Education Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 17 April 1986 vol 473 cc824-69

8 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 20.

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 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 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 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 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—

1. (i) for more than three school days (in the aggregate) in any one term; or
2. (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 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

1. (a) order that the exclusion shall cease forthwith, or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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". 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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—

1. (a) a named teacher or other person employed or proposed to be employed at the school.
2. (b) a named pupil at, or candidate for admission to, the school;
3. (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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 moved Amendment No. 82D:

Page 38, line 25, at end insert— ("(3) This subsection applies to any person who is employed—

1. (a) in a post which is part of the complement of the school in question; or
2. (b) to work solely at the school in any other post, otherwise than solely in connection with either or both of the following—
1. (i) the provision of meals:
2. (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 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—

1. (a) for the clerk to the governing body to be appointed and dismissed by the governing body; and
2. (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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.