Lords Sitting of 25 March 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
Lord Strathclyde—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

Trading Codes of Practice: Discussion Paper
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, further to their reply to the Baroness Burton of Coventry's starred Question of 7th June 1984 (col. 770), they are now able to state the expected date of publication by the Director General of Fair Trading of his discussion paper dealing with trading codes of practice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I believe that the planned discussion paper to which the noble Baroness refers is that which the Director General of Fair Trading plans to publish on the concept of a statutory general duty to trade fairly in consumer transactions. I understand that the preparation of this discussion paper is well advanced.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will be a little more specific. I realise that it is not his fault, but this matter started nearly two years ago. I would have hoped that he might have been a little more specific rather than just to say that the matter was fairly well advanced. Can he give us any more definite date? Secondly, perhaps I may ask him whether—as he probably knows, I asked about this some two years ago—the following two items are to be included. That is, the extension of codes of practice to traders other than those who are members of associations, and enforcement. Will those be included in the paper?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I very much regret that I am unable to help the noble Baroness any further. It is a complex subject which requires very careful consideration. Following the noble Baroness's Question in June 1984, the director general decided to convene a seminar on the topic, which was held later that year. He is now in the process of evaluating all that he has learnt. Regarding the second question, I understand that the paper will review relevant areas of law and the experience of the Office of Fair Trading on codes of practice.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House some indication of the difficulties
1278
in which the Government have found themselves in this matter? After all, two years is a rather long time. Can the noble Lord isolate those areas concerning which some difficulties have been experienced before the discussion paper is in fact issued? Surely, it should not be delayed very much longer.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Government do not find themselves in any difficulties whatsoever in this matter. The Director General of Fair Trading has authority under the Fair Trading Act to attend to those matters. It is for him, not for government, to set the time scales. I understand that the paper is well advanced and I expect that the noble Lord opposite will not have to wait too much longer before it is published.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, will the Minister let me know when it might be useful to put down another Question when publication is imminent?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness needs advice from me as to when she should put down a Question.

Children's Spectacles: Vouchers
2.40 p.m.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the cash value of DHSS vouchers for children's spectacles, what is the cost of the appropriate eye test, and where the vouchers can be obtained.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, no decisions have been taken yet about the value of vouchers but it is intended that they will be given to people entitled to them at the time the sight test is carried out. National Health Service sight tests will remain free of charge to everybody.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for that reply. Before the Government decide how the matter will be conducted, I wonder whether she will take note of the editorial in the British Journal of Ophthalmology which has done a survey of children and eye tests and those children who have had to be put into spectacles. It has come up with the figure that something like 25,000 children are at the moment being treated with spectacles unnecessarily. She may perhaps bring that matter to the attention of her department when it is making the decision, because I believe that it is really a form of child abuse if it is true that the spectacles are in fact unnecessary.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, while accepting that there may be some overprescribing of spectacles, my department is seeking further independent professional advice on that situation.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether those vouchers will be available for use only with qualified opticians and not with any Tom, Dick or Harry who is flogging spectacles?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is talking about unregistered suppliers.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: That is so, my Lords.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, unregistered suppliers can sell spectacles to anyone other than for a child or anyone whom they know to be registered as blind or partially sighted. However, they can do so only on production of a written prescription that is not more than two years old. They must also observe certain other requirements concerning the safety and complexity of lenses, and they cannot sell contact lenses.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the voucher scheme will be introduced, as planned, on 1st July?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, from 1st July 1986, National Health Service glasses will be discontinued and children and those on low incomes will instead be able to obtain a wider choice of glasses from the private market by means of a voucher. Details of the voucher scheme and values are still under consideration.

Iran-Iraq War: Cease-fire Endeavours
2.42 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what responses they have received in support of their endeavours to obtain a cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq war.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the United Kingdom was actively involved in the adoption of Security Council Resolution 582 on 24th February which called for an immediate cease-fire. Iraq responded by saying that the resolution represented a comprehensive and indivisible approach to settling the conflict, and that it was ready to co-operate with the Security Council if the Iran Government undertook to accept the resolution.
The Iranian response was that the resolution made no condemnation of Iraq as the aggressor; Iran reaffirmed its preparedness to continue co-operation with the Secretary-General.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree that the British Foreign Secretary has probably done more than any other Foreign Secretary to bring this distasteful war to an end? Does she agree that it is distasteful, which is recognised by our Foreign Secretary, in so far as there have been allegations of the recruitment of children
1280
and of the use of chemical weapons and other barbarous methods? Does the noble Baroness also agree that the Foreign Secretary's responsibility in getting Iraq to agree to Resolution 582 was a massive step forward and that he deserves the support of other leading statesmen in foreign affairs throughout the world?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his references to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As I have already indicated, we believe that the best hope for an early settlement is through the United Nations, and in particular through the good offices of the Secretary-General. We supported UN Security Council Resolution 582, which was adopted on 24th February; we joined with our Community partners on 25th February in a declaration which underlined the need for the implementation of this resolution, as well as the requirement to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of neighbouring states; and on 21st March we endorsed the statement by the president of the Security Council which condemned both the use of chemical weapons by Iraq and the prolongation of the conflict.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while fully supporting the actions described by the noble Baroness, can she say what are the implications of the statement made by Mr. Timothy Renton a day or two ago, when he said that her Majesty's Government would give quick and sympathetic consideration to any request by Kuwait for military aid—presumably military aid—in the event that the conflict spreads? In view of the importance of that statement, perhaps she could clarify it and explain precisely what it meant.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is referring to a press report on what my honourable friend Mr. Renton is alleged to have said. May I make quite clear that what he said in Kuwait, and I confirm now, was that any Kuwait request for help would be considered promptly and sympathetically.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, has the noble Baroness's attention been drawn to the peace proposals of Iran's National Council of Resistance, which have been supported by the Council of Europe and by the European Parliament? Do the Government support these quite reasonable-sounding proposals?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the position of Her Majesty's Government is as I have set out: in support of the initiatives and the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to bring this appalling conflict to an end.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us why Her Majesty's Government have been engaged in such a list of activities over a problem which is no business of ours? Really, is not this a case like the two knights in Alice in Wonderland: that they are much more harmlessly engaged in bashing each other than in bashing somebody else, which they undoubtedly would be doing if they were given time?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government's view is that it is right to support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to try to bring to an end this terrible war which has already cost so many young lives.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in the light of the noble Baroness's original reply, which so clearly put in perspective the position of Iraq and Iran, respectively, towards the United Nations, can she say anything about recent allegations in the technical press that there have been important clandestine sales of arms from this country to Iran—not, it is alleged, with any complicity of the Government, but nevertheless that they have been sold from this country to Iran?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we sell no defence-related equipment which could significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or to exacerbate the conflict. All applications for the export of defence-related equipment are rigorously scrutinised to ensure that all such items are excluded.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for pursuing the point that I raised earlier with the noble Baroness, but I wonder whether she would explain a little further. As I understand it, we already supply military aid to the Kuwaitis. In what circumstances would we supply further aid? Is it proposed that we, in certain circumstances, should send ships and manpower there? This is what I think concerns the House, because we do not know precisely what Mr. Renton had in mind.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I appreciate the supplementary question which the noble Lord asks, and I hope he will understand that, really, it would be very difficult to comment on that type of question. What I would say to him is that Kuwait knows that we would give any request our full consideration.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, may I ask what is the Government's attitude towards the continued recruitment of children into the Iranian Army in defiance of the Geneva Convention?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that our position on the use and recruitment of children in these conflicts has been made quite clear.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, while we must welcome the repetition of the Government's well-known position that we do not sell arms to either side, and that the Government do not approve applications to export arms to either side, can the noble Baroness undertake to draw to the attention, whether of her colleagues or of the counter-intelligence service I do not know, the allegations that arms are being run out of this country to Iran in defiance of the law?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have noted what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, and as would be the normal practice on such questions in your Lordships' House they will be studied with care both in my department and by my colleagues with responsibility for this part of the world.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that if there is no reasonably quick solution to this problem the war between Iraq and Iran could spread to other parts of the Gulf? This could have a deleterious effect on many countries in the West and indeed on the United States of America. The British Foreign Secretary has endeavoured to stop the spread of this war. That is why he was so influential in getting Resolution 582 at least accepted by the Iraqi Government. Is not the time quickly approaching when, to make a reality of stopping this war, which is what we believe in, the world or the world forces of the United Nations will have to think of some form of force in the Gulf to stop the war spreading, or it could engulf us all one way or another? The world would be well advised to listen to the views of the British Foreign Secretary.
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, I can confirm that we wish to see the earliest possible end to this conflict and that we support all realistic initiatives, especially those through the United Nations.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, how can the British Government stop this war? It is between two barmy factions anyway. Is this not a lesson to every body throughout the world, particularly to those who sincerely hold the pacifist view? This is one of the reasons why some of us believe that we must have necessary armaments—to deal with people like this who are bonkers.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate from what I have said that we do not believe that we have a simple solution to ending the war, but we are supporting those who are trying to get a negotiated settlement.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness not agree that there were some people who thought that what was happening in Germany was being carried out by a government who were bonkers? We had to pay a massive bill to prevent that particular form of government ruling Europe, if not the world.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in terms of the simile of the noble Lord, Lord Paget, are we not waiting for a monstrous crow?

Carrickfergus Castle: Regimental Museums
2.52 p.m.
The Marquess of Donegall: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why two Irish cavalry regiments and one yeomanry regiment are under notice to remove their regimental museums from Carrickfergus Castle.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the regimental museums of the 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards, the Queen's Royal Irish Hussars and the North Irish Horse have

1283
been asked to move out of their present accommodation in Carrickfergus Castle because the lease has expired.
The Marquess of Donegall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer which he will not be surprised to hear I find far from satisfactory. Arising out of it, is he aware that no place within the United Kingdom is more suitable for housing the museums of these three regiments; that their removal would be against the wishes of all three regiments and the inhabitants of Carrickfergus; and that their presence there represents a considerable tourist attraction to the neighbourhood? If your Lordships will forgive a rather long supplementary Question, is my noble friend also aware that the Department of the Environment as it exists at present in Belfast appears to pay scant regard to the feelings of the ex-servicemen who served in those regiments and to military history and regimental traditions, and that if it so desired it could continue to house these museums and at the same time do the necessary repair to the roof which I believe is required?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should perhaps point out that the museum authorities were advised as far back as 1982 that the lease would not be renewed when it expired in 1984, and a one-year extension was granted to provide time for alternative arrangements to be made. That was until August 1985. It is now nearly a year after that and still no future arrangements have been made. Having said that, I am aware of the strong feeling that has been expressed, and although this is a responsibility for the Northern Ireland Office and not for the Ministry of Defence, I shall undertake to see what can be done.
Lord Grey of Naunton: My Lords, as one who had the privilege of opening this museum formally and would consequently be exceptionally sorry to see it closed, may I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that there is no building in Northern Ireland with a closer association with military history and none more suitable for an Army museum, and that diligent search has been made for other buildings but without success? To deprive the museum permanently of Carrickfergus Castle would, I fear, result in the dispersal of the exhibits and the breaking of faith with a great number of people who have given them to the museum.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I recognise that strong feelings are held on this matter, but perhaps I may be permitted to point out that among the places that have been suggested for the 5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards museum is Enniskillen Castle, which would, I should have thought, have been rather suitable.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what he is going to do with Carrickfergus Castle?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office. I understand that the castle is required by the local authority.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, in the light of a most useful meeting I had just yesterday morning in
1284
Carrickfergus Castle with a representative of the Department of the Environment, Historic Monuments Division, whose attitude was extremely reasonable, will the noble Lord support me if I say to his noble friend Lord Kilmany when I see him on 16th April that, if this attitude of mutual co-operation can not only be maintained but developed, it will not be the museum that goes away but the problem?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords. I am not sure that I quite follow the drift of the noble Lord's supplementary Question, but I have said that I recognise the strong feelings that are held and I shall undertake to see what can be done.

Business
2.57 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on BL.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Local Authority Grants (Termination) (Scotland) Order 1986 and the Second Reading of the Industrial Training Bill will be taken.

Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Bill
Bill read a third time, and passed.

Peterhead Harbours (South Bay Development) Order Confirmation Bill
2.58 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Viscount Davidson.)
Lord Boothby: My Lords, before your Lordships pass this Bill I should just like to say that it imposes very heavy new responsibilities upon the trustees of Peterhead Harbour. I should like to make an appeal to them to co-operate with the other ports around the North coast of Scotland in bringing a prosperity to that area greater than it has ever known before, and furthermore to carry out the undertakings that they have given and forget now any past differences, especially with Aberdeen, because I do not like to see the kind of civil war between ports in Scotland which has been going on. I believe that with genuine good will and co-operation Peterhead can discharge its special obligations as the leading fishing port in Europe and, that the whole of the North of Scotland will greatly benefit as a result.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Instruments of government and articles of government]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("and every such order shall ensure that the articles of government shall include provision for the appointment of a Children's Ombudsman as provided by Schedule (Children's Ombudsman) to this Act").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 1 and with it I will speak to Amendment No. 101, which is the meat of the amendment and forms a new schedule to be inserted before the existing Schedule 1. This is one example of the wisdom of the Government in having a Long Title for the Bill simply to amend the law relating to education, which enables us to make positive suggestions for the improvement of our educational system in this country, even though the particular measures that we propose do not form part of the Bill as it stands.
The measure that I am now proposing is a constructive measure that fits in with the general theme of the Bill; that is, of opening up our schools more widely to democratic participation and of dealing with some of the problems of secrecy and injustice that have occurred in many schools in the past. Not only in terms of the Long Title of the Bill but also in terms of the Bill's professed purposes, this amendment ought to find favour with the Government.
I believe and hope that we are moving away, as we proceed with the passage of this Bill, from the kind of school that my own children first attended, where there was a paint mark across the playground just inside the gate that announced, "No parents beyond this point". I hope that there is less of that nowadays, though it has been known to happen. I am sure other Members of the Committee have had experience of such themselves, or with their own children.
It is not just a matter of access to the schools, and neither is it a matter just of the composition of the governing bodies. With this Bill, there is an opportunity for us to make a positive contribution to making provision for an Ombudsman to be appointed by a local education authority, to deal with any cases of injustice that may survive the other measures proposed in the Bill.
It is necessary to state why we are proposing such an amendment now and not simply relying upon the local authority Ombudsman, who has been well established and whose position has been well established successfully for many years. The trouble with the local authority Ombudsman—the commissioner for administration—is that his terms of reference exclude
1286
complaints about the internal affairs of schools and colleges. In other words, any action undertaken by a local education authority in the exercise of functions under Section 23 of the Education Act does not fall within the terms of reference of the local authority Ombudsman; nor does any action concerning the giving of instructions, whether secular or religious; the conduct, curriculum, internal organisation, management or discipline of any school, college of education or further education establishment maintained by a local authority.
A Department of the Environment circular states that, in effect, that rules out the investigation of complaints about how pupils are taught and what they are taught; and about the rules and conduct of the institution, including the imposition of sanctions such as suspension and punishment. That exclusion from the terms of reference of the local authority Ombudsman extends to the governors of voluntary schools.
Nobody wants an education system in which constant appeals are being made to independent authorities. In seeking to improve the terms of this Bill throughout the Committee stage, it is certainly our intention to ensure that as few as possible complaints cannot be resolved in other ways and are forced to go before a Children's Ombudsman of the type that we are now proposing. I assure the Committee that it is our intention, as we move amendments today and on future days, to seek the more efficient achievement of the objectives of the Bill rather than to seek to destroy it.
However, there will inevitably be occasions when, however much we improve procedures in Committee or at later stages of this Bill, they will not be wholly satisfactory and may give rise to justified complaint. That has proved to be the case in all other areas of local authority administration, and indeed of central administration with the Parliamentary Commission for Administration. I believe that the acceptance of the success of those other Ombudsmen is a matter of agreement between the parties. The extension of the same principle to our eduction system ought also to be a matter for agreement between them. I hope that the Government will feel the same way as we do about this matter, and will agree that this amendment is a constructive improvement to the Bill.
This is not an innovatory suggestion. In Norway—which, after all, is where the Ombudsman originated, both in terms of the name and the concept—they already have a young person's Ombudsman. I believe that enough work has been done in local authorities, and in particular by the Inner London Education Authority, to show that such an idea is practicable. Even if there are defects in the wording of the amendment, I hope that the Government will find themselves able to agree with the principle behind it. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, this is not an entirely new idea. Indeed, the Allliance included it in its manifesto for elections to the Inner London Education Authority, a copy of which I have before me. So I am not vying with the noble Lord for the parentage of the suggestion but

