windows. While it is relatively easy to bring dwellings with loft spaces up to this standard, it is more difficult to bring walls, especially solid walls, and windows up to the standard set for new houses. This is why I spoke of thermal insulation measures in a package, as it were, to give an indication of what might be achieved on an average property.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the single payments which were used to cover the cost of materials used by voluntary organisations, such as Neighbourhood Energy Action. Will she confirm that those single payments, or a substitute for them, will continue? Otherwise, the

759
voluntary organisations will find it difficult to pay for those materials.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. We appreciate the value of draught proofing and the work done in this way by the local voluntary projects. I think I can do best by quoting comments made by my honourable friend the Minister of State during a television programme recently. He said:
"I would not be prepared to see the loss of these single payments without being satisfied that we had devised alternative arrangements to make sure that these schemes could go on".

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on British interests in the Lebanon and terrorism. It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that the Section Reading of the Protection of Military Remains Bill will be taken during this adjournment.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 18 [Aided and special agreement schools]:
The Lord Bishop of Ely The Lord Bishop of Ely moved Amendment No. 51ZA:
Page 21, line 21, at end insert—
("for all powers and functions not allocated to the local education authority, the governing body or the head teacher by this Act or any other enactment to be a power and a function respectively to be discharged by the governing body and").
The right reverend Prelate said The right reverend Prelate said: I move this amendment in the unavoidable absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, chairman of the General Synod Board of Education, and later today I shall move other amendments that have been tabled already in his name. The right reverend Prelate has asked that I should first express his appreciation of his recent meeting with the Bishop of Menevia and the Secretary of State, to which, as a meeting which was then shortly to happen, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, alluded in the first day of this Committee, when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London withdrew an amendment to Clause 1 in view of that forthcoming meeting.
The present amendment touches the prerogatives of governing bodies of aided and special agreement schools. The Committee will recall that on the second
760
day of the Committee the noble Baroness the Minister resisted an amendment to Clause 16, as drafted, in part because it involved in the Government's view an inappropriate reduction in the independence of aided school governors, so disturbing, "the division of powers on which the dual system of education has been based since 1944". This was a point that was readily taken as requiring amendment of the drafting of the amendment.
The words of this present amendment are close to the amendment to Clause 1 which was proposed by the right reverend Prelate on the first day of the Committee stage, and by leave withdrawn. I move this amendment in the hope that it might offer an opportunity for clarification of this point. The impression gained by colleagues during the discussion at official level, to which I have referred, is that where the word "conduct" is used in this Bill—for instance, at the beginning of Clause 15, when it is said that articles of government shall provide for the conduct of the school to be under the direction of the governing body of an aided school—that word "conduct" embraces more than ethos, spirit, attitudes, as in the Notes of Clauses, and is meant to refer to powers and functions.
I feel sure that this is consonant with what the noble Baroness the Minister observed about the independence of governing bodies of aided schools as in the 1944 Education Act. I was grateful at the time for her observations. I am moving this amendment as so important a principle is involved, and in the hope that if assurance were given on that interpretation of the word "conduct" it would not be necessary to press this amendment or indeed to seek such clarification by a later amendment at Report stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: I was rather surprised to see this amendment. The Committee will recognise it as being almost identical to Amendment No. 2 which was tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in the light of a meeting which had been arranged between my right honourable friend and the right reverend Prelate on 10th April. This issue, raised by the previous amendment and repeated in this one, was fully discussed at that meeting, when it was understood that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London accepted that his withdrawn amendment was not entirely appropriate.
Perhaps I can rehearse again the Government's point of view. The amendment proposed purports to deal with those matters not covered by the primary legislation. I suggest that it does have serious weaknesses. There is already a substantial prescription on the allocation of functions, particularly as regards controlled schools, in existing legislation and this will be extended by the present Bill. The Government believe that the allocation of functions not covered by the primary legislation should be made according to what is appropriate to the particular case.
This Bill has been carefully drafted to ensure that these options are appropriately open. Of course, we recognise that one of the Churches' concerns is to ensure that the LEAs cannot take to themselves unspecified and unassigned functions through a blanket provision in articles of government. Where voluntary schools are concerned, the governing body

761
could object to that and, if agreement was not reached with the LEA, could refer the question to the Secretary of State. While each individual case must be considered on its merits, if the facts were as bald as those in the example that I have just cited, I think I can safely assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State would agree with the governing body. Indeed, for all schools the Government believe that the provisions of Clause 15(1) would rule out such a blanket provision for local education authorities.
I understand that at the meeting to which the right reverend Prelate has referred my right honourable friend agreed that the Government would look again at this clause and see whether it could be further clarified. I believe that arrangements have already been made for officials to discuss the question, and if necessary my right honourable friend stands ready to have a further meeting with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Menevia. I would therefore ask the right reverend Prelate whether he would be good enough to withdraw his amendment, letting the action that I have described complete its coarse and allowing the Government to honour their undertakings to reflect the expected agreement in this matter by an appropriate amendment at a later stage in the Bill.
Baroness Phillips: Before the right reverend Prelate withdraws the amendment, I am not quite certain that he would agree that the noble Earl has given him a complete answer. If this is going to happen, or indeed if this is already possible within the Bill, I am not quite clear why the amendment would not add to an existing situation. In other words, if the Government have nothing to fear from the amendment, surely they could gracefully accept it and then come back with one of their own at the next stage of the Bill. Meetings between individuals at any stage of a Bill are really no answer to your Lordships when dealing with the Committee stage of the Bill. I do not know what the right reverend Prelate feels about this; but, as chairman of the governors of an aided school, I am very concerned that there should be no interference at all with their existing control and powers. This we must watch very carefully throughout the passage of the Bill.
The Earl of Swinton: If I may answer the noble Baroness, I think there is absolutely nothing between us on this matter. The point I was trying to make was in connection with Amendment No. 2, which we discussed, where the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was very happy that this should be the subject of a meeting, and the Government undertook to come back with appropriate amendments later on. There are a number of amendments which will be proposed by the right reverend Prelate later, and I think that there is really nothing between the Government and the Church on any of the amendments. We have given an undertaking to do it that way and I believe that a change at this stage would be counter-productive.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: With the assurances given by the noble Earl, which I am very grateful to receive,
762
following upon the meeting which I reported, I am very ready to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51A, 51B and 51C not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ely The Lord Bishop of Ely moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 21, line 31, leve out ("determine and ").
The right reverend Prelate said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. During the Second Reading, I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester referred to the Bill as not in all terms achieving the clarification which was the desire of the Bill. The particular clause in question here states that the governors will have control of the curriculum: yet a few lines later it says that the head teacher will determine it. I think there is a problem here of definition certainly, and perhaps one of substance, on how a particular body can control something if somebody else is able to determine it. I move this amendment without in any way intending to be negative, but solely to achieve the further clarification the Bill sets out to achieve. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: The very special role of the governing body of an aided or special agreement school is one which the Government fully recognise. That is why they have taken the opportunity afforded by this Bill to extend control of the curriculum, already vested in the governing bodies of aided secondary schools by the 1944 Act, to the governing bodies of all aided and special agreement schools. I know that this is something which has been widely welcomed by the Churches and those involved in voluntary education.
I am sure that the Committee will also agree that arrangements for the detailed organisation and delivery of the curriculum must in practice be left to the professional discretion of the headteacher—who will of course, in aided and special agreement schools, have been chosen and appointed by the governing body itself. The head's role must go further than would be covered by the term "organisation" alone, as the governors will not have defined the curriculum in detail for every class and every course in the school—that is the activity which will be carried out under the head's power to "determine" the curriculum. But the control of the curriculum will clearly rest with the governing body and in any dispute over the content of that curriculum the governors would be able to exercise that overriding control to ensure that their wishes were met.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to answer the right reverend Prelate who asked me when moving the last amendment, to confirm that "conduct" has a wide meaning to include all functions and powers to do with the running of a school. I would most gladly confirm that. I hope that having heard the explanation, the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I am most grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for his clarification of where control lies and of conduct. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52A not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
("Crime prevention and road safety.
. The articles of government for every school shall provide that courses on crime prevention and road safety are provided by any constable appointed for the purpose by a chief officer of police.")
The noble Lord said: The question I want to raise this afternoon concerns the relationship between the education system and the police service. At the moment I do not propose to press the amendment today, almost irrespective of what the Minister may say. I want to know, and I suspect that a number of other noble Lords will want to know, what the Minister proposes to say about the general range of issues raised in the amendment.
In the overwhelming majority of local education areas there is no problem. There is a cordial relationship between schools and the police service. That cordial relationship exists in virtually every shire county and in many cities as well. Sometimes a local beat officer may call regularly at a local school to talk to primary and secondary school children about the general problems of crime prevention and road safety, the two issues which are mentioned in the amendment. Sometimes the chief constable may decide to have a specialist constable who is trained to talk to school children make the visit rather than the local beat officer.
I shall give a brief illustration of the way in which the problem is approached in some areas of the country. I shall quote briefly from an article by Superintendent Terry Anley who is head of the community liasion department of the Thames Valley Police. He pointed out in the article that as part of a progamme to achieve better relations between schools and the local police a local headmaster was seconded to the Thames Valley Police for a year. They jointly evaluated the then police involvement in the schools.
In the article the superintendent said:
"What we have developed is a ten year plan of action to cover each school year from 5 to 16 years, in the form of a manual which is taken into schools by our officers and discussed with the head teacher and the class teachers".
Later he said:
"What then are our objectives to be? Programmes should be designed to teach crime prevention in its broadest sense—to teach personal safety and citizenship and to teach the recognition of responsibilities".
He continued:
"There has been, this year in Thames Valley, an upsurge of interest in crime prevention youth panels in schools, run by the students (with help from the staff on occasions) and by the local police and crime prevention officers themselves. This involves real consensus decision making on behaviour and attitudes".
So much for the view of one experienced police superintendent who is working in this important area in the Thames Valley force. However, unhappily in a number of areas in this country that does not exist. In a number of parts of inner London, Left-wing teachers are preventing the police from entering the schools at all for purposes of a kind which I have just set out. There cannot be much dispute about that.
In a parliamentary Answer given on 30th January this year (House of Commons Hansard col. 571), the Minister of State gave a list of schools in inner London—I cite this as an important example, and there are others, I understand—where there is a policy of refusing to admit the police. For the purpose of the record I propose to name the schools. They are: North Westminster Community School, NW1 and W9 (Lower Houses) and W2 (Upper Houses); Daubeney Infants School, E5; De Beauvoir Junior School, N1; De Beauvior Infants School, N1; Gainsborough Junior Mixed and Infants School, E9; Gayhurst Junior School, E8; Gayhurst Infants School, E8; Grazebrook Junior Mixed and Infants School, N16; Laburnum Junior Mixed and Infants School, E2; Millfields Junior School, E5; Millfields Infants School, E5; Orchard Junior Mixed and Infants School, E9; Southwold Junior Mixed and Infants School, E5; William Patten Junior School, N16; William Patten Infants School, N16; Clapton School, E5; Hackney Downs School, E5; Stoke Newington School, N16; Skinners' Company School, N16 and E5 (Upper and Lower School); Hurlingham and Chelsea School, SW6; Ecclesbourne Junior Mixed and Infants School, N1; William Tyndale Junior Mixed and Infants School, N1.
3.45 p.m.
Teachers prevent the police from entering each of those schools to discuss road safety and crime prevention. As we know from letters appearing in the press in East London, that is done in defiance of parents' wishes. Given that the Bill is about giving parents greater power and influence in schools, I should like to know what the Government propose to do about that situation.
The problem in London has arisen as a result of the decision by the Hackney Teachers' Association, which took the lead and was followed by the Inner London Teachers' Association. A number of us this afternoon would like to hear not merely an indication of the Government's concern about that, but what precisely they propose to do.
I shall briefly run over the issues that many parents want the police to raise in those schools. In many cases they are in areas of acute economic deprivation and high unemployment, with a high incidence of drug taking, as we know. First, they want the police to talk about the risk of narcotic abuse in London which, as we know, is growing at an alarming rate. Year on year, the level of heroin and cocaine consumption, particularly heroin, by children, is increasing at an alarming rate, and yet in such areas the police are being prevented from going into those schools by teachers operating entirely on the basis of their own ideological obsessions.
Secondly, there is road safety. That is self-evidently a desirable issue to be raised by the police. Thirdly, another matter of great importance to many parents is the risk of the sexual molestation of young children which is a problem of increasing severity in many areas of this country.
The Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science on 30th January 1986 (House of Commons Hansard col. 572) said about this issue:

765
"Young people need to know about the law and about the rights and responsibilities of citizens. They need to know, too, about the role of the police in maintaining law and order, about crime prevention and about road and other dangers. The action of certain schools in refusing to allow police in school is not in the interests of their pupils and can only hinder good relations between them and the police".
I agree with that and I am sure that virtually every other Member of your Lordships' Committee agrees with it as well. The purpose of this amendment is a simple one. What, in the context of what the Minister of State has said, do the Government now propose to do about the situation? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord has said that he wig not press this amendment to a vote. Therefore, this is a matter on which only from this Dispatch Box can I express my views on the amendment. It is not necessary or appropriate to discuss whether the amendment may or may not be defective in its wording, but I think it is necessary, as the education spokesman for the Labour Party before this Committee, to say without equivocation that we do not condone the exclusion of the police from any schools, and that we do not believe it is proper, whatever political views teachers may hold, that they should use those political views for any exclusion of this sort.
Lord Mishcon: I rise again from these Benches, if I may, in order that there shall not be the slightest doubt about the views of the Opposition, and I speak as the official spokesman for the Official Opposition on home affairs. I think it highly regrettable—and I say this on behalf of these Benches—that any education establishment should bar the police from its school. I furthermore say that we have every conceivable interest in seeing that the relationships between our children and the police are of the friendliest and of the most helpful.
Baroness Cox: I will speak only very briefly indeed in support of this amendment because already, in speaking to a previous amendment, I have given some examples of the type of anti-police behaviour in the classrooms of some of our schools that causes such concern. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put it so well, one of the major purposes of this amendment is to try to ensure that the police are not banned from our schools. The noble Lord read a very sober list of those schools where a policy of banning the police is already in operation, and it is rather worrying that that list might be expected to grow, given that it is now the policy accepted by the Inner London Teachers' Association.
It is especially serious in view of the anti-police propaganda that is very freely available, especially in the London area. For example, at the so-called farewell party of the GLC on Easter Monday vast piles of those very virulently anti-police propaganda posters were available and were being given away free to people of all age groups. Of course, the police may be subject to legitimate criticism, but because of that kind of anti-police feeling that is being stirred up for political reasons outside schools it is very important that the police have access to our schools to answer that criticism, to be able *o talk to young people and themselves to put over the case for a police force, as
766
well as providing those educational services which they have provided for so long and so well, which are so greatly appreciated and which it is the purpose of this amendment to ensure they are allowed to continue to provide.
Viscount Trenchard: Before my noble friend answers on this probing amendment, may I say that I hope that on this occasion we shall not get another repeat of, "This is not the right way to cure the problem: legislation is not required". I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has done the Committee a great service by listing the number of schools which the police are forbidden to enter. Perhaps it is a common sense deduction to suggest that in the schools where the police are forbidden quite a lot of other distorted practice and persuasion is going on, and quite a lot of the anti-police propaganda which my noble friend Lady Cox suggested is going on. This is a problem. All the problems that we have had in this section of the debate on the Education Bill are real problems, and they are growing. So I hope that we can have an end to the kind of statement which says either, "It is too difficult", or, "Legislation is not the right way to deal with it".
Baroness Hooper: We must all sympathise with the intention behind this amendment, which is that all pupils should receive instruction at school from the police in crime prevention and road safety. This would not only provide all pupils with valuable knowledge and skills but would actively promote good relations between the police and our young people. There can be few who will disagree with that, particularly in view of the very grave problems that are recognised in relation to narcotics abuse.
However, I must remind noble Lords that under existing legislation the only compulsory school subject, as has been stated already in discussion, is religious education. With that exception, responsibility for the school curriculum rests with local education authorities and individual schools, and successive Governments have resisted attempts to require schools to teach other specific subjects. So I am afraid that I must disappoint my noble friend Lord Trenchard by again saying that this is another area where legislation is not the appropriate course.
Another consequence of this clause, if it became law, would be to breach the right of the schools to determine who shall come into school for the purpose of giving instruction. This would be wrong in principle, and it could also have unfortunate practical consequences. This sort of activity is only useful if it takes place in a spirit of co-operation. It would not only be an unpleasant experience for a policeman or policewoman to go into a school to teach where there was little or no co-operation from the staff, but it could limit their effectiveness in the classroom. The existence of a statutory right of entry for this purpose would not necessarily help such co-operation to develop. It might, indeed, even hinder it.
The decision by 20 or so schools in the Inner London Education Authority not to invite the police into the classrooms has received considerable publicity, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, quoted a list of schools. Incidentally, I understand that it may

767
not in all respects be accurate, and, if necessary and if it is helpful to the Committee, the Government will take steps to correct that. One can only deplore that decision of the schools. Nevertheless, we see the matter in perspective if we reflect that out of some 900 primary and secondary schools in the Inner London Education Authority about 880 admit the police to give instruction, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, himself acknowledged that the situation generally throughout the country is reasonably satisfactory.
So what are the Government doing, and what do they intend to do? Within the next few weeks copies of a discussion document on developing effective cooperation between the police and the schools will be issued to every school in England and Wales and to every local education authority and police force. This has been prepared by the Society of Education Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and should result in a better understanding between teachers and police officers. I think that this voluntary approach is the most promising way forward.
I have no doubt that the most effective way by which a school can help its pupils to develop into responsible citizens is by having the right atmosphere in which hard work and good quality work are expected, encouraged and rewarded; where good and considerate behaviour is the norm; and where the pupils can see that the staff are interested in them as individuals and care about them and their future. This will happen only as a result of hard and sustained work by the head teacher and all the staff.
We believe that the proposal in the Bill to give governing bodies responsibility for the conduct of their schools will enable them to exercise an important influence over the ethos of the school. However, in the light of what the noble Lord, and indeed other noble Lords, have said both in the previous debates and today, there is a further piece of action that the Government are prepared to take.
The circular that will be issued to local education authorities when the Bill becomes law will contain advice on the responsibility of schools for promoting good citizenship among pupils. The Government are ready to expand this advice in order specifically to encourage a smooth working relationship between schools and the police which will include contributions by the police on the matters which the noble Lord has in mind and to which he has referred. In view of what I have been able to say, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Annan: It is not only the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who may be disappointed by the reply of the noble Baroness. It has certainly disappointed me as one who put his name to the amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Who are the grey, dim, dreary, depraved bureaucrats who have drafted this answer? I refer to the way in which it was drafted: the appeal to a general principle that no subject is to be made compulsory in our schools, which, I may say, is open to very grave criticism indeed when one considers that mathematics and the English language—the mother tongue—are
768
not compulsory subjects. But leaving that aside, to appeal to this general principle that no subject should be made compulsory except by the local authority is one of those marvellously convenient bureaucratic ways of dodging a real political issue.
One hundred and fifty years ago that marvellous inspector of schools, Matthew Arnold, would not have seen the point of such an amendment. In those days road safety—yes, one could be knocked over by a dray—was not the issue that it is today. As for crime prevention, we all know how that was in those days. The prevention of crime was carried out either by the family or by a police officer giving one or possibly more sharp clips over the ear to juvenile delinquents in order to prevent them appearing in the courts. Such measures are no longer possible today, and for very good reasons.
How are we to educate our children in the schools, children very often in disadvantaged circumstances, to understand the nature of crime, to understand that their health is at stake if they get on to the drug habit? How are we to make them understand that law and order is essential to any society if it is still possible for local options on this matter to be observed and the police to be excluded from schools?
I beg the noble Baroness to ask her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to reconsider. This is a matter on which there is no real disagreement in the Committee. We have heard the admirable speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord McIntosh of Haringey. They said from the Opposition Benches that there is no difference of opinion on the general issue. The question is: what is the best way of doing this? Without legislation one will get the same situation prevailing; indeed it may even spread. What will a circular do to those local schools which are determined to prevent the police coming in? They will tear it up and stamp on it. I beg the noble Baroness to take this to heart and ask her right honourable friend whether he will not alter his opinion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and ask the noble Baroness to consider a little further her deeply disappointing reply. As I understood it, she said that legislation is the wrong instrument and that she will rely on a circular. Some of us may be sceptical as to whether the kind of people who impose this prohibition will be in the slightest degree affected by a circular or any number of circulars from the department.
Will the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend put this to the test? Will she give an undertaking to the Committee that if within a year of the issue of this circular the police are still excluded, the Government will come forward with the necessary legislation?
Baroness Hooper: I think the only undertaking I can give is to draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the comments that have been made in this Committee today. I can only say to noble Lords who have just spoken that, in my view, legislation does not necessarily guarantee good practice. The Government's attitude and reaction to this amendment, and indeed to others, results from the traditions and well established practices which in the

769
vast majority of cases work satisfactorily. The principle behind this Bill is to provide a structure by which these decisions can be made at a local level. We still feel that this is the best way to proceed.
Lord Annan: Will the noble Baroness bear with me again and just take on board this point? She used a good argument which is that custom is often the best way of dealing with problems. But in this situation the custom has broken down and is not accepted, and this is likely to spread. Therefore I do not accept that that is a good enough argument. That is why it is worth while putting in this clause even though it may appear to be anomalous.
We talk about the curriculum. I expressed to the noble Baroness my sadness that for many years the Government have resisted the attempt to make certain subjects compulsory. But they are academic subjects. This is something to do with social control. It is not a subject such as science or history. Therefore I ask the noble Baroness whether on those grounds she will think again. I understand the wisdom and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which is so much greater than mine, in the proposition that he put forward that if within a year we still find this resistance perhaps the Government will then introduce legislation. The trouble is that there is never parliamentary time. Here we have parliamentary time; a Bill is in Committee. Can we not grasp the nettle now?
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: What we are forgetting is that if this Bill is enacted with one or two improving amendments, we shall be dealing with a different situation. This is what we have to remember. It will be a different situation with different people there who will have a greater say. The Government are trying to say to us: "Look, we are trying systems that have been proved. We are going to improve the governing bodies of schools which will have a greater say in the administration and in the running of the schools, so let them have a go. Let them have a say. Let the people who really matter have a say". This is all that the Government are saying. Therefore I support what they are saying on this issue.
I am sure that the Government will take note. Let us remember that the majority of these schools are doing a good job, are co-operating and are working closely with all kinds of bodies outside of the school. Let us remember that the common sense of the new governors of schools will prevail.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, I must remind the Committee that family and parental responsibility are involved very much in this sphere. The object behind the Bill is to establish a structure by which parents have appropriate representation on governing bodies and the governing bodies have appropriate powers to control matters such as the one put forward in this amendment, with which everybody must have considerable sympathy.
Lord Gisborough: In view of the almost unanimous opinion in the Committee, I hope that the noble Baroness will take this back and reconsider it; or,
770
failing that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am grateful to all who have participated in this debate. This is an important and serious issue, and that has been recognised by noble Lords in all parts of the Committee. I can immediately answer one question put to me by the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat. I give him an absolute guarantee that this matter will come up again on Report, and frankly, if we do not get a better answer then, we shall vote.
It seems to me that the noble Baroness, who admittedly is in the difficult position of appearing before us as an advocate for the Department of Education and Science, has not been given a serious reply for this debate today. In a Bill that is designed to give greater power to parents, the rights of parents are being utterley ignored in the list of schools that I read out a few moments ago.
The idea, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said only a moment or two ago, that the sort of people who are keeping the police out at the moment are to be deterred by a discussion document produced by the Society of Education Officers and ACPO or by a circular issued by the Department of Education and Science is, to put it as politely as possible, slightly to underestimate the vigour and the enthusiasm of this group of dedicated revolutionaries, which is what they are. They want to keep the police out; they will continue to keep the police out. A circular will frankly not make the slightest difference.
The Earl of Swinton: I have just seen the noble Lord, Lord Annan, heading out of the Chamber and I am sure—no, he is not going—he would wish to retract what he said about civil servants. In this Committee the three of us sitting here are a fair target for all that is thrown at us, but I am sure, as the noble Lord appreciates, the Civil Service cannot answer back. He used rather intemperate language about the officials, which is not perhaps in the best traditions of this House.
Lord Annan: I shall naturally apologise for anything I said which could have wounded the feelings of those who drafted the answer. I am sure that they drafted it in the spirit that they are used to; that this is a principle and it is a cannot-be-altered principle. I do not want to say anything personally about them except that I think there has been here a lack of imagination—shall we put it that way?—by those who were concerned with the drafting of the answer.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I had assumed that I had incurred the displeasure of the noble Earl when he rose. However, let me repeat the point that I was making and then I propose to sit down. We are asked to believe that a group of Trotsky-ist schoolmasters are to be prevented from barring the police as a result of two circulars. Quite bluntly, that is nonsense. Those who drafted the argument were talking nonsense.
Notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, I have the greatest admiration for members of the Civil Service but I very much hope that they are capable of finding slightly better arguments to justify

771
the case they put before Ministers. I repeat, if the noble Baroness and her colleagues are unable to come forward on Report and meet us, if necessary on the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested a few moments ago, a number of us are quite determined to divide the House on the question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 53A:
Insert the following new Clause—
("Health Education
. The articles of government for every school shall provide for the teaching of courses of health education, which shall include basic anatomy, first aid and nursing skills, sex education and child care, diet and hygiene, accident prevention and teaching on the dangers of drug, tobacco and alcohol abuse.").
The noble Baroness said: I feel that this amendment follows rather well after the last one, and I shall be equally annoyed if I get the same answer, which I expect I shall from the noble Baroness who is going to reply. This amendment which I bring before the Committee for your Lordships' consideration I feel is of the utmost importance for future generations if the health and wellbeing of our society is to improve. I think it was Sir Keith Joseph, when he was Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who said: "There is a cycle of deprivation." Does the Committee not think that the time has come for us to get out of the rut and to do something about it? I believe educating our children to the vital needs of understanding the meaning of good health and to bringing them up to respect the marvels of their bodies will help to do something about many of the tragic situations which arise today. We have the situation of increasing child abuse and cruelty to children. We have increasing alcohol and drug abuse, and increased smoking among many young girls. Medically speaking, social class 5 have the highest perinatal mortality and morbidity rate. Most frightening of all is the increasing violence in society.
For some time now Australia has had life education centres. And now America—another country with a terrible drug problem—is making certain educational requirements on schools with respect to drugs, alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco.
The Government are trying hard to prevent drug abuse and have just launched a campaign with the BBC Grange Hill team with a song, "Just Say No to Drugs". I am certain that young people need far more education. Children need an awareness of the beauty and wonder of their body. It has been found since they launched the life education system in Australia that they are less and less likely to take any substance into their bodies that will hurt or destroy them. To respect themselves, and it is hoped others, they need to understand the physiology of the human body and what is good or harmful for it. I expect that I shall be told by some of your Lordships that it is not wise to spell out too much detail in legislation what needs to be done because some important issues which are not spelt out might be neglected.
The reason why I have listed several important subjects which I feel should be included is to make quite clear at this stage of the Bill what I think health education should mean. Some time ago I asked a Starred Question on health education and the officials from the Department of Education and Science dealing with the Question jumped to the conclusion that I had meant sex education. That happened to be the last thing on my mind at that time. Unless there are clear guidelines on what should be covered in a syllabus, I can understand how neglected some aspects of education could be.
We have in this country some excellent health education experts. I do not think that it would be too difficult for them to provide the necessary modules and manuals needed for health education, and health education teachers could become part of our educational system throughout the country.
I feel that basic first aid and nursing skills could be of immense value to children. Many of them are often left in charge of small babies, and younger children have to deal with sick or depressed parents. As a report on careers found, many children look after disabled parents before school and after they return from school. Perhaps those are matters that are not very often talked about, but they often exist.
The children of today are the future parents and trainers of the next generation. First aid can be vital when taking part in many outward bound and sporting activities, and some knowledge of accident prevention, such as understanding the dangers of diving into the shallow end of a swimming pool, can save a broken neck. A healthy diet can prevent such conditions as heart disease and cancer in the future: and with the increase in hepatitis B and the HTLV 3 virus, hygiene is more important than ever before.
Responsible sex education and good child care teaching is what every future parent needs. Unless good practices are taught now and in the future, the cycle of deprivation will just go round and round. As I am sure your Lordships will know, many children in our schools do not have good examples to follow from their own parents. Unless education does something about that, the problems can only get worse. The Government know better than anyone how expensive health care is becoming. Can we not educate a healthier nation for the future, to be more aware of how to look after themselves and their families? I hope that at this stage both your Lordships and the Government will accept the spirit of this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: I wish to speak very briefly but wholeheartedly in support of this amendment. It is particularly timely in view of the fact that the United Kingdom is a signatory to a statement of commitment to the attainment of health for all by the year 2000, which requires us as a nation to do all in our power, through preventive and primary health care, to promote good health and to prevent avoidable disease and injury.
In this country, as in other industrialised societies, we have seen a serious increase in deaths and disabilities from avoidable causes; for example, with the growth of diseases associated with behaviour such as smoking, unhealthy diet, and drug abuse. We are also