1287
I am supporting him in what he says. All of us feel that it is a good idea and one that the Government should take very seriously.
We believe that for the most part the educational bureaucracy of ILEA genuinely attempts to make itself accessible and helpful to parents. Nevertheless, there are times when parents feel shut out and frustrated by the system and need independent, outside help. The Ombudsman as proposed in the amendment would have the right to seek information direct from the educational officer and publish recommendations for action. That would apply not simply to ILEA but up and down the country. On those grounds, we on these Benches would like to support the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I support this amendment and look forward to its implementation as a new enlightenment to the Bill. The one point that I should like to make to the Committee this afternoon is that we should remember that we are not dealing just with the ILEA. The educational system does not comprise of ILEA alone. There are 103 local education authorities in England and Wales. Our minds must be spread throughout the country's educational system. If we do that from the very beginning, and do not think just of the ILEA, we shall get off to the right start.
I think that this is a very good move and I hope it is one that the Government will take on board. It would be very useful. Many difficulties arise from time to time and an Ombudsman will be someone to whom parents and other people can point and say, "That is where we can go if we are not getting satisfaction". It is a good move in the right direction.
The Earl of Swinton: I start off by being a damp squib. I must resist this amendment on two grounds. First, the provision is wrongly placed, and I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that this is perfectly acceptable under the Long Title of the Bill. In spite of that, I feel that this is not a matter which falls to be dealt with in the individual schools' articles of government. It would have to be a free standing duty on LEAs.
Having said that, the Government consider the setting up of an arrangement for a Children's Ombudsman to be wholly inappropriate and a costly new duty to lay on LEAs. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, has reminded us that there are 103 education authorities in the country. That would mean 103 Children's Ombudsmen and I hate to think what that would cost the ratepayers and taxpayers of the country.
Parents need no new statutory provision to enable them to make representations to the LEAs or governing bodies about their children's schooling. As a normal matter of administrative law such complaints require to be considered and answered. If parents continue to be dissatisfied they may take up the matter through their local councillor or refer the matter to the local commissioner for administration. Again, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there are aspects into which the local commissioner is not entitled to look; but I submit to
1288
your Lordships that these are points which are very much covered by this Bill and are just the matters which the governors, who will have far more parents among them, will have the powers to consider. Even then, if parents are still not satisfied they may complain to the Secretary of State, who has certain limited powers of intervention under the education Acts, where powers have been abused or duties neglected.
I simply cannot see that it is necessary to add to these structures, particularly when this Bill is providing so many further opportunities for parents to influence their children's schooling through the reconstitution of governing bodies and new arrangements for annual meetings for parents, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said.
There will be a change under the Bill and I feel that to bring in yet another stage of administrative expense would serve very little useful purpose. The greater independence to be enjoyed by the reconstituted governing bodies and their responsiveness to parents should not only help to prevent complaints from arising in the first place but also assist in resolving any complaints that do arise. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is not only a damp squib but I suspect the Minister has actually taken the squib and thrust it into the red bucket which stands behind the door and next to the teacher's desk. I consider it to be a wholly unsatisfactory reply. I am disappointed that the Minister should have felt it necessary to read it out as he did.
I fully accept that it can be argued that the amendment has come in the wrong place. I fully accept that it can be an imposition to ensure that it is inserted into the articles of government rather than becoming a responsibility of the local education authority itself. But all the experience we have of a central government Ombudsman and all the experience of local authority Ombudsmen has shown that what was originally a matter of controversy, and originally a matter where there were even party political viewpoints as to whether these Ombudsmen were desirable, after the institution of the Ombudsmen has ceased to be a matter of controversy.
There is virtually total agreement that where Ombudsmen have been established they have performed a useful function and that they have not become an excessive burden on the administration of either central government or local government: and I say the latter as one who referred many complaints to my noble friend Lady Serota in my time as a councillor. I do not believe that it caused excessive hardship for the local authority to accept that here was a case of last resort and here was an opportunity to right an injustice which otherwise could not be dealt with by the normal procedures.
It is a matter of plain fact—the noble Earl acknowledged that the local authority Ombudsmen's powers are limited with respect to our schools and colleges—and surely a matter of simply completing a process which has become widely accepted and recognised as being a valuable part of our administrative

1289
procedures that we should extend the principle of an Ombudsman to our schools and colleges.
I understand my noble friend's point that this is not of course only about the Inner London Education Authority. If I refer to the ILEA it is only in the sense of congratulating it and the existing administration of the ILEA—I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock—for instituting, not just in an election address but, in practice, a pilot scheme for appointing a Children's Ombudsman in London and for inviting the Young Person's Ombudsman from Norway to come here and advise on how the scheme should be set up.
If the noble Earl had indicated that he would support a pilot scheme along the lines of that proposed by the ILEA I might have been more inclined to withdraw my amendment. If he had given any indication of support for the principle behind this amendment I would have been happy to take it away, improve the wording and perhaps bring it back in another form on Report. I have been given no such indication and under the circumstances—I gladly give way.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with his amendment, can he say whether he does not think that it is a gross insult to young people of 16, 17 and 18 years of age to have their affairs dealt with by someone called the Children's Ombudsman? It is a monstrous idea to put such a title in the Bill.
Secondly, does he really think that this idea, which is certainly an interesting one, should be dealt with in this way solely in relation to schools? I should have thought that if we are thinking about a Children's Ombudsman it should be about children—and they are younger than that—and should not be confined to schools. If we refer to young people up to the age of 18 that should not be confined to schools, either. Can the noble Lord tell the Committee how he can suggest such a title and how he can confine it to schools and think that that is a proper proposal?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness said. It is explicit in the amendment that pupils over the age of 16 should take over from their parents the right to make application to the Ombudsman. In that sense the content of the amendment, if not the wording, ought to meet with her approval and it recognises the responsibility which young people of 16, 17 and 18 years of age have for their own lives as distinct from that which their parents have for them.
I am bound to say that I think the noble Baroness has a very valid point in saying that the word "children's" is inappropriate and that we should have done better to table the amendment with a "young persons' Ombudsman" as they have in Norway. The noble Baroness also has a point which could well be an extension to the amendment about the extension to further and higher education. I do not think that it invalidates the amendment but it is certainly a point where, if the Committee see fit to support this amendment, it would be appropriate to extend the position to further and higher education. I would gladly seek the support of the noble Baroness in proposing such an amendment at a later stage.
1290
Having acknowledged the inadequacies of the wording in the way pointed out to me, and having acknowledged earlier the possibility that the amendment is in the wrong place I still feel, in view of the blanket condemnation of the amendment and the lack of any give from the Government, that unless the noble Earl has anything else to add it would be appropriate for me to seek the feeling of the Committee.
The Earl of Swinton: The only thing I can add is that I do not think I have ever implied or delivered criticism of the work of the Ombudsman, and I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, sitting on the Bench opposite. That was not my idea. My point was simply that parents will still have a right to go to the Ombudsman when they have a complaint about education. So far as concerns a young persons' Ombudsman, certainly if such an appointment were practicable, I imagine that it would bring in the social services, children in care and goodness knows what else. I should not have thought that it could possibly have been the responsibility of the local education authority.
In view of what has been said, I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I think the drafting of this amendment may be so defective that it would be a great mistake for him to try to obtain the agreement of the Committee to it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I listened carefully to what the noble Earl said. He has not made any advance in his attitude toward the amendment, but in view of what he has said and the remarks of the noble Baroness, I think it is probably best if I take back the amendment now and return with one which has less defective wording. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of aided and special agreement schools any function not allocated to the local education authority, the governing body or the head teacher by this Act or any other enactment shall be a function to be discharged by the governing body.").
The right reverend Prelate said: Before I speak to this amendment, let me express my regret that I was not with your Lordships for the Second Reading of the Bill. I was fulfilling a long-standing engagement to conduct a mission in Nova Scotia, where I can assure the Committee that I was a great deal colder than I should have been in this Chamber.
The purpose of this amendment is wholly in accordance with the objects of the Bill. Its purpose is to have enshrined in law a decision which was made in 1913 in the case of Gillow v. Durham County Council on appeal to this House, which is known generally as the Gillow case. That decision provided that any function relating to the operation of a non-provided school (as it was then) which is not assigned by the articles of government belongs to the governing body unless and until it is assigned by virtue of a change to the articles or by superarching legislation.
We wish to propose this amendment because of hypothetical cases which can occur. Perhaps I may take a rather far fetched situation as an example. Suppose that a local education authority decided that it wished to introduce security guards at the front gates of every school. I think that governing bodies, generally speaking, would regard such a proposal as counterproductive and unwise. There is nothing at all about security guards in the articles, and there is not likely to be even when they are drawn up under this Bill, but who would have the right of final decision?
On the basis of the Gillow judgment it would be the governing body and not the local education authority. That is the position that we want to see established not merely by case law and precedent but by primary legislation. I think it is all the more important in view of the fact that it is proposed that the Department of Education and Science should hand over to the local education authorities the total responsibility for making articles of government.
The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, when he introduced the Second Reading of the Bill, gave welcome assurances about the safeguards which were available to voluntary schools in any revision of their articles, but he did not touch upon the issue of unassigned functions. He spoke at length and the Bill deals in detail with how a voluntary school can control what will go into its articles, but neither the noble Earl nor the Bill as drafted deals with the problem of what in the future will prove to be significantly missing from the articles. That is why we want to suggest that the Gillow decision should be embodied in the law—to remove any doubt once and for all.
It may well be argued that Clause 15 of the Bill covers the case. That is certainly arguable: but if it does cover it, I find it hard to see how anybody could object to this amendment being embodied in the Bill at this stage. The point is that the current interpretation of Clause 15 and the effect of the Gillow judgment might not be held by those responsible in the future, especially as it is a very general clause referring to all governing bodies and making no reference to the special position of aided schools, which is the sense of our amendment. I hope that I shall not have to press this amendment to a decision by the Committee. I understand that there is no real difference between us and the department on the significance of this point and the importance of the decision, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that this matter can be satisfactorily dealt with. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: There does not seem to me to be any religious or educational principle at issue in this amendment but I think that it is one which the Government should carefully consider from the technical and administrative points of view. When Parliament has allocated certain functions to a body created by statute, it is assumed by the court that it has only those functions which are expressed to be there. I should like to offer a Latin tag, if the Committee can bear to hear it, especially in a version coloured by a lawyer's pronunciation. It is expressio unius est exclusio alterius; if we express one and we should have said one or more things, we are deemed to have excluded those which are not expressed. I must confess
1292
that I do not know which functions have been left not covered by statute but, as the right reverend Prelate has said, it would be best to remove the doubt. Therefore, I hope that the Government will seriously consider this amendment.
Baroness Vickers: I should like very much to support this amendment which has been very well adumbrated by the right reverend Prelate. I hope that the Minister will recall the splendid work that has been undertaken by churches of all denominations for generations and will consider enshrining the Gillow principles in this Bill. I think it is really necessary to do this for many reasons, and especially to protect the voluntary schools.
I gather that the amendment has the backing of all denominations. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has put his name to it and so has the noble Baroness from the opposite Benches. I understand that the Catholic Education Council is in agreement with the amendment and I hope that, as the noble Earl is not here to express this support, it nevertheless still means that it will give it its backing. I understand that there is support for the proposal put forward by the right reverend Prelate.
Surely it is not too much to ask that the model instruments and articles be published in the Bill, especially as it is likely that with the formation of new committees it will help the new members when they wish to discuss matters with the local education authority.
In his remarks on Second Reading, the Minister stated:
"I know there is some anxiety among those concerned with voluntary schools".—[Official Report, 10/3/86 Col. 419].
The Minister, in giving assurances about the safeguards available to voluntary schools in any revision of the articles, regrettably made no mention of the issue of unassigned functions, which has just been mentioned briefly by the right reverend Prelate. I shall look forward particularly to his reply on this point.
3.30 p.m.
Neither he nor the noble Lord dealt with the problem of the future. To deal succinctly with the articles enshrining the Gillow principle in law will remove, I think, all the doubt in this area once and for all. The local authorities' members may perhaps object on the grounds that the amendment will take certain powers from the hands of the LEA and transfer them to the governing body. My contention is, on the basis of the Gillow principle, that those powers do not belong to the LEA and are not being taken out of their hands. If the LEA think at some time in the future that particular functions ought to be in their hands, it is open for them to seek to revise the articles accordingly, using the perfectly acceptable procedure which is set out in Clause 2 of the Bill.
I should like very much to support what the right reverend Prelate has said so eloquently, and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to support this amendment for various reasons, one of which gives me

1293
the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the voluntary schools. I think we are rather apt to overlook the role that they play in our educational system.
I was chairman of governors of a Catholic school for many years, and I have been concerned with their work in London. I think it is significant that a table recently published of the schools to which people wanted to send their children, in order of importance and preference, certainly put the voluntary schools very much at the top. You can ask why. I have questioned many parents on this, and one of the reasons was that they found that they are well run, that they have a philosophy of belief which is encompassed in their education, and that they have a unique situation in our educational system.
While the situation now may not be difficult, there is always the possibility that a local education authority will want in some way to deprive the voluntary schools of certain of their functions. I think this amendment will safeguard that, and it is important that it is enshrined in legislation. I hope that for many years we shall maintain the number of voluntary and Church schools that we have, because of their unique quality, the remarkable pupils they turn out, and the fact that they do certain things that I am afraid that even in this day and age the public school sector cannot do.
The Earl of Swinton: The Government recognise the legitimate concern of the Churches to ensure that functions which have traditionally been exercised by aided and special agreement school governing bodies under articles of government cannot, under the new provisions in Clause 1 for the LEA to make instruments and articles of government, be removed from them. The Government share this objective. However, I have to say that we disagree with the right reverend Prelate on the basis for this argument.
The Government do not believe that there is a general principle to be extracted from the 1912 Gillow case, which related to a point of construction in the Education Act 1902. In any event, the 1944 Act represented a break from the previous scheme of things, providing a fresh start with functions to be allocated as seen best in articles of government subject to the overriding requirements of legislation. I am aware that the Churches have obtained a contrary opinion from that of the Government about the continuing relevance of the Gillow case. The Committee will be well aware that it is not entirely unknown for lawyers to reach conflicting opinions on the same point. The Government's view of the matter is supported by parliamentary counsel.
The amendment proposed purports to deal with those matters which are not covered by the primary legislation. It does, I suggest, have serious weaknesses. There is already substantial prescription on the allocation of functions—particularly as regards controlled schools—in existing legislation, and this will be extended by the present Bill. The Government believe that the allocation of functions not covered by the primary legislation should be made according to what is appropriate to the particular case. The Bill has been carefully drafted to ensure that these options are appropriately open.
1294
For aided schools, in many respects it will be appropriate for the governing body to have the responsibility for these not otherwise assigned functions because it is acknowledged that they have, and should continue to have, greater autonomy from the LEA. Perhaps I may take a specific example The Education Acts are silent about the appointment and dismissal of non-teaching staff at aided schools. We believe that the 1944 Act implies that care and maintenance staff are employed by the governing body, but I stress this is not explicit. However, articles of government have traditionally provided for non-teaching staff to be employed by the governing body, with one notable exception: almost invariably school meals staff are employed by the LEA. This amendment would mean that these staff had to be employed by the governing body. I am not sure this is necessarily what the Churches would want. The amendment would also cause problems for LEAs in making articles of government, because it could well conflict with the requirement in Clause 2(1)(c) that they have regard to the way the school has previously been conducted.
The Government believe that what is proposed in the Bill does, in effect, meet the Churches' concern. The substantial safeguards that are proposed for voluntary schools mean that they need not tear a whittling away of their distinctive powers in the new situation; indeed, we should be most distressed if it were otherwise, and no one more than myself, being an ex-member of a diocesan education committee and still a governor of a Church of England aided primary school.
The procedure is that, before new instruments and articles are made for voluntary schools, the local education authority will be bound by the extensive prescription in legislation and then required to have regard to the way in which the school has been conducted. We have already agreed that model documents should also be available for guidance, though doubtless—and this will please my noble friend Lady Vickers—we will discuss this further in the context of the right reverend Prelate's next amendment. The local education authority would then have to secure the agreement of the governing body (and the foundation governors on any matters that are of particular concern to them) or, in the case of a new school, the agreement of their shadow governing bodies.
In the absence of agreement, either side may refer the issue to the Secretary of State for his determination. It goes without saying that, in making such a determination, the Secretary of State must have regard to the merits of each particular case. At any time, the governors (or, as the case may be, foundation governors) may propose a change in the governmental documents which the local education authority will be under a duty to consider. Again, if there is not agreement on how to proceed, either side may refer the matter to the Secretary of State for his determination. All this, in fact, represents a substantial improvement as far as the majority of voluntary schools are concerned—those in the primary sector for which articles currently fall to be made by the local education authority without such safeguards.

1295
One question still remains: what of matters on which both primary legislation and articles are silent? I think this is a point my noble friend Lord Renton was making. The answer is in Clause 15(1), as, indeed, the right reverend Prelate said. Anything not specifically assigned falls within the conduct of the school; responsibility for that is vested in the governing body. In other words, Clause 15(1) achieves a large part of what this amendment attempts to do.
However, as I said at the beginning of this short speech, I acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed on this matter. I hope it is recognised why the amendment in its present form is unacceptable. However, I think that there may be a way forward. I know that a meeting is arranged for 10th April between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and his colleague the Bishop of Menevia. That meeting will provide a useful forum for this complicated matter to be discussed further and I have every confidence that agreement can be reached at that meeting. If this amendment is withdrawn, I undertake that the Government will, at the next stage, reflect any agreement at the meeting with any necessary amendment. Having said that, I invite the right reverend Prelate to withdraw this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his careful and detailed answer. Clearly, there still remain certain differences between us with regard to the significance of the particular case and its practical implications. However, in view of what the noble Earl has said about his willingness to reconsider the matter and the meeting that I shall be having with the Secretary of State, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper: This may be a convenient moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

British Leyland
3.40 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the subject of British Leyland. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House is aware, British Leyland and the Government have been in discussion with several companies about the privatisation of the main Land Rover-Leyland businesses. Of these, General Motors has made proposals concerning Leyland Trucks, Freight Rover and Land Rover.
"In relation to the truck and van sectors, the talks with General Motors concentrated on the possibilities for combining the respective Leyland
1296
and Bedford businesses to the mutual benefit of General Motors and British Leyland. In respect of Land Rover, where there are opportunities for Land Rover in expanding European and world markets, the Government were determined that, as a condition of privatisation, special arrangements should be concluded to safeguard United Kingdom interests, including a measure of real United Kingdom control over the future of the business. For its part, however, General Motors wished to have effective control of the company from the outset and an assurance of full ownership and control within a relatively short period; and it became clear that it was not able to compromise on these points. Despite the view taken of the General Motors proposal by the British Leyland board from its commercial standpoint, this was not a basis for an agreement acceptable to the Government in the national interest.
"General Motors has stated that it is not willing to proceed with an arrangement for Leyland Trucks and Freight Rover which excludes the Land Rover company and the talks have therefore been ended.
"The British Leyland board will give further study to the alternative ways forward for all the businesses concerned. For Leyland Trucks, which operates in a depressed and fiercely competitive market, the board will continue to examine the possibilities of collaboration with other manufacturers and other ways to sustain its improving trend in performance. The Government continue to support the commercial development of this business in accordance with established plans. For Land Rover and Freight Rover, the board will include in its examination the various expressions of interest which have already been announced, with a view to recommending the course most likely to achieve the privatisation of the businesses in a way which best secures their future".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement made in another place. May I take the somewhat unusual course of congratulating the Government on achieving such a remarkable U-turn? It reflects very great credit upon them. I do not feel that the House would wish to withhold its approval from these mature considerations, following some vacillation that has done enormous harm to the British motor industry, that have now acknowledged the existence of a national interest. This is revolutionary. Hitherto, in the statements that have been made, we have been up against the harsh dictates of market forces and the harsh dictates of competition. Here, we have a Statement that the Government, presumably from the outset, were determined—the term is "were determined"—that there should be a measure of real United Kingdom control over the future of the business. This is somewhat astonishing in view of the vacillation and the conflicting statements that have been made both here and in another place concerning these various competitive offers.
Moreover, in the more recent discussions with General Motors, or, rather, following them, the Government decided that the proposals were not the

1297
basis of an agreement acceptable to the Government in the national interest. It would be outside the mood of the House if I was to be unduly cynical about this and say that we could possibly substitute electoral interest, particularly in the West Midlands. I do not wish to be uncharitable. I accept the fact that the Government now regard the national interest as being of some importance. This will be reassuring to the entire population of the United Kingdom. In continuation of that, and in view of the fact that the Government announce their intention to continue to support the commercial development of the business in accordance with established plans, may we now ask the Government to be really sensible and carry this to its logical conclusion?
In view of the hassles that have taken place over the past weeks, would it not be in the national interest to abandon this privatisation charade altogether? Would it not be best, in the interests of the British taxpayer, to continue to support British Leyland at a considerable saving to public funds of some billions above the expenditure it has made? Would it not be better, in any event, and fairer to the British taxpayer, even on the assumption that there is lurking in the Government's mind the continued desire to privatise, to continue to support Leyland until such time as there arrives the long-promised industrial recovery, concerning which the Government appear to be most confident and which, if it occurred, would necessitate or generate demand for British transport, trucks, Range Rovers and the lot, far in excess of existing demand?
Is it not the case that the Government, while exuding public optimism as to Britain's recovery, which itself would assist all these industries, are in fact suffering from private pessimism? In these circumstances would it not be better if the Government as a matter of honour (and in view of the fact, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that they are a minority elective dictatorship who, I am afraid, are largely discredited now in the public mind) abandoned these proposals altogether until the British people have had an opportunity to pass a further verdict upon the Government?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for telling us about the Statement in another place. The Government have reached a decision in the current negotiations with General Motors. That is clear. What is not clear is what the alternative is. Here is a major sector of British industry that is in difficulty, not through any fault of its own but because it is in a general market problem, as the Statement indicated. Yet we are not clear what the alternative is. Is this not a demonstration of the lack of an industrial strategy for this country?
Should we not have, as an integral part of this Statement, an indication of what is now proposed? In the Statement which the noble Lord read out to us it is indicated that
"the Government continue to support the commercial development of this business"—
that is the Truck business—
"in accordance with established plans".
1298
What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that the Government will be prepared to put the necessary investment into this business; that they will be prepared to provide the necessary marketing organisation for this business; that they are prepared to do what our Japanese competitors do: to have a real national effort to build up this sector of their industry; or does it mean that they will remain totally "laid back" and wait until some other bidder comes forward who happens, coincidentally, to meet the criteria—including the national criteria—which the Government have mentioned?
I think that we are entitled to know what the alternative policies are. The Government have been very clear in the reasons why they have not accepted the GM proposals. That is fine. But we now need to know the next step. Where shall we go in supporting and rebuilding this vital sector of British industry? Are we just going to let it continue through an uncertain, indeterminate period while we wait for alternative bidders; or will the Government say, "Let us get together with the enterprise and build it up so that it becomes a really powerful operation within Europe and in the rest of the world".
I think that we have reached a moment of great decision in respect of our motor industry. We have to decide one way or the other. At the moment I think that we have left this situation in limbo. I very much hope that in his reply the noble Lord will be able to indicate to us precisely what positive policy the Government have in mind.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am obliged to both noble Lords opposite for their reception of the repetition of this Statement. I shall do my best to answer the comments which they have made.
Let me first start with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in saying there has been no U-turn whatsoever by the Government. Your Lordships will recall that I gave certain assurances to the House over a number of weeks. At the outset, we sought certain assurances from General Motors. Among those assurances was the national interest element. Regrettably General Motors and the Government could not find sufficient common ground which is why General Motors wish to end the discussions.
I should remind the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the British taxpayer has put £2·2 billion into British Leyland in the past few years and has already underwritten a further £1·5 billion. Certainly very much more money would be needed and it has been the Government's policy, as declared at the last election, that British Leyland would be returned to the private sector as soon as was practicable. If I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that is exactly what is now proposed. That is the policy. It remains for British Leyland's board to examine carefully how best this may be achieved.
Discussions are still continuing with a number of companies interested in Leyland Bus, Land Rover and Freight Rover, Land and Range Rover, in Land Rover only, and in Leyland Truck only. These discussions will be continuing.
The industrial recovery is not something at which one arrives. The recovery has been growing apace over

1299
the past six years, notably as a result of this Government's general policies. We enter the sixth successive year of advancement. I think that it would be wearisome to your Lordships if I repeated the figures that I have so often repeated in the past few weeks.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I think that our intentions are abundantly clear: to secure for British Leyland as a whole—particularly Leyland Bus, Land Rover and Freight Rover and Leyland Trucks—a secure future in a highly competitive international business to the betterment of both the taxpayer, the management, and those who work in that industry. In this we shall use our best endeavours over the next few weeks.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while sympathising with my noble friend in having to repeat this Statement, may I ask him whether it means that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go on pouring large quantities of the taxpayers' money into what The Times this morning so rightly describes as the unprofitable production of unwanted vehicles? Is my noble friend aware that any doubts that any of us may have had as to the wrongness of this decision have been entirely dissipated by the approval given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asks a specific question: are the Government going to pour more taxpayers' money into the company? Since the British Leyland hoard have not asked the Government for any more money, I think that the question—and I say this with great respect to my noble friend—is a little hypothetical. We seek with the British Leyland board to find an alternative solution: that of returning the various businesses to the private sector where one would anticipate the buyers, and particularly the companies who are already discussing the various businesses, would provide the requisite capital to further the interest which I have just described.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the Minister tell us which description he accepts: that of his noble friend of pouring money into an unsuccessful business: or his description of the sixth successive year of advance?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords. I prefer my description. Certainly I think that my noble friend was referring to pouring money into a business which has not been able to fulfil—at this time anyway—its best ambitions: that of a larger car share. Although the truck business has a 16 per cent. share of the United Kingdom market, it has a very small share of the European market. It is a share of a market which has been fast declining.
With regard to Land Rover that company is the only one—between the bus company, the truck company and itself—that has turned any of its turnover into profit, and that only in the past two years.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, in the process of privatisation—which I presume the noble Lord supports—would he not accept that in order to get a
1300
fair price for the shareholders (that is the state) and a continuity of employment for those who work within the industry, one should not decry what have been major achievements within British Leyland since the very dark days in the 1960s.
Is it not a fact that General Motors have expressed very keen interest, in terms of Leyland Trucks, as a consequence of the undoubted investment, design and imagination of those responsible for that segment of the business? However, will not the noble Lord agree that in a period of 18 months, which I think is the time that the Government have been in intense negotiations with General Motors, they had a clear view as to what was the national interest—that is, the retention of shares or some form of control over the national interest as far as this group is concerned—and that that impression must have been given to General Motors some months ago? However, it looks as though it has come just at the very last moment and that General Motors has decided to pull out.
Does not that remove any degree of confidence that any other negotiators might have in the process of the Government's intention as regards privatisation? Will not the noble Lord accept what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, put most fairly and forcibly: namely, that there needs to be a clear statement of strategy and intention on behalf of the Government towards a very significant part of industry? We are not just considering British Leyland: we are considering all the other companies and organisations whose entire business is dependent upon the success not only of British Leyland but of all motor manufacturing and vehicle production in this country.
4 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said about the huge advance that both the management and workforce of British Leyand have made in recent years. Nevertheless, the fact remains that both the bus and truck businesses have not made any profit whatever for the past 10 or 12 years, and, as I suggested, in this intensely fierce international market they are unlikely so to do despite the fact that the product is better—particularly the trucks—and despite the fact that they now command 16 per cent. of the United Kingdom market.
There needs to be a further investment of both technology and money, and we believe that that would best be advanced through the private sector rather than continuing to put forward public money. General Motors' interest was known for some little while. In fact it was widely reported in the press as long ago as last autumn. While the negotiations were obviously of a commercially confidential nature it was undesirable to discuss them too broadly, and while General Motors knew that we sought certain assurances, negotiations were kept alive in the belief that our interests and its interests could be met. In the event, that was not to be. I should be happy to consider the wider aspects of industrial policy, but I fear that the House would not thank me were I so to do this afternoon.
Lord Soames: My Lords, as a member of a small European advisory council to General Motors, I did