773
confronted by an increase in that dread disease AIDS—an increase that is to be of unknown proportions.
In some schools, however, it seems as though recent initiatives in curriculum development are almost designed to encourage such unhealthy forms of behaviour. For example, in a speech on Tuesday evening one noble Lord—I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing—read extracts from a pupils' rights charter, which it was claimed had been circulated at Parliament Hill School. That charter informed pupils at what age they had a right to drink alcohol or a right to enter brothels.
I believe that the subjects spelt out in this amendment represent essential knowledge for a healthy life and that pupils have much more of a right to that kind of information than to some of the other forms of so-called education that seem to be offered to them at the present time at many of our schools. I warmly support the amendment.
Baroness Lane-Fox: I certainly support the amendment. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that for both humane and economic reasons it is essential that the greatest trouble be taken to maintain healthy bodies. Life can already play enough bad jokes in accidents, viruses and disease—the treatment of which proves enormously expensive to the NHS.
It would seem madness, surely, not to seize every possible opportunity to teach people how to avoid becoming just crocks, and to do so by telling them about the working of their joints and bodies, starting at an early age. The physiotherapist who saved my hands from being useless and my spine from being twisted is now shocked by the number of patients who come to her in their late middle age, having previously occupied costly NHS beds, because they have developed chronic orthopaedic conditions through their bad posture and bad use of limbs. In her life, that physiotherapist has run classes for children to teach them very elementary anatomy, physiology and psychology—showing them the proper use of, for instance, feet, knees, hips and backs, and letting them compare the different shapes. Some of her ex-pupils, now adults, have found those early classes so helpful in reminding them that they must for ever be correct and flowing in their movements and so escape incapacitating pain and long drawn-out treatment, often requiring surgery.
It seems crazy to stand by and watch soaring NHS expenditure without employing methods to reduce it. That form of physical education should be introduced to help not just healthy and strong pupils with their games and gymnastics but also the weaker ones, who should be told how to defeat the traps that are in store for them.
Teachers should be well-trained in physical education. It is not a matter for the biologist as such, but classes should be so cleverly presented as to generate enthusiasm and interest. The session should be seen as having vital importance in the school. It is from that aspect that I wholeheartedly support the amendment so ably proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: I should like to support the suggestion of the noble Baroness for the teaching of first aid in schools. The Red Cross and, I think, St. John's already do that in a great many schools, where it has now become a routine part of their lessons. The children enjoy such teaching, parents approve of it, and it is useful for the children all their lives. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the amendment careful consideration.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: If I may, as a mere male, take part in these proceedings, I should like most heartily to endorse that which has been said by noble Baronesses so far. I should like, without breaching rules of the Committee, to advertise a kind of trailer for a debate that I am hoping to introduce in your Lordships' House and which I know has the support of all sides of the House. It is a Motion on the means of preventing disability, which has been touched upon by both the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and the noble Baroness who followed her, and it is implicit in this amendment.
It may well be that an amendment does not need to spell out every kind of health teaching that is necessary, but for the purposes of this amendment I believe that the noble Baroness was right to go into the detail that she did. I hope that the Government will take this point away and think about it, and will produce an amendment that is comprehensive, but not in the way that the present amendment is, which may exclude other forms of health education by inadvertence.
Lord Kilmarnock: I, too, should like to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, although it has to be said that it has resource implications. That is probably the argument we shall hear from the Government. However, even if the Government do tell us about the resource implications, I hope that they will not for that reason dismiss the idea behind the amendment.
There is a lot of very good evidence that children are extremely susceptible to influence in schools on the subjects that are mentioned in the amendment. It is conceivable that it might be a better way of spending money than the Government's current advertising programme on television and their leaflet programme on drugs. I believe that one would get closer to the root of the matter if one went at it through the schools. With those words, I should like in principle to support the amendment, and I hope that the Government will not dismiss it simply because of its resource implications.
Viscount Buckmaster: I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Masham, for whose activities in your Lordships' House I have boundless admiration—and I think that probably goes for all of your Lordships.
I would, however, inject a caveat, and a very strong one, about sex education. When I moved my Amendment No. 49B late last Tuesday night the Committee was very poorly attended and, unfortunately, many of my supporters had had to leave. Nevertheless, at that time I tried to show to the Committee that a great deal (indeed, even most) of the

775
sex education in our schools nowadays is amoral, if not downright immoral. I quoted from a number of booklets and from letters that had been received from parents, and so on. I shall not weary the Committee with the detail now but it is all in the Official Report dealing with my Amendment No. 49B. It cannot be escaped that some of the teaching in these booklets condones, if not advocates, such subjects as under-age sex—both heterosexual and homosexual—incest and even bestiality. All the quotations are there for the Committee to read. Furthermore, some of these booklets actively undermine the sanctity of marriage.
4.30 p.m.
I agree that sex education is necessary, but I very much hope that if the noble Baroness decides to withdraw this amendment and to redraft it she will include a proposal on the lines that sex education should be given within the context of enduring family relations. With that reservation, it gives me great pleasure to support the amendment.
Lord Auckland: Although this is a wide-ranging amendment, I believe that there is much merit in it. The three most important parts of the amendment are diet, hygiene and accident prevention. I believe that those subjects are more important than what we were discussing recently—political education.
Some members of the Committee may have seen on "Newsnight" last night a horrific item from Edinburgh regarding AIDS and the use of needles. The programme was most disturbing. I believe that the whole question of hygiene in schools needs to be highlighted far more than it is. That applies also to diet. There are many qualified young dieticians in this country who could usefully go round the schools and give advice—no more than that.
I must declare an interest in accident prevention as an honorary vice-president for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. It is in the schools that accident prevention in the home, on the farm, and so on, can be taught. Therefore, while I think that the amendment is a little widely drawn, the principle of it should be carefully considered by the Government.
Lord Porritt: I support this amendment. As an ancient medico and way down the batting list I feel that it has an awful lot of good common sense and a message of health that we have not heard here for a long time. Most points have been brought out already, but I should like to put two very minor points that I believe to be of importance because they refer to teaching children.
Children love a good many things. They are terribly fond of sport and of machines and toys of all kinds. The subject of health should be taught by the proper people and on that basis it could be made intensely interesting to 80 per cent. of all children. There is nothing more beautiful than the human body. There is nothing that has come up to it in this world. We have never got anywhere near it. On that aspect alone, children can be interested for years and years. If one is talking about machines, you will not find a machine that comes anywhere near the human body.
Therefore, I believe that there is a great basis for being able to teach what the noble Baroness, Lady
776
Masham, put forward. I thoroughly agree with her principle. It would not need to be a compulsory subject, because it would be so intensely interesting. Four out of five children would fall for it and go to the classes all the time. The Government would be well advised to take on this amendment at this time when there is an Education Bill and a chance of putting something worth while into the curriculum.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: As an ex-teacher may I add a few words? I shall not keep the Committee for more than a minute or two. Having spent a lifetime teaching academic subjects, I cannot imagine anything that is more important to teach than the subjects named in this amendment. They appear to me to deal with realities in a way that a great deal that is taught in our schools does not. I support the amendment with all the strength in my power.
Baroness Young: No one can have listened to the proposals behind this amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the support that she has received from all parts of the Committee without being conscious of the strength of feeling on this amendment throughout the Committee. I therefore approach what I have to say, bearing in mind the strictures we have had from the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Annan, on the preceding amendment, with trepidation.
I address my remarks to my noble friends on this side of the Committee because this is, after all, a Government Bill and I suggest we look at the basic principles behind it and what it is we are trying to achieve. The Bill is based on a White Paper entitled Better Schools, published for extensive public discussion and setting out a number of fundamental principles about the education system, including how the curriculum is to be managed.
We have had several debates on this subject, and I think it would not be unfair if I said that there is broad agreement throughout the Committee that there should be a major responsibility for the local education authority, the school governors, the head teacher and the teachers. There has been argument on precisely how those responsibilities should be balanced, but the fact is that, basically, we are agreed on this. What the amendment says, in effect, is: "Forget about all that. We are going to issue nationally, from the centre, a prescription about certain subjects which we have decided are more important than all the other subjects. We are not going to prescribe English, mathematics, modern languages, history, geography, the sciences, new technology, engineering, computing or anything else, but we are going to pick on these subjects".
The subjects in the amendment are important. I recognise that. However, we have to decide as a matter of principle whether we want to move down the path of a national education system—and this would have to be prescribed nationally—or whether we want to continue with our devolved system of education. That basically is the principle behind this debate. If we are to move down the road of a nationally prescribed system, we would all have voted for the first amendment on the second Marshalled List, moved by my noble friend Lord Beloff who characteristically

777
made out the case for it, if I may say so, very well indeed. But the Committee decided not to support that amendment. We are now coming back to a series of other amendments saying that these subjects must be prescribed.
Let us consider what the amendment says. It states:
"The articles of government for every school [in the country] shall provide for the teaching of courses of health education".
That includes:
"basic anatomy, first aid and nursing skills, sex education and child care, diet and hygiene, accident prevention and teaching on the dangers of drug, tobacco and alcohol abuse.".
If we put those subjects into the school curriculum resources will be required, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, rightly said. Teachers will be required who are very skilled in those subjects. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has already pointed out some of the dangers. I was in my place when he moved his amendment late on Tuesday night, and he pointed out the dangers of sex education, which he did not like and which is included in this amendment.
The great danger is that unless there is a nationally prescribed, detailed curriculum which is laid down for every school in the country we are liable to get variation. Let us face it, there will be variations on a great many of these subjects. For example, in the case of diet, how many people today believe one should be a vegetarian? Now that may be right, and I am not arguing against it, but if one is going to lay it down in the curriculum one has to decide what it is that one is in fact determining that people should eat. I think, therefore, that we may be going down a quite difficult path. I think your Lordships need to think very carefully about the principle and the detail of this Bill before making up its mind to vote on this amendment.
I take very seriously the point behind the amendment, and the Government are doing something about these questions. On gage 20 of the White Paper it says that the curriculum ought to:
"provide moral education, physical education and health education".
The Government have already said about the curriculum studies from 5 to 16 that health education essential for pupils' physical and moral wellbeing may be promoted through the medium of topic work subjects in the curriculum or special courses.
When we look at the subject of drugs, which I think is a very serious issue today, it can be seen that on 30th December 1985 it was agreed that all 96 local education authorities in England have been allocated a share of the £2 million to be devoted next year to the education support grants programme tackling drug misuse. The money, 70 per cent. of it from Government grant, will enable local education authorities to appoint or second a full-time member of staff from April 1986 to stimulate and co-ordinate action within the education service and other agencies and to take other appropriate action in the light of local circumstances. So the Government are already playing a part in the education service in tackling the problem of drugs.
We are all very well aware of the campaign against smoking, and there is great concern about what I understand is now an increasing problem, which is that of children buying alcoholic drinks from
778
supermarkets below the age at which they would be allowed to buy drinks in a restaurant or a pub. It is a very serious matter. I should like to suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and her friends that they, too, should think very carefully about just what pressing this amendment would mean. It would drive a coach and horses through this Bill. It would make it much more difficult to resist other amendments which people may feel they should put down; for example, that everybody should be obliged to study computing—I think a very good case could be made out for that today—or English or mathematics. In fact, one could make out a case for the national curriculum.
I think one must remember that in the Bill we are making arrangements for the curriculum to be determined by the local education authority and by the school governors. The school governors now include a good proportion of parent governors who, under the terms of the Bill, will be trained. There is an opportunity given for a special parents' day, when all matters of the curriculum may be raised. With this Bill we are entering a new situation, and I think it is one that your Lordships ought to consider carefully. Before we have even had an opportunity for it to be tried to see how it can work, we ought not to be moving amendments which actually go against the long traditions of British education. The principles in this Bill are intended to enhance our traditional principles of education and make them work better. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to thank all noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have supported this amendment. At this stage I do not want to waste your Lordships' time because there are many more amendments yet to come, but I should like to say that I do not think that this country takes seriously enough the very important matter of prevention—a stitch in time saves nine. There is a very serious crisis situation that has now arisen because of drugs and AIDS, and, of course, because of the expense on the National Health Service of which we are all aware.
I cannot accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about mathematics, because I do not know of a school that does not teach mathematics. Health concerns every single living person in this country. It is something which matters to us all from the cradle to the grave. Health applies to everyone, but everyone does not have to learn how to use a computer. Computing is a different matter altogether.
When I moved the amendment I said that I had done so in a rather detailed way so that people could understand what lay behind it. The noble Baroness said that there was a provision which read "may" provide. There is a big difference in legislation between "may" and "shall". I agree with the movers of the last amendment (the one before mine) that the time has perhaps come for us to put more emphasis on change. The time has come for change. I do not think that this country takes seriously enough the health provision for society. I shall bring this amendment back in a different form at Report stage. At the moment I am pleased to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: I think that this may be a convenient time to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Lebanon: Terrorism and British Interests
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on British interests in the Lebanon and terrorism which is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Renton. The Statement is as follows:
"The British Ambassador to Lebanon, Mr. John Gray, reported that three bodies were found near Beirut earlier this morning. Pinned to one of the bodies was a notice claiming that they had been executed as "CIA spies" by an organisation calling itself the Arab Fedayeen. Mr. Gray is urgently trying to arrange positive identification of the bodies. As the House will know, Mr. Aleck Collett, a British employee of UNRWA, was kidnapped in Lebanon on 25th March 1985. Two British citizens, Mr. Leigh Douglas and Mr. Philip Padfield, were kidnapped on 28th March this year and Mr. Brian Keenan of dual British-Irish nationality was kidnapped in Beirut on 11th April. The House will wish to express to the relatives of the kidnap victims their sympathy in the terrible anxiety they are now undergoing after all the acute stress to which they have already been subjected. Further information will of course be given to the next of kin as soon as this is received.
"Mr. Gray has also reported that another British citizen was kidnapped earlier this morning in West Beirut on his way to the airport. So far we have not received any claim for responsibility of his abduction. The ambassador is making inquiries with the authorities in Beirut and with community leaders.
"Last week, Mr. Gray repeated and reinforced his standing advice to British citizens against remaining in West Beirut and other areas in Lebanon where British citizens are at particular risk. The embassy have taken all reasonable security precautions to protect Mr. Gray and his small staff. We have asked him urgently for his further advice on staffing of the British Embassy and the safety of the remaining British community.
"My right honourable and learned friend held an urgent meeting with his European colleagues in Paris this morning to discuss terrorism. A further meeting will be held early next week to discuss implementation of the recommendations of experts.
"I understand that a suspected explosive device was found this morning at Terminal One of Heathrow Airport. The terminal was evacuated while the device was made safe. A woman was arrested by the police.
"This morning four rockets hit the ambassador's unoccupied residence in West Beirut. Mr. Gray was
780
not present at the time and he reports that there were no casualties, although some damage was caused to the building. No claim for responsibility has been made for this attack.
"The House will wish to pay tribute to Mr. Gray and his staff, who are doing their work in Lebanon with skill and courage in dangerous conditions."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement. We also send our sympathies to the families of those who have been killed in Lebanon. We condemn absolutely those who committed these terrible crimes. Would the noble Baroness not agree, however, that this is the first unhappy result of Britain's involvement in the Libyan operation? In the light of this, what steps are the Government taking to protect British citizens in the Middle East, especially the 5,000 British people in Libya itself? Have they been given advice by Her Majesty's Government as to what they should do in the present crisis? Can the noble Baroness say what is the significance of the two British warships that are reported to be sailing in the direction of Sicily? Can she say whether these are connected with the current crisis, and whether they are related to any possibility of evacuation?
Can the noble Baroness also say what is the latest position following the discovery of the bomb at Heathrow? There are reports that the airport is closed down completely. We should like to know whether this is true. On the EC meeting, can she say what the Foreign Ministers' attitude is to our part in this matter? Are they for it, or against it? Does she not now agree that the Government's actions have placed British citizens at home and abroad in unpredictable danger?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we on these Benches unconditionally condemn and abhor terrorist acts wherever they may be committed, whoever they may be committed against, and whoever they may be committed by. We join with the Labour Opposition and the Government in sending our sympathy to the next of kin of the victims, and our good wishes to British and United States diplomats all over the world and to British and United States subjects working abroad all over the world. The certainty that something like these events would ensue must have been present in the minds of the Government along with all the other factors when they took the decision to allow the American bombers to fly from British airfields. We have an opportunity tomorrow to discuss the wisdom or unwisdom of that decision. For my part, I do not believe that there is very much more that can properly be said today.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his expression of sympathy, shared by all of us, to the relatives of those who have died in Beirut. I also join with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his utter condemnation of terrorism wherever it may occur. Both noble Lords have asked me a general question as to whether or not the Statement, with its tragic news, is a consequence of the events earlier in the week and

781
particularly the use of the air bases in Britain by American planes. Our answer to this is one that is quite unequivocal. It is a war against terrorism—and war it is. It is harsh and it is uncompromising. It is not of our making, and the brutal and criminal disregard for human life of those who practise the barbaric trade of terrorism is something to be condemned. That is why, having exhausted all other forms at our disposition, we gave our support to the United States action against Libya. It is a terrible fact that there is this terrorism, but we cannot allow our hands to be tied by kidnappers or others who are threatening terrorist actions.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me what advice had been given to British citizens. I can confirm that our ambassador in Beirut recently reinforced his advice to British nationals in West Beirut that they should leave unless they had compelling reasons to remain. In the meantime, we have told Britons in Libya to stay calm, to keep their heads down, to restrict their movements and to keep in touch with the Italian embassy, which looks after British interests.
As regards the bomb at Heathrow, I understand that a suspected explosive device was detected this morning at Terminal 1. I cannot confirm the rumour that the noble Lord has heard. If I have any information about that I shall, of course, let him and the House know.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked me about the meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers which my right honourable friend attended in Paris this morning. My right honourable friend insisted upon the need for action, not just diplomatic initiatives, to counter state-directed terrorism. No official statement was released, but the Foreign Ministers will meet again in Luxembourg on Monday. We hope that on that occasion they will agree to the recommendations of the working group of experts on terrorism established in January. The House may be glad to know that the Dutch Foreign Minister, who is president, stated that no Foreign Minister had been aware of the imminence of the United States action against Libya during the previous meeting of Foreign Ministers in The Hague on Monday.
I think that this answers the questions that have been raised by the two noble Lords. What is important in this matter, I believe, is that we recognise that we cannot give in to the threats of terrorists. We must continue to do what we believe to be right.
Lord Parry: My Lords, in view of the noble Baroness's advice to British citizens in Libya to keep their heads down, can she give any specific information about employees of oil companies, many of whom originate from the oil refining areas of this country such as my own native area in Pembrokeshire? Can she say whether they are in situ in their jobs or whether they have been removed to the military camps that might be targets, as once threatened?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as regards the British community in Libya, we have no reports of any British casualties. Mr. Dunnachie, who is in the British interests section in the Italian embassy in Tripoli, is in very close touch with British community leaders and
782
with his diplomatic colleagues, especially the Italians. Indeed, we are very grateful for Italian help that we have received. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, is right in saying that we have been unable to offer normal consular protection to the British community since May 1984. There are approximately 5,000 people working there. We understand that one British resident has been detained, but I cannot give any more information at this time. That is the latest information that I have on the position of British citizens in Libya. I can only confirm again the general advice that has been given to them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that since the end of 1975 there have been regular meetings of European Community Ministers of the Interior? In view of the fact that the terrorist situation in Europe is now, quite clearly, escalating, is it proposed that there should be a special meeting of these Ministers in the near future, or not? If the noble Baroness is not able to answer that question this afternoon, perhaps she will do so tomorrow.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that there are regular meetings. As the noble Lord said at the end of his remarks, we shall be having a debate tomorrow. I would prefer to leave any comment on this particular matter until tomorrow, when I think that it would be more helpful to set it in the context of everything else that is happening.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many Libyan nationals there are in this country? Is there any estimate of how many of them are dissidents and how many of them are supporters of this remarkable regime?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not have the exact number of Libyans in this country. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, following the assassination of WPC Fletcher two years ago we did take a number of very tough measures against Libyans. We broke off diplomatic relations; we closed the People's Bureau; we imposed a strict visa regime that has had the effect of limiting the number of Libyans entering this country very severely; and we banned, of course, new defence contracts. These measures are of course still in force and are looked at very carefully.
5 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say—I do not think it was quite clear from her Statement—whether the perpetrators of these three vicious murders made any statement suggesting that they were a reprisal for the Tripoli raid?
Baroness Young: My Lords, no. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is quite right. All that we know is, as the Statement says, that pinned to one of the bodies was a notice claiming that they had been executed by an organisation calling itself the Arab Fedayeen.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Baroness made a rather curious statement during her answer to a supplementary question. She quoted the Dutch

783
Foreign Minister as saying that none of the Foreign Ministers meeting on Monday knew of the American decision. Yet yesterday the Prime Minister in her speech stated that she had consulted with all the Ministers concerned before taking the decision to allow the F-111s to leave this country. Can the noble Baroness tell us this? Did Sir Geoffrey Howe, the Foreign Minister, know? Had he been consulted by the Prime Minister? Did he know that the permission had been given to the Americans to use bases in this country on Monday afternoon, or did he not know?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has misunderstood what I said in answering an earlier question. I shall re-read it in order that there shall be no mistake about it. I said that the Dutch Foreign Minister stated that no Foreign Minister—that is at the European Community Foreign Ministers' meeting in Paris—had been aware of the imminence of the United States action against Libya during the previous meeting of Foreign Ministers in The Hague on Monday. The point that I was making, which is a very important point, is that there were no recriminations over this matter.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sorry, but that does not answer my question. Of course I understood what was said in the Statement. But how did the Dutch Foreign Minister know what was in Sir Geoffrey Howe's mind? What we ought to be told is whether Sir Geoffrey Howe did know—as is implied in the Prime Minister's Statement yesterday—that the decision had been taken when he was in discussions with his fellow Foreign Ministers on Monday and when he signed the communiqué asking for restraint on all sides.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, comes to read Hansard he will see that I answered his original question. He has now raised a subsidiary question about this. I can only say that the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, for his part had no confirmation of the President's decision to authorise the raids that night—that is to say on Monday night—until his return to London and the meeting with the Prime Minister. There is therefore no question of the Foreign Secretary having negotiated in bad faith the text of The Hague statement. That of course is the point that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made in the debate yesterday afternoon. There is no difference.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government are giving any advice to British citizens about travelling to other parts of the Middle East besides the Lebanon and Libya?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have not issued any official advice about travelling to other parts of the Middle East. We have only given advice quite specifically both about the Lebanon and about Libya.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in this House suggested that there was a connection between these crimes that have recently been committed against British subjects
784
and the use of British bases. I notice that in her reply the noble Baroness did not deny that. She took her stand rather on the proposition that events of this kind must be expected in what had become a war.
If the noble Baroness is right, does not that mean that the action taken by the United States Government—and with our help—will be one item in the chain of a bloody tit-for-tat? Where do we go from there?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think that that is the conclusion which can be drawn from what I have said. I shall of course have a look again at what I have said and indeed at what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has said. The point I was making—and it is a very serious point—is that we ourselves as a country have suffered from terrorism. So of course have the United States, and very many other countries. It is a war in that sense which is being perpetrated. We did not believe, and we do not believe, tragic and terrible as it is that three people should have died, that we could be held, as it were, to ransom by kidnappers and terrorists in fighting this war. We must continue to do what we believe to be right. After all, there have been many instances—I could give the noble Lord a list of them—of terrorist activities and of the thousands of people who have died as a consequence.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would clear up possibly a fairly minor confusion which arises in my mind from her Statement. As your Lordships will recall, the Statement combined two episodes; one was a series of three brutal murders in the Lebanon; and the other was a bomb episode at Heathrow. Does combining these two episodes in the one Statement mean that there is any connection between them apart from the general connection of terrorism as a whole?
Baroness Young: My Lords, no. Nor did I suggest that there was any connection between them. But the Government felt it was right that the House should have all the information about all these various activities which happen to have taken place.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, can my noble friend remind the House of this: am I not right in thinking that the hostages were kidnapped almost a month ago?
Baroness Young: My Lords, yes. Two citizens were kidnapped on 24th March this year, and one—Mr. Keenan, who is of dual British-Irish nationality—was kidnapped on 11th April. My noble friend Lord Home is therefore quite right in saying that the kidnapping took place long before the events of last Monday.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us are rather surprised and concerned at the expressions which seem to be very prevalent at the moment that this country has been dragged into the "front line" in this war? Would she not agree that we have been in the front line for many years in this war? Would she not also agree, and would she accept from me, that in this war between terrorism and the forces of civilisation many of us would not wish to be anywhere else but in the front line?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in saying that we have been in the front line of this war for some time and indeed a list of terrorist activities by Libyans going back to 1979 makes this quite clear. It is a terrible war but I think in principle that it is quite right that we should take a stand in this country and a lead with other countries in Europe in trying to get international co-operation to stamp it out.

Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Education Bill [H.L.]
5.10 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing moved Amendment No. 54:
Before Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Copies of the curricula.
. It shall be the duty of the governing body of every school to prepare up to date written statements of the school's curricula and to make copies available to parents on demand.").
The noble Lord said: I shall not detain the Committee for long on this point. I know that the Government are anxious to get on, and they have an easy way to get on, because this amendment is so much in accord with the objects of the Bill that they have only to nod their heads and say yes and we can get on to the next business. The object of the Bill is to improve relationships, strengthen the government of the schools and encourage parents to take a closer interest. The one place where the parents can take a closer interest is in the syllabus.
There has been a scheme from those who are on the extreme political Left to write their own syllabuses. Ms Christine Parker, who is head of social studies at the Lillian Bayliss School in Kennington, says, "You write your own syllabus, assess it and mark it". The hard left have also, when they have any control over schools, tended to make economies not in the administration of schools, not in the more obvious places where you could economise without affecting the standards of education of the children, but in the denial of school books. This gives people of that political persuasion a chance of writing their own syllabuses and riding their own hobby horses. Social studies is a subject in which they glorify, and they tend to concentrate on the rights of the children and the rights of the citizen and very little on their duties and responsibilities.
It is right that syllabuses should be broadly written. I am not at this stage pressing for a centralised syllabus. But we have to recognise that many countries, and particularly France, have a centralised syllabus. Children can go from school to school; you can move your children, and in the same term they can pick up exactly in the same place at the new school. There are many advantages in flexibility.
The Secretary of State suggested that we may come towards a more centralised syllabus, but we are just
786
saying in this amendment, "Please have courage and make the governing body produce a syllabus, and that syllabus should then be available to the parents". That must be in the interests of education. When a child comes home, parents rightly try to build bridges of understanding at the evening meal and on other occasions. They ask, "What did you learn today? What were you doing?" They try to encourage their children to see films in accord with the history part of the syllabus they are studying or to make experiments in the garden shed if they are studying science or the mechanical sciences, and generally to encourage them.
If a syllabus is available to parents, they will know better when schools are running off the rails and feel more in accord and closer to the school, the governing body of the school and the teachers undertaking the teaching of their children. I am sure that the Government will be able to accept this amendment, although they have not been terribly forthcoming on a number of others that we have put forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: In putting my name to this amendment I recognised that the wording was tentative. I suspect that my noble friend the Minister may say that the provisions of the Bill as they now stand meet the purpose of this amendment. I suspect that the word that we should have used is "syllabus" rather than "curriculum".
The purpose of the amendment is essentially twofold, as my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said. First, it is to enable parents and pupils the better to anticipate the content of a course to be followed during a forthcoming session, be it a term or a year, and also to help parents and pupils to assess the extent to which that course is meeting the objectives set out at the beginning of that session.
One might ask whether such an amendment is necessary. This Bill is all about parents and increasing accountability to parents. As a parent I must say adamantly yes, it is necessary. I think back to my children's education a few years ago. At the local comprehensive school my son was meant to be studying English literature in the critical GCE-CSE year. In the whole first year and almost the first part of the first term of the second, all they did in English literature was two essays on rock music. That was by way of written work in English literature in the land of Shakespeare, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, and so on.
So far as maths is concerned, one of my other children in the same critical two years of GCE-CSE work had a teacher who did not, so far as I could make out, believe in teaching maths. He set as homework essays on green ping-pong balls. When I asked at a parents' evening what green ping-pong balls had to do with maths, I was told that the teacher was trying to get the children to think differently. I asked, "What about trying to get them to think mathematically?"!
The example is to show that this amendment is to make sure that parents and pupils can anticipate what should be covered in a course, rather than run into problems and then look at them retrospectively, by which time perhaps months, if not a year, of a school's time—what should be a precious time, providing a child with vital ingredients of education—has been

787
wasted, and it may be too late for that child to make up those misspent months or even a year.
I currently know of one young person in a local comprehensive school at the beginning of the first term of the second year of A-levels who still does not know the full range of books to be studied for the exam. There are cases where this amendment is necessary. It is perfectly feasible from the point of view of teachers to plan ahead and to give an outline of what they intend to do. The purpose is within the spirit of the Bill which is to enable greater accountability to parents by the schools that are responsible for their children's education.
The Earl of Swinton: The effect of this amendment would be to require the governors of all maintained schools to make available a statement of their school's curriculum on demand. My noble friends have explained, however, that what is sought is a very detailed statement; in effect, the syllabuses the pupils will study while they are at school, so that, for example, parents wishing to avoid certain views being taught to their children can make an informed choice of school based on sufficient knowledge.
The Government have sympathy with that view. The Education (School Information) Regulations 1981, made under the 1980 Act, already require the publication of particular facts about each school by the LEA or the governors of a voluntary aided school, as the case may be; those facts include particulars of the curriculum for different age groups, and of arrangements for matters such as curricula choices. Indeed, we believe that Schedule 2 of those regulations already effectively does what the wording of the amendment would achieve, at least as far as choice of school is concerned, although in the case of county and controlled schools the existing duty is on the LEA and not the governors.
As I said, however, my noble friends who have proposed this amendment want to go further than what is required by those regulations. They are looking for the detailed syllabus, and not just a statement of the curriculum, to be available to parents on demand, although in this respect their wording does not seem quite right. I doubt whether the courts would construe
"written statements of the school's curricula"
as a detailed description of the syllabuses and teaching materials to be employed.
I look round at my noble friends this time because I have happy news for them. I am very much attracted by the general principle behind the amendment. If a parent is sufficiently interested to want to go beyond the generality of what is now said by schools about their curriculum in order to learn in much more detail what his or her child will be taught, it should be possible for them to do so. It would be patronising to suggest that such matters should be left to the professionals, and deeply worrying if the parent suspected as my noble friend Lady Cox said, that political or other ideas which were repugnant to him were being presented in a biased manner. While the principle is attractive, however, the way in which that principle is stated has to be got right so that it meets every eventuality.
For these reasons, my noble friends' aims may be better achieved by regulation so that revision in the
788
light of experience would be a good deal easier. It seems likely that the Secretary of State's current regulation-making powers under the Education Act 1980 are sufficient to allow him to make regulations in this vein. I am prepared to undertake that the Government will actively explore the practicality of securing in this way the open access to school curricula and syllabuses which my noble friends wish to see. I must add that we shall also wish to consult our education partners about any such change, as it goes beyond the consultations that preceded the 1980 Act and this Bill. However, I hope that my noble friends will be prepared, in the light of my assurances and with that encouragement, to withdraw this amendment and to allow the Government to pursue the further action that I have outlined.
Viscount Trenchard: I wonder whether my noble friend, before my other noble friend presses or withdraws his amendment, can give some idea of how long this process of consulting over the regulations will take and whether it will be possible, while the Bill is still in this House, to get something slightly firmer than he has told us today?
The Earl of Swinton: We shall continue as quickly as we can with the consultations. I cannot give an undertaking that it will be in this House because we seem to be getting later and later with this Bill. It may be here before we finish the Bill in this House. But, as I said in my answer, my right honourable friend's current regulation-making powers under this Act may be sufficient as they stand. But we wish to consult and I hope it will be as soon as possible. I cannot give an absolute promise that it will be before the Bill has left your Lordships' House, but I hope that it will be.
Lord Orr-Ewing: I thank my noble friend. At least we are pushing at a door that has a chink of it open. I and my noble friends would like to consider the regulations as they now stand to see whether they are in a form sufficiently detailed to cover the points that we have made in these short speeches, provided that my noble friend the Minister will press on in the meantime. If this is delayed there may be time, if not at Report perhaps at Third Reading, to see whether it is necessary to press again an amendment. In the meantime, we shall study the regulations and come back to my noble friend should we not be happy with his assurances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Discipline.]:
[Amendment No. 55 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 22, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (1A), (1B) and (1C) below,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the permission of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 62, which contains the guts of the change which is proposed, and to Amendment No.

789
99, which provides the necessary definition of the phrase "corporal punishment". I shall try to avoid a detailed historical summary of events over the past four years, since on 25th February 1982 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that corporal punishment in school was degrading treatment and therefore in contravention of the agreement on human rights. But it is necessary for the sake of the Committee and to ensure that we are all talking about the same thing to say something about the events of the last four years.
The Government, although rather slowly, recognised that the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights was binding on this country. Indeed we signed the convention in 1951. After a gap of 17 months in 1983 the Government published a consultative paper on corporal punishment, but I have not used those words in quite the same way, and that legislation was introduced in another place in January 1985.
In introducing that legislation at Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Education and Science acknowledged and proclaimed that there were only three ways in which this country could adhere to its obligations under this international treaty. The first would be to abolish corporal punishment completely in schools. The second would have been what is called a dual system, to say that some schools should allow corporal punishment and some not. The Secretary of State, rightly in my view, said that there would be enormous practical difficulties to that solution. The third was the option taken by the Government and used in the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill which provided that there should be an exemption in all schools for those parents and pupils over the age of 16 who gave notice of their objection to corporal punishment, and it therefore could not be used against them.
As the Committee will recall, in July last year this House at Report stage passed amendments to the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill. They were complicated amendments as my noble friend Lady David said in her speech. There was a complicated list of amendments, but the intention was clear. It was clear that the option of exemption—of having some pupils in schools who could be beaten and others sitting next to them who could not—was quite unacceptable. It proved to be unacceptable to the House. After three weeks, the Government recognised the force of that argument or of the situation in which they found themselves and withdrew the Bill completely.
In response to a question from my noble friend on 28th October, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said that in this country we honour our international treaty obligations and we shall honour this one. In saying that he clearly recognised that this was an international treaty obligation.
Let us return to the three options open to the Government in dealing with this international treaty obligation. The House has rejected and the Government have abandoned the option of exemption. Unless I have to I shall not enter into the arguments why exemption would have been an
790
unsatisfactory option. The Secretary of State rightly ruled out the option of a dual system. If we are to comply with our international treaty obligations we are therefore left with only one option, the option of complete abolition of corporal punishment in our schools. I say that not as a statement of opinion from myself but because it follows ineluctably from the statements made by the Government and from the analysis made by the Secretary of State.
That is the position in law. It is a matter of amazement to us that the Government have not taken the opportunity of a Bill that covers a wide range of educational subjects—which especially in Clauses 20 to 22 contains a detailed prescription about discipline in schools—to fulfill their obligations under international law in the only way effectively open to them. We are offering the Government a lifeline with this amendment. We are offering them an opportunity to comply, after more than four years, with the obligations in a way that has been shown to conform with the sentiments of the Committee and to be the only option truly open to us.
It is not just those noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment who feel in that way. Virtually everybody engaged in the education process either explicity believes in the abolition of corporal punishment in our schools or agrees that the abolition of corporal punishment is a better alternative than the exemption proposed in the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill last year.
5.30 p.m.
Specifically, the National Union of Teachers, the Educational Institute for Scotland, the National Association of Headteachers, the Secondary Heads Association—virtually all of the organisations, medical and psychiatric, concerned with these matters are in favour of the total abolition of corporal punishment in our schools. Of the others, the Professional Association of Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Society of Education Officers—and I could go on; but I shall not. All of these recognise that abolition is a better alternative than exemption and that this is now the way in which we should proceed. Not only that, but when the matter was debated in this House last summer there were 19 out of 104 local education authorities in England and Wales and six out of 12 local education authorities in Scotland who had already abolished corporal punishment in their schools.
In the short time since that Bill, the 19 has gone up to 24 and the six has gone up to eight. There has been no suggestion at any time that any local education authority which had already abolished corporal punishment should return to corporal punishment as a discipline. I have deliberately concentrated so far on the issues of the treaty obligations of the Government and on the virtually universal support for abolition of corporal punishment among those concerned with education in our schools. But I must say as well that I feel very strongly personally about this issue. I feel very strongly that the words "degrading treatment" which are used in the convention on human rights and which

791
were upheld by the European Court of Human Rights are exactly the right words.
It is degrading for adults to beat children. There can be no other description of that practice. That practice is one that I suffered myself at school and I know exactly what it means. That practice is one that breaks down the relationship of trust and mutual self-confidence which in my view is absolutely essential if our schools are to continue to provide the education suitable for living in an adult world. Corporal punishment is a form of violence. Violence encourages violence. It gives those who administer it and those who suffer by it the impression that it is an acceptable response to other ills and to other violence in our society. That cannot be acceptable as a serious element in our school discipline.
Corporal punishment is wrong in itself. It does not work. We have a clear and perfect opportunity here to put matters right, to put the Government in the right in the light of their international obligations. I very much hope that the Committee will take it by passing these amendments.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I was beaten quite frequently at school, but I am not at all violent. Most of my friends were beaten at school, but I do not know any who were violent. With due respect to the noble Lord, I really think that he is exaggerating a great deal. What does he mean by "corporal punishment"? Does he call a slap on the hand of a small boy given by a mistress corporal punishment? How are you going to have discipline in schools? I do not think that you will get it by writing out lines. Surely, it would be a very bad time now to weaken discipline when juvenile crime is so great and is increasing all the time. There appears to be very little discipline among young people today. My local village—and I may have said this before—five or six months ago was featured on television as the most burgled village in England, though my property was not burgled. The extraordinary thing is that those concerned were all young men—and some of them were caught—who were all in good jobs earning good money yet they were behaving in the most appalling way. They were extremely ill-disciplined.
I really cannot support such an amendment and the noble Lord's speech on corporal punishment. I remember the EEC Bill as it was a year or so ago. It would be quite crazy that one boy's parents may say that their son should not receive corporal punishment while another boy's parents may say that he should. You cannot have that. You either have to abolish corporal punishment altogether, which I am personally against, or you do not; but you certainly cannot have it as I have just described.
Lord Beloff: I hope that the Committee although moved, perhaps moved to tears, by the recollections of Lord McIntosh's painful childhood, will not go on to believe that it should legislate in the light of that experience. I was more fortunate in my schooling, although it is true that on one occasion on which I had cut PT in order to go to an exhibition of paintings by Picasso, I was told that if I had been a little younger I would have been beaten. But, in fact, I was not.
But it seems to me, looking at this amendment on the face of it, that it is the most extraordinary thing to
792
put into a Bill; because we are dealing with the powers of headteachers to enforce discipline and we are asked to include the proviso, "provided that such measures do not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". It seems to me that if I were a headteacher, the suggestion in a Bill, in an Act of Parliament, that I was capable of submitting my pupils to inhuman or degrading treatment would be extremely insulting. Noble Lords opposite in the course of the teachers' dispute have frequently said that one of the reasons is that the teaching profession feels itself unjustly criticised. Nothing that has been said in criticism of the teaching profession is anything like as outrageous in its implications as the suggestion that British headteachers are capable of subjecting their pupils to inhuman and degrading punishments.
It is of course correct—and I would not dispute the legal point with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—that, given the convention to which we acceded and given the extraordinary interpretation which the European Court has placed upon it in the matter of school discipline, we may be faced with the alternative either of abolishing corporal punishment by law or, as I would prefer, of giving notice of denouncing that convention. I say that not because I am particularly in favour of corporal punishment. If I were a headmaster or indeed in the teaching profession I doubt whether I should myself be a very strong advocate of it; but it seems to me that we should not allow—and I have said this in this House before—a court of jurists to intervene in a matter so necessarily domestic to a particular country as the way in which discipline is maintained in its schools and to intervene by stretching language in the way in which they have stretched it; because, after all, we are not talking about something which is very recent. Corporal punishment has been known in one form or another in schools as long as there have been schools—long before the time of the painful childhood of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
We are asked on this say-so to do something which many teachers would like to do—perhaps now, indeed, as the noble Lord has said, most teachers would like to do. But it seems to me an extraordinary basis on which to legislate in a Bill which is concerned with the general welfare of education. I hope that the Committee will not accept this amendment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I rise in support of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. All my life I have been against corporal punishment in schools. I think that everything he said about it is absolutely correct. Naturally, like everybody else, I have nieces and nephews and there are lots of families I have had connections with. I have been chairman of an education committee. I have had a great deal of experience. I was never beaten—I suppose I might have been, but I never was—and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said.
Corporal punishment is being given up more and more every year by school teachers. They do not want it. It is no way to train children or persuade them that they are wrong to treat them in this violent manner. I cannot understand my noble friend Lord Beloff saying that this is something which does not apply in an Education Bill. We are dealing in this Bill with all sorts

793
of conditions in which education is being organised in this country. The idea that in the year 1986 we should still go on thinking that this is the way to discipline children is incredible. It is so out of date that it does not seem to me to make sense.
I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said because he said it much better than I could, but corporal punishment is getting less and less and year by year many schools are abolishing it. In my opinion, it has no real support, except perhaps from those who are very old-fashioned in thinking that it is a good way of dealing with children. Had I had children I should absolutely hate to think of them being beaten at any point, and nor would I dream of ever beating any child. I think it is a most degrading and hopeless way of dealing with children.
You must have discipline, but you can have it by talking, by demonstration or by anything you like apart from violence. I hope very much that the Committee will support the noble Lord in this amendment if he presses it. Apart from everything else, and the fact that it fits in with our European colleagues, corporal punishment seems to me an uncivilised way of dealing with children. To do away with it simply shows that we have a civilised idea of education.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I apologise in advance if some of the things that I want to say on this occasion are a little muddled. I had so many ideas coming up from Sussex in the train, but the Southern Region is not as smooth as it might be and so in some places I found that I could not read my own writing. That, as an ex-schoolmaster, I find bad.
Also as an ex-schoolmaster, I must say that I have had quite a lot to do with this. I have used corporal punishment as headmaster of a school at a time, years ago now, when I felt (and I do not think I was wrong) that staff and boys expected it of me. But I finally abandoned it. I should like to give you my thoughts about the position nowadays. It seems to me that in a large number of schools corporal punishment is not used any longer because the need to use it is not felt to be there. These are the good schools, schools where there is a good head teacher, a good, caring staff and the pupils come from good, caring families. I would not say it was impossible that a head teacher kept in a dark cupboard somewhere a weapon which has been used at sometime in the past, and there may be dark hints from the children that it is still there, but it has not been used for 20 years and it is highly unlikely that it will be used again.
5.45 p.m.
This is the case, as I say, in the good schools but there are also schools where there is not such a good atmosphere, where staff and pupils are dangerously polarised into the "them and us" syndrome and where discipline is permanently near to breaking-point. In those circumstances, the use of corporal punishment is probably frequent and my feeling is that it is damaging. Research has shown, for example, that cigarette consumption goes up among children who are beaten for smoking; that there is an increase in delinquency, more classroom misbehaviour, more
794
vandalism, lower attendance rates and worse exam results. I am quoting from a research report issued by the University of Wales in 1977.
I feel strongly that the use of the cane tends to increase tension in schools where it already exists, to de-sensitise and sour relations between staff and pupils and to widen and deepen the gulf between them. Furthermore, the children in such schools will know that there are schools where corporal punishment is not used and also that those are the best schools. They will know that their school is not one of them and is thus a bad or a second-rate school and that they are bad or second-rate pupils. Thus they devalue themselves and worsen an already bad position. I should like to say one more thing. They would also know about the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, because, although they are children, they know more than one thinks. That is bound to have the effect of discrediting corporal punishment as a sanction and of discrediting the teachers who use it.
I feel that the climate of opinion has changed greatly in the last 20 years, and I urge your Lordships to bring about a change which, let it be said, all our European neighbours have already brought about, ours being the only country left in Europe that still uses this form of punishment. One last thing: the only occasion on which corporal punishment was reintroduced, having been abolished, was in Nazi Germany.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: As I have put my name down to this amendment, I should like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in the impressive things that she said. I am sure she is right in saying that corporal punishment is being given up in the better schools in this country as year succeeds year. When this subject was last debated we heard from the noble Lord, Lord of Ross of Marnock, and although this Bill is confined to England and Wales, I should like to follow the noble Lord by saying that in Scotland 90 per cent. of the children are no longer subject to this punishment. This Bill hardly matters in so far as Scotland is concerned, except for that poor 10 per cent. who are still subject to this punishment. England and Wales do not have such a good record, and that is what this Bill is concerned with today.
I should like also to say that I am glad to have followed the noble Lord who has just spoken, because he has personal experience as a headmaster, and also to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He and I, only a day or so ago, joined in an amendment, and I am sorry that we are differing today. He, like the noble Lord who moved this amendment, gave his personal experience; and this is a declaration of interest in which both Houses of Parliament sometimes indulge on proper occasions. But in my experience a declaration of interest is more commonly a boast, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, successfully boasted today in his declaration of interest as to what a cultured child he was; he told us of his precocious interest in Picasso. I am sure that none of us doubt that he was an extremely cultured child, but we are glad to have that confirmation.
The noble Lord who opened this debate dealt at length with the European convention and I think I must do so too, because this is crucial to the subject. We ratified that convention in 1951. Cases are first

795
dealt with by the Commission, and only a few reach the European Court when judgment is final. There are three relevant cases which have reached a conclusion already and there are some 40 in the pipeline. That is almost inevitable.
This time last year, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that in his opinion it was 99 to 1 certain that when the next decision comes from the European Court it will condemn all corporal punishment in schools as degrading. The question to my mind is whether, we as a country, are to be put in the position of being so degraded in the view of our friends and neighbours abroad as to be told publicly by an international court of law that we are allowing a degrading punishment in our schools in breach of the convention.
In view of the near certainty of that happening next time, should we not seize the opportunity that the Bill presents to forestall an endless procession of cases which otherwise will inevitably be brought before the court of human rights?
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said when he moved the amendment, the Government had three choices after the Campbell and Cosans case in 1982. There is the course which is laid before you today which is to abolish corporal punishment in schools altogether. There was the course that Sir Keith Joseph quite rightly rejected, of having two kinds of school—one in which a pupil could be beaten and one in which he could not. The third course was the one which Sir Keith adopted last year—to have two kinds of pupil, those whose parents allowed them to be beaten and those who did not. Two courses have been rejected. The idea of having two kinds of school was rejected by Sir Keith Joseph. Last year this House rejected the third kind, which was to have two kinds of pupil.
There remains only one course. There is no choice, unless the Government are to do the unthinkable, which they have repeatedly said that they will not, which is to denounce the convention. The Government have given the clearest indications from time to time, and I think the last occasion was when the noble Earl on the Front Bench replied to a Question from the noble Baroness, Lady David, that the Government had every intention of fulfilling their international obligations. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said about denouncing the treaty, I should like a positive assurance from the Front Bench today that they have no intention of doing any such thing.
I hope that the Government will welcome these amendments as a merciful release from an intolerable position. For those reasons alone, and I have many more, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Lord Jacques: The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, told us that he thought that the European convention should not interfere in what is a domestic matter. I am inclined to agree with that. I believe that by charter and convention we have in Europe placed more restrictions on individual states than the federal government do in America. In America several matters are left to the states whereas we try to inhibit
796
the actions of individual states. I entirely agree with the noble Lord but that is not the question before the Committee. The question before the Committee is whether there should be corporal punishment, regardless of the convention.
I believe on balance that there should not be. Even the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that were he a headmaster he probably would not have it in his school. I definitely would not have it because I believe that if we are to have successful schools there must be a happy atmosphere, an atmosphere of respect on both sides. I found that in management. I think that it is equally important in schools and I would cultivate it. Corporal punishment has no part to play in achieving the kind of atmosphere that is essential to the good management of the school and for good behaviour in the school.
Baroness Masham of Ikon: May I just add one quick word? I believe that children may behave badly at school as a cry for help. Their parents' marriage may be breaking up or there may be other serious problems. The head teacher should discover the real reason for bad behaviour, and therefore I too support the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: The question before us this evening is whether we should beat children or whether we should not. We all feel revulsion when we learn in the media or in newspapers of cases of children being beaten by their parents, their guardians or someone who abducts them. Surely it is a nonsense for us to be reviled by that and yet at the same time consider by official sanction, legally to give authority to some members of our society to beat children in an official capacity.
One of the problems that the Committee faces is that 95 per cent. of its members were probably beaten at school in their youth. I am sure that many of us will turn round and say, "It did not do us any harm, why should it do anybody any harm?" I must profess a certain ambivalence because I went to school in Scotland at a time when the practice was to use the tawse frequently and regularly. I was subjected to it as were all my classmates.
I can remember two of my classmates. They were good, well-behaved children who felt out of things because they saw their peers being beaten as a normal process. Therefore they were naughty so that they would be beaten. They were beaten to such an extent that they were appalled. They cried and were desperately afraid but they faced that because they did not want to feel isolated from their peer group. That is a ridiculous situation to be in.
I am particularly concerned about the alternatives. A number of the Commitee have said that corporal punishment is a form of discipline and punishment that must or must not be allowed. I should like to pose the question differently to the Committee. Surely it is wrong to say that we must have some form of punishment. I can remember my schooldays. It may be that they are not so long ago compared with those of some other noble Lords. I remember a number of my teachers who did not need to use corporal punishment. They did not even need to bring out the belt. I suspect that one or two of them, even if it were

797
against the rules of their union and the education authority, did not have one. They did not need to use the belt or any other form of punishment because they were good teachers.
6 p.m.
Something close to home is the fact that a couple of years ago my wife went back to teaching after 10 years' absence. She found if difficult, as I am sure most teachers do nowadays. She was faced with the dilemma of whether to try to keep control of her class, to exert discipline, or whether to teach the children. For the first year, she thought that her prime task in life was to keep the class under control, to discipline them, and she used all her energies to that end. She, I think, has changed—and I welcome and recognise that change—to the extent that she now thinks in terms of trying to teach the children, to develop their interest, to bring the best out of them, rather than thinking in terms of pure discipline. I am sure that even (dare I say it?) the Mad Monk has that aspiration, but he sometimes does not help his case very well, in believing that what we should try to do is to support the good teachers, to give them every assistance. If we deny the bad teachers the use of corporal punishment, we may give some encouragement to the good teachers and to the good practices in education, which quite clearly demonstrate that if you have a good teacher you do not need corporal punishment—and the very best teachers do not even need any form of punishment at all.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: What the noble Lord has said is perfectly true. I want to reiterate two points that have been made this afternoon, and I shall be very brief. First, it has just been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that if children are bad you have to look in the home. From many years of having had dealings with children, I know this so well. They are not bad because of anything that happens, or does not happen, at school: they are bad because of what happens at home.
Secondly, I think on reflection that this business of corporal punishment is a kind of curious relic or survival of the medieval mortification of the flesh, and we have advanced beyond that. I am thinking of some other words of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she was speaking to her own amendment about the teaching of such things as the care of the body in schools. I think that we should be thinking along those lines. We have reached a stage in evolution where we must realise that our bodies are very beautiful and must be cared for, and the suggestion of corporal punishment is a total denial of that and a reversion to medieval ways of thinking.
Baroness Young: I am very conscious, once again, in getting up to speak in reply for the Government to these amendments, of the strength of feeling on this subject in all parts of the Committee; and the matter was very fully debated a year ago on a Government Bill. There is one point which I should like to clear up at the very start of my remarks, and I should like to say what in fact was the European Court's ruling. It is important to remember that it did not call for the abolition of corporal punishment. The European Court of Human Rights has not ruled that corporal
798
punishment is degrading or inhuman: it ruled merely that the philosophical convictions of the parents should be respected. That is the position in which we find ourselves.
We come to this whole question of discipline—and that is what Clause 20 is concerned with—and, again, we have to see this whole issue in relation to the rest of the Bill. The principal parts of the Bill, which we have already debated, are concerned with the balance between the local education authority, the school governors and the head teacher. It will be noted that Clause 20 begins by stating that it is:
"the duty of the head teacher to determine measures (which may include the making of rules and provision for enforcing them) to be taken with a view to"—
and then it sets out the whole possibilities of good behaviour and of regulating the conduct of pupils.
It is very important to remember that, unlike what was said by my noble friend Lady Elliot, no one is saying to teachers that they must use corporal punishment. She was absolutely right in saying that large numbers of authorities have given it up. That is their choice. They have decided to give it up. No one, not least the Government, is arguing that they should be obliged to reintroduce it or to use it if they do not wish to do so. But that is a very far cry from saying, by statute, that no teacher in any school in the United Kingdom, or at any rate in England and Wales, which this Bill covers, should ever use corporal punishment of any sort, at any time, in any school, which is the effect of the amendment before the Committee.
The effect of this on the whole question of punishment has to be seen against the background of the decisions, and particularly of the power, of the governors who will be ultimately responsible for discipline and will include among their number a high proportion of parents who, once again, will be trained so that they will take a responsible part in the activities of the school, against all the other opportunities that will be raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, in his first intervention on these amendments, referred to what happens in other countries. It is true, generally speaking, that in Europe corporal punishment does not apply. However, as he will probably know much better than I, the whole system of education is very different there and the role of the teacher is somewhat different and, I think he will agree, much more restricted than it is in our schools. They say that they go to school to teach. That is their job, and nothing else. Generally speaking, in our British system we have asked for more than that from teachers. Therefore, the whole philosophy of our teaching system has been somewhat different.
If we are looking at the foreign experience, English-speaking countries, on the whole, retain the sanction of corporal punishment. After all, it can be used as a sanction. It can be there and not used, but can be quite effective because it is there even if it is not used. Anyone who has had any experience of children will know that.
Lord Monkswell: May I—
Baroness Young: If I may finish my train of thought, I shall then give the noble Lord a chance to speak. The

799
noble Lord, Lord Henderson, also spoke about what is happening in our schools. He, too, talked of the number of authorities who have given up corporal punishment. Of course that is so, and each year brings more authorities who have done that. That is their choice. They have not had it forced upon them by national statute. The local authority has decided, and that is what it has chosen to do.
But if the noble Lord looks at the figures of the latest Mori poll which has been taken on the subject—this is a poll taken in February 1985—they show that some 63 per cent. of parents interviewed favoured the use of corporal punishment in schools; a slightly higher proportion, 65 per cent., said that they would give schools permission to use corporal punishment on their own children; and only 33 per cent. of parents favoured abolition. I will now give way.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the Minister for giving way. She made reference to the fact that English-speaking countries engage in corporal punishment. Does that include the United States of America?
Baroness Young: I should not like to comment on the systems of discipline within the United States of America. I think I am right in saying that education is a state matter, and therefore the position will vary from state to state. I think I would be unwise to comment unbriefed on this subject. But as a general rule, and certainly in some of the countries that I have visited, corporal punishment has at least been available. I could not say whether or not it is used, but it is certainly available. What we are talking about on this amendment is legislating to abolish it throughout the educational system in England and Wales.
If a school decides not to use corporal punishment or if a local education authority decides not to apply corporal punishment, that is not a decision with which the Government would quarrel. The important point is that it would be either the school's decision or the local authority's decision. It would not be a decision that had been imposed on them.
The principle behind these amendments is one that cuts across the general principle that lies behind this Bill which is to maintain what have been the traditional characteristics of the British education system in a devolved system. Within that system the discipline that is applied in the schools would be a matter for decision by the schools themselves or by the local education authorities. This amendment would change that and say that no school and no authority could have corporal punishment, regardless of the wishes or the views of anybody there. One needs to think carefully whether we believe in principle that that should be the case. I hope that with the arguments I have given, the Committee will not accept this amendment.
I can now tell the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, the answer to his question. I gather that most states in the United States allow corporal punishment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to detain the Committee but the impression left of the legal position by the Minister is so far from reality that it is necessary to correct it. The noble Baroness said that the European Court's ruling was only that the
800
philosophical convictions of parents ought to be respected, but the Government have recognised that that means that corporal punishment cannot be used in our schools against the wishes of parents. This is the first time we have heard that view put by the Government. Until now the view has been taken that the Government has only three options open to them. It was not just I but the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who made that clear.
Both of the alternatives to abolition have been rejected either by this House or by the Secretary of State himself. Therefore, the only way in which we can comply with the European Court of Justice is by abolishing corporal punishment in all our schools. That has been the position of the Government. It is a remarkable change in that position as expressed by the noble Baroness to suggest that it can still be left as a matter for local options. If the noble Baroness were correct, it would mean that in a school where a parent objected to corporal punishment it could not be allowed anywhere in that school. The Government are not proposing that. It is not in the Bill.
I suggest to the Committee that the amendments which have been proposed are not only right in themselves—the strength of feeling has been widely expressed in the Committee this afternoon—but are in accordance with requirements under international law. I invite those who oppose corporal punishment in principle, those who may not feel so strongly about it in principle but reject the exemption amendment and those who have an ear for the views expressed by everybody involved in the educational process, and, I might add, the churches as well—both the Church of Enlgand and the Roman Catholic Church have expressed the view to their schools that corporal punishment should not be used—I invite anybody who agrees with any of these principles to support this amendment and the amendments that go with it.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 56) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ely, Bp.