1301
not intend to intervene had it not been that the Minister talked about General Motors withdrawing from the negotiations. May I ask him to tell the House when it was that Her Majesty's Government informed General Motors of what they perceived to be the British national interest? Was it at the beginning of the negotiations or was it in comparatively recent days?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as I understand it, it was during the course of negotiations that the assurances which we sought were made very clear. Various options were looked at, a number of which have been reported in the press. However, finally I think it was 21st March when we found that the gap was too wide.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, will the noble Lord reply to the question, because it is very important? When was the breaking issue on the part of the Government laid before the negotiators of General Motors? It is no good saying that it was part of the negotiations. We wish to know when the breaking point arose.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not believe that there was a particular breaking point. The matters were discussed and pieces were left over. I do not believe that one can say that at any one time there was a conversation which could be constructed to mean a breaking point. On 21st March General Motors felt that there was no further room for negotiation.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, there must have been a moment and a reason why the Government suddenly decided to make the decision that they made. When was it? What caused it? That is what your Lordships' House is asking.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I have told the House the reasons for General Motors and the Government breaking off discussions. The reasons, which I shall repeat, were that the assurances which we sought regarding ownership and an element of United Kingdom control and United Kingdom management were matters with which General Motors was unable to agree, and we decided mutually that there was no point in continuing. Exactly on which date or day that happened I am afraid I do not know. Your Lordships will appreciate that I was not party to the discussions myself. However, as I have already said, on 21st March the Government decided that none of the points which were put to us would work and it was then felt by both the Government and General Motors that there was no point in continuing with the negotiations.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the national interest is to have a bus and truck division manufacturing in this country? With a huge overcapacity as regards the bus and truck industry not only in England and Europe, but also world-wide, unless BL get into bed with someone in the way that Ford or Fiat have, in five to eight years' time there will not be a BL vehicle or a Bedford made in this country.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend says. I would not like to
1302
hypothecate quite as much as he has. It has always been our intention from the outset that a negotiation, a collaboration or a merger would be desirable in the long-term interests of a British-based truck and bus manufacturing industry and of all those who worked in it. The British Leyland board and ourselves will continue to work to that end.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the truthful way in which to answer the question put to him by his noble friend Lord Soames is to say, quite frankly, that the Government's final decision and their U-turn took place immediately following representations by Conservative Members of Parliament in the West Midlands to the Chairman of the Conservative Party—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—Mr. Tebbit, who then decided that the political interest lay in the direction of the decision which the Government then reached?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Soames was dissatisfied with my answer to his question he no doubt would have made that abundantly clear to me. On the other hand, I have explained to the House quite clearly and honestly the circumstances which arose concerning the ending of discussions between the Government and General Motors.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is it not important that the company should be part of a large group with large capital available and with a large sales organisation? Is not the question of who owns the shares a red herring, because what does it matter? What is important is that the capital and so on should exist and that the jobs should be maintained. It really does not make a ha'p'orth of difference whether the shares are owned in Britain or anywhere else.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that is a view shared by a number of people. What we remain concerned about is that there should be a strong manufacturing presence in the United Kingdom employing, I think it is, 29,000 people directly and several thousand others in the supply industries; and that is what both the British Leyland board and ourselves seek to achieve.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the question put earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, has not been answered by him? It has been answered by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but not by him. Perhaps I may put it to the noble Lord again. He says that this decision, to which he was not a party—which we all recognise, but of course he has advice available to him—was taken on national interest grounds. The question is a simple one. These negotiations went on for a substantial period of time, as the noble Lord is well aware. When was that definition of the national interest made by Ministers?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot answer that question, and I do not believe that anybody else can, because various options on the various assurances which we sought were discussed over a period of many months. As I have said three

1303
times already, it was decided on 21st March that none of the options on all the various assurances which we were seeking in the national interest, in the interests of the industry, in the interests of the workforce, and so on, would work, and the talks ended on 21st March.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, part of the answer is given in the Statement he has just read. It says:
"For its part, however, General Motors wished to have effective control of the company from the outset".
The Statement also says:
"the Government were determined that … special arrangements should be concluded to safeguard United Kingdom interests, including a measure of real United Kingdom control".
When was that made plain? If that had been made plain from the start, the negotiations would have broken down at the start.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not believe that the negotiations would have broken down at the start. In any kind of negotiation—and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition knows this very well—one puts on the table the optimum, and one moves around making adjustments to what one ideally would like and what is pragmatic. In the end, as I have said, none of the options available to us or to General Motors was considered suitable, and this was decided on 21st March.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Soames, could tell the House when General Motors was made aware of these objections.

Education Bill [H.L.]
4.13 p.m.
Committee stage resumed on Clause 1.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert ("and
(c) in the case of voluntary schools subject as aforesaid be in accordance with model instruments and articles to be incorporated in regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
The right reverend Prelate said: I shall not keep the Committee long on this particular amendment. I must first say that I am slightly confused because I did not quite hear what the noble Earl the Minister said in an earlier speech this afternoon about model instruments and articles.
The Earl of Swinton: May I say to the right reverend Prelate that all I said was that I would be referring to them during the right reverend Prelate's next amendment.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am obliged to the noble Earl. In the discussions we had with the department while this Bill was being drafted it appeared that there was some reluctance on its part that model instruments and articles should be published once again. I say "once again" because they had been generally available since the 1944 Act, and it is only recently that they have not been available. It is
1304
only the last edition of a well-known manual, County and Voluntary Schools, which has omitted them.
It has been argued that so many details, constraints and requirements appear in the Bill that the models are unnecessary. On the other hand, we would argue that because so much appears in the Bill already it would not involve an excessive amount of work to produce a set of models both for instruments and for articles. Our main point is simply that models are extremely helpful when conducting negotiations with local authorities under the terms of Clause 2 as it would be in this Bill.
The absence of models in recent months in the edition of County and Voluntary Schools that I referred to has caused the department itself some difficulties in producing instruments and articles following the 1980 Act. It would seem to me that for the benefit of everyone involved in implementing this Bill when it becomes law it would be of great assistance if the former practice could be provided for, whereby model instruments and articles will be made available, being incorporated in regulations made by the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment and secure that such models are available in the future. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: I note that this amendment follows a suggestion made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester during the Second Reading debate. We recognise the anxiety of the Churches that any function currently bestowed on governing bodies by articles of government should not be usurped by LEAs when the articles are remade. We also recognise that the suggestion that there should be model instruments and articles, produced by the Department of Education and Science, is intended to be helpful as it is thought that the existence of model governmental documents will reduce the number of questions referred to the Secretary of State because the LEA and the voluntary school governing body cannot agree on the terms of the instrument or articles, or both.
As my noble friend Lady Young indicated at Second Reading, the department is ready to offer model instruments and articles for guidance, but I hope the Committee will recognise that it would be quite impracticable for these to have any sort of statutory force. The circumstances of individual schools differ quite widely. The provisions of Clause 4, for the composition of aided and special agreement school governing bodies, allow there to be considerable variety, so that any framework to be imposed by statute would be so skeletal as to be meaningless.
Even within the provisions of Clause 3, which will apply a relatively tight formula to controlled school governing bodies, the category of foundation governors will include governors appointed from a variety of sources. When it comes to articles of government, the Bill requires certain functions to be specified, sometimes with no room for manoeuvre but sometimes as a minimum provision, allowing the articles for individual schools to make greater provision than the minimum if appropriate. On other matters, particularly where aided schools are concerned, the Bill is silent, and articles of government make the appropriate allocation of functions.

1305
Model instruments and articles prepared as guidance can accommodate many of the variations, or can leave blanks. Models which have statutory force, however, either have to contain only those provisions which are common to all schools or to have an endless list of alternative versions, which even then may not be exhaustive. In the light of the Government's unequivocal assurance that model documents for guidance will be prepared and recommended to LEAs, I would ask the right reverend Prelate to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for his reply. In the light of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Before Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Instruments of governing bodies.
.—(1) This section applies in relation to any county, controlled or maintained school.
(2) The instrument of government of such a school shall provide for the governing body to consist of an equal number of—

(a) parent governors, with pupil governors where the local education authority considers it appropriate;

(b) governors appointed by the local education authority;

(c) staff governors, comprising at least one representative from the teaching staff, and at least one representative from the support staff of the school;

(d) the head teacher, unless he chooses not to be a governor; and

(e) either—

(i) at least one foundation governor and at least one co-opted governor, in the case of a controlled school; or

(ii) co-opted governors, in any other case.

(4) Where the head teacher is a governor he shall be treated for all purposes as being an ex officio governor.
(5) Where the local education authority determines that the governing body shall include pupil governors, it shall determine the proportion of places between parents and pupils, subject to there being no governing body on which pupil representatives comprise the majority in this category.
(6) The local education authority shall determine the proportion of teaching and non-teaching staff representatives on the governing body.
(7) The local education authority shall have regard in the determination of the size of a governing body to the categories set out in subsection (8) below in relation to the numbers of registered pupils in a school, and shall provide in its determination for uniform sizes of governing bodies within each category of school size.
(8) For the purposes of this section, the categories of school size shall be the number of registered pupils in each school as follows:—

(a) less than 100;

(b) more than 99, but less than 300;

(c) more than 299, but less than 600;

(d) more than 599.').

The noble Lord said: This is probably the most important amendment that we are putting before the Committee today. I say with all sincerity that it is intended as a lifeline for the Government. I believe
1306
that the Government, with the best will in the world, have become enmeshed in a far too complicated series of procedures for setting up in great detail the composition of governing bodies. It is not just that the Bill as it is drafted has to provide for governing bodies with different elements for different sizes of school, but as we proceed through the inexorable process of thought to which the Government become committed by Clause 3 it is evident that there have to be many more supplementary provisions which become more and more complicated, more and more difficult and more and more rigid in their application.
The number of pupils in a school is a very good example. There is provision in the Bill for what happens when the number of pupils rises above the magic number of 199, or whatever it may be, or when it falls below 199 or some other magic number. The Bill has to make provision for the possibility of an excess of governors and that the least senior governors have to be removed if there are too many. If there is equality between two governors in terms of seniority, we must have on the face of the Bill the provision for the two governors to toss for the position.
This is not the way in which we should be approving or making legislation in this Chamber. We should not be spelling out in the Bill the fact that a governing body, for example, shall appoint a chairman or vice-chairman. It would be a most extraordinary governing body that decided not to appoint a chairman. But there is a distinguished precedent in this Chamber and in the Committee. It is possible to proceed in a governing body without a chairman, yet on the face of the Bill we have to force a governing body to go through this procedure and we have to force the Secretary of State to prescribe that this procedure shall be followed.
Over and over again we start from the wrong premise, that the Government shall lay down in detail the composition of governing bodies for different sizes and types of school. What follows from that premise is an unacceptable degree of dictation by the Secretary of State to local educational authorities and governing bodies.
I said earlier that this is being done by the Government with the best will in the world. I believe sincerely that that is the case. I believe that the noble Earl and the noble Baroness in their Second Reading speeches properly appreciated the role of parents and the value that parents are to governing bodies. I believe that there was a proper appreciation of the desirability of taking away from governing bodies overall political control by the local education authorities.
There was a universal recognition at Second Reading that the principles laid down by the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Taylor were the right principles to be adopted in legislation at this time. Unfortunately, if the Government were set an exercise on precis and comprehension of the Taylor Report, I think that they would fail on both counts. First, it is not a precis because the Bill as we have it is considerably longer than the recommendations of my noble friend and his committee on the composition of governing bodies; and, secondly, in terms of comprehension it appears that the wording of the Bill has been produced at arm's length from the practical

1307
experience of education authorities and governing bodies. If that were not the case, I am convinced that the Government would have provided considerably more flexibility in the way in which the reforms now proposed should operate.
I have an example from the local education authority where I live in Haringey, where the local authority has instruments of government which apply to all the schools but one. In the one school where I was a governor for 15 years there is a variation in the instruments of government to allow for a larger number of governors co-opted from a school and community association which has a real life in that community. It is based on the school and not only takes a considerable interest in the work of the school but combines community activities with the activities of the school.
That flexibility was permitted because the Secretary of State was able to approve for one school in the local authority area different instruments of government from those for all the other schools in that area. Differences between different local authorities related to local needs are also possible under the existing regime. But the Bill as drafted makes it impossible to have that kind of flexibility. It makes it impossible for there to be the recognition of local needs which we believe to be the essential lesson from the Taylor Committee and which in our view is the principal objective of this part of the Bill.
The fundamental principle behind Taylor was that we should extend the wisdom and judgment available to the schools by extending the constituency of the governing body. The Taylor Committee said that there should be equal participation by the local education authority, the teachers, parents and co-opted governors who could in their turn represent the higher education in the area in the form of secondary schools or industry and commerce; because it is a theme of the 1980s that we desperately need better links between the world of work and the world of education. All these things are possible under the amendment as it has been put before the Committee. They are not really possible in the form in which the Bill has come from the parliamentary draftsmen.
If this amendment finds favour with the Government, strictly speaking only Clause 3 would need to be removed from the Bill. But I suggest to the Government that if they accept the idea of flexibility within the broad principles laid down in the amendment and by the Taylor Committee, and supported by the Government's spokesmen at Second Reading, all of us could discuss together the degree to which further amendments on the Marshalled List would no longer be necessary. If we accept that it is for local authorities and local opinion to consider matters such as whether there should be pupil governors, it is for local authorities and local opinion to decide the relative strength of representation of teachers and non-teaching support staff.
If we allow local option to decide the balance between pupil and parent governors (if it is decided that there should be pupil and parent governors); if we allow local option to decide on the composition of the co-opted quarter of the governing body; the degree to which there should be representation from industry
1308
and commerce, higher education and so on—if we can agree that these are matters which should be the responsibility of local people rather than laid down to the last dot and comma by government on the face of the Bill, I feel sure that in co-operation it would be possible to produce a more comprehensible Bill, a more flexible Bill, a Bill which achieves the objectives of the Government in bringing it forward but does so with a great deal more consent and co-operation from people working in and around our schools than is at present possible.
I said at the beginning that this is intended to be a lifeline to the Government. I hope that the Government will seriously recognise the extent to which this amendment is moved in support of the basic principles of the Bill and in a sincere desire to make it a more effective instrument for achieving those objectives. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: I do not propose to speak in detail about this amendment but I must make one or two remarks about it to begin with. The noble Lord has just referred to flexibility. When I read this amendment I see not flexibility but inconsistency. I do not think that I am altogether lacking in numeracy, but I find it extremely difficult to do the sums which the amendment requires. I am told that the instrument of government shall provide for an equal number of parent governors, governors appointed by the local education authority, staff governors, the head teacher and then either one foundation or one or two co-opted governors.
If one has only one head teacher, one cannot fulfil the obligations of staff governors as mentioned in paragraph (c), for example, because you cannot have two of them equalling one head teacher. Is it the intention of the amendment that they should have a kind of multi-headed school with a sufficient number of head teachers to match the numbers under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (e)?—because you cannot have it both ways. If you are going to reach the maximum allowed in this amendment of 20 governors, the only way is to have four head teachers. Flexibility? I do not think so. I would say that, whatever the merits or otherwise of this particular amendment, it needs a good deal of looking at before it would stand the test of use.
I come now to a much more important point, which is this. I think that it may not be appreciated that the effect of this amendment is to strike at the dual system. I am referring here not merely to later amendments which would reduce the majority of foundation governors to one. That is a serious matter. We have already moved from one-third foundation governors under the 1944 Act to not less than one-fifth under the 1980 Act. The present Bill provides for two, which is just about workable. To reduce it to one could put the future of a Church school at risk, depending upon whether or not one of the foundation governors happened to have 'flu that day.
I will refer to something else. I think that perhaps there is a mistake in the second line of this amendment. It should read "maintained special school". Perhaps I am not right, but if it is not a mistake and the word "special" is omitted, the new

1309
clause applies to all schools because all schools are maintained schools. Nevertheless, whether that be so or not, if this Amendment No. 4 is carried and then the noble Lord's intentions to oppose the two subsequent clauses are successful, aided schools will have disappeared as special agreement schools will have disappeared.
The only point that I want to make now is about the dual system. I hope that this is just accidental and not deliberate because this is not the time and place to speak of the merits of the dual system and I would not want to take up the Committees' time arguing for what I believe to be an extremely workable and valuable system in this country. I would only make two points. First, the present dual system was the result of very prolonged and detailed consultation over a long period of time. I do not believe that it is either responsible or democratic to threaten the dual system by amendments to a Bill. If people do not like the dual system, I believe the honourable thing is to face it head-on and say, "Let those who advocate it as being the right system for this country, given the history of education, argue it". Let us face it and discuss it openly and properly. I hope I am wrong and that this is not an intentional but an unintentional threat to the dual system.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it was the Churches which took the intitiative in providing a national system for education for those who could not afford it in this country. That is something, I think, that we should never forget. During the years following the 1944 Act we have sought to exercise what we now call positive partnership. May I give one example. After the 1944 Act, it was urgently necessary on educational grounds to reorganise the all-age schools. The Church of England, I believe, behaved very properly at that time; and I know what the figures were. Because it could not at that moment afford to retain all its schools, or all the ones it wished, the aided schools, it said: "Rather than hold up the reorganisation of all-age schools we will let them go controlled in order that that reorganisation may take place". That, I believe, was a very proper exercise of partnership in which the needs of the Church and the needs of the country were very properly balanced and considered. I believe our record for partnership can stand very careful examination.
The last point I would like to make in urging the Committee to resist this amendment is that I believe it is very important to keep governing bodies to a reasonable and workable size. I do not believe that governing bodies which could take on a semblance of public meetings are in the interests of the school or in the interests of those who are represented on them. I hope that the Committee will resist this amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: May I ask for guidance on this amendment? Does this amendment apply to special schools—and by "special" I mean schools for the mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, blind and so on? Do these amendments apply to such schools? The difficulty with the special schools is that they very often serve a wide area and the parents do not live in the same area as the school. The parents do not know one another, and for parents to be represented on the governing body is virtually an
1310
impossibility. I am a governor of two schools for maladjusted children used by local authorities, but voluntary schools. We have found it quite impossible to have parents as governors on those governing bodies because they do not know one another, they do not live near one another and they are not in touch with one another except on sports days. I shall be grateful for some guidance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think it may be helpful if I came in immediately to respond to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Baroness. Although there may be drafting defects, I do not believe that they are drafting defects of the sort suggested. It is not the intention that this amendment should apply to aided schools or to special-agreement schools, and it is certainly not the intention that this amendment should have any effect whatever on the relationship between the Church and the state in our schools. If we have worded the amendment wrongly by omitting the word "special" from the second line, so be it. It will have to be corrected later.
There is no intention of any kind that the foundation governors of aided or special agreement schools should be affected. As I said when I moved the amendment, there is no intention to affect any thing other than Clause 3 as drafted. I can say without hesitation that the major fears that the right reverend Prelate has expressed are not intended. I do not believe in fact that they are to be found in the amendment.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the answer is yes. It is intended that the amendment should apply to maintained special schools. If there were any doubt on that point, it would be resolved by later amendments which we have tabled which provide that the principle of parent governors and teacher governors should be extended to special schools. I appreciate the point that she makes: that parents live in different parts of the country and do not meet socially in their own neighbourhood, hut a number of local education authorities have found it possible to have parent governors of special schools. The parents come to the school on special occasions—on parents' days and so forth. They meet each other and they have the opportunity to elect from their number a parent to be a member of the governing body.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that it is desirable, if possible, to have parents represented on the governing bodies of such schools. If some local authorities have found ways of doing that, we should surely attempt to learn from them rather than to fall back on local authority nominations for parent governors in such schools.
I had hoped that we would not anticipate the discussion which might take place later on the special needs of special schools. That is a separate issue. It is only because the amendment is intended to loosen the bonds of the overrigid specification on the face of the Bill that the question arises in that way. There is a point of difference between myself and the noble Baroness. It is not one which I believe is incapable of being resolved. I am sure that a way can be found to allay her fears and to provide as much democracy as possible in special schools. It may have to be dealt with by a subsequent amendment. Any further flexibility is not ruled out by the amendment as proposed.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am grateful for the noble Lord's assurances that subsection (1) of Amendment No. 4 is intended to cover county, controlled or maintained special schools. In that event, where is it proposed that the government of aided and special agreement schools should be provided for in view of his express intention to oppose the Motion That Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill? That clause relates specifically to aided and special schools.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had hoped that I had made it clear that the only consequential action that I proposed to take if the amendment is carried is to oppose the Motion That Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill. The discussion that I would wish to take place on Clause 4 is a separate matter and is not related to this amendment in any way. There are a whole series of clauses on which I shall oppose the Motion That the clause shall stand part of the Bill for different reasons. They are not affected by the wording of this amendment. The right reverend Prelate made one other perfectly valid point. I think that we have put the head teacher in the wrong place. It is not the intention that there should be five equal quarters on a governing body.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: I find myself in a difficulty. I certainly could not cast a vote in favour of anything that weakened the position of the churches in the schools of this country. As it is, their position is in no way too strong. I know that we are possibly coming to such a discussion later; but I want to be sure that, in the light of the assurances given, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is satisfied that this amendment does not threaten the dual system.
The Lord Bishop of London: In view of the explanation and assurances that have been given, I agree that the amendment as it stands does not threaten the dual system in the way that I suggested. I am grateful for those assurances. I still wish to oppose the amendment on other grounds, not least the size of the governing bodies.
Baroness Phillips: Like the right reverend Prelate, unfortunately I could not be present on Second Reading and so, in that sense, I shall be trespassing a little. I do not like the Bill. I find it an interference once again with the teachers. So far as I know, no one has ever proposed that there should be a governing body of a hospital with five satisfied or dissatisfied customers sitting on it, with four doctors and so on. Why is education always singled out for interference? If the amendment will make it possible to have fewer governors, I am in favour of it.
As for having pupil governors, I wonder whether any of your Lordships have experienced that. One must remember that in church schools the governing body appoints the staff. One must speak as one sees the matters in operation. When passing legislation it is very easy not to realise how it will apply in practice. A difficult political situation can arise if a teacher is being appointed by parent governors of children who are actually in the school. I shall not bore your Lordships with examples of how that works, but it can work in a very curious way.
1312
My feeling is that it would be marvellous if the governors were made up of representatives, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, of industry, commerce and all the good souls in the local area who have a feeling for the school. That would be admirable; but we must be very careful not to specify too absolutely who those people are to be, because that is not democratic. It is imposing from above a structure which may well work in some cases, but I solemnly suggest to your Lordships that it will not work in all. I therefore find myself in a slight dilemma because I do not even like the clause in the first place. However, the amendment might, in some ways, modify the numbers and therefore make some contribution to the future working of the Act.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to express general support for the amendment on grounds that have already been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I think that that degree of flexibility is highly desirable, as opposed to the rigid codification of the Bill. Local education authorities in different parts of the country and at different times may well wish to vary the size of governing bodies. One is thinking, in particular, of their size. It is difficult to imagine that a governing body with as many as 20 members is a good idea. With the amendment, the possibility of having smaller governing bodies becomes possible.
I happen recently to have been speaking to one head teacher of whom I asked the vital question, "How helpful to you is your governing body?" It had 18 members. He said, "Well, to be absolutely frank, only four out of that number are what I would call dedicated to the school's interests. The others are very nice and pleasant people but they are ships that pass in the night. I meet them three times a year. They really do little to help me in my job or the school in its running." It might very well be possible under some scheme such as is suggested in the amendment for numbers to be reduced and for LEAs to play a greater part. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Butterworth: I have problems with this clause which I suspect cannot be cured by amendment. It seems to me that its operation would not further the principle upon which I think we are all agreed; namely, to create in the schools a partnership between, essentially, three parties—the parents, the LEAs and the headmaster and his staff. A subsidiary purpose would be to create a governing body which was no longer dominated by the local authority.
If I may give the Committee an example, I should like to take subsection (5) of the amendment which reads:
"Where the local education authority determines that the governing body shall include pupil governors, it shall determine the proportion of places between parents and pupils, subject to there being no governing body on which pupil representatives comprise the majority in this category".
If the local authority were to decide to allocate parent places to pupils—and in this situation the temptation to do so would be very strong—the result would be that the LEA block on the local authority would become the single largest block. Therefore, we should be going a long way to vitiate the principle on which we are already agreed, because we would be giving to the LEA a major voice on the governing body.

1313
Again, if we take the staff group, group (c) in subsection (2), at first sight it looks seductively democratic. But if you carry out the calculations in detail—and I found it difficult to do the sums on this amendment; I came in specially to pick up any amendments on Friday, but found that the Marshalled List was not available and the amount of time that we have had to study these amendments is not enough in order to express a concluded view upon them—I suspect that if a considerable number of places were to be allocated to the non-teaching staff, there would be many governing bodies where the teachers would have fewer representatives than they have under the 1980 Act.
Indeed, this clause requires that we should think about two new categories on the governing bodies: first, the pupils and, secondly, the non-teaching staff. It is not immediately obvious that the non-teaching staff can make their best contribution to the governance of the school through the governing body. I hope it will not need to be argued in this Chamber that the non-teaching staff should be fully involved, but I suspect there are probably other ways in which they can be involved, although it is not obvious from their duties as non-teaching staff that they would necessarily have a contribution to make. It may happen from time to time that a member of the non-teaching staff has a considerable contribution to make and would with advantage become a member of the governing body. That is a case where I submit that the power of co-option should be used.
When we look at this clause, we find that the numbers who can be co-opted have been reduced. I should have thought on any governing body that the power of co-option is extremely important, not only for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explained to the Committee, to bring in people from industry and from other walks of life, but also because it is from that category that I suspect so often the chairman of the governing body might well be identified.
Again, this clause introduces a departure which I should have thought requires a great deal of thought before we embark on legislation. I refer to pupil governors. If it is to be done, there are a number of problems that need carefully to be thought out before we embark upon it. It is clear that an excellent school requires the full involvement of its pupils. I am not convinced that this is the way to do it. If it is to be done by way of experiment, again, the power of co-option could be used. At the moment the pupil to be co-opted would have to be over the age of 18 and it may be a matter to be considered whether that age at some time ought to be reduced.
I should say from the experience of universities that we have found that the student members of governing bodies and of other committees have enormous experience, but there are additional problems in a school where the parents themselves are a substantial group on the governing body. However, if pupils are to be admitted to the governing body, one will need to think carefully about the nature of the business being brought before them. In universities, we have to have a very large number of reserved items which could only be discussed when the students were not present. By and large, all the personal matters affecting either
1314
staff or pupils themselves, promotions, appointments, dismissals and the whole question of the discipline of individual pupils cannot be discussed if pupil governors are to be admitted.
But I should be against this clause on the grounds that when you come to look at the detail, on so many occasions it vitiates the one principle that unites us, of wishing to create a real partnership in the governing body among the parents, the academic side—the headmaster and his staff—and the local authority.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I did not mean to speak at this stage in Committee and intended to wait until later. But I am getting worried about the way in which the Committee is going. We seem to be introducing a lot of subjects which should not be brought in now. I must now repeat quite a lot of what I said at Second Reading, and then go on to one or two other matters on which various noble Lords have raised questions during the discussion on this clause. I shall try not to speak with the feeling that has been brought out in me by some of the things that have been said.
I spent two years working with a team of devoted people to try to get the government of schools right. The main object in our minds was to try to improve the government. We did not just stay in London in Elizabeth House. We went right around the country. We looked at what was taking place. We looked at bad management of schools and we looked at good management of schools. We tried to pick out what would be best for the country. We had no intention of interfering in any way with the dual system. The right reverend Prelate will know quite well that one of his colleagues who served on that committee produced his own report at a later stage which I think the Church of England accepted about two years later.
5 p.m.
We looked carefully to ensure that we had the position correct. We tried to find a balance. We realised in going around looking at different managing bodies that there was not a proper balance. In some authorities it was completely the local authority; and a lot of things of a political nature which should never have occurred did indeed occur in those authorities. In other authorities there was a good balance which brought in pupils. You can get over the difficulties in the same way that we got over them in the universities. I, too, sit on a council of a university on which students play a good and active part but they are in only at a certain time. However, I do not want to go into that at this stage.
The clause tries to achieve the right kind of balance. The right kind of balance that we saw was an equal partnership among four sections and not three. The first section was the local education authorities. We realised and recognised what an important part LEAs had to play. They were the duly elected representatives of the people and therefore they had to have a major say in the principles and the philosophies of the schools, directed by the education authority. Then we looked at the position of the teachers. We realised that the teachers, too, had an important part to play in the management of schools. They were the workers, they were the people who were there, and therefore they should have a say. With the teachers we took on the other staff in that section.