Ampthill, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ardwick, L.

Falkender, B.

Aylestone, L.

Gallacher, L.

Banks, L.

Gibson, L.

Barnett, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gregson, L.

Blease, L.

Hampton, L.

Boothby, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Bottomley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hayter, L.

Caradon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Jacques, L.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Diamond, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kissin, L.

801

Lawrence, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Listowel, E.

Rochester, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Serota, B.

Longford, E.

Shackleton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Stedman, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Meston, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Milverton, L.

Terrington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mountevans, L.

Underhill, L.

Mulley, L.

Vickers, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Nicol, B.

Whaddon, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

White, B.

Oram, L.

Wigoder, L.

Parry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Phillips, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Winterbottom, L.

Ypres, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Aldington, L.

Layton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Lothian, M.

Bessborough, E.

Lurgan, L.

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norrie, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Onslow, E.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Croft, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Cross, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Elliot of Morpeth, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Elton, L.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Somers, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glanusk, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E.

Haig, E.

Teynham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Halsbury, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Henley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hives, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wolfson, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.23 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 56A:
Page 22, line 12, at end insert (", in compliance with such requirements of the local education authority as they may specify.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 56A, perhaps I may be permitted to ask the Government what their intentions are likely to be in the light of the decision that the Committee has just taken? It seems to us that the Committee has now expressed a view on two occasions—admittedly by narrow majorities in each case—that the total abolition of corporal punishment is what your Lordships' House wants. In moving Amendment No. 56A I should like to give the representatives of the Government an opportunity to say what their intentions are; and if they cannot say so now—and I appreciate that they may have some difficulty—to indicate when and in what form they will make their intentions clear about the wishes of your Lordships' House and about the future of corporal punishment in our schools.
The Earl of Swinton: I think the Government are fairly used to being defeated in your Lordships' House, and it is not the usual understanding of this House that the Government necessarily get up and straightaway say what they feel about it, and I do not intend to do so on this occasion.
Lord Parry: Is the noble Lord saying he actually takes pleasure in that punishment?
The Earl of Swinton: Corporal punishment has just been abolished in your Lordships' House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I appreciate that I was caning it a bit in asking for an immediate reply, but I still think it will be necessary for the Government to express their views on the way in which the law stands and how we are to comply with the requirements of the European Court of Justice which have, until this afternoon, been accepted by the Government as being binding. Through the usual channels I shall seek to find further opportunities for your Lordships' House to interrogate the Government and to make sure that the Government make their position clear.
We are still in Amendment No. 56A on the subject of discipline and we are dealing with the first of the three clauses in the Bill which deal with discipline which are described in the Votes on Clauses in a way which does not seem to me for once entirely to represent the implications of the Bill. The clauses that we are dealing with specify that the head teacher has a duty to determine measures to promote good behaviour and so on, in the school, and to regulate the conduct of pupils. They provide for the power to exclude a pupil to be exercised only by the head teacher, and for a whole series of consequential procedures to be followed if there is what appears to be a permanent exclusion.
The Notes on Clauses say that the head teacher is under a duty to consult the local education authority about disciplinary measures. However, if we look at Clauses 20 to 22 we find that in Clause 20(3)(c) the actual requirement on the head teacher and the

803
governing body is not to consult the local education authority, except in the case of exclusion, but to consider representations from the local education authority on disciplinary policies.
I appreciate that the object of the Bill is to see to it that the increased representativeness of the governing bodies provided in Part II is reflected in increased powers in Part III. As I have said on many occasions, we are not opposed to the general drift of that argument, and in general we support both of these elements in the Bill. There must at the same time, however, be an effective balance between the responsibilities and powers of the local education authority, the governing body and the head teachers. I suggest to the Committee that Clause 20, as drafted, does not in fact deal with that. That is the reason for the amendments which we are putting forward.
In moving Amendment No. 56A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 58 and 59A, and I should like to make it clear—because it may not be from the way the Marshalled List is presented, and that is entirely my fault—that I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 57, 59 and 60 which were intended to be withdrawn when Amendment No. 55 was withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
What Amendments Nos. 56A, 58 and 59 say is that the local education authority shall have the right to set down certain requirements of governing bodies and of head teachers through the governing bodies in disciplinary matters. That may appear to introduce an element of centralism; it may appear that we are returning to the overriding powers of local authorities. I assure the Committee that we are doing no more than is necessary in order to ensure the coherence of an education service within an education authority.
6.30 p.m.
I take the example of Poundswick School in Manchester, where there has been a dispute between the staff and the head teacher of one school against the local education authority. That case was referred to on a number of occasions on Second Reading, and I do not wish to go into the details of it. Whatever view one may take of the rights or wrongs of that issue, the fact of the matter is that the existing provision for discipline has not been adequate to secure an agreement or a conclusion between the Manchester education committee and the head teacher and staff of Poundswick School.
Something must be done to put that situation right. In one way or another, somebody must bring that process of conflict to an end. I suggest to your Lordships that Clauses 20 to 22 do not deal with that situation. They do not secure that all schools will work together as they ought to within an education authority to provide a common standard of discipline that is accepted across all the schools within that education authority and which can be applied, when it is necessary, to exclude a pupil from one school but accept him for another—because the overriding responsibility for education is held by the local education authority. It is possible to exclude a child from one school but it is not possible for a local education authority to exclude a child from education altogether. That is the current state of the law, and it
804
is the state of the law as it would be continued under the Bill.
We are saying that, ultimately, somebody has to grasp the nettle. If there is a dispute and there is a difficulty, then someone must say that enough is enough. The disciplinary codes in schools must at least not be incompatible.
The Government may answer that Clause 22 provides for the situation in certain circumstances, where it states that a local education authority may take such steps,
"as they consider are required to prevent the breakdown, or continuing breakdown, of discipline at the school".
No doubt that is a necessary provision, as the Government recognise, but I suggest to the Committee that it is not enough. I suggest that it deals with the matter only when disputes, difficulties or disciplinary problems have already gone too far. It is not right to leave it until there is a situation of "breakdown, or continuing breakdown" for the local authority to have the right and the duty to intervene. It is consistent with the responsibility of a local education authority to its electors, and to all of those who take part in education in its area, that ultimately they should be listened to when disciplinary codes are being drawn up. That is what the amendments are intended to provide, and I hope that they will receive the support of the Committee.
Baroness Young: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in introducing his amendment, asked what is the position of the Government in respect of the European Court's ruling on corporal punishment. Last year we introduced an Education Bill to allow parents to exempt their children from corporal punishment. In so doing we were seeking to reconcile the twin objectives of securing compliance with the European Court's ruling and, at the same time, of respecting the widespread feeling in favour of the availability of corporal punishment.
In doing that, were were adopting what the court had itself mentioned as a possible means of implementation. Much of the criticism of that Bill was in our view exaggerated, but in view of the decision of your Lordships at Report stage in July 1985 in favour of abolition we decided not to proceed further with that Bill. The position now is that we are still considering what action to take to implement the European Court's ruling.
As to the specific amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken, they in fact seek to give local education authorities a direct say in matters affecting the discipline of a school. We believe that allowing local education authorities to lay down disciplinary requirements on schools would not be compatible with the intentions of this part of the Bill. We believe that discipline should be primarily a matter for the school, with general principles being established by the governing body and not by the local education authority. It is an essential element of the Government's view that the direction of the conduct of a school should be the responsibility of the governing body. That body should be the guarantor for a school's identity and will exercise an important influence over the ethos of the school.

805
What we have done is to provide for the local education authority to be consulted where new disciplinary procedures might be expected to lead to additional expenditure or to affect the LEA's responsibility as an employer. However, we see those purely as long stop arrangements, equally reserving a right under Clause 22 for the LEA to intervene if a breakdown of discipline is threatened or has occurred. It is intended as a measure of last resort that has regard to the LEA's overall responsibility for securing the provision of good education in its area. Thus the main thrust of our proposals is to reduce the LEA's influence on school discipline. The proposed amendments would do the reverse: they would consolidate it. In aided and special agreement schools, the amendments could actually increase it.
I hope that with that explanation of the effects as we see them of the amendments, which we believe would not be compatible with the principles of the Bill, and having described the role as we see it of the governing body, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have listened very carefully to what has been said by the noble Baroness. I am grateful that she felt able to make a statement about the Government's position on the issue of corporal punishment. I felt sure that one had been drafted for the eventuality of the Government being defeated, but I thought that it might take a few minutes for it to reach the Front Bench.
On the issue of the amendments now before the Committee, the noble Baroness expressed the situation quite correctly. It is true that the amendments propose to retain a rather stronger reserve power for the local authority in disciplinary matters than is the Government's intention. I do not deny that in any way. That certainly would be the effect of the amendment, and it is certainly the amendment's intention as well.
I have to ask the Minister: if she is entirely satisfied with the provisions of the Bill on matters of discipline, then how does she see a continuing conflict such as that which we have seen in Manchester over Poundswick School being resolved when the law has been reformulated in the terms of the Bill? It seems to me that legislation of this kind should be able to deal with the practical questions that are being found in our schools.
It is not just a matter of Poundswick School, because one could ask whether there was adequate provision to deal with the problems at Drummond Middle School in Bradford or the problems that arose in London some years ago, when there were extreme conflicts between governing bodies, the local education authority, and the teachers in a school. Surely the intention of the Government in putting forward this Bill must be to resolve conflict in our schools and they must be able to show how this Bill would have resolved or could still resolve the conflicts which have in practice arisen in our schools under existing legislation. I do not think that is an unreasonable question.
The Government had adequate warning on Second Reading, because a number of noble Lords referred to
806
these matters when we considered the Bill then. I should like to give the Minister an opportunity to tell us how she would see a dispute about the exclusion of a pupil between the head teacher of a school and a local education authority being resolved under the terms of Clauses 20, 21 and 22. I shall be delighted to give way if the Minister feels able to respond to that question. I shall be delighted to say another sentence if that would help the Minister to respond to that question.
Baroness Young: I appreciate the point that the noble Lord has raised. I hope that I am able to give an answer, but if I cannot give a full answer I hope he will understand if I write to him later, because I should not want to give an incomplete reply.
Most of the amendments that have been tabled to the discipline clauses would in one way or another place limits on schools in their endeavours to maintain discipline. That is the opposite of what the Bill is intended to do. Its purpose is to give governing bodies and head teachers as much freedom as is reasonably possible to decide on rules of conduct and means of enforcement. In our view, the LEAs' powers should be confined to those needed to carry out their legal obligations to secure the education of all children in their areas. In that context discipline is largely irrelevant to that obligation except in a few circumstances which the Bill identifies. For example, if a pupil is excluded from school, sooner or later, if he is not re-admitted the LEA must act to secure his education—the point which I think the noble Lord was making on the way the law would operate to see that a child must be educated.
It is a different matter altogether for LEAs to tell schools what kind of disciplinary sanctions they may or may not use and some amendments would allow local education authorities to do that. We believe that this would cut across the main principle of the Bill.
On the point raised by the noble Lord about Poundswick School, I appreciate that this has been a cause of considerable concern in the local authority area and, indeed, in the educational world. It would be right for me to say that I will write to the noble Lord concerning that school in relation to the Bill. I shall do so before the next Committee day so that he has plenty of time to consider the matter. I hope the noble Lord will accept that answer at this time.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: Before my noble friend Lord McIntosh replies, not for the first time I find myself in the dilemma of having to contradict noble friends on my own Front Bench, or at least debate with them. But perhaps that is one of the privileges that we have in your Lordships' Committee.
I should like to know from my noble friend whether his amendments mean that the local education authority would be the deciding factor in dealing with a child being excluded. I can give chapter and verse on many cases. There is a school of which I was chairman of the governors where one boy stabbed another severely and the stabbed boy nearly died. The headmaster asked me whether he could exclude the first boy and, as chairman, I gave chairman's action.

807
The governors supported us. However, the LEA—I shall not name it—then tried to exert pressure to make the headmaster take back the boy.
I said then, as I have said before and shall say again, that authority balances on delicate pillars. Children know very well that if a person gets away with something—that is the phrase that children use—there is no reason why they cannot get away with it. They look you in the eye and say, "What can you do about it?" I have recently been talking to a young teacher who has since left, and she told me that that is the kind of thing that children say to you these days. I sometimes wonder when I am in your Lordships' House how many schools noble Lords have been in lately. It is all very well to quote from one's childhood but times have moved on a little. I have a sense of unreality about some of the discussions on certain state schools; I cannot speak for public schools.
In the example to which I have referred it was quite wrong for the local education authority to exert pressure for that child to be returned to the same school. That is the kind of situation to which I do not want to be a party; forcing any headmaster or chairman of governors to comply. The head and the governing body must be the sole controllers and arbiters in such a situation. After all, they are on the spot and know the position.
It would be fine if that was an isolated case. Sadly, in London it is not. The boy was to be educated somewhere else but the local education authority wanted him to be educated in the same school. I am happy to say that I won. I had to argue with Members of Parliament, the education authority, the race relations committee, as I recall, and one or two others; but it did not mean that I did not stand my ground. The principle had to be resolved in the interests of every child in the school and certainly in the interests of the teachers, who have a very difficult job.
I am waiting, as I said on a previous occasion, for a Bill to be introduced to abolish corporal punishment by children on teachers—because that is what we see now. There are assaults by children on teachers and I do not think we need to worry so much about the children being assaulted. Everything has changed. Therefore, I can only say that before we go into the Lobbies, which he may ask us to do, I want to know from my noble friend what is the real meaning of these amendments.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should be grateful, as I am sure would the Committee, to see the letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, eventually sends to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I say this particularly in relation to Poundswick School because many of us have been seriously concerned about what we have read. Many of us want to ensure that children involved in a disciplinary situation of a grievous kind should have some right of appeal. At the same time, having said that I am sure that many of us are seriously concerned about the climate of violence which now exists in a number of schools, not only in Manchester but in other parts of the country. That being so, it seems to me that the issue which has been raised today is of considerable importance. As I say, together with, I am sure, noble Lords in other parts of the
808
Committee, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would ensure that a copy of her letter is put in the Library.
Baroness Young: I say right away that I shall be happy to send a copy of my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. If I may say so, I think it is a matter of regret that he did not speak in those terms on the preceding amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble Baroness wants me to re-open the issues raised on the previous amendment, I shall gladly do so. However, I should have thought that, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has expressed his disquiet at the amount of time we have been devoting to this Bill, it seems mildly strange that a Minister should invite one to re-open issues on which the Committee has taken a decision. I find that a rather bizarre suggestion.
Lord Monkswell: I must admit to taking a slightly different point of view from the penultimate speaker. In fact, I live in Manchester. My wife teaches there, and she is a member of the union which has been at the forefront of the Poundswick dispute. Unfortunately from the point of view of our own family relationships, she has taken one side and I have taken the other.
Apart from that, one of the problems with which your Lordships are faced is the dilemma that I suspect we can get into if this Bill goes forward unamended, in that on the one hand we shall give the power to the head teachers and the Government to determine whom they shall or shall not teach, but on the other hand there will be a responsibility on the education authority to ensure that everyone is taught. This will raise a great conflict, because the one body will have the responsibility and the other body will have the power.
With regard to the dispute at Poundswick, I do not think that anyone would argue that exclusion of a pupil from a school is not something which should be available in particular circumstances. However, one has to be aware of the background to the situation. As I see it, the local authority was faced with a situation in which there was a fairly significant number of pupils who were regularly being excluded first from one school, then from another school and so on. At some stage that cycle had to be stopped in order to ensure that the responsibility which devolved on the education authority, that every child should have an education, was fulfilled effectively. If there is a child who is being shuffled from one school to another and then to another and another, the education authority is not accepting its responsibilities.
However, I must admit that in the Poundswick situation the whole affair has blown up into a conflict which I suggest is out of all proportion, though I can recognise the strong feelings which are held on both sides. I hope that in quieter circumstances both sides will recognise that everyone is trying to act for the best and will try to find some way forward. Yet at the end of the day the buck must stop somewhere. If half the buck stops in one court and half the buck stops in another, it is a recipe for chaos. I think it is an unfortunate feature of this Bill and, (dare I say it?) one of the problems that we on this side of the Committee

809
are trying to resolve by putting forward the amendments that we have.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to debate with both the Minister and my own noble friends. It is an experience which she has been undergoing on this Bill more often than I have. Nonetheless, the experience does not disagree with me.
I can assure my noble friend Lady Phillips that the amendments which I am now putting forward refer to the policy on discipline in schools which shall be determined by the head teacher and the general principles by which he has to operate in determining the policy on discipline. The amendments do not deal directly with the issue of exclusion, though it is quite clear that exclusion is one of the disciplinary measures that may be described in a policy. In fact, the Bill contains very detailed measures on exclusion policy, and there is at least one section entirely devoted to this matter.
We are not proposing amendments to the exclusion provisions of the Bill: we are proposing that there should not be disciplinary measures of any kind in one school which are in conflict with the disciplinary policies of another school in the same local authority area. It should be the duty of the local authority to ensure that the disciplinary policies of the different schools under its control are consistent with each other, and to that extent the local education authority should have the power to make requirements about disciplinary policy on the governing bodies and head teachers of the schools in its area. That is the purpose of the amendment, not detailed change to the powers or constraints on exclusion.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the way in which she responded to my questions. I listened very carefully to her reply and I think it is wise, in the light of her undertaking to write to me before the next meeting of the Committee, that I should not pursue this matter to a vote at this time. I think that your Lordships would wish all debate on this matter to be fully informed and properly thought out before asking the Committee to reach a conclusion. I think the noble Baroness has been very fair in her response and in the offer she has made to write to me, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 60 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Wells-Pestell)The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Wells-Pestell): I call Amendment No. 61.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 61:
Page 23, line 5, at the end insert—
("who shall not exclude a pupil from the school on the ground that the pupil has refused to consent to be given corporal punishment, or on the ground that a parent of the pupil has refused to permit him to be given corporal punishment or has otherwise sought to secure that he will not be given corporal punishment at the school;").
The noble Lord said: I do not think I shall move this amendment because I did not speak to it in moving—
The Earl of Swinton: If your Lordships will forgive me, I wonder why Amendment No. 61 has been called before Amendment No. 60A. We have had a discussion about whether we should teach mathematics in schools, but it seems a strange way of proceeding.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 61 appears before Amendment No. 60A in the Marshalled List. That is the answer.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is the noble Lord moving Amendment No. 61?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the Marshalled List which I have, Amendment No. 61 is printed above Amendment No. 60A. That is clearly not right. I think I should defer to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Swinton: I can only say that I think this is one thing produced in the Marshalled List for which the Department of Education and Science is not responsible.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: My information is that the amendments are in the right order even if the numbers seem to be wrong.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand that it is correct that I should speak to Amendment No. 61 before Amendment No. 60A. This matter refers to corporal punishment. I did not speak to it in moving Amendment No. 56. I confess to your Lordships that I am not entirely clear whether Amendment No. 61 is an essential part of the argument on corporal punishment, but I shall have an opportunity to return to it at Report stage if I find it is a necessary part of the series of amendments depending upon Amendment No. 56.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 60A:
Page 23, line 5, at end insert—
("ff) for it to be the duty of the head teacher, where he excludes from the school a pupil who is a child or young person, to take (without delay) reasonable steps to inform a parent of the pupil of the period of the exclusion and the reasons for it;").
The noble Earl said: This amendment would place a duty on a head teacher who excluded a pupil under 18 years of age to take reasonable steps to notify the pupil's parent. We consider that this is a sensible requirement to include in this Bill, as your Lordships will no doubt agree, particularly in relation to children under 16, whose parents have a duty to see that they are educated. It also reflects the fact that the primary responsibility for promoting good behaviour in children rests with their parents. I hope that your Lordships will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The amendment says "to take (without delay) reasonable steps to inform a parent". May I ask my noble kinsman whether this also includes a guardian? The child or young person might be in foster care or in the care of the local authority or a guardian if the parents are dead or abroad.
The Earl of Swinton: This is covered by the 1944 Act, which defines a parent as including,
"a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the pupil".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Briefly (although in this Committee that word seems an introduction to length) we thoroughly support the amendment. We believe that it is a valuable addition to the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denham: This seems a convenient moment at which to break for the adjournment. In moving that the House do now resume, may I say that we shall not return to this Bill before 8 o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Protection of Military Remains Bill
7.1 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The formal position, I suppose, is that having secured the Floor of the House for the Second Reading of the Bill, we can keep it until we have finished the Second Reading. But the convention is as my noble friend, the Chief Whip, has just described it, namely, that we are expected to vacate the Floor of the Chamber in respect of this Bill in an hour's time. With five speakers, beside myself, I intend, therefore, to leave the explanation of the Bill to the Explanatory Memorandum printed on the face of it and not to say anything about the Bill that can be found there. I assume, also, that Members present and taking part in the debate will have read not only the Explanatory Memorandum but also the Hansard of another place of 31st January, when the Bill was introduced there by my honourable friend Mr. Michael Mates. I adopt this approach for another reason, too. An issue has arisen since the Bill left another place to which most of those whose names appear on the list of speakers will wish to devote a fair amount of time, although we shall need to come back to it in detail at Committee stage.
All that I shall do by way of a preliminary is to remind your Lordships of the background against which this Bill is being discussed. This is a background extending over 30 years in which the development of the technology and of the popularity of sub-aqua amateur diving has increased so enormously that very large numbers of people are well able to dive on shipwrecks some of them no doubt containing human remains where the crews have been entombed. At the same time, there has been a tremendous development of deep-sea diving technology in the course of the commercial exploration for, and exploitation of, oil and gas below the bed of the North Sea. Those are the changes that have occurred in the last 30 years or so and that have made this Bill necessary.
I am concentrating upon shipwrecks and not upon wrecks of aircraft that have crashed on land, although the Bill covers them, because wrecks of aircraft constitute a minor part of the overall concern. These
812
changes in professional diving technologies have put many more shipwrecks within the reach of divers and salvors and have provided scope, on the one hand, for a surgical salvage operation without the necessity to disturb human remains that have been entombed, but, on the other hand, they have also made possible unauthorised intrusions and removal of contents and of fittings that none of us would wish to countenance.
During this period of 30 years, there have been changes in Government policy towards shipwrecks and in the legislation to protect those containing human remains entombed within them. The last occasion prior to this Bill when the Admiralty established a new policy concerning the protection of shipwrecks in which crew members were entombed was 1955. Up to that time, it had been normal practice to sell naval shipwrecks for scrap, whether or not they contained human remains. That was changed at that time. In 1973, following the desecration of the shipwreck of the "Royal Oak" in Scapa Flow by amateur divers, local by-laws were introduced to control that particular activity. They are now enforced by Orkney council. A few years later, concern was expressed about possible threats to the sanctity of the "Prince of Wales" and the "Repulse", which were sunk with heavy loss of life off the Malayan coast. It is important to make the point at this stage that this legislation can do nothing about the protection of our ships in that sort of situation in international waters except through the restraint of British companies. There is no sense in which this legislation can control or restrain the activities of foreign salvage and diving companies outside United Kingdom waters. It would be a great mistake if Parliament allowed any expectation to be raised that this legislation could do that.
In the 1980s, the whole issue was brought very much into the public arena, raising both public concern and public interest, by the authorised salvage of gold from the "Edinburgh" in very deep waters in the Arctic and the unauthorised intrusion into the sanctity of "HMS Hampshire" sunk back in 1916 off the Orkneys. That intrusion by a German consortium could not be restrained by the legislation then available. That is the background and those are the circumstances in which this legislation, fully explained on the face of the Bill, has come into being.
What we now have to concentrate upon, although there may be other aspects with which noble Lords want to deal, is a position that did not seem to me to emerge in another place, but that has emerged since—namely, the position of British companies seeking to dive on and salvage in international waters ships covered by this Bill. The position is that they can be controlled by this legislation but their foreign competitors cannot. We have to take care that this situation does not produce an unfair disadvantage to British firms. My noble friend, in the course of the last few weeks, while negotiations have been going on, has given me two assurances. I shall leave him to set them out in detail. Broadly speaking, however, they amount to an undertaking that there will be a schedule applying to certain named wrecks that will be issued and become effective at the same time as this Act, exempting from the Bill ships listed in it. With that list it will then be possible for the sub-aqua amateurs to