1315
Then we went a stage further and we brought in the parents. The parents were important, too, because they should have a say. The parents had quite a lot to contribute as to what they saw was happening to their children. They could contribute in that way. Then we went yet a stage further and we thought about the local community. Communities vary throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. We thought about industrialists and local people who could play an active part. In a rural school you may have the local postmaster and the local grocer—people like that who are part of the community. This was our idea of an equal partnership.
Where does the Bill go wrong? I am grateful for what the Government did in 1980 and 1983 in looking at this issue and in bringing in parents. This was good. Bringing in teachers was good as well. Where the Government are going wrong is that the pendulum is swinging again. It is going the wrong way. It is going the wrong way in the sense that, instead of having an equal partnership, you are going to have too many parents on the governing bodies. That is wrong. There will be people who are jealous of the parents' right. There will be lobbying and all kinds of caucuses in the background. This is completely wrong. Getting the numbers right is vital in equal partnerships.
As I said at Second Reading, for goodness sake let us get it right this time because it is so important to the local communities and to the country to get it right. You can get it right if you get the proportions right. I stick to what my committee said. This is important. I ask the Committee to read my committee's report. With due respect to the Committee, I find that quite a number of noble Lords who have contributed so far have never read this report. I know that we did not get it completely right. We produced it for guidance, but many noble Lords are taking part in this debate without knowing the facts and seeing what we saw, hearing what we heard and reading what we had to read. It is all there. It can be obtained from the Printed Paper Office. If noble Lords do that before we go into Committee stage the next time, I am sure that they will find that things are a lot better and they will be a great deal more educated than is the case this afternoon. Please try to get it right and please watch things very carefully.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have read the noble Lord's report. I read it when it came out and I have re-read it recently. The Bill as it stands reiterates much that is in the report, but not all of it. But if I may return to the amendment we are discussing, I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, say that he supports the proposals in the amendment. I think I am right in saying that in the Second Reading debate he said that of all the people he had spoken to he had found none who did not believe additional parental involvement to be a good thing.
If I read the amendment correctly, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will tell me if I do not, pupils may be involved as governors. The noble Lord has said "pupil governors", but I do not believe that pupils can be governors. I believe that pupil representation on the governing body has to be of a different form. I am very much for pupil involvement but I wait to see how the discussion goes. But if pupils are governors and there
1316
are equal numbers among these categories, the number of parents is reduced in relation to the number of staff. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, is prepared to stand for that. It is absolutely basic in my view to the depoliticisation of the affairs of the governing body that parents should be very well represented.
In addition, and imagining what will happen if this amendment is adopted, subsection (6) says:
"The local education authority shall determine the proportion of teaching and non-teaching staff representatives on the governing body".
When that happens what the local authority will have to do, I should imagine, is to meet the various unions—the teachers' unions, NUPE, NALGO and so on—and come to some agreement with them about what this proportion is going to be.
The large teachers' union will want more representation than the smaller teachers' union, and the non-teaching staff unions will want representation. Quite a little party will be arrived at in order to keep everybody happy. It will then be impossible to balance that with an equal number of parents (even if the pupil governors are left out, and with the governors appointed by the local education authority) without getting a very large governing body, which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said he did not want, and I agree with him. It should not be too large.
The balance which I said on Second Reading I thought the Government had got about right has been greatly altered. I do not believe that anyone has pointed that out. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may dispute that fact, but it seems to me that the balance is bound to be greatly altered.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, could not see why the Bill should state that the governing body ought to appoint a chairman. However, on Second Reading, the noble Lord said he thought it was right that the domination of the local authority should be lessened by the legislation. One of the ways in which a local authority dominates a governing body is by dominating the chairmanship of it, by manoeuvring in such a way that the local authority influences who is appointed as chairman—and the chairman is a very important person. It seems to be an excellent idea that, under the Bill, the governing body itself will appoint the chairman—but only of course if it is a properly-balanced governing body.
We are talking about flexibility and I can quite see that the Bill, in trying to arrive at arrangements that would forestall such manoeuvres and manipulations, gives a rather lengthy description of who should be there. However, I personally would rather have a slightly complicated description than risk the kinds of goings on that I have experienced in a schools council and which I know other noble Lords have experienced.
A great deal is altered by the amendment and much of it is very unsatisfactory—quite apart from the maths, which I believe everybody agrees do not add up. Although we need to discuss further the involvement of pupils and possibly the role of the head teachers, I do not believe that this amendment will do at all. I hope that I may have influenced the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, simply on the facts, because I am fairly sure that this amendment is not what he originally wanted.
Lord Beloff: We are talking about the creation or the revision of institutions. There are two ways of approaching a problem of that kind. One is to ask: "What are the functions that we wish to see performed, and how can we see them performed most efficiently?". The other is to start with an ideology and see whether we can create something in its image.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I was disappointed to find that he is proposing an amendment that falls into the latter category. I have many of the reservations first enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and later by other noble Lords.
It is very interesting to remember that precisely the kind of balance that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks was that which was put forward in the Federal Republic of Germany—or rather, in the Northern Länder—at the time when student unrest spread from California to Europe. What they came out with and what the politicians agreed to in a state of panic—which is, alas, so characteristic of politicians!—was a fourfold system of government.
Hitherto, as noble Lords will know, German universities had characteristically been run by the professoriat, just as our schools traditionally and historically were largely run by the headmaster and his staff. Instead, there was proposed a fourfold system of government. If I remember correctly, it gave equal representation for the professoriat, the teaching staff, the non-teaching staff (the janitors, and so forth), and for the students. And so one had those four elements having totally different interests, whether concerned with learning, with teaching, with their own material situation, or whatever it might be.
The result, as those who had any experience of German universities at that time will know, was, as one might expect, total chaos from which, gradually, the universities have recovered.
Therefore, when we are asked to consider widening further the representation either to non-teaching staff or to pupils, we should remember the likely characteristics of both. So far as concerns the teaching staff—and, alas, the non-teaching staff! —then, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy has reminded the Committee, we are giving an additional voice to trade unions. Whatever may be said about the development of education in this country, one cannot say that an unmitigated and direct input from trade unions has always been the most beneficial to the schools.
5.15 p.m.
So far as concerns pupils, the situation is quite different. My noble friend Lord Butterworth spoke of good experience with students on various university bodies, provided always that a great many of the most important subjects were dealt with when they were not in the room. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, has more experience of this. But our experience at Oxford was similar except that their initial enthusiasm for participation gradually gave way to boredom, and boredom produced absenteeism. This point is important because if it is true of students—that is to say, young people of 18 years of age and over—then it is likely to be even more true of youngsters under the age of 18.
1318
Much of the work that is done by governing bodies—and I use that phrase loosely—in universities and in schools is important, but it is detailed and tedious, and not work that is likely to attract any but those who have a sense of it being part of their obligation.
The experience of student participation in Germany and in other countries has been intermittent interest in the affairs under discussion. Some issues may arouse considerable political feeling. Under modern conditions, one can imagine an enormous amount of time being spent, let us say, on a matter such as relationships between the schools and the police, when the important matter of whether money is to be spent on the roof or on the "loo" is left aside.
In other words, if we start with functions and ask, "What does a governing body have to do? What is the input that we require?", then it is obvious, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, observed, that there must be a major input from the teaching staff. It is desirable—not for democratic reasons or because LEAs are elected, because they are elected for reasons that have very little to do with education—that, as part of the local community, the local education authorities should continue to be represented without being dominant. We agree with the experiment of parent participation, on the ground that parents may see reflected through how their offspring perform the performance of a school in a way in which the other components of the governing body may not immediately perceive it.
I would have thought that the original version of the clause, while I do not find it perfect, does at any rate give the opportunity to concentrate upon function rather than to concentrate upon ideology, I hope that the noble Lord will not accept the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has put forward.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: May I say a few words in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour? I favour the addition of parents. They are, of course, a very welcome and necessary addition to governing bodies. I also favour the inclusion of pupil governors. Subsection (2)(a) of the amendment states:
"parent governors, with pupil governors where the local education authority considers it appropriate".
It seems as though the local education authorities are to decide whether or not to have pupil governors, possibly according to the size of the body as a whole. I think it would be regrettable if pupil governors could only be added to governing bodies at the expense of a number of parent governors. It may be possible to re-draft the amendment in such a way to ensure that that is not so.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope to speak only briefly on this amendment. Let me start by agreeing strongly with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee. I do not start with a passionate prejudice against pupil governors. I sit on the governing body of a polytechnic in London which includes students, who play a useful role. However, I would be very concerned at any suggestion that pupil governors should be substituted for parents. I can see the sort of political massaging that could go on in some local education authorities to bring about what would be, in my view, an extremely unsatisfactory outcome.

1319
We must recognise that one of the great advances that is being made in this Bill is to give parents a position which hitherto they have not possessed. I was involved in local politics in Essex some years ago and participated, I may say—and one must not be selfrighteous—with enthusiasm in the process of removing the opposition party's representatives on school managing bodies as soon as one's own party was in a majority on the local authority. As we all know, that has been the tradition. For a very long period in Essex power at County Hall, Chelmsford, changed every three years: so what happened every three years was a tremendous clearing out process of a substantial number of governors of schools.
That was manifestly ridiculous, because no interest was taken at all as to whether the people concerned had played a useful role in the management of the school. In circumstances of that sort the fact that we are moving to a situation where parents will have far more substantial rights in the balance of forces (if I may say so describe it) on boards of governors I think is highly advantageous.
I should also like to say, concerning the point on pupil governors and following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, that if we are to have pupil governors—and I am not a passionate opponent of the idea—one must go far further than does this amendment in defining precisely their role within the governing body. I would be firmly opposed to pupil governors making any staff appointments or being involved in disciplinary processes in the schools.
I give one good example of why I consider that to be a bad idea. I refer to the graffiti dispute in Manchester. A most deplorable decision was taken by the local education authority not to support the board of governors of a school which had taken action against a group of pupils who had been writing offensive graffiti of a sexist and racial character. Are we really going to contemplate a situation where pupil governors would in some way be able to arbitrate within the governing body in such matters? I should have thought that to be self-evidently undesirable. It could poison relations still further within the school, in my view.
I repeat that for the reasons I have given I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will, as I think he has already indicated, look at some aspects of his amendment before the next stage of the Bill. I hope that he will look at these particular points because, speaking entirely for myself, I believe it is important that if we are to move in the direction set out here the amendment must be drawn far more precisely than it is at the moment.
Baroness Young: It is now some time since the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, rose to move this amendment. In the course of that time we have had a very interesting discussion during which a number of very important issues have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, began his remarks by saying that he recognised the sincerity of the Government on this matter. I am glad that he does because Clause 3 is a central clause in this important Bill, as the noble Lord acknowledged. His amendment to insert a completely new clause into the Bill, based approximately on the report of the noble Lord, Lord
1320
Taylor, would crucially affect the Bill. For that reason I am sure he will understand right at the beginning that this is not an amendment which the Government can accept. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that I confess it is some time since I read his report, but I did read it when it was published and I again referred to it in preparation for the debate today.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicated that he would be moving an amendment in which he hoped to make governing bodies both more flexible and more representative. I think those were his exact words. It may be helpful to turn first to this important issue of flexibility. There are only four main solutions to the proposed formula, with either two, three, four or five individuals in each of the four main blocks of parents, and possibly pupils, of the local education authority, of the staff, of the co-opted members and, in the case of a controlled school, of the foundation governors. The overall shape of each solution is very similar to the formulae which we have arrived at in Clause 3. In this case there is an increase in the number in the staff block which is at the expense of those in the co-opted category and it leads to some increase in size.
Many of your Lordships have commented on the effect of this amendment on parent representation, and I was very interested in what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said because she recognised the importance of an increase in parent representation for all the reasons that have been given. Indeed, she quoted what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said at Second Reading. I was also interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said on this matter.
By this amendment, some flexibility would be permitted in each block. It is proposed, for example, that the local education authority may determine that up to half the parent governor places may be taken by pupils. The point that both my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made, which is correct, is that on the smallest governing body this would actually reduce parent representation to below the level provided for in the Education Act 1980. Indeed, if the local education authority allocated the maximum permitted places to pupils, only for the largest governing body would there be an increase—by one—over the 1980 Act's requirement that there should be a minimum of two parent governors. It seems to me that for those reasons those who are concerned about the position of parents on governing bodies cannot possibly support this amendment.
5.30 p.m.
I now come to teacher governors. Here the local education authority has to decide how to apportion places in the staff block between teachers and non-teaching staff. If the quota of non-teaching staff is maximised there would be fewer teacher governors in the larger schools than is now required by the 1980 Act and in the future by Clause 3. I find it very difficult to believe that this is the intention of those members who are moving the amendment, but this indeed will be one of its consequences.
Perhaps I may now turn to the foundation governors. I was interested in what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London had to say. The local

1321
education authority has to determine the allocation of places between co-opted and foundation governors for a controlled school. In no case does the minimum quota of foundation governors meet the minimum requirement of the 1980 Act, as the right reverend Prelate made clear. Such a requirement, that the foundation should have one fifth of the governorships, is preserved under Clause 3 of the Bill. This is important because it recognises the foundation's role in the initial provision of controlled schools and their continuing stake in the schools' provision for religious education.
The right reverend Prelate said how concerned he was that this amendment was attacking the basis of the dual system of education. From what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has subsequently said, I recognise that this was not his intention, but the fact remains that the amendment as drafted attacks the basis of the dual system of education and as it stands it would need considerable amendment if that effect were to be removed. I think that what happens about foundation governors is important. Indeed, only for the largest governing body does the maximum foundation entitlement meet the 20 per cent. criterion which was laid down in the Education Act 1980.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made it clear that he was against the political domination of governing bodies, and this is a point with which I entirely agree. Almost everyone who spoke in that debate recognised that one of the main aims of the Bill was to prevent that situation occurring. In this amendment the local education authority would not have a majority under the proposed clause, but if it decided to allocate some of the parent governorships to pupils—which would be a temptation—local education authority appointees would be the single largest block of governors. This was precisely the point made by my noble friend Lord Butterworth. It would have the effect that the other blocks, the parents and the teachers, could become fragmented, with quite a number of lone representatives. One of the problems that parents sometimes find if they constitute the single parent on a governing body is that unless they are very confident and very experienced their position is much more isolated than if there were other parents there to support them.
The cumulative effect would be to leave the local education authority as the dominating, coherent voice on the governing body, which would frustrate the main aim of the Bill of re-establishing governing 'bodies with a clear identity and sense of purpose of their own within the carefully drawn framework of responsibilities as set out in Part III of the Bill. It is important to remember that composition and functions must go hand in hand.
In the course of the debates on this Bill I am sure that we shall return to the question of pupil governors, but I was interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Butterworth and the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Harris of Greenwich, had to say. The Government have been criticised for being anti-youth in that this Bill precludes governorships being held by minors. There is an important reason why this is so. It is because it reflects our view that a governorship is an office of public and pecuniary trust which may not properly be held by a minor.
1322
I recognise that there are contrary legal views, but that is why we seek in this Bill to put the matter beyond doubt. Yet even if there were no legal problem, it seems wholly inappropriate for pupils to be governors of their schools, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, gave us an illustration of this point. I am the first to agree that pupil involvement and motivation are vital ingredients of a successful school, but I think few would argue that it would be right for pupils to be formally involved as governors in matters of, say, staff appointments or dismissal.
Indeed, my noble friend Lord Butterworth gave us examples from his experience in the university world of having to have various matters reserved. Should it be the case that matters in a school were reserved, the effect would be to create a category of second-class governors, and I think that this would be an invidious distinction to draw. However, I think it is important that ways should be found of involving students appropriately in the work of governing bodies, as observers or through school councils.
I should now like to turn to the question of teachers. Here the Government have been accused of not according teachers an equal share in the governing body. We think that this is unfair because we believe it misrepresents the role of the teacher and the governing body, which is essentially a lay body between the local education authority and the school staff. The teaching staff are intimately involved in the day-to-day running of the school and while their voice should clearly be heard on the governing body—and Clause 3 provides for this—their special status could give them undue influence over the other governors if their numbers were increased.
A number of members of the Committee, notably my noble friend Lord Butterworth, have commented on the position of support staff. The numbers would vary from school to school and in some cases they would be very small. Such staff obviously have a part to play in the life of the school, but given the real constraints of the size and overall balance it did not seem that there was a sufficiently distinctive contribution to be made by non-teaching staff to warrant a mandatory voice on the governing body. If the governing body wished, however, it could involve non-teaching staff, as it could others, by inviting them as observers or, if it thought fit, by co-option.
I have gone into considerable detail of the points on this amendment because I recognise that it is an important amendment, and I think it is right that the Government's response should go into detail and explain the reasons why we are unable to accept it. Perhaps I may sum up in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, made an important point when he said that we should concentrate much more on functions than on representation, but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London drew attention to the effect of the amendment as currently drafted on the dual system of education and on the size of governing bodies. My noble friend, Lord Butterworth drew attention to local education authority domination in certain circumstances. My noble friend Baroness Carnegy drew attention to the erosion of parent power. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, like the right reverend Prelate, drew attention to the ultimate size of possible governing bodies. These are very serious