813
dive on them. It will be possible for deep-sea salvage and diving operations to be conducted on them as well, without any danger of prosecution under this Bill.
Linked with the list there are the vessels that sank before 4th August, 1914, except any that are separately designated for protection. That is one assurance that I wanted to set out at the beginning of our debate which I am sure my noble friend will want to confirm and enlarge upon, and correct if I have not got it right, at the end of the debate.
The second and more important point relating to the discussions which we have been having over these past weeks is that my noble friend has given an assurance that general licences will be available in advance for reputable salvage and diving companies which have previously agreed to abide by a code of practice (which has yet to be worked out) authorising them without any further specific licencing to salvage cargo from the majority of vessels covered by this Bill.
I should like to speak briefly on that second point. It is necessary, in my view, to have a general advance licence available for reputable salvage and diving companies in order that British interests shall not be put at a disadvantage when operating over wrecks in international waters. Were that not there any British firm or British ship wishing to engage in a salvage operation in international waters would first have to seek a licence from the Ministry of Defence and will be put at considerable disadvantage in relation to, say, a Japanese, a French or an American company, which could get on to the same wreck and immediately, without further delay and under no constraint at all, start to conduct a salvage operation by whatever means they thought suitable including that of dynamiting the whole thing—as was the normal practice in earlier days. Once again I shall leave it to my noble friend to set out the precise terms in which he is ready to give that assurance.
When we come to the Committee stage we shall need to consider whether there is proper provision in the Bill on which to hang those assurances, because the British salvage companies concerned set a good deal of store by them.
There is one further advantage which flows from what I have just been outlining. I am most grateful to my noble friend for coming forward with it. That is that, given the way in which the British and other international companies co-operate, for example, in the North Sea, where, one has a Norwegian firm hiring a British ship or a Dutch firm hiring a Norwegian ship and operating together, it may well turn out that a willingness to conform with this code of practice and to use the advantages of this general licence may prove attractive to foreign firms as well as to British firms. If that were to happen we should have taken one small step towards an international convention. That is what we need in order that the sanctities of ships such as HMS "Prince of Wales" and HMS "Repulse" is protected in the way that the relatives of survivors would wish to see.
For all those reasons I commend not only this Bill but the assurance which my noble friend has given about the ways in which it will be applied and, if
814
necessary, amended at Committee stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Sandford.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his presentation of both his own view and of what is essentially the Government's attitude to this Bill. The Bill, rather unusually, in another place on a Friday afternoon went through its First and Second Reading. I was alerted to it by the officers of an organisation known as Seasalv Marine Limited which was using the facilities of the Milford Docks Company. The House will want to know that I am the chairman of that company; and that the chairman of Seasalv Marine Limited, Major General Desmond Smith, is present in the House this evening. All interests have therefore been declared.
We had the privilege of a meeting with the Minister who was ready to meet us as soon as the concerns expressed by us were made known to him. Not only did we go with him through the Bill, but we had present with us the representatives of his department who were responsible for its drafting, one assumes, and who were now seeing it through its various stages in the House.
I want to say at once that I have met no one who does not agree with the basic principle of this Bill which was originally to provide the sanctity about which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, spoke for the remains of those who had sacrificed themselves in the service of the country or who had been killed at sea. There has never been an attempt on anyone's part to question the basis of the Bill.
However, I think that the Minister may well say—he does not have to—that the way in which that wish cuts across the commercial interests of the British salvage companies that were involved in salvaging all kinds of wrecks and artefacts from under the sea was probably a surprise to him. It became obvious very early that this simple wish to give sanctity and protection to the military remains in wrecked ships and aircraft under the sea was threatening very real and special interests.
Having admitted that we wish to preserve the sanctity of those wrecks, it is absolutely essential that they should be properly identified and placed. I believe that there is evidence that the Admiralty charts are not absolutely certain as to where some of these remains are located. I understand that some are as much as 30 miles out in their assessment. A great deal of research has gone into the history and background, increasingly more effectively with better and better equipment, to place under the sea the exact position of these wrecks which are often said to contain human remains. I am also assured by divers who have been aboard such vessels that it is very unlikely indeed that human remains are to be found in these vessels. But the sanctity of them remains inviolate. There is no question of that.
I therefore ask the Minister—and he has had the privilege of seeing in advance all the points I wish to make in the House—whether he plans a total survey or a collation of the information that is available from commercial sources under commercial rates of the

815
exact position of these wrecks so that he is more aware of them than his department seems to be at the moment. That is no reflection on the department. I also ask the Minister, when he comes to speak, whether he will give us the detail of the exact type of ship that is to be covered and the exact type of remains. We acknowledge that our conversations with him were immensely valuable to us. Can he tell us whether Her Majesty's Government will carry out such a survey and whether they will identify for us where these positions are so that we can ensure maximum control by Her Majesty's Government of any investigations and salvage operations that occur within British international waters.
Here I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that the Bill can be enforced only within British territorial waters. If Her Majesty's Government are to have maximum control during salvage operations, along with other interested parties such as the survivors' societies which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has mentioned in passing, it is essential that such a survey should be promised and eventually carried out.
Although the Bill was put forward with the best of intentions, it was in danger of going badly wrong until the interests affected came to the Ministry. This often happens. It is no criticism of those who drafted it. It was carefully drafted so as to identify the problem, but, curiously enough, the Bill made no reference to human remains; it made reference to military remains but none to the sanctity of human remains. That clearly is odd.
People may wish to go down with the equipment available, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said; it is available even to lads off the beach and certainly to unscrupulous salvors. This has been dramatically illustrated in a television programme recently. I saw, and I am sure other Members of the House saw, pictures of South African divers using pneumatic drills on the wreck of HMS "Birkenhead" to recover the gold being carried as a payroll for the troops.
If there is a wreck that should be sanctified, it is the wreck of that ship in which 500 British soldiers stood to attention to establish the now famous law, women and children first, so that the women and children could escape while they surrendered their lives. Yet this vessel in international waters, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, indicated, has been plundered. I do not know whether there is any doubt about that. I see some doubt, but the noble Lord will have the right of reply. I am sorry. It is in South African waters. It is national, rather than international.
Salvage operations are carried out for financial gain. That is their purpose. They are carried out by a few British firms. I believe basically there are three major firms, and I am willing to be taught that there are others that have an interest in the field.
An interesting way of protecting these sites has been put to me. The House will know better than I did that there used to be a position of government salvor. A nominated company went out on behalf of the government to salvage those things which the government wished to salvage. It may be that this cuts across the general licensing that the Minister intends to bring in, and I am grateful to him for having told me
816
in advance when we met today that he intends in his speech, as he has told the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to say that he is prepared to agree to such a general licensing system. However, it could be of advantage to the Government to create this position of government official salvor and to offer it for competition among the interested British companies, so that British companies employing British divers could dive on British vessels and reclaim anything of value for Her Majesty's Government; and they could be paid a commercial fee to do that.
If there is vast bullion or whatever at the bottom of the sea in these wrecks and there is a danger that people can go aboard them and disturb the sanctity of those graves—because it does not matter whether the graves are empty of bodies, graves they are—it would be of use if a licensed, and specifically licensed, British company were to do that in British ships, within British waters and in national and international waters elsewhere if that could be arranged, and to do it by modern methods. This would mean that those ships could be entered without the use of explosives, without a desecration of the graves, and in the spirit of a British nation honouring British dead and at the same time recovering for the British purse money which fell out of it during the war in operations at sea.
There is a great deal of money, I am told, on the bottom of the sea. It is not for me from this side of the House to teach the Government how they should do something for their own Exchequer, but I understand that monetarists everywhere are interested in recouping money. The British marine heritage has ensured that possibly as much as 90 per cent. of the vessels that Her Majesty's Government would wish to protect will be outside United Kingdom territorial waters, and therefore available to anybody to work. Will the Minister assure me, perhaps even before the Committee stage, that salvage companies and the Government will talk together to ensure that the Bill takes account of all these points that I have made?
We met informally, but would it not be far better if the salvage companies were seen to be working with the Government and with those of us who in this House at any rate talk with the Government? Any unscrupulous British salvage company that wished to go after this money and ignore the basic principle of the legislation could move the basis of its operations to Switzerland or elsewhere. I should not be surprised if the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, were to concentrate on the international waters in his submissions.
I have taken 10 minutes, and the noble Lord took nine. The clock has now clicked up 11 and we still have 40 to go, so I am sure that there is plenty of time for us to do adequate duty to the Bill.
7.26 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. There are one or two things which need saying. First, oil has fallen in value from 30 dollars a barrel to 10 dollars a barrel, or thereabouts. This has immediately released onto the international market vast amounts of surplus diving capacity. The North Sea oil companies are cutting back on the use of their diving facilities.
I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, that the "Birkenhead" is in South African

817
territorial waters, and is not covered by the Bill anyway; so this makes life very difficult. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware how the system works, but you become something called a salvor in possession, which means you have to anchor your boat over the top of the wreck and then start working on it. In those circumstances, under international law nobody is allowed to come and interfere with the work.
If Her Majesty's Government issue a blanket licence, they have, to all intents and purposes, taken out international waters from the Bill except for this position: a British captain employed by a Singapore-based salvage company which has not bothered to apply under the Government's scheme for a blanket licence. The British captain is ordered by the Singapore company to go and salve the "Prince of Wales" or the "Repulse". Has that man then to resign his position and lose his job? What happens?
It is a serious problem. Either the blanket licence is made so loose that it has really no bearing or no effect, or it is made sufficiently tight so that it becomes very difficult for certain people to act, and it becomes against some parts of British interest. I believe that the "Trinidad", which was a sister ship to the "Edinburgh", also sank in Arctic waters; but she is in international waters. At the moment the technique exists to salve her.
It is worthwhile pointing out that there is something called GLORIA. That is not my noble friend on the Front Bench. It means geodetic, long-range inclined asdic. What that can do is to pick up very small nodules from the sea bed. It can go down to great depths. Incidentally, it is a British invention, and J. Marr and Co. use it on a trawler and are mapping a great chunk of the United States exclusive economic zone. The techniques are now so sophisticated that in my view the only way forward is to see whether we can get a binding international convention to stop the cowboys. Everybody would want to do that. Grave robbers—only they are now called archaeologists—are sometimes given knighthoods.
What we should like to do is to change from the methods of Belzoni, who used to dynamite and blow up Egyptian monuments to get at the inside, and come to the scientific and sensitive methods of dealing with graves at sea.
I do not think that there is anything more for me to say on this matter. I think I have covered the points I want to cover. All one hopes is that Her Majesty's Government will be their normal, intelligent, sensitive selves, listening to the arguments that we have put forward with patience and restraint.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, "Normal, sensitive souls" is a description at which I boggle. I hope that this evening we shall indicate to the Minister that there is a great deal of good will and appreciation for the fact that, although Private Member's Bills are not entirely the gift of an individual, to make progress they need to have government departments and Ministers, such as the one here tonight, with sympathy and understanding for the purposes of the Bill.
818
First, I want to say how much I appreciate the careful and helpful explanation of the raison d'étre of the Bill that we had from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. He pointed out how the Bill came to us. Having been in another place I smiled at the galloping speed with which the Bill went through all its stages in another place on a Friday afternoon. I was what was called the Friday Whip, and have had a little more experience of Friday procedure. I did not say to myself, "I know there is something wrong", but I knew that it was an extraordinary procedure which was clearly called into account. Although we have the benefit of what happened there, we are starting completely afresh. What we do here will produce a modified Bill—I am anticipating some amendments—which will go to another place, and they will deal with it there.
Those speaking at Second Reading (and perhaps there are others) show that the Committee will be well served. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, in a frank declaration of interests, not only did the proper thing but indicated that he has access to the experience of other people. He has experience himself and can hying other people's experience to the Committee. I know that the Minister and his advisers will welcome the fact that people at the sharp end of any legislation can see snags that even with experience the Government may not be able to perceive.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, knows what he is talking about. He indicated that simply and quickly. He convinced me, even though he may not have convinced the Minister, that he knows what he is talking about. I shall rely heavily upon the advice that he brings to the Comittee stage so that we can see that we get it as near right as possible.
The purposes of the Bill are simple, compelling and humane. We have already seen that it is not a Bill of one dimension. There are other interests. I am sure that when the public hear about the Bill, through the media of television, radio and the press, they will appreciate what the promoter is attempting to do. At the same time they will want to ensure that other interests are not badly affected. The Bill seeks to make it an offence to interfere with the remains of crashed, sunken and stranded military aircraft and vessels without authority. That phrase "without authority" is very important. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that we might be moving towards some form of binding international convention—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. It is sad that in a situation which can be fraught with so much distress and grief an individual cannnot feel that there is not some legislation to form a framework upon which the Government can attempt to impose some authority and restriction. The main purpose of the Bill is to protect the sanctity of wrecks that contain human remains.
Another purpose of the Bill is to give sanctity to the graves of members of the armed forces whose remains are not interred in Commonwealth War Graves cemeteries or national cemeteries, but are located at the site of a crashed aircraft or shipwreck. Those are first-class credentials for the House wanting to pass the legislation as quickly as possible. As we know from our experience, it is far better to do it correctly than to do it quickly. We have the opportunity and possibility

819
with the Minister and his advisers, who will listen with care and sympathy and with those outside the House, to get it right. If we do not get it right the first time, there will be others in another place who will be happy to assist us.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that in recent years we have needed protection of this kind, and that reason is well based. The interests of aircraft archaeology and the searchings by groups and individuals may be for fun, sport or excavation—I have nothing against any of those, for it is not cheap; they are spending their money to get enjoyment, thrill and satisfaction—but we need to consider two or three matters, not least their safety and perhaps damage and distress to others.
Those of us who served in the last war, as I did in the Royal Marines, will know that the relations of former comrades will have assumed that the bodies of their nearest and dearest have been left undisturbed somewhere. They will want to make sure, if it is within the remit of a piece of legislation, that we are doing the right thing by their memories.
Not only are we concerned for the relatives, but we know that there are a great number of members of ex-service organisations who are not relatives but who are entitled, rightly, to be concerned. I was glad to read, possibly in the Hansard of another place, that the Bill has the general support of the Royal Air Force Association, the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's families Association, the RAF Benevolent Fund and War Widows of Great Britain. That is a piece of information that is well founded, and the organisations appreciate what this Bill is trying to do.
However, I think the Minister anticipates one of the main burdens of concern, even at this early stage. While it is perhaps within the gift of Government to exercise authority and control within British waters, a problem arises in international waters and from what appears to be an inhibition as regards British companies and British interests which seem to be less well served than their international competitors. It is in this field that we want the Minister to say something. He may be able to respond as he will appreciate this matter, but if he can not answer he will be faced with amendments in this place and possibly in another place which will help him to face up to it. None of us wants to act to the detriment of the companies which have invested large sums of money, or of the seamen, whose jobs are involved. We do not want to find that in properly trying to protect the military remains, as they are called, we are doing damage to existing businesses and companies.
The Opposition welcome the intention of the legislation, which is not just a framework but a deterrent. We are attempting to frighten off people who may feel that they do not need a licence, in both senses of the word, to do what they want to do. We want those who have lost their loved ones and those who care for them to know that we are concerned to protect them. I was deeply moved by the illustration given by my noble friend Lord Parry. As he said quite fairly, salvage is about money and those who do not pay attention to the other matters could cause an outrage and an outcry which would not do them or
820
their businesses any good. The Government will have to tell us whether in fact some of the fears and worries are true.
In another place, my honourable friend Dr. Godman, who is the Member for Greenock, raised the question of whether the interests of British fishermen, who sometimes are specially concerned with the kind of fishing that takes place in areas of sunken wrecks, would be involved; whether there was anything in the view that, by virtue of carrying out their craft and their trade, they would be running foul of some of the legislation. In another place, the Minister gave a categorical assurance that there was no intention, no words in the Bill, which would affect them in that way.
In effect, we are starting from scratch in this House, and although we know what has happened in another place it is not part of the record. I should like the Minister to confirm what was said in the other place on that point. I also like the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Parry about consulting on the widest possible front. There cannot be many organisations that have a direct interest in this matter.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, there is a danger about too much consulting. The salvage world is an extremely cut-throat one. If you do too much of that kind of thing, you side-track the competition with the research that somebody else is doing and you can give away commercial secrets. There is a difficulty about that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate that. We are not in the business of procrastinating or delaying; we are in the business of getting this piece of legislation on the statute book during the current Session. If there were a choice between the long and wrangled way of getting it though, I am simply saying that there are some short interests that I hope the Minister will take into account. I have no more to say except that quiet clearly we are going to be interested in the Committee stage to seek to improve the Bill, and as more than one noble Lord has said perhaps the Minister has something to say to us that will reassure those outside. On this Bill, for my part, I rely very heavily upon the expertise of those who have already spoken and interests outside who may yet approach me. We certainly fully support the Motion that this Bill be given a Second Reading.
7.42 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that the Government warmly welcome this Bill which has been so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Sandford—none better than he, if I may say so, to take this matter under his wing. Not only is he an ordained member of the Church of England, he also had a distinguished career in the Royal Navy including one occasion, I understand, where his ship was mined. The Bill deals with a problem which in recent years has aroused strong feelings not only in this House but also among the general public. The desecration of the graves of sailors who went down with their ships and airmen who crashed with their aircraft has been a matter of real public concern ever since the Second World War.

821
This led the Admiralty in 1955 to review its policy on the disposal of its wrecks. It decided that wrecks known to contain human remains should be left undisturbed unless there were special circumstances. These special circumstances came to be defined as cases where there was a danger to navigation, or the presence of explosives; where there was a strong risk of unauthorised access which might be reduced by a controlled salvage operation to remove attractive items; and where reputable groups wanted to undertake valuable historical research. The Admiralty was prepared to allow some access to war graves in these circumstances, but only if it was satisfied that the remains of those who died in them would be treated with due respect.
The policy for crashed aircraft has also been that human remains should not be disturbed. This policy was endorsed in 1981 by representatives of aircraft archaeology groups and organisations such as the War Widows' Association. I am sure your Lordships will understand the distress that is felt by people when they discover that the remains of their relatives have been unearthed. Some of course are pleased to know exactly where their relatives fell, but since we can seldom be absolutely certain of the identity of the remains, the Government feel that on balance it is much better that the sites are left undisturbed. If an aircraft containing human remains is unearthed, however, then of course we ensure that the remains are given a proper burial.
Most of those who are interested in the wrecks of military aircraft and vessels, for pleasure or profit, are willing to be guided by this policy. But, there are a few who pursue their interest or business with little respect for the dead or regard for the feelings of others. Their activities have been the cause of public and parliamentary concern, and the department's inability to protect its war graves has been much criticised.
There have been a number of recent instances of problems in this area. My noble friend recited several recent incidents. It was the last incident to which my noble friend referred, that of the unauthorised salvage of items from HMS "Edinburgh" by a German consortium, which really drew attention to the fact that the Government had been almost powerless to prevent the desecration of these graves. As a matter of fact, I was in the Ministry of Defence at that time. It was I who was consulted as to whether access should be allowed. I decided that it should not but even my decision went disregarded.
The Government welcome this Bill as a means of remedying this weakness. At the same time, we have no wish to see the activities of responsible individuals and groups who have a legitimate interest in the remains of military vessels and aircraft unnecessarily hindered. Aviation archaeology groups will normally be able to obtain a licence to excavate a crashed aircraft site which does not contain human remains or unexploded ordnance. We know that the majority of groups respect the desire to leave untouched crashed aircraft sites in these circumstances.
Moreover, I hope we have been able to reassure sub-aqua clubs that, in general, it is not an offence under the Bill to dive down to and swim round any military wreck. It would only be an offence to interfere with it in some way. Diving may be restricted in the
822
vicinity of a small number of wrecks where there are particularly strong reasons for protection: these we would designate as controlled sites. This would be broadly similar to the restrictions already applied under harbour byelaws to the wrecks of Her Majesty's ships in the Orkney Harbour areas. But, for the vast majority of military wrecks, the Bill as it stands would place no restrictions whatsoever on divers who want to look but not touch.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that we intend in Committee to propose the removal of the offence of "boarding" in Clause 2(2)(b) of the Bill. In this context, it is worth mentioning that it is not, after all, an offence to stand on a formal grave. The Government are also considering whether it is possible to define the offence of "entering" more clearly. We would certainly wish to deter people from meddling inside an aircraft or vessel which contains the bodies of its crew, but not to prevent a diver from simply standing amid the scattered wreckage of a vessel on the seabed.
We have also been looking closely at Clause 1, which applies the Bill to certain types of aircraft and vessels. The Bill automatically protects all aircraft and vessels in these categories. This approach, rather than the specific designation of individual aircraft and vessels for protection, was adopted mainly because we do not know the present location of many of the aircraft that we would wish to protect. These are the British and foreign aircraft that crashed somewhere in this country in World War 2 and whose wreckage has still to be discovered.
There is a similar problem with vessels that sank in the two world wars. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, referred to this. But automatic protection for military vessels itself creates certain problems. The clause, as presently drafted, does not define the category of vessel in a way that can readily be applied in individual cases. The Government will therefore be suggesting an amendment at Committtee stage which will require all vessels to be individually designated for protection. A further amendment would deal with the problem of vessels in unknown locations. These amendments would remove any uncertainty about the identity of the vessels covered by the Bill. I am sure that this approach will be particularly welcomed by salvage companies and sub-aqua clubs.
Some of your Lordships have expressed the concern felt by some salvage companies that the Bill would place British companies at a severe disadvantage in relation to their foreign competitors in international waters. I say "some of your Lordships"; but I think that it was each and every one of your Lordships. This would only happen, I believe, in those exceptional cases where a company discovered a wreck unexpectedly and needed to take possession immediately. In most cases, it should be possible to seek a licence under the Bill well in advance of any operation. Nevertheless, if a protected vessel contains cargo worth recovering, the Government would obviously prefer it to be recovered by a reputable company that would take care not to disturb any human remains, rather than to leave it to attract the attention and possibly not-so-tender mercies of some other enterprise.

823
To meet these concerns, I can give an assurance that the Government will be prepared to grant a licence to reputable companies which will enable them in an emergency to remove cargo from a protected vessel without committing an offence. The licence would contain strict conditions and a clearly defined code of practice designed to minimuse any disturbance of human remains. If the company failed to honour those conditions the licence would be withdrawn. Such a licence will, I hope, meet the legitimate concerns of reputable salvage companies and also help to guarantee that the vessels concerned will thereafter be left in peace.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would the Minister give way? I am most grateful. Prima facie, this sounds like an important and significant statement. Could the Minister tell us whether the operation of the procedure he has outlined has been discussed, even informally, with some of those who are involved in the business? They have said that in their view this would meet the position.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, indeed it has been discussed—by me in fact—with at least one of the companies concerned. Also, perhaps more importantly, it has been discussed with the trade association: the Association of Offshore Diving Contractors, as I think they are called.
Perhaps I may turn now to some of the points that have been raised during the course of our discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, asked a number of questions. He asked, first, whether the protection under the Bill would be limited to White Ensign vessels, to British vessels. The answer to that is, no. The main purpose of the Bill is to protect the last resting-place of servicemen who went down with their aircraft and vessels; and they of course include support vessels such as Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and merchant vessels taken over for military purposes.
The noble Lord also asked whether licences for salvage operations would be issued to British companies only, or, rather, I am not sure whether he actually asked that specifically, but I know that is a matter which has been in his mind. I do not think it would be possible to confine the issue of licences to British companies alone, because almost certainly that would be contrary to our obligations in respect of the European Community. Nor would it be desirable, I think, because of course the purpose of the procedure is to ensure orderly entry (if that is what is required) of the wrecks of ships and aircraft, and therefore it may be better to issue a licence when one is sought and the necessary undertakings are given.
Some reference was also made to whether the Bill had not been rather rushed through another place. I can assure your Lordships that there was no premeditated intention to do that. However, the Bill did enjoy a wide measure of support in the other place and I dare say that is why it got through so quickly and easily—something which perhaps your Lordships will wish to take note of (or perhaps not!).
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, also asked whether we should resurrect the position of the government salvor. It is the case that during and after the Second
824
World War the Government contracted a number of private salvage companies to undertake a large amount of salvage work which was necessary at that time. The Government do not see a need at the moment to enter into a general contractual relationship with one or more private companies, but of course I cannot predict what our future requirements in this area might be. I am not sure, in any event, that the term "government salvor" was ever an official one, but I believe it did come into common usage.
I believe I have covered all the main points which have been raised tonight in the course of this debate, but I shall be happy to deal with others either by correspondence or at a later stage, if that is thought helpful. There is no doubt that the main thrust of this Bill has widespread public support. Existing legislation does not adequately protect the remains of those who died in the service of their country and the Government believe strongly that this Bill meets a real need in a sensible way. At the same time, as I have indicated, we are prepared to do what is necessary in order to ensure that there will be the minimum interference with the activities of responsible divers, archaeologists and others.
Her Majesty's Government fully support the principle of this Bill and I invite your Lordships to do likewise, so that effective action may in future be taken against the minority who offend public sensitivities by their wanton disregard for the sanctity of war graves.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and particularly to my noble friend for his contribution and the assurances he gave towards the end of his speech about his willingness to join with us in making sure that, in legislating for the sanctity of those ships in which many of the crew lie entombed, we do not put the British interests of the salvage companies, the divers and others at a disadvantage in international waters. That is a matter we shall need to return to at Committee stage: meanwhile, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.56 p.m. to 8 p.m.]

Education Bill [H.L.]
8 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 20.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 23, line 15, at end insert—
("(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above measures shall not include the giving of corporal punishment and where in any civil or criminal proceedings it is shown that corporal punishment

825
has been given to a pupil by or on the authority of a member of the staff, giving the punishment cannot be justified on the ground that it was done in pursuance of a right exercisable by the member of the staff by virtue of his position as such.
(1B) References in subsection (1A) above to the giving of corporal punishment are references to doing anything for the purpose of punishing the pupil which, apart from any justification, would constitute battery.
(1C) In subsection (1A) above "member of the staff' means any teacher who works at a school where education is provided for the pupil and any other person who has lawful control or charge of the pupil and works at such a place.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 62A:
Page 23, line 18, leave out ("in any case").
The noble Earl said: If I may, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 62A and 62B. These are purely drafting amendments. The words covered by Amendment No. 62A are unnecessary. As regards Amendment No. 62B, one of the intentions of Clause 20 is that, if a head teacher excludes a pupil for more than three school days in aggregate in any one term or if the exclusion would prevent him from taking a public examination, the governing body or the LEA can direct the head to reinstate the pupil at once.
Subsection (3) deals separately with aided and special agreement schools because of their ultimate right to exclude pupils permanently, but, as worded, it applies to all exclusions, not just those that exceed the three-day limit or interfere with examinations. The amendment will bring aided and special agreement schools into line with other maintained schools, subject to the preservation of their existing power to expel pupils.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): I must point out that if Amendment No. 62B which was spoken to by the noble Earl is carried I cannot call Amendment No. 63.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I appreciate and support the Government in saying that it is unacceptable to subject a pupil to a continued temporary exclusion, which is the point of the amendment. My colleagues on the General Synod Board of Education and the Catholic Education Council have been concerned about the position of the governors of aided schools if the local authority is to be given the power to give directions to the head teacher in the way proposed in the Bill. The head teacher of an aided school is, after all, the employee of the governors and governors of an aided school have traditionally been responsible for admissions to and, by extension, exclusions from their schools.
My difficulty is that the amendment does not meet our concern on that point. The clause gives that new power to the local authority and we feel that we should have to resist that along the lines perhaps of an amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London next in the Marshalled List.
We believe that there must be anterior consultation with the governing body on that point. Surely that would be only prudent. I wondered whether an assurance can be given by the noble Earl that that
826
point will be looked at. If it could be accepted and a way of implementing it brought forward, I should be ready not to press for the raising later in Committee of the substance of Amendment No. 63.
The Earl of Swinton: The amendment is not intended to address the Church's concern as expressed in Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65. We have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns expressed by the right reverend Prelate in those amendments. We are considering whether it is possible to go some way towards meeting them without undermining the ultimate responsibility of LEAs to secure the education of children in their areas.
I appreciate the right reverend Prelate's concern that if the amendment is agreed to, which I hope it will be, he cannot move his amendment. Having offered him the consideration that even if he does not move the amendment tonight we shall see what we can do and whether we can come forward later with a suitable amendment to take account of the Church's concern, I wonder whether he will be prepared to agree to the Government's amendment going ahead tonight.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I am grateful for that assurance. I was anxious to secure the possibility of that consideration. I accept that understanding.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 62B:
Page 24, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("by") in line 10 and insert—
("where he has excluded a pupil from the school—

(i) for more than three school days (in the aggregate) in any one term; or

(ii) in circumstances in which the pupil would, as a result of his exclusion from the school, lose an opportunity to take any public examination;

to comply with any direction for the immediate reinstatement of the pupil given by the governing body or, where the pupil has been excluded otherwise than permanently,").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65 not moved.]
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 66:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals concerning exclusion from school on disciplinary grounds.
.—(1) Every local education authority shall make arrangements for enabling the parent of a registered pupil at any county, controlled or maintained special school for which they are responsible to appeal against exclusion from the school on disciplinary grounds.
(2) The governors of every aided or special agreement school shall make arrangements for enabling the parent of a registered pupil at the school to appeal against exclusion from the school on disciplinary grounds.
(3) Joint arrangements may be made under subsection (2) above by the governors of two or more aided or special agreement schools.
(4) Any appeal by virtue of this section shall be to an appeal committee constituted in accordance with paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1980.
(5) Part II of that Schedule shall have effect in relation to the procedure on any such appeal but with the following modification—paragraph 7 (matters to be taken into account by appeal committee) shall have effect as if for paragraphs (a) and
(b) there were substituted "any representations made by the appellant".
(6) An appeal committee hearing an appeal by virtue of this section may either

(a) order that the exclusion shall cease forthwith, or

(b) inform the local education authority that it does not consider reinstatement appropriate, giving its reasons in writing.