1323
criticisms and it seems to me that the Committee ought to think carefully before giving support to the amendment which goes quite against the purposes of the Bill.
I have spelled out in detail the position of the Government and I have said why we are not able to accept this amendment. In those circumstances, I have no hesitation in urging the Committee to reject it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Committee must be grateful to the Minister for the sensitivity with which she has responded to the points made in the debate and for her detailed examination of them. I suppose it was inevitable that an amendment of this sort, coming first in Part II of the Bill, would flush out all the difficulties that are likely to occur in any solution which may be found for the composition of governing bodies. Indeed, we have had a debate which has anticipated almost all the discussions which might take place on subsequent amendments on Part II of the Bill. I do not object to that at all because the amendment introduces many points for the first time.
I feel slightly less sympathetic with Lord Beloff's complaint that the amendment does not actually solve the problems of the functions of the governing body as well. That comes in Part III of the Bill. I do not think that he could seriously expect a single amendment to resolve in advance all of the issues or functions of the governing bodies which will undoubtedly be debated when we come to further amendments. It seems that a good deal of the time has been taken up in discussing the role of pupils and the role of non-teaching staff, support staff, on a governing body. Although this is not the crux of the amendment as proposed, I think it is necessary to spend a moment or two dealing with that.
First of all, although it is true that the amendment provides that any pupil governors should come from the quarter allocated to parents, there are two qualifications to that which are quite fundamental. The first qualification is that there shall only be pupil governors if the local people, through the local education authority, actually want them, and they can reject them if they do not want them. Secondly, the amendment specifically provides that the number of parents shall exceed the number of pupils in that quarter, so that some of the fears of parental involvement in the governing body being too low I think are somewhat exaggerated.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, seems to think that pupil governors would somehow be local authority appointees and could be added to the local authority numbers on the governing body. That, certainly, is not the intention and is not the practice. Pupil governors are—or have been where they exist—elected from among the pupils above a given age. It has never been my experience in dealing with pupil governors that they have in any way acted as appointees of the local authority. On the contrary, there are many occasions when the pupil governors have been most effective spokesmen for the school against what they conceive to be any injustice or intrusion by the local authority or inadequacy by the local authority in provision for the school.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, the introduction of the local option for pupil governors is
1324
not, as he put it, a departure or an experiment. It is something that happens now and which would actually be ruled out by this Bill. It is not something which in any way would be imposed.
The second issue raised by a number of noble Lords was that of the teacher representation and the representation of non-teaching staff. It somehow appears to be suggested that this is going to become a matter for negotiation between the teaching unions and the non-teaching unions. I cannot for the life of me think how that is going to happen more under the terms of the amendment than it does under the terms of Clause 3 as it is in the Bill. Where there is to be a teacher representation and where there are schools which have teacher representation now, the experience is that the governors are elected by the teaching staff.
There may or may not be union involvement, but if there are going to be teacher governors at all, we have to run the risk that there is going to be union involvement in the election of teachers. The provision for non-teaching staff simply says that there shall be at least one representative of non-teaching staff. In view of the increasingly important role which non-teaching staff play, not only in the maintenance of the premises but in ancillary work in laboratories, and in many subjects, I do not think this is an unreasonable addition, and certainly it seems entirely appropriate that this representation of the people working in the school should be within the one quarter of the total governing body provided for that function.
So although I understand the fears which some noble Lords have about pupil governors, and I understand the fears which there might be about non-teaching staff, these are not borne out by the terms of the amendment and they are not the essential issue with which the amendment is concerned. The Government is wrong in laying down for different sizes of school an absolutely precise number of governors from each category, and the amendment says that there should be more flexibility on the size of governing bodies, more opportunity for local authorities and local people to make their own decisions as to how big the governing bodies should be.
5.45 p.m.
I do not think the right reverend Prelate—if I may go back to his opening remarks—need fear that this amendment either imposes too large governing bodies or too small governing bodies. It is the Government's own Clause 3 which absolutely rigidly lays down how big governing bodies shall be. If the right reverend Prelate or any other noble Lord is concerned that there ought to be differences in the size of the governing bodies, then they ought to support the amendment because it is only under the amendment that it will be possible for there to be variation in size, because that certainly is not what is provided, with one small exception of schools with more than 600 pupils choosing to be in class 4 rather than in class 5. With that exception, the Bill as drafted is completely rigid on this matter.
This is not simply a matter of wording. This is an attempt to see to it that local conditions, and particularly the possibility of reflection of local conditions in co-opted governors, shall be taken into account and that the Government shall not be tying local authorities, parents and teachers hand and foot.

1325
The noble Baroness said that this was against the purpose of the Bill. I really must contest that. It is within the spirit of the Bill, within the fundamental agreement that we all had at Second Reading of the need for wider representation, more democracy in the governing of our schools. Nothing in the amendment takes away from that, and if there are defects in the wording these are comparatively minor defects. I can give an undertaking that if this amendment is pressed anything which would affect the dual system, with which the right reverend Prelate is very properly concerned, will be removed at an appropriate stage.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I should like to make two points. First of all, on the size of the governing bodies, to which he has already referred, my point is that the Bill, as it stands, sets ceilings on governing bodies for different sized schools. The amendment does not, and it would not, prevent very considerably sized governing bodies being created for relatively small schools. So I do not think his argument stands there.
On the second point of the dual system, I take what he said earlier about the major assault, as it appeared to be, on the dual system, and I would not wish to press that in view of what he said earlier on. He has laid great weight on the equal representation of the different elements involved; but he has in the process reduced the number of foundation governors, who are an integral part of the government of any controlled school, to well below what is required in the 1980 Act. It is two out of nine, three out of 12, four out of 16, four out of 19 in the case of what is proposed in the Bill as it stands; but he provides for no more in his amendment than that there should be at least one. Frankly, I do not think it can be said that to reduce the number of foundation governors in a controlled school (which would, say, have 20 governors) to one, is not in some way an encroachment on the dual system as it stands.
Lord Kilmarnock: After an extremely interesting debate and before the noble Lord decides what to do about the amendment, I should perhaps say that I feel that a number of valid points have been raised. I would have preferred to go back to something nearer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor's distribution of membership of governing bodies. I am still concerned about the proportion allocated to teachers in the Government's proposals in the Bill. I feel that this is a matter to which we could come back at a later stage of the Bill.
I must also inform the noble Lord that I am personally unhappy with subsection (5); that is to say, the invasion of the putative pupil governors of the parents' allocation. We on these Benches are broadly in favour of pupil representation. However, we do not believe that what is proposed is quite the right way to go about it. There are later amendments to the Bill that address this problem. On those grounds, I hope very much that the noble Lord will take back the amendment and return with something that we can all examine at Report stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the interventions of the right reverend Prelate and of the
1326
noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I am bound to say that I do not feel that the provision that there should be at least one foundation governor is, or ought to be, a restriction on the maximum number. A local authority that wishes to comply with the principles of the 1980 Act will have every opportunity to do so. There is no reason why foundation governors should not be a very major part of that section of the governing body. The fundamental issue—the same point arises in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, says—is whether we are going to lay down every single dot and comma of the composition of governing bodies in this Committee and from Parliament. Or are we going to leave some option open to local authorities? That is the essence of what this is about.
Within the spirit of the Bill and within the widening of the franchise of governing bodies, what this amendment says, despite defects that I do not believe are fundamental, is that we widen the franchise of governing bodies and leave local authorities with the power, yes, sometimes to make mistakes. Local authorities will make mistakes. But we do not attempt to lay down every single thing on the face of the Bill. Although appreciating the force of the points that the noble Lord makes, the principle of local responsibility and local input as regards the composition of governing bodies is such that I should not withdraw the amendment at this time.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord finally decides, is he saying in subsection (6) that the local education authority, in determining the proportion of teaching and non-teaching staff, is likely to do so without consulting unions? Is he denying my point that if it consults the unions, the body will get larger rather than smaller and that this will increase the whole number? That is basic to his argument. The noble Lord says that the body does not have to be very big. I was trying to make the point that subsection (6) means that there will have to be negotiation with the unions, that the numbers will increase and that, if the other representation is to be maintained, it will become a rather large body. Is the noble Lord denying that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If there is to be any teacher representation, then, on the noble Baroness's argument, there would have to be negotiation with the unions. That applies whether or not the amendment is carried. It applies under Clause 3 without this amendment. The only addition here is the possibility and the requirement that there should be at least one member of the non-teaching staff. This makes no difference to the fundamental issue.
The fundamental issue, I must repeat, is whether there is going to be any flexibility at all for local authorities to adapt to the needs of their own areas as between schools or for the whole of their schools. Or is everything going to be laid down from Whitehall or Elizabeth House? I do not believe that this Committee should express the view that local authorities and people living in this country are not capable of making decisions of their own on matters of this kind. I beg to move.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No.4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: contents, 64; Not-contents, 150.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Barnett, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

Milford, L.

Brockway, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mulley, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Nicol, B.

Caradon, L.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ennals, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shepherd, L.

Galpern, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wheatley, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kissin, L.

Willis, L.

Lockwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

De La Warr, E.

Aldington, L.

Denham, L.

Allerton, L.

Digby, L.

Arran, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Donegall, M.

Auckland, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Bauer, L.

Dundee, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Beloff, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Belstead, L.

Elton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Faithfull, B.

Bethell, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Blake, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ferrier, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fortescue, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Gainford, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gisborough, L.

Caithness, E.

Glanusk, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Greenway, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Chelmer, L.

Chelwood, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Coleraine, L.

Henley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Holderness, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hood, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hooper, B.

Davidson, V.

Hunter of Newington, L.

1328

Hylton-Foster, B.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Inglewood, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Portland, D.

Kearton, L.

Radnor, E.

Killern, L.

Reigate, L.

Kimball, L.

Renton, L.

Kimberley, E.

Renwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rodney, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lawrence, L.

St. Davids, V.

Layton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Liverpool, Bp.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

London, Bp.

Selkirk, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Lothian, M.

Sharples, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

McFadzean, L.

Sherfield, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Somers, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sudeley, L.

Manton, L.

Suffield, L.

Margadale, L.

Swinton, E.

Marley, L.

Terrington, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Teviot, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Thurlow, L.

Tranmire, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Milverton, L.

Vickers, B.

Montague of Beaulieu, L.

Vinson, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Vivian, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mountevans, L.

Westbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Munster, E.

Windlesham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wolfson, L.

Orkney, E.

Wynford, L.

Pender, L.

Young, B.

Perth, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 [Governing bodies for county, controlled and maintained special schools]:
6.3 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert ("and one support staff governor").
The noble Lord said: Accepting the decision of the Committee, we now have to do this the hard way. We tried to avoid the kind of detailed amendments which are necessary in order to achieve the objective of wider representation on governing bodies in the form in which the Government want it; that is, by prescription in the greatest detail to local education authorities. The Committee in its wisdom did not see it that way. This is the alternative approach.
In moving Amendment No. 5, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, 9, 10 and 11, 13, 14 and 15, and 17, 18 and 19. Perhaps I may briefly explain why the grouping is carried out in this way. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are intended, without amending in any other way the composition of governing bodies, to increase the representation of teachers together with one representative of support staff so that teachers have equal representation with parents and with the local education authority. In broad terms, that is the same objective as we sought in

1329
Amendment No. 4 without the flexibility about numbers which the Committee has decided that it does not want.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 apply that principle to the smallest group of schools. Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 apply it to the next group of schools. Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 apply the principle to the next group of schools in terms of size—pupil number. Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 apply it to the largest schools.
Having said that, and having said that the intention is much simpler than the amendments appear to be—simply to increase the teacher representation—I suspect that a great deal of the debate which took place on the previous amendment ought to be read into the record because we have discussed the representation of teachers, though perhaps not as much as we have discussed pupil governors who are covered by Amendments Nos. 8, 12, 16 and 20.
Lord Renton: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I should be grateful if he could clarify one point. The noble Lord has several times mentioned that he wants to increase the representation of teachers. However, his amendments would seem to have the effect of adding one support staff governor, if one refers to his first group of amendments. Is the noble Lord using that as being synonymous with the word "teacher"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. The first amendment adds support staff, but I phrased it badly. The proposal is not necessarily to increase the number of teachers. That is not the way it works. It is to achieve equality between teachers and parents and the local education authority. That is the objective. I am grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me on that.
Lord Renton: I am very sorry to have to seek further clarification. I hope that I am not taking up time unnecessarily. What does the noble Lord really mean by "support staff"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Support staff are those employed in the school who are not teachers. They are those responsible for the physical maintenance of the school, those who help, for example, as laboratory assistants, and those responsible for catering and matters of that kind. This is an issue that was discussed in our consideration of the previous amendment.
We return to the issue that has been discussed but I hope that we come back to it in a way that does not again raise the difficulties which other noble Lords, particularly noble Lords on the Benches on my right, saw with the previous amendment. We can deal with pupil governors at a later stage, but the issue of pupil governors does not arise under these amendments. The issue here is solely to achieve the equality which was the basis of the Taylor Report and which is supported, I may say, not only (fairly obviously) by the teaching unions but also by local authority associations and by the national associations representing governors and managers and associations for the advancement of state education.
The point was adequately made on Second Reading that if we are to achieve the level of partnership to
1330
which the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, referred in the debate this afternoon as among those working in the school, those sending their children to the school and those responding to the electors who make the financial provision for the school, surely the rational approach is to have equal numbers of all three groups on the governing body.
If that is the Government's approach, I believe that all of the groups and all of the interests that I have mentioned will be satisfied and will feel that the Government have paid good attention to the points which have been made by all of those bodies in the years following the Taylor Report and, indeed, to the responses to the White Paper, Better Schools, which was the precursor of this legislation. The Government and the Committee will be well familiar with the arguments and it would be inappropriate for me to repeat them at excessive length. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am sorry to say that I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in the arguments that he has put forward in support of the amendments so far as I am capable of understanding them. I think that I understand his main motive which seems to be to get onto the governing bodies somebody representing the non-teaching staff—in other words, various non-teaching staff: the ladies who provide the meals, the man who looks after the boiler or perhaps the person who cleans the windows and so on. However, I do not think that it is as important to have those people represented on the governing body as it is to maintain the representation which the Government have in mind, which is expressed in the Bill and which I support.
I should like to invite your Lordships to consider this matter particularly in relation to special schools. Indeed, perhaps I should declare my interest in the special schools for the mentally handicapped. In the case of those schools the parent governors will necessarily be parents of children attending the special schools and therefore parents, for example, of mentally handicapped children. That is very proper. However, in the case of special schools there are other people who should be on the governing body. Indeed, perhaps there should even be an extra parent or somebody who from one point of view or another is involved with the problem of the special school, whether it be for the mentally handicapped or for any other form of disability.
In relation to each size of school the Bill provides the number of people to be appointed by the local authority and the number of people to be co-opted. As regards this Bill we have the most helpful Notes on Clauses which it has yet been my good fortune to study in relation to a complicated Bill. I am so glad to see the noble Lord opposite nodding his head in agreement. I am sure that we should acknowledge that fact, whatever other criticisms we may have, and I shall have some to make later. The effects of Clause 3 have been very well set out in an annex to the notes on Clause 3 of the Bill. The pages are not numbered, but if we study that annex we can see both what the effect of the Bill will be so far as the composition of the governors is concerned and also what would be the effect of the groups of amendments.