(7) The decision of an appeal committee on any such appeal shall be binding on the head teacher.").
The noble Lord said: We have talked a good deal this evening about exclusions and whether the head teacher and the governing body should be the sole arbiters or whether the local education authority should have the last say in the case of exclusion. I hasten to say that this amendment does not touch on those aspects of exclusion of pupils from school; it stems from a concern that I expressed on Second Reading about the inadequacy, as it stands, of Clause 21 which will have to go if my amendment is accepted.
Clause 21 as written merely allows parents the right to appeal against the exclusion of a child where the articles of government provide for an appeals procedure. But there is no requirement for the articles to incorporate any such mechanism. It seemed and seems to me extraordinary that so fundamental a matter should be left purely to local whim, and so I turned to the Notes on Clauses which the Government have kindly made available to ensure that I had understood Clause 21 aright.
My reading of the meaning of the clause was immediately confirmed. It says:
"It is not a requirement that articles of government provide for particular forms of parental appeal against their child's exclusion from school".
From that it appears that appeal procedures could vary from school to school or indeed there could be no appeal procedure at all in some schools. That surely offends against any interpretation of the principle of natural justice.
In Scotland, where they often order such things better than south of the Border, under the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 parents and, in the case of pupils over the age of 16, pupils have a right of appeal against exclusion from school. That is accomplished simply by providing that the same appeals committee as exists to hear appeals on placements under Sections 28C, 28E and 28F shall also hear appeals against exclusions under Section 28H. That is to say, the same committee performs both functions. Fortunately, the English Education Act 1980 provides the perfect legislative framework for us to do exactly the same thing in a very simple way, and that is what this amendment sets out to do.
Section 7 of the 1980 Act sets up an appeal procedure on admissions to schools when children are not admitted to the school of their choice and the appeals committee is constituted in accordance with Part I of Schedule 2 to that Act. What is proposed in this amendment, since the machinery already exists, is that an appeals committee should be constituted in an identical way to hear appeals on exclusions.
The 1980 Act machinery has already been extended once to take on board appeals under the 1981 Education Act against LEA proposals to meet "special educational needs", so there is no reason why the same
828
procedure should not take on an additional responsibility, or why English and Welsh parents should not enjoy the same rights as Scottish parents already have. Indeed, it would probably be sensible to have a multi-purpose appeals committee on the lines of the Scottish Act.
I am concerned in this amendment not so much with the mechanism, important as that is, as with the principle. If the Government prefer a different procedure or perhaps a better form of words, I shall welcome their advice or indeed their expertise in preparing an amendment of their own for the next stage of the Bill. But what I cannot accept is that the Bill is left as it stands. However much we believe in devolution of decisions that ought to be taken locally—as I certainly do—it is not good enough to allow a matter of this importance affecting a child's whole future to be decided in a way that can vary widely up and down the country.
The obligations of the boards of governors under this Bill are laid down in some detail throughout the Bill. For example, Clause 20 requires them to do or provide all sorts of things in relation to discipline. It therefore cannot be argued that it is unjustifiable interference with the governors' autonomy to require their articles of government to incorporate an appeals mechanism. I do not seek in any way to take a particular view or stance on exclusions or reinstatements, but seek simply to provide a right of appeal and an equitable appeals procedure which ensures equal treatment for all appeals.
I should like to remind the noble Baroness that her colleague, the noble Earl, has already been kind to me on one of my earlier amendments on the election of parent governors and has offered to bring forward his own amendment at the Report stage of the Bill. So I very much hope she will be inspired by his example on that previous amendment and make me a similar offer this evening. I think the noble Baroness and the noble Earl will agree that my amendments are always fair and reasonable. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I regret to inform the noble Lord that the inspiration which I sought from my noble friend has not been forthcoming. Therefore I must reply by saying that Part III of the Bill does not seek to be exhaustive on the prescription of functions, but rather provides a framework around which good practice can evolve. The noble Lord himself said, if I remember correctly, that it is not the mechanism but the practice that he seeks to underline. Some local education authorities may decide, as now, to provide through articles of government for appeals procedures against exclusions. That would be entirely reasonable and indeed Clause 21 anticipates such action.
We do not believe, however, that there is any single system appropriate to all authorities and some may decide that other ways of building on the legal framework suit them better in their particular locality. Some may, for example, prefer to rely on conciliation involving parents, or to build on consultative procedures which are already well developed in their areas. The choice should in our view be left to local education authorities, although we have in mind, in our post-Act circular to authorities, giving

829
detailed advice on practical issues and this will certainly be one of the areas to be covered. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will feel prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness's reply puzzles me. I wonder whether she is speaking to the right amendment, because the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is a replacement of Clause 21. It confirms the position in the Bill that in county, controlled and maintained special schools there shall be a right of appeal against exclusion, and it makes new provision for such an appeal to exist for the parents in aided and special agreement schools.
The noble Baroness said that this was a matter on which the Government choose not to be too precise and to leave local option. As I understand it, the local authority has to make arrangements in all of its county, controlled and maintained special schools for an appeal procedure. All the noble Lord is proposing is that it should be extended to aided and special agreement schools. I do not see how he is doing anything more prescriptive or restrictive than is already provided. He is simply saying: if it is right for one lot of parents it is right for all lots of parents, and the arguments used by the noble Baroness are not, with all due respect, really appropriate to the amendment being moved.
Baroness Hooper: The Government do not see the need to impose a particular system on all local education authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, argued that appeal procedures could vary from school to school. That is a theoretical possibility. But if the position is to be set by articles of government, and those will be made in a particular local education authority area, then that authority can be expected to adopt a uniform approach for all the schools in that area.
Lord Kilmarnock: I, too, am puzzled by the noble Baroness's reply. I always appreciate her clarity, her exposition and the charm of her delivery, but I feel that the Government's position here is extraordinarily weak. I am not striving to move against the freedom of governing bodies to take the decisions that it is appropriate for them to take and that the Bill wants them to take. But I find it very difficult to understand how it can be argued that you can have some schools in the country where there should be an appeals procedure laid down in the articles of government, which might vary from one set of articles to another set of articles. Indeed, there is nothing in the Bill which prescribes that there needs to be any appeals procedure at all and that, on my reading of Clause 21, is purely optional.
I am entirely in favour of allowing many flowers to flourish where that is appropriate, but surely we do not, for example, have different criminal law in different parts of the country and this is a matter which can affect the whole of a child's life. It may be right to exclude that child or it may be wrong to exclude that child. I am not seeking to make any judgment on that point. I am simply seeking to obtain from the Government an arrangement whereby there will be an equal right to appeal in all types of school and an
830
equally just appeals procedure in all types of school up and down the country. I simply cannot understand the Government's objection. It is not interfering with local autonomy or devolution. It is simply a matter of implementing a basic human right.
The Government have laid down a great many other duties for governing bodies in the Bill. They have to do all sorts of things about discipline, about the curriculum and so on and so forth. When a perfectly good mechanism exists under the 1980 Act I cannot understand why on earth they should not lay this small further obligation on governing bodies in the interests of natural justice.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I support the noble Lord on this point. The whole thrust of the Bill, as we have been told on many occasions, is to extend the democratic government of our schools system to a wider body of people. The particular mechanism chosen by the Government to do that is the governing body. The governing body has increased powers and a wider membership to include elected parents and elected teachers and other co-opted members.
Surely it is not only a possible but a necessary extension of that democracy to say that individual parents—not just elected parents—who are personally concerned with the discipline of the school in the sense that their own child has been excluded should have the right of appeal. I cannot see how this is in any way in conflict with the objectives of the Government in the way in which the Bill has been prepared and the case for the Bill has been argued. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, not to withdraw the amendment, because it is a matter not of confidence in the Government but of common sense urging that this appeal procedure should be available.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may reinforce this point. This is not a question of local option but of natural justice. That should apply evenly across the piece. I hesitate to enter into this debate because I have not really been following the Bill in any detail. My noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee has had to leave but I am sure that, were he here, he would be saying precisely the same thing. I repeat that it is not a question of local option but of natural justice, which should go across the country as a whole. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will reconsider her position.
Baroness Hooper: I shall consider most carefully what both noble Lords have said. It seems to me that the issue is whether or not there should be an appeals procedure. The Government, while agreeing that there should be an appeals procedure, concluded that it should not be mandatory. Bearing in mind the points that have been made, I will take it away and consider it carefully.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his support. In view of what the noble Baroness has just said, I do not think it would be right for me to press the amendment at this stage because I think that possibly a gleam of light is now I entering into the Government's thinking on the matter. We may hope that they will come forward and

831
help us at a later stage. I am also grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Tordoff. As he said, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, would have been with me too.
It is a question of natural justice and not of interfering with local rights. I urge the noble Baroness and the noble Earl to think about this very carefully and to see whether they cannot come foward with something for the next stage of the Bill. I shall be most happy to meet with them and discuss any proposals they have, which may indeed be better than mine. I am obviously not wedded to my wording and they may have a better idea. But I think we must introduce the principle of natural justice into the appeals procedure. That is all I am asking. In view of what the noble Baroness has said, I shall at this stage withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66A not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Finance]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 25, line 39, after ("how") insert ("all or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is again very much in line with the thinking of the Government, and ought not to cause them a great deal of difficulty. The proposal made in the amendment is that where there is devolution of funding to governing bodies—that is proposed in subsection (b)—there should be the possibility (it is not demanded) that all the funds allocated to the school should be available to the governing body to use at its discretion. The Bill is quite precise on this. This is to include,
"books, equipment, stationery and such other heads of expenditure".
This is not purely a theoretical matter. There is experience of experiments by local education authorities to extend the degree of autonomy in financial matters to the governing bodies and the headmasters and staff in their schools rather than having everything laid down by the education office. A particular example of this is Cambridgeshire. A number of noble Lords will have had correspondence from those responsible for the experiment in Cambridgeshire, which has been going for some time. The proposal is now before the education committee that the experimental proposal—the pilot scheme—shall be extended to other schools in the area. I do not express a view on whether that is right or wrong; that is a matter for the Cambridgeshire Education Committee. This is an area in which local option is appropriate and where the education authority must carry out its own negotiations with the governing bodies and the headmasters and staffs of the schools. Provided that the devolution of financing is restricted to the items which are set out in the Bill—books, equipment, stationery and so on—it is right that the Bill should provide for local authorities to experiment as they wish. It should not insist on it; it should not be compulsory. That is why we say,
"all or a proportion of the funds".
832
But it should be possible for local authorities to go for wider devolution if that is what they think appropriate.
I should like to make one thing clear, however, in case the amendment is not clear in that respect. It would not be our view that staffing funds should be devolved to the governing bodies. There should be no possibility of vying between staffing and other heads of expenditure. That applies not only to permanent staff but also to supply teaching staff. It should not be possible to cut down on supply teaching in order to pay for more books, equipment or stationery. Given that proviso—and I do not believe that the amendment particularly encourages staffing funds to be devolved to the governing bodies—I think that the amendment, which is permissive rather than prescriptive, ought to commend itself to the Government. I hope that they will be able to respond favourably to it. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord has said that the intention of the amendment is to ensure that money may be spent how they wish. That is the reason why the word "how" appears in the original clause. Therefore there is really very little, if anything, between us on this; and indeed the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment is already implicit in the clause. Therefore, the clause as it stands places absolutely no limit on the proportion of funds which local education authorities may place in the hands of their governing bodies, so it could mean "all".
We also admire the success of Cambridge, but if we were to accept the wording of the noble Lord it could be invidious: it would put pressure on authorities favouring a cautious approach to act faster than circumstances suggested. Yet the experience of existing schemes which began modestly, using pilot schools and building on experience, and indeed the advice of the Audit Commission, is that the path to success lies through evolution, not revolution. It would fail to recognise—which the clause, as drafted, is careful to do—that local education authorities must retain ultimate responsibility for the management of all their resources if they are to carry out their duty to maintain schools and to remain accountable both to electorate and to auditors.
What may have been misunderstood is that the majority of authorities operate no schemes of financial devolvement and the clause is therefore already ambitious in its requirement that local education authorities should begin such schemes even to a minimum degree. To put them under pressure to do too much too quickly could risk shipwreck.
Finally, there arises the question of definition. Who is to say what is meant by "all"? Are we talking about all resources for the maintenance of schools, all payroll costs? This could make no sense when many of the maintanence problems we see in schools may have their roots in an authority's failure to have an overall picture of its building stock and planned policies for its regular maintenance, instead of a piecemeal reaction to crisis and when falling school rolls and the rationalisation of school premises require authorities more than ever to have flexible management policies for all staff.

833
As I said at the outset, there is really nothing between us, and if the noble Lord's ambition is to ensure that money is spent how they wish, which is the phrase that he used, I therefore ask the Commmittee to reject this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was very encouraged by the first part of what the noble Baroness said. She has certainly convinced me that 100 per cent. could be interpreted as being a proportion of the funds, and I would have been very happy to leave it at that. But she then went on to say that there was something dangerous about the approach and that all of the funds allocated to the school would somehow bring with it all sorts of difficulties about payroll and so on. If that is the case, then the objection applies to the Bill without the amendment, because if 100 per cent. is a proportion then 100 per cent. is all. The objections apply whether or not the amendment is carried.
I do not think that the noble Baroness needed to use quite the degree of overkill that she did in opposing this amendment. On the basis of the Government's assurance that a proportion may be a proportion of 100 per cent., I am happy to agree with her that the amendment is unnecessary even though it is certainly not dangerous. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Governors' annual report to parents]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 26, line 38, after ("name") insert ("and address").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment again is to go along with the thinking of the Government in relation to the reports and meetings of governing bodies, but simply to improve in a very modest way the access of those most concerned—the parents—to the governing body and to the members of the governing body.
What is proposed in line 38 is that the governors' report shall contain not only the name of each governor and whether he is a parent, teacher or foundation governor, but also the address of the governor. This is not a revolutionary amendment. After all, all elected members of local authorities have their addresses published, even before they are elected, on the notice of poll; and after they have been elected it is expected that they will make their addresses available to members of the public—to their electorate. Even if that is not easy for their electorate to get hold of, it is always easy to reach the elected representative on a local authority by writing to the town hall. This is not an intrusion on the privacy of the elected members of a local authority. It is a necessary concomitant of being elected. You make yourself available to the people who elected you. There is no equivalent of the town hall in quite the same sense so far as concerns school governing bodies. It seems logical to us that the address of the governors should also be available to parents, or to any other recipients of the governors' report, so that if there are any questions which arise it is possible for the people
834
concerned—the electorate in this case—to make contact with the governor they wish to speak to. It is a natural obligation, in our view, which goes with being elected. We think that it is in line with the Government's thinking and hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: In this day and age, surely most, if not all, of the governors' names would be in the telephone book.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: No.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If that were the case, then there certainly cannot be any objection other than pure parsimony to publishing the address in an accessible form. But if it is not the case, and if they are not in the telephone book—it is not just that people do not have telephones, an increasing number of people are actually excluding their names from the telephone directory for reasons of self preservation—then it is appropriate that they should be as accessible as those who are in the telephone directory.
The Earl of Swinton: Of course, I sympathise with the intention behind this amendment of making governors more accessible. It is, however, important to bear in mind while considering this amendment, the structure of the clause and its interaction with Clause 25, concerning the parents' annual meeting. This clause sets out certain minimum requirements as to the contents of the governors' annual report. Subsection (2)(c) requires the governors to be identified by name, and (2)(f) requires the name and address of the chairman and clerk to be given.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the nearest thing to the town hall in this case is surely the address of the clerk to the governors; and failing the clerk to the governors, the chairman of the governors. This will guarantee that the governing body can be contacted direct. This provides a ready means of contacting other governors, and certainly of finding out the addresses of the other governors. It may well be of course that the other governors will add to the minimum requirement in Clause 24 to give their addresses. In fact, the Government will encourage them in this. They did not, however, feel able to go to the point of requiring these other addresses to be published. It should be noted that by virtue of subsection (4) the report is to be sent not only to all parents, but also available for inspection at the school by others. Some people—may I dare suggest not least some may be parliamentarians—are understandably jealous of their privacy, and this should be respected.
To come to the question of telephoning, I know how difficult it is at times during the recess to contact Peers by the telephone when I find how many are ex-directory. I mentioned the interaction with the provisions of Clause 25 concerning the annual parents' meeting. That adds a large degree of self-regulation to those important clauses designed to involve parents more closely in the work of their children's schools.
If parents do not like the governors' report that they are offered, they will say so, and the governors will need to consider those representations. If parents consider that they ought to have the addresses of the

835
governors, I am sure that they will make that very much known. At many turns the Government have been asked to allow for more flexibility in the Bill's provisions. This clause contains just such flexibility which, with the self-regulation that I have described, makes the amendment unnecessary. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am always susceptible to suggestions that an amendment might be unnecessary. I bridle more when I am told that it is dangerous.
The Earl of Swinton: I did not say that it was dangerous.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was not suggesting that the noble Earl used that word in this instance. In this case I am less than convinced, I am bound to say, by the noble Earl's arguments. To have to approach a governor through the clerk to the governing body or through the school is an additional complication which will, to that extent, make governors less accessible to the electorate, whereas the opportunity to write directly to governors is a facility that ought to be made available to the electorate.
The Earl of Swinton: I was not suggesting that a parent should have to contact the governors through the clerk. I was suggesting that the clerk would know the addresses of the governors, so that if a parent really wanted to know their addresses, it would not be all that difficult to obtain them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The effect is the same. If a parent who wanted to contact a governor had to go to the clerk to the governors to obtain the address, that would in effect be going through the clerk to the governors. There is no direct contact. There is at least the reforwarding to take place.
Thinking again about the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I am not necessarily keen that the telephone numbers of governors should be made available to the electorate. Having been an elected member of a local authority for a number of years and having always had my telephone. number in the phone book and in the directory of the local authority, I have been less than pleased by the times at which some members of the public and of the electorate have chosen to make telephone calls on matters that seemed important to them.
Therefore, the right to phone elected representatives at all hours of the day or night is not one that I would advocate. However, the right to write to people directly and not via the clerk to the governing body is reasonable and I am sorry that the Government feel unable to accede to that modest addition. However, in view of the hour and of the fact that it is not a matter of major importance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 27, line 31, at end insert—
("(c) in Wales require them to produce it in Welsh as well as in English where the school is a designated Welsh medium or
836
naturally Welsh school or being generally an English medium school has a Welsh medium unit attached thereto and forming part thereof.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will recognise this as one of a series of amendments that will be moved in my name but upon which the real expert is my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I put these amendments forward with confidence, having been convinced by the arguments that he presented on the previous amendments. Amendment No. 69 proposes that the report of the governing body, where that is in Wales, should be in Welsh,
"where the school is a designated Welsh medium or naturally Welsh school",
or where there is a Welsh medium unit as part of an English medium school.
That seems to us to be in line with a good deal of Government thinking about the preservation and encouragement of the Welsh language where those living in Wales prefer to use it. It has formed a part of local government legislation in Wales for some time. There is nothing remarkable about it in that sense. Relying also on the expert support of my noble friends, I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to my noble friend for moving Amendment No. 69. What I have to say to that amendment can be applied also to Amendment No. 77. The Welsh Language Act 1967 recognised the principle of the equal validity of the Welsh language with the English language in the law courts and in the conduct of public or official business in the Principality. Both amendments apply the principle of the 1967 Act in relation to both the governors' report and the proceedings at the annual parents' meeting.
8.45 p.m.
Both amendments are justified on the grounds of demand, principle and common sense. I should explain that Welsh is the first language of a significant number of parents whose children attend Welsh language schools. Indeed, it is probably the first language of the overwhelming majority of their teachers. It therefore seems only right that there should be a statutory duty for the governors' report on a Welsh language school to be made available in bilingual form. It also seems only right that a person attending the annual meeting should be entitled to speak in Welsh should he so desire. So that there may be no uncertainty about that duty and that right, we ask that they should be spelt out in the Bill. Indeed, we believe that they will strengthen the Bill, because those provisions will cultivate and encourage wider participation.
Baroness Young: The purpose of this amendment is to require local education authorities to include in the articles of government for Welsh medium schools and schools with Welsh units a requirement that the governors' report to parents shall be published in Welsh as well as in English.
I find it difficult to accept the presumption in the amendment that local education authorities in Wales

837
will seek to discriminate against the Welsh language and those whose mother tongue it is. The Government would be most reluctant to impose upon local education authorities a duty that, as reasonable and responsible public bodies, they would seek to undertake of their own volition.
Moreover, Clause 24(3)(b) already requires that the annual report to parents shall be published in a language or languages additional to English as the local education authority may direct. Successive governments have deliberately avoided introducing any element of compulsion into their policies for encouraging the development of the Welsh language and this Government have no intention of adopting a different line.
I add that all the necessary powers are there to publish the annual report in Welsh. The local education authority can even require that in the articles if it thinks fit. However, the Government do not feel it would be appropriate to require that to be done by national statute.
I remind the noble Lord of the role of the annual parents' meeting if there are not the opportunities provided to use the Welsh language and to have the annual report published in Welsh. I do not feel that there is any difference in principle between that which the noble Lord has said and that which is in the Bill. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: That is a disappointing response from the Government. Indeed, it could be argued that the time has come in Wales to introduce the language not merely into the curriculum but also to the government of the school. Unless it plays a role in the government of the school it will be seen to have an inferior status; and that would militate against the declared policies of the Government to enhance and strengthen the status of the language.
It appeared to us that the principles contained in this amendment and the subsequent amendment are consistent with the philosophy of the Government and the philosophy of this part of the Bill; namely, that one should encourage participation by the parents and that the parents in Wales who send their children to Welsh schools should have the statutory right to have the report in bilingual form and to use the Welsh language at the general meeting. Therefore, it appears to us that many people will be disappointed and will question the commitment of the Government to their support of the Welsh language. For my part, we will have to take this back and study the words of the Minister. However, my response is one of disappointment and I believe that many other people in the Principality will be equally disappointed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I share my noble friend's disappointment. Indeed, I am puzzled by the attitude of the noble Baroness on this matter. It is, after all, an established principle that the publications of a local authority and the proceedings of a local authority in Wales, where there are Welsh language speakers, must also be available in Welsh. I may be wrong.
Lord Prys-Davies: The authority here is available in the 1967 Act, but in this case we wish to see the principle enshrined in the Act applied to the circumstances of the report and the general meetings of the parents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot help thinking that the draftsman just forgot about the Welsh language in this respect and that the resistance to this amendment is purely formal, in order to protect the parliamentary draftsman, rather than the result of deep thought. It seems to me that in practical terms the Government are inviting difficulty not so much in this Committee—although the strength of the Welsh language on these Benches is well known, from my noble friend Lord Cledwyn downwards—but particularly in another place.
I am sure that Welsh members on the Standing Committee in another place on this Bill will be particularly displeased at the idea that the Welsh language should not be treated, as far as the proceedings and publications of governing bodes are concerned, in the same way as the Welsh language is treated under the 1967 Act in other parts of public life in Wales. I should have thought that it would cost the Government nothing to agree to this amendment and would save them a great deal of trouble later on.
As I said, I find it surprising that on this matter the noble Baroness should be so inflexible. As my noble friend has indicated, it will be necessary for us to consider what she has said and decide whether this amendment, or another form of it, should be put down in another place.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I can make one further comment that may help the noble Lord in his consideration of the matter. Parents in Welsh schools can have their report in Welsh. If they want it in Welsh they have only to ask for it at a parents' meeting. To say that they can have it is different to introducing by statute that it must be available.
Some of the remarks that have been made in the discussion on this amendment have taken the debate beyond the annual report and in that instance it would not be right to introduce a statutory requirement in the Bill to one part of the Welsh language. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord discussed this matter with the Secretary of State for Wales about a year ago and he will know and understand the view of my right honourable friend over the use of the Welsh language. I am sure the noble Lord will recall that meeting. I am trying to be helpful by indicating how we think the Bill will work in practice.
Lord Tordoff: I hesitate to intervene, but the Welshness of these Benches, going back some years, is also well known. It seems to me that the last part of this amendment is the most valid part. I understand what the noble Baroness is saying in terms of parents being able to insist on the Welsh language being used in such cases. However, where a school is generally an English medium school but has a Welsh medium unit attached to it, the Welsh will be in a minority. In that case they may not be able to exert parental pressure to

839
have the report produced in Welsh. In those cases it would seem to be proper to entrench the rights of Welsh parents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said because I think it leads the way to a compromise that might be acceptable to all parties. I agree that one could conceive of a situation where it would be undesirable to insist on a copy of the report in Welsh simply because there is a part of the school that uses the Welsh medium. However, the noble Baroness suggested that it might be possible to say that if any parent or parents ask for the governor's annual report to be in Welsh then it should be required for it to be provided. That seems to me to be a useful halfway house. It is not in the Bill as drafted, but an amendment on those lines could well be prepared which would presumably meet with the approval of the Government since it would be made at the suggestion of the noble Baroness. On the understanding that we shall come back on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Annual parents' meeting]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendments Nos. 70 and 69A are in the correct order on the Marshalled List. I call Amendment No. 70. If this is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 69A.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 28, line 1, leave out ("Subject to subsection (7) below").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to our Chairman for relieving me of some possibility of confusion on the numbering. This is the second time that amendments on the Marshalled List have been in the correct order but appeared not to be in the correct order.
With the permission of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 79. That inevitably leads me to speak, I think, to Amendment No. 79A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. Although this grouping has not been agreed through the usual channels, I think it might be sensible for us to deal with Amendments Nos. 70, 69A and 79A at the same time. I say that because in Amendment No. 79A the Government propose a replacement of subsection (7) with an improvement which makes it possible to have annual parents' meetings in special schools and in boarding schools. That certainly was the intention of our amendment.
The existing provisions for annual parents' meetings—and I shall speak about the annual nature of parents' meetings in relation to later amendments—is that they should apply to only those schools which are county, voluntary, and maintained special schools which are not largely boarding schools or special schools established in hospitals. This matter was referred to at Second Reading and when discussing the composition of governing bodies earlier in Committee.
9 p.m.
It is the experience of a number of local education authorities that it is possible to elect parents as governors to boarding schools and special schools in hospitals. It is possible, even though the parents may come from different parts of the country, to use the fact that they come to visit their children at the school, and in that way they sometimes have an even more effective way of meeting each other and learning about each other's capabilities and needs than may be the case in some day schools. It is for that reason that we propose to delete subsection (7), which says that the provisions on annual parents' meetings do not apply to boarding schools or special schools in hospitals.
The Government are now proposing in Amendment No. 79A that there is a presupposition that there shall be such meetings in special schools and in boarding schools—I hope I am not summarising too brutally and that I am understanding correctly the intention of the Government—but that it shall be possible for these schools not to have annual meetings in a particular year when the governing body decides that it would be impracticable. This is certainly an improvement on the existing situation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who has a personal, family interest in a local education authority boarding school, if he were present would agree with me that it is not as bad as subsection (7) as it is at present drafted. But I do not see why, if it has been shown that annual parents' meetings are possible in such schools, there should be the possibility of such meetings being ruled out on the basis that the governing body is of the opinion that it would be impracticable.
It seems that this is an invitation for a governing body which is not particularly responsive to the opinions or reactions of parents—and with the best will in the world that could happen in some schools of this kind—to protect itself from the scrutiny of an annual parents' meeting and to decide, without giving any particularly good reasons for it because there are no reasons required, that it does not want to hold a meeting, and therefore to declare that it would be impracticable. I do not believe that we should give that opportunity to governing bodies. I think it should be stronger than a presumption: it should be a requirement that parents' meetings should be held.
It is difficult to imagine how there could be such a school without some sort of parents' open day in the course of the school year. If that is the case, then surely a parents' meeting can be combined with it and the very laudable intentions of the Government in ensuring that there are parents' meetings and that there is an opportunity to report back to parents as a whole should apply to boarding and special schools as well as to day schools under the local authority's care. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: In responding to the noble Lord, perhaps I may follow his excellent example and also speak to the Government's own two amendments, Nos. 69A and 79A.
In our discussion of Clause 5, we dealt with the obvious difficulties that some hospital and residential schools would have in organising meaningful elections

841
among parent bodies which were subject to rapid turnover or were very widespread, or both. These difficulties are yet greater in respect of the annual parents' meeting. At least an election can be held by postal ballot.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to require all schools, regardless of their circumstances, to hold annual parents' meetings. For the reasons that I have indicated, this could not be regarded as sensible or appropriate.
As drafted, the scheme of the clause is that only schools which have fewer than 50 per cent. boarders or which are not hospital schools are under a duty to hold an annual parents' meeting. However, in the case of a residential or hospital school, it is intended that the governing body should have the discretion to hold an annual parent's meeting if it thinks that this is appropriate. We must remember that the LEA will be in a minority on the governing body, so the decision will genuinely be the governing body's own.
On reflection, it seemed to the Government that this discretion was not clearly enough articulated in this clause and that in particular it would have been doubtful whether the costs of such a discretionary meeting would have qualified under the provisions of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 as maintenance expenses of the school to be borne by the LEA. Our amendments now make the position clear. The governing body of a hospital school or a school where at least 50 per cent. of the pupils are boarders would be under a clear duty to hold an annual meeting unless it considered this impracticable.
The noble Lord suggested that it could be a sort of "Bolshie" governing body and decide that it did not want a meeting—or perhaps I am putting words in his mouth—but I think that this would be extremely unlikely. I have myself served on the governing body of a boarding school and of a hospital school and we were very conscious not only of the children in our care but also of their parents. I should have thought it would only have been if the circumstances were such that it really was impracticable, and some boarding schools do take parents from an enormous number of miles around them and they might not be able to do it. I think it would be an excellent idea for it to be combined with an open day, if that was felt to be the right way to proceed. I would hope that if a governing body were really awkward and refused point blank because they did not want the school to have a parents' meeting, a substantial number of protests from parents about the lack of an annual meeting would be rendered to the governing body, which would reconsider its decision and would at the very least bear the representations in mind when considering the matter again in subsequent years.
If parents felt that the governors' decision was unreasonable, or if they felt that holding a meeting would be practicable and that the governors would be in breach of a statutory duty if they did not hold one, they could always complain to the Secretary of State, who could then investigate the question under Sections 68 or 99 of the 1944 Act and, if appropriate, issue a direction to the governing body if he upheld the parents' complaint.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may consider that that is a long and formal way to proceed. I would, however, suggest to him—I see him nodding, so I am perhaps taking the words out of his mouth—that it would be a very unusual position where the governing body said that it did not want the parents to have an annual meeting and therefore would not allow one. In those rare conditions—I can hardly visualise them happening—a complicated and legal procedure such as I have described would be the right way to go about it. Against that background, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and to support the amendments in my name, Amendments Nos. 69A and 79A.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl in the course of one speech, is not only taking words out of my mouth; he is putting words into my mouth. I am certain that no governing body of which the noble Earl is a member would be, as he puts it, "Bolshie"—it is not a word that I ever use—but he recognises, as I do, that there might be governing bodies, even elected governing bodies, or even governing bodies without a local education authority majority, that would find it more cosy not to report back on an annual basis, with all the additional work and attendance that might be required.
I must confess to the Committee that I do not find the noble Earl's argument convincing. It is not a great deal further from the Government's intentions proposed in Government Amendment No. 79A to say that it should happen. I believe that it could happen. I cannot conceive, to use the noble Earl's word, of cases where there can be genuine reasons for not holding an annual parents' meeting. I hope that if I withdraw the amendment, the noble Earl will feel, on reflection, that the complicated appeals procedure that he has described is not one that is available to other than a small minority of particularly determined and well-informed parents. A much simpler solution is to see that the meetings take place. However, the difference between us is probably not sufficient to justify seeking the opinion of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 69A.
Page 28, line 1, leave out ("subsection (7)") and insert ("subsections (7) and (7A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 71.
Page 28, line 4, after ("meeting") insert ("at least").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is an attempt to help the Government. The Government are, I believe, somewhat stuck on the issue. Taking into account what they have said about giving back to governing bodies as much freedom as possible to decide upon their annual meeting or other meetings, I am sure that they will readily agree that we should cross out the word "annual" and allow the Bill to go ahead in the way that we propose in the amendment. A governing body would then be able to have one, two or three meetings a year, if it so desired. It may

843
nominate one as an annual meeting. In moving this amendment, I draw attention to the fact that there are other amendments that must follow if it is carried. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: This clause provides a minimum requirement that is common to other organisations, associations and companies—the requirement to hold an annual general meeting to carry out certain statutory requirements. In this case, the annual parents' meeting would be needed for the purposes of Clause 25 to consider the governors' annual report under Clause 24. The Government are not opposed in principle to the idea that a governing body should hold more than one meeting for parents in a year. We feel, however, that this amendment has the potential to impose, perhaps unwittingly, too open-ended a commitment on the local education authority. As already stated in relation to the previous amendment, Schedule 3, paragraph 3, provides that expenses deriving from the annual parents' meeting are to be reckoned as part of the cost of maintaining the school and thus are borne by the local education authority.
We accept the suggestion that governing bodies should be permitted to hold more than one parents' meeting a year provided that the local education authority agrees. We consider that this is already possible under the provisions of the Bill. Clause 25 requires that the articles of government for a school should make provision for an annual parents' meeting but this does not preclude the articles from including provision for more frequent meetings. As the local education authority would be making the articles of government, it must be assumed that if it proposed such a provision it would also be content to bear the cost. As the effect of his amendment is not ruled out under the Bill's provisions I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I am not happy about withdrawing this, but of course I have to at this stage. I was not looking at the cost because in most schools there will be very little cost involved in the annual meetings. There might be some cost involved for one or two in doing it this way. We were trying to be helpful, and to provide this freedom. I am quite sincere in saying that. If one is talking about freedom of this kind please give schools the opportunity to carry it out in this way.
I can think of many schools which will welcome this opportunity. The cost will be so small. I shall leave it at that and see whether we come back at Committee stage. I doubt it, but we shall see.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 28, line 6, after ("all") insert ("registered pupils and").
The noble Lord said: This amendment comes spatchcocked into the middle of a series of amendments by my noble friend Lord Taylor. However, it is on a quite different subject. It is not
844
relating to the timing of annual parents' meetings but to the possibility of having the registered pupils at the school entitled to come to the parents' meetings.
I am sure that many members of the Committee have been to the non-statutory parents' meetings which are held in good schools. These meetings very often have the registered pupils at the school in the audience if not actually taking part. It is valuable for them to be with their parents at the meetings if possible, not only because in some cases the elder pupils may be interested in the subject matter, may wish to hear the discussion and may have something to contribute to it, but also because many parents may not have access to suitable child-minding facilities. They may want to take the pupils with them as part of a family evening out. I cannot imagine that it would be very enjoyable for the younger children. But those of us who have been to parents' meetings know that this happens and that there are occasions when it is necessary and adds to the effectiveness of the meeting and the ability of a significant number of people to attend.
It is true that the subsection as drafted provides for "such other persons as the governing body may invite". It is open to a governing body to say, "Come along to the annual parents' meeting on such-and-such a date and bring your children with you if you would like to, or if it is necessary for them to come." But it is not a requirement. I think that it is important that we should provide every opportunity for as many parents as possible to attend the meeting. We should also recognise the interest, particularly of senior pupils, in the activities of the governing body in the annual meeting to which the governing body reports back.
I hope that the Government will feel that this is a constructive rather than a critical amendment and that they will feel able to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: The effect of this amendment would be to require the annual parents' meeting to be open to all registered pupils at the school. I am not sure that this could be appropriate. The annual meeting will be an important forum for parents and will provide an opportunity for them to voice their concerns in relation to the school. We have already debated earlier in the Committee stage the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the inappropriateness of pupils being mandatorily involved in all the work of the governing body.
One of the main purposes of the annual parents' meeting is to discuss the governing body's, the LEA's, and head teacher's discharge of their responsibilities. The Committee has already agreed that there are a number of the governing body's functions in which it would be inappropriate for pupils to be involved; and at the same time it must be true of the LEA's functions and even more so of the head teacher's. However, as I am sure the noble Lord understands, the clause as drafted does not debar pupils from the annual parents' meeting. That is a point which he made himself. This I think would cover the kind of case to which he referred of a younger child, as it were going along with the parents because the child could not be left alone at home.

845
The governors hold the meeting; therefore clearly they have the right to attend. Subsection (1) specifically provides for the parents of registered pupils and for the head teacher—who may have chosen not to be a governor—also to be entitled to attend. However, in this subsection the governing body may invite others, and if they wished to extend an invitation to pupils—perhaps senior pupils or members of the school council—they would be quite free to do so. If the parents felt that pupils were improperly excluded, they could register their view at the annual meeting and have the matter settled to their satisfaction.
I note that the amendment does not put any minimum age limit on the pupils who are entitled to attend. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that pupils at an infants' school are unlikely to benefit very much from attending such a meeting. Additionally, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out in the debate on pupil governors, there could be problems with special schools for the mentally handicapped.
Given the flexibility properly in the hands of the governing body as the convenors of the annual meeting, I think that this amendment is unnecessary, and it is inappropriate as it stands. I hope that with the explanation I have given and with the flexibility
846
inherent in the clause, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I would be slightly more sympathetic to that reply if the Government had not been so implacable in their opposition to pupil governors, because it is possible, if the governing body not having any pupils on it does not wish to encourage senior pupils or the school council—and I find both those suggestions helpful—then it can do so, and therefore can impoverish the annual meeting at which the governors report.
The noble Baroness, in the way she responded, has made the case for an amendment of this sort—perhaps not in the form I proposed—rather more effectively than I did. I had not thought particularly about the role of the school council, and the thought that they might have something to contribute and something to learn from a meeting of that kind. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for suggesting it and I shall think about what she said in considering what to do at Report stage. In the light of those considerations, I think that it would be appropriate if I sought leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 28, line 40, leave out from ("it") to end of line 41.
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment which ought to be dear to the Government's heart. It proposes a reduction in the obligations of a head teacher, in bureaucracy and the passing of paper and in the formality of reporting. In listening to the Government's response to earlier amendments, I had the impression that that was something about which they felt strongly. They felt that local option, as they put it, is a more effective way of running things in governing bodies and in schools than prescription on the face of a Bill. The amendment provides that a report from a head teacher and from a local authority on a resolution sent to him, or them, by the governing body need not necessarily be, but could be, in writing and need not necessarily be provided in writing for inclusion in the next governors' report.
I recall a debate that we had on Tuesday in which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, read out from a so-called militant document what were supposed to be ways for members of the Militant Tendency to obstruct meetings of governing bodies. One sure way of helping anyone who had such an idea—and I say this without in any way conceding the genuineness of the document from which they were reading—is to pass enormous numbers of resolutions and insist on them being replied to in writing by the head teacher or the local education authority at the next meeting for inclusion in the next governors' report.
I hesitate to suggest things which disrupters might care to make use of, but it seems to me that the Government have left this possibility open. It would be more realistic for the LEA and the head teachers to report back and the governors should be able to demand a subsequent report in writing if they are not satisfied. But to require a comment to be in writing as a general rule, when a number of resolutions will be requiring things which can readily be agreed to and which do not need comment in writing, seems to be realistic and very much in line with the Government's liberal view of the obligations of head teachers and local education authorities. I hope on that basis the amendment will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to allow the local education authority or the head teacher flexibility in their response to resolutions passed by parents at their annual meeting. It would allow the LEA or the head teacher to report back orally to the governing body. To meet its duty under Clause 24(2)(b)(iii), the governing body would then need to summarise the response in its next annual report to parents.
We are not sure that this would be a desirable amendment as it seems to confuse action with reporting on that action. We recognise that there may well be occasions when the LEA or the head teacher will want to discuss their response to a resolution with the governing body before formally committing it to
848
paper; but there is nothing in the clause as it stands to prevent their doing so. There will normally be nearly a year between the annual parents' meeting and the next governors' report, so there should also be plenty of time for any such discussion to take place.
We feel also that the amendment could give the impression that LEAs and head teachers do not have to give serious consideration to resolutions if they are allowed to report orally rather than commit their response to paper. We consider the annual parents' meeting to be an important provision enabling all parents to have some say in the running of their children's schools. Empowering parents to pass formal resolutions at such meetings which, as appropriate, the governing body, the LEA or the head teacher is obliged to consider, is a significant measure ensuring that parents' views expressed in the form of a resolution have to be considered seriously and given a reasoned response. I do not think that many of your Lordships would dissent from that view.
It therefore seems to us entirely appropriate that the formal consideration of a resolution should include the drafting of a short, reasoned response for inclusion in the next governors' report. I should have thought that those responsible for responding to the resolution would also want to put that response in their own words: in some cases it would hardly be fair to the governing body to put the onus of drafting the response on to their shoulders.
In the light of these comments, and on the understanding that discussion of a proposed response before its formal, written submission is not ruled out, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that the noble Baroness is right in saying that the important thing is that action should be taken as a result of the resolutions passed at annual meetings. I welcome what she said about the power of parents' annual meetings to pass resolutions of this kind and to have them taken seriously. I was urging perhaps a more practical and less formal way of responding. But I look hack and see the phrase "brief comment on it" is included in the Bill, and on a number of resolutions the comment might be no longer than "agreed action on 17th April 1986". That would fulfil the obligations, as I understand it, of the subsection and would probably be a perfectly satisfactory solution to the problem.
I tend to agree on reflection that my amendment is not necessary, which means that I am not threatening to bring it back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 28, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) in Wales for a parent, teacher or governor to be entitled to address the annual parents' meeting of a Welsh medium or naturally Welsh school in Welsh and for it to be the duty of the local education authority to make provision for interpretation accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: We are back in Wales with Amendment No. 77. Instead of the report of the governing body being available to those to whom it has to be by statute in Welsh as well as in English, what is now proposed in this amendment is that a,
"parent, teacher or governor [shall be] entitled to address the annual parents meeting".
in Welsh where it is appropriate and that the local education authority should,
"make provision for interpretation accordingly".
I believe that I can do no better, in the light of our discussion on the preceding amendment, than to leave it to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies to flesh out the reasons for this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support this amendment, but I spoke to it when I spoke to the earlier one.
Baroness Young: As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has just said, in dealing with Amendment No. 69 I set out the Government's policy in respect of the use of the Welsh language; that is, that it is best protected and developed by consent rather than by compulsion. This amendment which seeks to impose a statutory right to conduct business in the Welsh language is going against that policy. That said, we have every sympathy with the aspirations of those who seek to protect the Welsh language and we understand how closely it is linked to the Welsh culture and heritage. I think that our record of financial support for the language—that is, over £1.4 million in this financial year—speaks for itself.
Subsection (4)(a) of Clause 25 provides for the proceedings of the annual parents' meeting to be under the control of the school governing body. It will therefore be for them to decide the language in which the proceedings of the meeting are to be conducted. In practice, however, it is unlikely that all parents will understand Welsh. In those circumstances, it would be counter-productive if contributions were to be made in Welsh. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 29, line 8, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) The articles of government for every special school established in a hospital shall provide that where the governing body are of the opinion that it would be impracticable to hold an annual parents' meeting in a particular school year they may refrain from holding such a meeting in that year.
(7A) The articles of government for every county, voluntary and maintained special school (other than a special school established in a hospital), the proportion of registered pupils at which is, or is likely to be, at least fifty per cent., shall provide that where—
850

(a) the governing body are of the opinion that it would be impracticable to hold an annual parents' meeting in a particular school year; and

(b) at least fifty per cent. of the registered pupils at the school are boarders at the time when the governing body form that opinion;

they may refrain from holding such a meeting in that year.")
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Reports by governing body and head teachers]:
The Lord Bishop of Ely The Lord Bishop of Ely moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 29, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) for the head teacher to furnish to the local education authority or (in the case of aided schools) governing body such reports in connection with the discharge of his functions as the authority or governing body (as the case may be) may so require.")
The right reverend Prelate said: The amendment stands first in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. This is more a matter of clarity of wording and, to that end, I move it with once more the position of governing bodies of aided schools in mind. As its stands, Clause 26 (b) could be read as empowering the local authority to require returns direct from the head teacher of an aided school. If so, this would bypass the governing body which is the head teacher's employer.
I fully understand that in practice it is highly desirable for a local education authority to be able speedily to obtain returns from schools, and, indeed, I am confident that under prevailing circumstances governors of aided schools delegate to their heads responsibility for returns and require the head teacher to consult them only if difficulties are envisaged. I am sure that this clause can be worded in such a way, perhaps along the lines of the amendment, so that the position of governors of aided schools is safeguarded. I think this is a sufficiently important and reasonable point to be raised and if it can be looked at I would not wish to press the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: I appreciate that this amendment is proposed in the light of the governing body's position as employer of the head teacher in an aided school, but the effect of it would be that the local education authority could not ensure that it is informed about the discharge of the head teacher's responsibilities in relation to the school. This could have a direct bearing on the authority's overall responsibility for securing sufficient and efficient educational opportunities for the pupils of the area.
Without such information, the authority could be hampered in carrying out its statutory responsibilities. I believe it is accepted that information needs to flow between the head teacher of an aided school and the local education authority. Requiring that requests for reports and the response always go through the governing body seems to us unnecessarily cumbersome. If the governors treat this stage as a formality, business is unnecessarily delayed. If, on the

851
other hand, they amend the report it is then no longer the head teacher's view. However, having said that, I think we may be able to move some way towards meeting the Church's natural concern that for aided schools where the governing body employs the head teacher it should not be kept in the dark over reports from the head to the LEA.
I have referred frequently during this Committee stage to a meeting between the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Menevia and my right honourable friend. I understand that at that meeting it was agreed that the point would be met if requests for reports from an LEA to an aided school's head teacher, and the reports themselves, were required to be copied to the governing body. This would not delay matters and would preserve such a report as the head teacher's own. It would also ensure that the governing body would know what was going on.
The Government undertake to table an amendment to that effect at a later stage. In the light of that undertaking, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I thank the noble Earl for his assurances on that point, and I am glad to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 29, line 26, at end insert—
(" (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, any such reports shall be available for inspection at all reasonable times and free of charge at the school.
(3) There may be excluded from the copies of reports made available in pursuance of subsection (2) above any information relating to—

(a) a named teacher or other person employed or proposed to be employed at the school.

(b) a named pupil at, or candidate for admission to, the school;

(c) any matter which, by reason of its nature, the governing body or, as the case may be, the head teacher consider should be regarded as confidential.")

The noble Lord said: We are still on the business of the relationship between the governing body, the head teacher and the local education authority and their several responsibilities to their several electors. It is not proposed that there should be an enormous increase in expenditure here in sending out reports between the governing body and the local education authority or between the head teacher, the governing body and the local education authority. But such reports presumably will have to be in writing anyway. They are required by the Bill as drafted, and it does seem reasonable that, with certain precautions which are contained in the amendment, they should be available to interested parties free of charge at the school.
The provisos contained in the amendments are that information about named teachers or employees, or potential employees—that is possibly the most important proviso—should not be included. Named pupils or candidates for admission to the school are not to be included and there should always be an opportunity for the governing body or the head teacher, as the case may be, to say that a particular report should be regarded as confidential.
I think that we have covered all the possibilities to protect pupils, teachers and confidential matters, which may be matters of discipline, and we say that with those exceptions it is proper that reports which are required by the local education authority of the governing body or required by the governing body on the local education authority or the head teacher, should be available to interested parties in some economical way. We propose that they should be available for inspection free of charge at the school at reasonable times. I do not believe that there is anything dramatic about the amendment. It is a natural extension of the Government's thinking. I hope that the Government will feel the same. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I recognise that the purpose of this amendment is to give greater public access to the reports commissioned from the head teacher or the governing body. I also recognise that the terms of the amendment endeavour to ensure that items of a confidential nature do not have to be made available.
The Government support reasonable access for the public to matters of local concern. However, the purpose of the amendment seems to be achieved by the various other provisions that will be in place. For example, regulations to be made under Clause 7 will continue the existing provision in Regulation 12 of the School Governing Bodies Regulations 1981 for copies of the agendas and signed minutes of governing body meetings to be available for inspection at the school. It seems inconceivable that a report of any sort commissioned under Clause 7 would not be dealt with at the next convened governors' meeting either for information or for discussion and thus duly minuted. The purpose of the amendment would thus generally be met by the required publication of the agenda and the minutes. Those would not, of course, necessarily give the full details, but I ask the Committee to consider the types of matter which are likely to be the subject of the reports to which Clause 26 refers.
For a start, in many LEAs there may well not be any such reports from one year's end to the next. Others would be of the confidential nature excluded by the amendment. It is hoped that if the local education authority, the governing body and the head teacher build up good working relationships, information will flow freely among them and there will be little cause for formal written reports to be commissioned.
It may be that a report is commissioned about a matter of some significance—perhaps on the state of the school buildings or the overall level of equipment at the school—which would be of particular interest to parents. A report of such significance would however, he expected to feature in the governors' annual report to parents required under Clause 24, apart from in the minutes and the agendas to which I have already referred. If parents feel that the information given is insufficient, that the findings of the report are unsatisfactory or that the action taken as a result of the report is inappropriate, they will be free to raise the matter at their annual meeting and, if they feel strongly, pass a resolution. It seems to us that the amendment would needlessly duplicate existing channels of communication which are to be extended under the Bill. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not see how the amendment duplicates existing channels of communication. It was helpful of the noble Baroness to repeat what I knew but perhaps the Committee did not know: that legislative provisions exist for the agendas and minutes of governing bodies' meetings to be available for inspection. That goes one part of the way towards meeting our objectives. To include the provision that the text of reports—this is important—which are formally required under Clause 26 either by the governing body or the local education authority should be provided is an addition to the requirements but it is not a duplication of the requirements.
I do not feel that the noble Baroness has gone as far as she might easily have gone to satisfy the reasonable demand for information about the relationships between the school. the governing body and the local education authority, as and when the occasion arises at the time of the report being required and made, rather than waiting for an annual parents' meeting and a resolution and conformity or otherwise with the resolution. I am bound to say that I did not find that part of the argument particularly convincing.
I shall have to look again and see whether there is some simpler way of achieving the same objective. I remain convinced that it is an objective with which the Government are, in principle, in agreement, except that they do not like other people's amendments very much, and that it ought to be possible to reach agreement perhaps at a later stage on something which achieves our objective without the roundabout way which the noble Baroness has proposed. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Determination of staff complement for schools]:
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ely The Lord Bishop of Ely moved Amendment No. 81A:
Page 30, line 15, at end insert—
("(4) In any Voluntary Aided School the persons employed as members of the non teaching staff, other than staff employed for the purposes of the provisions of School Meals, shall be appointed and dismissed by the Governors, save that the Local Education authority may give directions to the Governors as to the number and conditions of service of persons employed at the School for such purposes and the staff employed solely in connection with the provision of meals shall be appointed and employed by the Local Education Authority".)
The right reverend Prelate said: In moving this amendment with regard to non-teaching staff of aided schools, I am aware that the position implied by the 1944 Act, that all non-teaching staff of aided schools other than school meals staff are employed by the governors, is not necessarily in itself very clear. I understand that the 1944 Act refers only to care and maintenance staff. Although later regulations made reference to the local education authority employing the school meals staff, those regulations were repealed in 1969. But as the generally accepted practice is as set out in this amendment and, so far as I am aware, is not contested by the Department of Education and
854
Science, it has seemed desirable that the practice be set out in explicit terms, perhaps along the lines of the proposed amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: Your Lordships may recall from our earlier proceedings that I acknowledged that the Government agreed that some clarification of the position of non-teaching staff at aided schools was desirable. Indeed, this was discussed further at the famous meeting which I have mentioned a lot this evening. I do not think there is any disagreement at all between the Government and the Churches on the sort of provision required, but the precise form has not yet been agreed after necessary consultations. I have to suggest to the right reverend Prelate that his amendment may not be entirely suitable. In fact, he did himself mention the 1944 Act, and after all this amendment leaves untouched Section 22(4) of that Act, as amended by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Bill: and, at the least, those who have to interpret the legislation would find these two not entirely complementary provisions somewhat confusing. The Government have undertaken that once agreement is reached they will table their own amendment, and on that basis I ask the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I am most grateful for the very careful response of the noble Earl and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Appointment and dismissal of staff: introductory]:
The Lord Bishop of Ely The Lord Bishop of Ely moved Amendment No. 81B:
Page 30, line 16 at beginning insert—
("Subject to sections 27 and 28 of the 1944 Act").
The right reverend Prelate said: The Bill contains detailed provisions about the employment and dismissal of staff—in particular, of staff in controlled and special agreement schools—and it is in this respect that I move this amendment. Sections 27 and 28 of the 1944 Education Act made special provision for staff in voluntary denominational schools to give religious instruction. They were known as reserved teachers in controlled and special agreement schools. It would seem highly desirable either that those sections should be repeated in this Bill in its very detailed provisions or at the very least that the sections should be referred to so that those local education authorities when making their articles of government under the new procedures laid down in the Bill do not lose sight of them. Perhaps this is another illustration of our opinion that model articles, or at least the guidance referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, during the first day of this Committee, are desirable.
The Earl of Swinton: I am happy to say yet again that there is no difference between the Government and the Churches over the purpose of this amendment.

855
It is not and has never been the intention of the Government that the important provisions in the 1944 Act concerning the appointment and dismissal of reserved teachers in controlled and special agreement schools and the special rights of foundation governors in this respect should be affected by the provisions of this Bill. This was made clear from the outset in paragraph 236 of the White Paper Better Schools.
In framing the legislation, it was concluded that no explicit reference was necessary to Sections 27 and 28 of the 1944 Act with which the present Bill is to be construed as one. However, on reflection, it appears to us that it would be helpful to have a reference to those sections on the face of the Bill to make absolutely clear the inter-relationship between those sections and the provisions of this Bill. While accepting the principle behind this amendment, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will allow us to study the matter a little more closely and to bring forward our own amendment at a later stage.
It may well appear that the terms of his amendment are quite straightforward and would cause no unintended problems but we need to make quite sure that the matter is dealt with in a way that is entirely consistent with the rest of the Bill. Again, in the light of the Government's acceptance of the principle of the amendment and our undertaking to bring forward our own amendment at a later stage, I invite the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: I am more than grateful for the respect with which the noble Earl has regarded the amendment and for the offer he has made to look at this question. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Appointment of head teacher]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 32, line 26, leave out from ("them") to end of line 29 and insert ("for the senior elected representatives of the authority present to exercise a casting vote.")
The noble Lord said: I have to say at the outset that I have looked at the wording of the amendment and I am not entirely happy about it. The intention is quite clear. It is to provide some way of avoiding unnecessary or undesirable re-advertisement for vacancies. This is particularly undesirable when we are concerned as we are in this clause with the appointment of head teachers.
As those who have ever been involved will know, the resignation of a head teacher at either of the dates in the school year, unless it has been prepared for a long time in advance, always causes a degree of crisis. There is always the possibility that somebody may have to act as the acting head because it may not be possible to find a head teacher within the time available before the resignation takes effect. Therefore anything in the procedure for the appointment of a head teacher which encourages or even allows unnecessary re-advertisement is to be deplored.
The intention of the amendment originally was that there should be the possibility of a casting vote from
856
the most senior elected representative of the authority—in the absence of any more obvious person, I would be willing to listen to representations about that as well—in order to avoid a deadlock and a compulsory and unwanted re-advertisement for the post.
On reflection, it would probably have been desirable to leave open the option of re-advertisement, together with the provision for a casting vote, to cut short the procedure. Even if one leaves the amendment as it stands, I realise on reflection that it would have been necessary to delete paragraph (iii) of subsection (g). I say immediately that I am very conscious of at least some of the drafting defects of my amendment. That, even if it were not for the lateness of the hour, encourages me to say that I shall not be pursuing it to a vote. However, the issue raised does deserve some consideration.
The Government have chosen, as so often in this Bill, to spell out in enormous detail on the face of the Bill the provisions for the appointment of a head teacher, just as they chose to spell out in enormous detail what happens to the size of the governing body if the number of pupils goes above or below some magic number. I can only think that they are causing enormous difficulties for themselves and extra work in the office of the parliamentary draftsmen. But that is their choice. Having done it, I think it is important that we should get it right.
It is important that we should not force re-advertisement where nobody in their right mind would have wanted it and where it may well mean an extra term, or sometimes even more, of an acting head. That is not good for continuity in a school. It is not good for the development of a strong ethos, a successful ethos, in the school. If any way can be found of avoiding it without a denial of the proper procedures of appointment, and without the risk of making wholly undesirable appointments, I hope that the Government will see their way to taking it.
I shall listen very carefully to what the Government say and see whether they can find any encouragement for me, but I believe that a probing amendment of this kind is necessary even at this time of night to raise what could be in some schools a very important issue.
Baroness Young: I appreciate the intention of this amendment and I do take the point that the noble Lord has raised when he says it is an important point. As I understand it, it is to remove any possibility of a deadlock in the selection of a head teacher by giving a casting vote to one of the panel members nominated by the authority.
I believe that this is quite properly a matter for debate. I can well understand the concern that there should be no undue delay in the appointment of a head teacher to a school. I am sure that in most cases the new arrangements proposed will not cause delay. The selection panel will carry out its work, agree a recommendation, and the authority will accept this recommendation and make the appointment. However, there will be occasions when, for whatever reasons, the selection panel cannot agree on a preferred candidate, in which case we all agree that the panel should look again at the existing candidates. Where the Government disagree with this amendment

857
is that the proposed amendment—and the amendment is not correct in assuming that there will necessarily be an elected representative of the authority on the panel—would require the senior local authority appointee on the panel as necessary to exercise a casting vote and force a recommendation. It would then of course be open to the authority to turn down this recommendation, but for obvious reasons this would be unlikely. In effect, the will of the authority would have been imposed on the governors.
I can well see the arguments underlying this desire to prevent a stalemate, but the Government view is that the post of head teacher is so important to the life of the school that it cannot be right for the authority to impose a head upon an unwilling governing body. It is essential that the governing body be fully involved in the making of that appointment. That may take time but surely it is better that the right decision should be made in the end than the wrong one taken more quickly.
To build into that process an ultimate casting vote for the authority's panel representative would be to deny the equal rights that the governing body must have in this case if we are to expect governors to play their full part in the affairs of the school. I should emphasise that even in those instances where the appointment process is protracted the school will not be left rudderless; an acting head will be appointed.
I recognise the importance of the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised. As we see the provision working, there would not be a vacuum if no head was chosen, because an acting head would be appointed and would remain in situ until such time as a head was appointed, so there can be no question of an impasse that cannot be broken. With that explanation of how we see that process working, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: For the reasons that I have already given, I do not propose to seek the decision of the Committee on this amendment. Indeed, in addition to the drafting defects that I pointed out, I appreciate what was said by the noble Baroness. The amendment in effect requires the senior representative to exercise a casting vote, whereas it ought to make it possible rather than require it. That is a further defect in the amendment.
It is all a matter of balance. There is no perfect solution in these matters. We happen to be less sanguine than are the Government about the prospects of the continued interregnum and the continued need for an acting head. We would rather cut short the procedure at a certain price to the equality between the governing body and the local education authority.
No one can say that there is a single right solution. The Government tend to take the other view of where the balance of preference lies. I should like to think again about the comments of the noble Baroness to see whether we can find something that tips the balance less firmly towards the local authority; something which in drafting terms is more defensible and yet which achieves our ultimate objective of avoiding a
858
long, drawn-out appointment procedure. With those thoughts in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Dismissal, etc. of stall]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 82A:
Page 37, line 37, leave out from ("person") to end of line 38 and insert ("to whom subsection (3) below applies")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 82B and 82D. The intention of those amendments is to ensure that the provisions for the dismissal of teachers are consistent with those for their appointment. Clauses 28 to 33 set up a hierarchy of consultation for appointments. For complemented staff, who include all full-time teachers, there are rigorous selection panel procedures, except when the local authority chooses to redeploy from another school in the authority, when there must be consultation with the governing body and the head teacher.
In the case of non-complemented staff employed solely to work at the school—for example, the groundsman in many schools—the LEA must consult the governing body. For peripatetic teachers or shared staff and for dinner ladies or midday supervisors only, the LEA has no obligation to consult.
The intention in drafting was that the provisions in Clause 35(1)(a) should be broadly symmetrical to those for appointments; that is, if a selection panel or consultation was required to appoint them, consultation should be required to dismiss, redeploy or permit early retirement for the holders of the post in question; and if no consultation is required to appoint them none should be required to dismiss, redeploy or permit early retirement. But as it stands Clause 35(1)(a) does not do this. Instead it would establish an anomalous situation where the LEA would have to consult over redeploying all non-complemented staff, including shared staff and dinner ladies, but would not have to consult over dismissing the same staff. The result would be to hamper the LEA's freedom to manage while also removing important rights of consultation over the dismissal of certain categories of non-complemented staff from the governing body.
The amendments correct the position by making it clear that Clause 35(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii)—covering dismissal, redeployment and early retirement—relate to the same class of employee; and it adds a new subsection (3) which specifies which employees are contained in that class. They are all those for whom some form of consultation is required in the appointment procedure—complemented staff and those employed to work solely at the school, except dinner ladies and midday supervisors. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I presume there have been consultations with the teachers' associations on this amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: I do not think there were before the amendment was drafted. This amendment just brings the Bill into line with what we thought we were doing in the first place. Certainly there were consultations with everyone concerned before the Bill was drafted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 82B:
Page 37, line 39, leave out from ("any") to ("or"), in line 40, and insert ("such person to cease to work at the school").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 82C:
Page 38, line 23, at end insert ("and
(f) for it to be the duty of the local education authority to make provision for the regular in-service training of all teaching staff appointed to permanent posts."
The noble Lord said: This amendment gives body to a concern that I expressed at Second Reading about what appears to me to be the inadequacy of the provisions in the Bill for in-service teacher training —or perhaps I should say the opportunities that have been lost in the present drafting. With the leave of the Committee I think it will be sensible for me to speak also to Amendments Nos. 86C and 86D, because essentially these amendments straddle two clauses.
Clause 35 basically puts various duties upon local education authorities and governing bodies, so we might perhaps describe it as a "duties" clause. Into that I have written a new duty which is embodied in Amendment No. 82C, which reads:
"For it to be the duty of the local education authority to make provision for the regular in-service training of all teaching staff appointed to permanent posts."
I am afraid that Clause 35 is the best place I could find to put that proposal.
Of course, the imposition of that duty on a local education authority says nothing about funding. For that reason I had to turn to Clause 38, to which Amendments Nos. 86C and 86D apply. When I first looked at Clause 38 I had some hopes of it because I saw in the margin the heading "Grants for teacher training", and in the clause various types of training are specified. However, I could find no mention of regular in-service training for all teachers appointed to permanent posts. I submit that both for their career development and for the quality of their teaching that is absolutely essential. The Secretary of State, of course, has certain powers to direct money for certain purposes, but there is no overall provision in Clause 38, as it stands, for the general acceptance of in-service training for all permanent teachers.
In my view this is extremely important both for teachers' morale and for their effectiveness in the classroom. I suggest also that it will be important in the future for attracting new talent after the settlement of the present troubles. It cannot be imagined that we shall continue indefinitely with the present unhappy situation in the schools. In fact it could be suggested that the right to in-service training might possibly become part of a new contract which is at present under discussion.
I hasten to reassure the noble Baroness or the noble Earl (I am not quite sure who will reply) that the
860
amendment is essentially a probing amendment to try to discover what is the Government's thinking in this extremely important area. It seems to me to be rather a pity to produce a new and quite substantial Education Bill and to introduce it into Parliament without addressing this extremely important and desirable development.
I shall not say any more about the series of amendments at this time of night. I shall simply move Amendment No. 82C and listen with interest to the Government's response. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: These amendments would restrict the discretion of local authorities and the Secretary of State to allocate the resources available for in-service training so as to reflect relative needs and priorities. This would undermine the Bill's aim of promoting the more systematic and purposeful planning of in-service training.
As I am sure your Lordships will know, local authorities already have a general responsibility to ensure that their teachers receive adequate in-service training. It would not ensure the most effective disposition of the available resources if your Lordships were now to add to this a specific duty to make regular provision for all teachers. Some teachers will need training more often than others, depending on their qualifications and their present and future responsibilities. The proposed new grant scheme is intended to provide a framework for identifying such priorities and encouraging local authorities to plan their training in accordance with them.
I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that training needs and priorities will vary from time to time and from area to area. In particular, the amount and disposition of the available resources need to be considered from year to year in the context of overall decisions on public expenditure. The primary aim of the intended new grants scheme is to promote more systematic and purposeful planning of in-service training so that the available resources are used to meet the highest training priorities. This would not be helped by tying the hands of the Secretary of State from the outset as these amendments propose.
I recognise the good intentions behind this amendment, and the Government believe firmly that better in-service training is required to achieve better standards of education, but we need to ensure that the resources available for training are used to best effect. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that this was a probing amendment and asked for the Government's views. I have given them to him.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving me the Government's position, which he has explained very fairly. I must confess that I am still left with some worry. The noble Earl says that needs vary from time to time and from area to area, which is no doubt true, but in my view it does not in fact take into account the desirability of giving all teachers the right to in-service training in the interests of their own career development and their own effectiveness.

861
Of course, the Secretary of State may assess priorities in a particular direction—for example, in mathematics or the sciences—but there are other teachers doing absolutely essential work in other disciplines who, it seems to me as the Bill is drafted, may well be left out of the type of specific grant which is contemplated under Clause 38. Having listened to the noble Earl and having expressed my own view, I shall go away and think about the matter and see whether we can come back at the next stage of the Bill with something that takes some account of what the noble Earl has outlined as being the Government's thinking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 82D:
Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
("(3) This subsection applies to any person who is employed—

(a) in a post which is part of the complement of the school in question; or

(b) to work solely at the school in any other post, otherwise than solely in connection with either or both of the following—

(i) the provision of meals:

(ii) the supervision of pupils at midday.")

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35. as amended. agreed to.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 83:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Remuneration of clerks to governing bodies of voluntary aided schools.
.—(1) This section applies in relation to any aided school.
(2) The articles of government for every aided school shall provide—

(a) for the clerk to the governing body to be appointed and dismissed by the governing body; and

(b) for the clerk's remuneration to be met by the local education authority.

(3) The clerk's rate of remuneration shall be determined by the local education authority after consultation with the governing body and shall be reviewed regularly.
(4) The Secretary of State shall by regulations give guidance to local education authorities in the matter of the discharge of their duties under subsections (2)(b) and (3) above.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations determine minimum rates of remuneration to be paid to clerks by local education authorities.")
The noble Baroness said: The clerk to the governors is indispensable to the smooth running of a school. Without a competent clerk, the governing body could not function efficiently and the proper government of the school would in consequence deteriorate. In an aided school, the governing body is responsible for employing teaching and non-teaching staff, admission of pupils and the conduct and curriculum of the school. The clerk therefore has a great deal of responsibility in assisting the governing body in the discharge of these responsibilities.
Since 1944, these responsibilities have become increasingly more onerous as governing bodies find themselves involved in matters such as employment legislation and contracts of work, disciplinary matters relating to staff and pupils, appeals against admission
862
decisions, providing information to parents, reconstituting governing bodies, the election of parent and teacher governors, curriculum initiatives and discussion with local education authorities. This new Education Bill proposes extending the responsihilities of governing bodies even further, thus making the case for a properly paid clerk even more urgent.
However, I have received representations from an Inner London Education Authority voluntary aided school, the London Oratory School, because of its concern that the clerk has never been paid despite long correspondence between ILEA, the governors and the DES. The failure to agree that the clerk should be paid seems to be unresolved despite the fact that, at other schools within ILEA, clerks receive payment. It seems important therefore that this particular anomaly should be rectified but also perhaps that some general principle should be agreed. I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister may be able to clarify the situation and offer some hope of resolution of this anomaly. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Our freedom of choice of schools is very desirable. If religious schools find that they are being penalised by local authorities they may find the pressure too great and cease to exist. The greatest wish of many Roman Catholic parents is to be able to send their children to a Roman Catholic school. Having spoken to the headmaster of the Oratory School, I am told that discrimination over the payment of the clerk to the governing body of this aided school does exist. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has said, the Department of Education and Science has tried to get ILEA to be fair but has not succeeded, Perhaps legislation is the only method that will work. I am therefore a supporter of the amendment. Who knows what the future may hold? All schools should he treated fairly.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I, too, support the amendment on the grounds that it is worthwhile because of the additional work that will be placed on many schools, especially small ones, where usually the clerk is either the parish priest or someone in a similar capacity. They are asked these days to carry out an enormous number of tasks. It is therefore worthwhile that we should encourage local authorities along with the Government to agree to what is contained within the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am not out of sympathy with the spirit of the noble Baroness's amendment. She has spoken correctly of the increased responsibilities that are likely to devolve on clerks under the Bill. I am slightly worried, however, about the accessibility of clerks. In my experience, clerks to governing bodies tend to be professionals who have to be approached through their office, maybe a solicitor's office. It may not always be possible to get through, and some delay may be experienced. I am not casting any aspersions but it is, I believe, a fact. I wonder whether the noble Baroness envisages that there would be some obligation of accessibility, or availability, on clerks in conjunction with the statutory remuneration that she proposes for them.

863
I think that this is rather important. It relates to an earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about how to get the addresses of the governors. If the clerk is to be the channel for that it is important that he or she should be available. I wonder whether the noble Baroness envisages this alongside the remuneration that she is proposing?
Baroness Cox: It is a very important point. I shall seek clarification on it and perhaps have a word with the noble Lord. I cannot answer this specific case at the moment but I think that the general point is a valid one and something that we should like to consider.
Baroness Hooper: I understand fully that the concern of the noble Baroness in moving this clause, and indeed of the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken to it, is to draw attention to the anomalous position of some clerks to governors at aided schools. Matters such as those covered by this clause are normally left to individual school's articles of government. Where these cover the remuneration of the clerk—and I should make it clear that we are talking about an honorarium rather than a salary—they normally specify that such remuneration shall be determined by the local education authority. The usual form of words leave it open to the local education authority to determine the remuneration at nil, and this is the current bone of contention.
It is asserted, rightly in the Government's view, that the duties of the clerk to the governing body of the aided school are by no means negligible and, because the governing bodies of aided schools have greater responsibilities than those of other schools, consequently often the duties performed by their clerks can be more substantial, as was fully described by my noble friend Lady Cox.
However, although we are sympathetic to the principle the Government do not believe that this is a matter which should be standardised in primary legislation. There are no doubt a number of cases where aided school governing body clerks are not paid, where they do not wish to be paid and where there is no difficulty in obtaining suitable people to do the job, despite the lack of remuneration. In those circumstances, we feel that it would be inappropriate to impose extra expenditure on the local education authority.
We also feel that it would be both inappropriate and impracticable for the Secretary of State to impose centrally determined minimum rates to try to meet widely differing circumstances up and down the country. We therefore believe that such matters are best left to be determined in the articles of governments according to the circumstances of the individual schools.
The Bill already offers a way out of the problem. Aided schools are affected by a number of provisions in this Bill, such as that their articles of government will need to be redrawn. Under the provisions of Clause 2 the local education authority will be responsible for this but will need to secure the agreement of the governing body. In the event of lack of agreement on any proposed provision in the articles, either the local education authority or the governing
864
body may refer the dispute to the Secretary of State who will determine the question.
It would therefore be open to any aided school governing body which felt unable to agree to the local education authority's proposed treatment of the clerk's remuneration in the articles of government to refer the question to the Secretary of State. He would then, in effect, determine case by case whether the clerk should be remunerated.
I should make clear that this is not a once-for-all operation. At any time the governors may propose an amendment to their articles. If there is disagreement the matter may be referred to the Secretary of State for a decision. I suggest that all this would achieve substantially the same effect as what is proposed by the noble Baroness in subsections (4) and (5) of the proposed clause.
With regard to the matters dealt with in subsection (2) the Government believe such a measure to be unnecessary. There has never been any question that the governors of an aided school are the employers of their clerk; or, if he is remunerated, that the cost is borne by the local education authority as part of the running costs of the school.
Attention has been drawn specifically to the case of the London Oratory. We have sympathy with the situation of the school. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the Department of Education and Science has been doing its best to resolve the present clearly unsatisfactory position by agreement with the Inner London Education Authority. However, this is a question which in future could be referred to the Secretary of State when articles are to be made or amended.
Baroness Cox: As I understand it from a letter I have from the headmaster of the London Oratory School, the governors have submitted and re-submitted this case to the Secretary of State in the terms which the noble Baroness outlined. However, so far there has been no satisfactory resolution to the problem or even a satisfactory reply.
Baroness Hooper: I feel sure that the discussion we are having this evening may speed up the process. I finish on this point by saying that this is a question which in future could be referred to the Secretary of State when articles are to be made or amended, and under the provisions of Clause 2(6) his powers of determination would be considerably wider than his current limited powers of intervention under Sections 68 and 99 of the 1944 Act.
In the light of the Government's view that such matters are best handled on a school-by-school basis on their individual circumstances and that the framework of the Bill will allow disputes to be decided by the Secretary of State on this basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Can the noble Baroness give an undertaking that the headmaster of the Oratory School will receive a reply from the Secretary of State before the Report stage of this Bill?
Baroness Hooper: I shall certainly draw the request of the noble Baroness to my right honourable friend's attention, and I feel sure that there need be no problem on this.
Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to noble Lords and to the noble Baroness for contributing to this discussion and also to those who have expressed their support for the spirit of this amendment. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the clarification she has been able to give. I shall consider carefully the points she has made and consult those most directly concerned. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [School premises]:
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 38, line 29, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("for the use of the school premises at all times to be under the control of the local education authority.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to maintain the existing system, as we understand it, for the control of school premises outside school hours. The present situation is that the voluntary and aided schools have the control of the school premises vested in the governing body, whereas the county and maintained special schools have it in the hands of the local education authority. If there is to be a change of the sort proposed in Clause 36, then surely it is incumbent upon the Government to show that the accessibility and control of school premises outside school hours is significantly worse in the case of county and maintained special schools than it is in the case of the aided schools.
The Notes on Clauses include the phrase that they hope that the effect of this will be to increase community use of the school premises. I would suggest that the effect is likely to be exactly the opposite. The governing body of a school is inevitably, because of all the rest of its functions, concerned with the availability of the school premises, preferably in pristine condition, for the purposes of the school alone. The local education authority, on the other hand, as part of a local authority, is concerned with a much wider range of interests which wish, and indeed have a perfectly good right, to make use of school premises.
I am particularly concerned with community groups, with adult education and with all sorts of classes and activities and social events which can more conveniently and more cheaply be made available in school premises than they can anywhere else. Indeed, in many parts of the country the school premises are the only, not just the best, premises available for out of-school activities. I suggest to the Committee that the interests of all these other groups who wish to make use of school premises, and ought to be able to make use of school premises, ought to be paramount and" that the governors' view will inevitably tend to be more partial than the view of the community as a whole. That is quite apart from the obligation laid down by the Representation of the People Act on local authorities to make school premises available for political meetings at election times.
The letting of school premises, which is almost always a separate section within the education department, is an extremely complex and difficult matter. In an authority area the letting section is almost always one of the most heavily pressed departments and hard-pressed by different interests. They have to balance the interests of the school and the maintenance of the premises in good condition for school purposes—I am the first to say that I believe that is a very high priority—with all the interests of the different community groups who want access to the school premises. Nobody who has ever seen the way the letting section works and the difficulties they have in negotiations with school caretakers, for example, will deny that this is a complex task which requires, I suggest to the Committee, a conscious effort not just of policy but of implementation of policy by a local education authority for the different interests in the authority as a whole. It is not enough to have it delegated to the governing body.
Many of the organisations that will wish to use the school premises are not confined to the catchment area of the school. They will be looking for premises in different parts of the authority's area at different schools. They will be looking for the same sort of treatment in one of the authority's schools as they receive in another of the authority's schools. The work could be impeded if they find different policies undertaken by different governing bodies. The whole of the complex interaction between different community uses and the school needs and the school premises could be destroyed by different policies pursued by different governing bodies. I say this even in the context of the existing connections between schools and the communities.
The Committee will recall that in December we had a debate on community schools in which all speakers, including the noble Earl on behalf of the Government, welcomed the movement for community schools; one important aspect of which is the opening up of school premises to wider community use.
I suggested at the beginning—I apologise for taking time, but this is a very important amendment even though it is the last one on Part III—that it is incumbent on the Government to show why there is deep dissatisfaction, such dissatisfaction as to justify this clause with the existing system of lettings and to show in what way the system proposed (which is broadly that now used by the voluntary sector) is better than the existing system for the controlled sector. I am not criticising the governors of voluntary schools. What I am saying is that they could not exercise their freedom (which I should not want to take away) to control the use of their premises, except in the context where there is a body of controlled county schools, the access to whose premises is made available according to policies laid down by the local education authority.
Finally, it is not satisfactory to rely on Clause 36(b), whereby the local education authority can give a direction to the governing body in the exercise of its control. If that direction is to be effective in the light of the considerations that I have been discussing, it would have to be enormously detailed and would lead to a quite unnecessary duplication of powers. If it is not to

867
be effective and is not to be adequately detailed, then we are going to have the kind of difficulties with the use of school premises which I have outlined.
I am sorry that it comes at this time, but I believe that it is necessary to consider this matter and to consider whether there is any really well-founded justification for the change which is proposed in Clause 36 as drafted. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: I have greatly admired most of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh's contributions to the discussions at this Committee stage of the Bill and I have agreed with a great deal of what he had to say. On this occasion, I am not sure that I go along with him. It seems to me that he has pointed to the existing Clause 36(b) in the Bill as written, which reads:
"for the governing body to exercise control subject to any direction given to them by the local education authority".
He has suggested that this opens up an enormous field of conflict. I would have thought that in the majority of cases where reasonably harmonious relations existed between the local education authority and the governing body, this would not be the case and that the sort of concerns that he has expressed would be largely covered by paragraph (b) of the clause as it stands. So on this occasion—although on many other occasions I have supported him—I am inclined not to do so.
The Earl of Swinton: The effect of this amendment would be that the school's premises would at all times be under the control of the LEA. Here, I think I am going to tackle the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and put forward an extremely good case as to why the Government think that they have this right. In fact, we hope that this clause will have the effect of increasing community use of school premises, and we intend to offer post-Act guidance to that effect. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh mentioned the debate that we had on community schools and the part that I took in it. I should like to repeat that school premises are a public asset and the Government believe that they should be as fully utilised as practicable within the resources available. In our view—and this is where I differ from Lord McIntosh—governing bodies are well placed to ensure that the community served by the school is offered reasonable opportunities to make use of the school's facilities.
I would point out that the clause provides for the governing body's control to be subject to any directions that the authority may give them and this is intended to safeguard the position of the LEA as the provider of resources and also to ensure that the authority can itself use the premises for non-school purposes. Directions issued by an authority might cover general matters such as avoiding over-use of playing fields and not incurring caretaking costs above a certain figure, or might preclude lettings between particular times or on particular evenings when the LEA might need the premises for adult education or for the youth service.
I was coming up to the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, specifically raised. Of course, I am aware that a number of authorities operate a centralised booking system and that they fear they would not be able to continue to do so under the provisions of
868
this clause. I can readily appreciate that such a system is a considerable advantage to authorities who wish to exercise tight control over the use of school premises, and I can also see that it might at times be helpful to those wishing to book premises, who can be offered an alternative then and there if their first choice is not available.
However, provided that all the schools concerned agree that it is a good idea—and it will be up to the local education authority to persuade them—we can see no reason why a centralised booking system could not still be operated. It would mean that the individual governing bodies would have to decide on their lettings policies and that whoever was operating the centralised system would have to act in accordance with those policies for each school and with the LEA's overall directions. We acknowledge that a system would be less straightforward to operate than at present. but I believe that it could be done.
I think I rest my case on this above all. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has argued that the provisions of this clause would result in less, not more, community use because the governing body would be over-protective of the premises and would not regard itself as accountable to the electorate. I believe that this is a misconception. The noble Lord asked me to justify the fact that governing bodies of aided schools were producing better letting arrangements than local authority schools. I am not going to argue that. What I would argue is that the new-style governing bodies should provide much stronger links with the community than has previously necessarily been the case.
If parents, who will, after all, belong to the community served by the school, feel that the governing body is too restrictive in its letting policy or that the LEA has issued over-stringent direction, they can raise the matter at the annual parents' meeting. And if a resolution is passed, the governing body or the LEA will be under a duty to consider the resolution and report back on it in the next annual governors' report.
The governors will be parents and they will, we hope, be local local authority representatives. They will be co-opted members of industry and the community generally; they will be just the sort of people to encourage local letting, rather than try to hinder it, I should have thought. As I have already said, the Government also intend to issue post-Act guidance pointing out that the aim of the clause is to increase community use, subject to the availability of resources.
I have gone on at length because I think the noble Lord, even at this late stage, threw down a challenge. I think I have answered it well. There may be a difference of opinion and he may think that our projections will not work out; but I can say on behalf of the Government most sincerely that we think the new ideas and the new governing bodies will increase the community use of school premises. I hope, having heard my arguments, that the noble Lord will feel able, with a clear conscience as always, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl has spent a great deal of time putting forward very much

869
inferior proposals to those which would be achieved by my amendment. He hopes that, by agreement, schools in a local authority area will co-operate in a central booking system, whose benefits both to the authority and to the users of school premises he recognised in his speech. If that is the case and if that is so desirable, surely it could be achieved much more readily by accepting my amendment than in the way he proposes.
The Earl of Swinton: Even at this late hour I think I must rise to that. I did not say that. What I said was that where this had been working in the past in a local authority that particularly liked this arrangement—I did not necessarily say that it was a better arrangement—it could be continued under the Act. I admitted that it may be more difficult, but that was not the reason I put forward for dismissing the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was one of the reasons and it was one of the least convincing reasons among the many other unconvincing reasons that the noble Earl put forward. The burden of proof is clearly on the Government. It is the Government who are trying to change a system which, to the best of my knowledge and taking into account anything the noble Earl has said on behalf of the Government, has not been criticised. If there is to be a change of this sort it has to be shown that the alternative is better than what we have at the moment.
I am quite unconvinced by the circuitous arguments that have been put forward, and indeed, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to put forward one further brief point. Why should the governing body, which is elected to be concerned with the conduct of the school and the welfare of the pupils and teachers at the school, even want to control the use of the school premises outside? It is a quite different matter. It is a matter for the community as a whole; a matter which is much better exercised on behalf of the community as a whole by the elected representatives of the community as a whole, the local education authority. Unless the noble Earl can come up with very much better arguments than those he has put forward, I shall have to consider in what form I raise this matter again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 84A not moved.]
Lord Denham: I think we have now reached the proper stopping-place for this evening. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.