1331
6.15 p.m.
The main reason why I am not in favour of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord is that it seems that he can achieve his object only by reducing, for example, the number of co-opted governors in the case of the first group from three to two, in the case of the second group from four to three, and so on. In my view such a course would be a pity. To give an example in which I am particularly interested, it would reduce the chance of the local branch of MENCAP having a co-opted governor which, as I understand it, is envisaged as a possibility by Clause 6.
Therefore, having declared my motive for wanting the Bill to remain as it is in those respects, and the noble Lord having declared his motive for wanting to change it, I say in all humility that I think that my motive is a slightly more worthy one.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I should like to contribute to the debate because my name is attached to the amendment, but I was not certain about the way in which we were to deal with the grouping and hence I did not speak in the early stage. What has been said about co-opted governors is true. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that he should beware of co-opted governors as they stand at present. I know that the noble Lord has had experience of special schools but he needs to have experience of other schools as well, because he will find that a great many co-opted governors are political governors disguised under all kinds of names. We must be very careful about this. With a change at County Hall or a change of local authority the co-opted governors will change as well. The amendment does away with some of those people and brings back into the government of the school those people who really can contribute to it.
I do not think that the noble Lord was against bringing in the dinner ladies or perhaps the person who looks after the boiler and so on. Those people are very useful members of the staff and can make a contribution. That is especially so of the small schools, because a great many people realise how important are such people as caretakers. In certain schools the caretaker is more important than the head teacher in keeping the school going. I would never belittle them. A great many of such people have wide experience and they can make a good contribution. Therefore, I would welcome their election to the governing body.
Lord Renton: As the noble Lord so kindly warned me of the danger of politics rearing its ugly head, I point out to him that he is surely inviting that danger by asking for members of the support staff to come along who may very well be active trade unionists and possibly members, for example, of NUPE. As he is worried about the possibility of politics entering into the life of schools, I invite his attention to the amendments which have been tabled by some noble Lords, including myself, to Clause 16.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I hope that they are active members of their appropriate trade union. I hope that all members of a trade union are active and supportive members. We should not be in half the trouble that we are in at present if most of them were active.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It might be helpful if I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, first. I appreciate his deep concern and interest, particularly with mentally handicapped children, and I think it is only responsible of me to acknowledge the worthiness of his motives, at the same time saying that I think his objections to the amendment are misconceived. If the noble Lord is worried that in order to bring up teacher representation—because there is much more about teacher representation than support staff representation; it only happens that in the first group it occurs by adding one support staff, in all the other groups you are adding teachers as well—we have to reduce the number of co-opted members, which is indeed the case in order not to have excessively large governing bodies, he ought to have supported Amendment No. 4, which left the issue of the total size of the governing body open to local decision.
The provision that he understandably wants for special schools for a reasonable number of co-opted governorships to represent organisations like MENCAP could very well have been handled within the context of Amendment No. 4. They are, I concede, more difficult to handle within the context of Clause 3 as it is drafted.
It is an unfortunate side effect that there is the possibility of co-opted governors being reduced in order to provide equal representation for the four major groups, but, as my noble friend Lord Taylor has said, unfortunately—I assume not in special schools—historically in county schools local authorities of strong political persuasions have sought to reinforce their own politics by using their co-opted places as well as the local authority nominated places.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to say a word in strong agreement with the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in supporting the idea of support staff in a school. These people who caretake and look after the children out of the school, and look after the school when no one else is there, are terribly important and often get forgotten. They are the people who know about the school from the inside. If one had to make a choice I would choose members of the staff of that sort rather than any outsiders. I wanted to say that, though I must also say that it would be regrettable if one could only accommodate them on a governing body at the expense of co-opted or foundation governors.
Baroness Young: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said in opening his support for these linked amendments, we are in fact taking one by one a number of the points raised in the long debate we have just had on Amendment No. 4. The effect of these amendments is to seek to include on governing bodies for county, controlled and maintained special schools additional teacher governors and a new category of support staff governors, at the same time reducing the number of co-opted and, in the case of a controlled school, foundation governors.
I appreciate (certainly having listened to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh) that these changes are broadly in line with the "equal shares" recommendation of the committee chaired some 10 years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. The Government

1333
welcome the work that that committee did because it opened up the whole matter of school governors for discussion. It made a number of proposals, and as I have already said I, and I am quite sure many of my noble friends, have read Lord Taylor's report and have studied it.
However, the Government do not accept the recommendations as they now stand. One reason is that thinking has moved on since then, not least to accommodate the particular needs of controlled schools. I think the noble Lord's committee concentrated on the issues concerning county schools.
The Government do not believe that the partnership required has necessarily to be reflected by equal numbers of governorships. The governing body is not the only manifestation of that partnership: it exists also in the interaction of the local education authority, the governing body, and the school staff. And for that interaction to be meaningful, the governing body's voice needs to be informed by the views of other interests but, if appropriate, distinct from them.
As we have discussed in connection with the new clause in our last debate, the number of governorships allocated to teachers in Clause 3 does not undervalue the contribution teachers can and should make to the work of governing bodies. It recognises the very powerful voice and role they have by virtue of their day-to-day role in the school. We also discussed the role of non-teaching staff where the Government are unpersuaded of the need to allocate specific governorships to such staff as a category.
I recognise of course the concerns of the non-teaching staff, but there are many ways in which their interests can he taken into consideration by the governing body without allocating formal governorships. And if a particular governing body thought fit it could use its powers of co-option to add members of the non-teaching staff. I noticed, in fact, that taking the staff representation proposed in this amendment as a single block, this would outnumber any other single category of governor by one. I really cannot believe that that is the right decision when we are seeking to give a governing body its own distinctive voice.
I am pleased to see that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is in his place because there is a proposed reduction in the foundation governors—this is in fact Amendment No. 6, to which we are also speaking—which occurs even without the proposed increase in the total size. It would result in foundation representation below the one-fifth guaranteed in the 1980 Act. This continues to be important as it reflects the foundation's continuing interest in, and certain functions regarding, the schools, all of which is part of the 1944 Act settlement underlying the dual system.
Leaving aside the three problems which we see—the role of the non-teaching staff, which we believe can be catered for in Clause 3 by the possibility of co-option, by the possibility of their coming on specific occasions as observers or by other means of taking account of their views which might properly need to be done from time to time—and the problem that we would get by having the teachers as the largest group of representatives on governing bodies, we have the fundamental problem of the foundation governors.
I shall not repeat the arguments so well put by the
1334
right reverend Prelate on the preceding amendment, but I think that to reduce the foundation element to one would be a serious step to take, and would go a long way to undermining the dual system. It is of course arguable that that is a minimum number, but as we all know it can so easily become a maximum. It is when it becomes a maximum that we then of course have undermined the dual system.
For all these reasons the Government cannot accept these amendments, but in saying that I should like to make plain our concern, as is shown under Clause 3, for the important role that teachers do play, and will play, in governing bodies under our proposals.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: May I go back a little way in what the noble Baroness said? When the Taylor Committee was set up our terms of reference were made clear. We were concerned with county schools and not with the dual system. When the statement was first made in the other place saying that the committee was going to be formed, and so on, it was very wide, but a few weeks afterwards I received a letter from the then Secretary of State informing us not to concern ourselves with the dual system, even though there were two representatives of the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church on the committee.
At a later date—and the right reverned Prelate the Bishop of London will correct me if I am wrong—the Church set up a committee on similar lines. They made their recommendations from there onwards. I am not certain whether the right reverend Prelate was chairman of the schools committee at that time.
Baroness Young: I should much regret it if the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, were to take personally any remarks I have made. I was trying to set out what his committee was saying, what the amendment does and why the Government disagree with certain parts of it. I hope that he will accept what I said in that spirit.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This has inevitably been a somewhat truncated debate because of the wide coverage of the previous amendment. But it is the only opportunity we have to secure, within the framework of the Bill, the objective to which my noble friend Lord Taylor has referred. It is not that there should be more teachers than any other group. That would not result from any of these amendments. The intention is to increase the number of teachers and support staff which together will equal the number of parents, the number of nominees of the local education authority and the number of co-opted governors to represent other interests. I do not understand in what way the Minister can argue that we are putting more teachers in than any other of the three groups. Perhaps she will help me.
Baroness Young: I should be happy to try to explain the arithmetic as I understand it. Under the proposed series of amendments, if we take the smallest school, there would be one teacher, one head teacher and one member of the support staff: that is three. There would be two parents, two local authority nominees and two co-opted members. My point is that there would be more staff than in the group of parents, the local authority representatives or the co-opted members. The staff would be the largest group. However, it

1335
would not be larger than all the other groups put together. I am sorry if my English was not as precise as it should have been. Nevertheless, the arithmetic works out that there would be more staff than similar representatives in each of the other groups.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that, because the arithmetic is achieved by adding in the head teacher to the number of teachers. I suggest to the Committee that the role of the head teacher on a governing body is different from the role of a teacher governor, even if the head teacher chooses to be a governor. The Bill as drafted provides for the possibility of the head teacher electing not to be a governor, but the head teacher may decide to be a governor. The role, in my experience, is that the head teacher reports the facts of the events in the school and the provision made by the school to the governing body rather than acting as a voting member of the governing body, although one hopes that governing bodies do not take too many votes. I suggest that it is not legitimate to add the head teacher to the teachers' number, for a wise head teacher stands apart from the governing body to that extent, reporting to it and acting on its decisions, rather than taking part in the debates in the normal way.
Bearing that point in mind I suggest that the objective of the Taylor Committee—which is certainly appropriate for the county schools and also for the controlled and maintained special schools—of equality among the four major interested parties in the government of our schools is a proper emphasis which should be supported by the Committee. I beg to move.
6.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 125.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Aylestone, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Barnett, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Bottomley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Briginshaw, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Caradon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McCarthy, L.

Collison, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Ennals, L.

Mulley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Northfield, L.

Galpern, L.

Oram, L.

Glenamara, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grey, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hooson, L.

Rea, L.

1336

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rochester, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Ross of Marnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Seear, B.

Vernon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Serota, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Whaddon, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Wheatley, L.

Stedman, B.

White, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Aldington, L.

London, Bp.

Allerton, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Ampthill, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ashbourne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bauer, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beloff, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Bethell, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Blake, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Merrivale, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Munster, E.

Chelmer, L.

Newall, L.

Chelwood, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Orkney, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Pender, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Davidson, V.

Portland, D.

De La Warr, E.

Radnor, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Renton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rodney, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Elton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ferrers, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrier, L.

Selkirk, E.

Feversham, L.

Shannon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glanusk, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thurlow, L.

Tranmire, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trenchard, V.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Tryon, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vickers, B.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Inglewood, L.

Westbury, L.

Kimball, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kimberley, E.

Wise, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wolfson, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Wynford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Lawrence, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Layton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.42 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) two pupil governors, in the case of a school admitting pupils of 14 years of age and over.").
The noble Lord said: The debate on this amendment and on the others which follow from it, Amendments Nos. 12, 16 and 20—and I believe there are others but I do not think that it is of great significance to read them out—has again been covered to a considerable extent in the debate on Amendment No. 4. I think it is important that we should make the statement and the case for pupil governors again, even though we have to do it within the context of the rigidity of Clause 3 of the Bill. We would have preferred, as we did prefer, to say that the addition of pupil governors to a governing body shall be a matter for local option. The Committee decided otherwise. We therefore have to make the case in the terms that are permitted to us by the Bill.
I must confess that I was deeply disappointed by one part of the noble Baroness's response on Amendment No. 4. She referred to the opinion to which the Government adhere that school governors are in a position of public and pecuniary trust and to the legal opinion that minors under the age of 18 cannot be in such a position of public and pecuniary trust and therefore cannot be governors of a school. I find that quite extraordinary. We are here as a legislative Chamber. We are here with the purpose of saying what we require the law to be and not what the interpretation legally has been of previous legislation. If we take the view that it is to the advantage of the schools generally that there should be pupil governors for the school, then that view ought to be reflected in legislation and the definition of "public and pecuniary trust" ought to be amended for that purpose. It does not need to be amended for any other purpose. It could be explicitly for this purpose. But it is appropriate for us to say that if we think that pupil governors are a good thing—and number of noble Lords who had doubts about my previous amendment so thought—then we should provide for them and we should not be affected by legal opinions expressed about earlier legislation.
It is not as if those legal opinions had gone unchallenged. After all, there have been pupil governors in quite a number of schools, not just over the age of 16 but over the age of 15 and sometimes over the age of 14. In a number of schools, it has never seemed appropriate for anybody to challenge in the courts their acting as governors of the schools; and, presumably, that means that there has been no complaint about the way they have acted as governors of schools.
A number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred in the earlier debate to the role of pupils on the governing body and expressed opposition, in my view quite justified, to the idea that pupils should take part in the appointment of teachers. That is one example. But where there are pupil governors they do not take part in the appointment of teachers. There is no difficulty at all in
1338
securing, in the way in which a governing body operates, that pupil governors or teacher governors for that matter, are excluded from certain reserved parts of the agenda. It has been done in local education authorities; it has been done in governing bodies. There is no difficulty of any kind in securing that those objections have no force and that pupil governors and teacher governors do not take part in the appointment of teachers.
If it is thought appropriate that there are other parts of a governing body's agenda to which this also applies, I have no doubt that that could be done as well. I am not suggesting that there should be wholesale exclusions of pupil governors or teacher governors from major parts of the agenda, but I am suggesting that the problems raised by noble Lords have no validity and can easily be overcome by either subsequent amendment or by regulation.
The other problem which was put against pupil governors was that somehow they were likely to be the appointees of the local authority. I said earlier that in my experience they are the least likely of the non-local education authority governors actually to act as the appointees of the local authority. There is always a difficulty about the turnover of pupil governors. There is always the difficulty that they are likely to be appointed for only one year and not to get fully into their stride in the first term in which they are pupil governors. That is inherent in the nature of the beast. It means that they are likely to be less assertive than we might wish them to be. It does not mean that they will be nobbled by the local authority and will act as the creatures of the politicians. It does not mean that they would be appointed by the local authority rather than elected by the senior pupils in the schools.
Neither the legal argument nor any of the practical arguments put forward earlier this evening encourage me to think that there is a strong case for going back on existing provisions and powers of local authorities to have pupil governors where they think that appropriate. If there had been the huge outcry and problems that some noble Lords appeared to expect, I might be less wholehearted about the idea. Practical experience shows that pupil governors work. It is the role of the Committee to ensure that the law does not, at a stroke, outlaw an effective addition to the government of our schools. I hope that the Committee will support this and the related amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I wish to support the amendment. We are now producing a more articulate and inquisitive society than ever before in which young people are anxious to find out as much as they can. They are more anxious to challenge their elders as to why they arrive at certain decisions.
I am sorry to say that I left school at the age of 14. That was in the early days of the war, and at the age of 14 I was working 12 hours a day. I learned a lot in that way. Nevertheless, we now have the type of society in which young peole do not accept everything that their elders say without some sort of challenge. I think that to give them experience of the government of schools is a good thing for them. Where I have seen that in operation throughout the country it works well.

1339
Certain noble Lords have related difficulties this afternoon about where it would be indelicate for pupils to sit on the question of staffing problems, and so on. That can be overcome quite easily. Most governing bodies that operate this sort of system have the pupils present later in the agenda. At the beginning of the agenda, the governors might be in committee without the pupils. At that stage they deal with all the relevant staffing problems. They then become the full governing body with the pupils present. We can get over the difficulty in that way.
There are many different variations of schools. I make no bones about the fact that I prefer the 11 to 18 school, with a top on it. That does not apply throughout the country these days. There are 11 to 14 schools and tertiary colleges. With an 11 to 14 school where the pupils leave and go on to another school they get little experience. Below the age of 14 we can bring them on to the governing bodies as observers. However, we are not discussing that with this amendment.
I think that the idea of bringing youngsters on to the governing bodies at the age of 14 is good because it gives them the experience that they need and, as has already been said, many of them will be on the governing body for only a short time. They can relate the views of the school council and their peers in the school. It is good for the rest of the governors to hear their views. I support the amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should also like to add my support for the amendment. The main thing that I should like to say is that the system has been working, as far as I can gather, for some years. I know one school where it has been in operation for 15 years. It is possible that the pupils have been co-opted on to the governing body, or something of that sort.
Much of the success of the scheme depends upon the tact and cunning of the chairman of the governing body, who may draw the best out of the pupils. I can imagine there being chairmen who would entirely silence any young folk. I know of others who invite the young people's opinion and they get some very useful information about the school from, after all, the real consumers on such matters as what they think of the food and the provision of books and equipment, and so on. The governors can hear that from the horse's mouth. They do not have it relayed to them through the head or any other teacher: they can hear it from the children themselves. I think that that is very valuable.
To revert to the problem of the subjects in which it is not fit for the pupils to participate, as the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord McIntosh, both said, that can easily be arranged. It is obviously not appropriate for pupils to be present at a matter of discipline regarding another pupil. It is obviously unsuitable for them to be present at that, but that can easily be arranged.
I should like to add my support for the amendment. I should like to make the point that if the age limit proposed in the Bill were to remain as it is, in 11 to 16 schools no pupil could participate on the governing body and even in full comprehensives pupils may only be able to participate in their last year or last term because they may not reach the age of 18 until then.
1340
They cannot achieve much in that time. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment, which I fully support.
Lord Renton: With great respect to the noble Lords who have spoken, I and I think many people would feel that this amendment is contrary to the interests of the pupils who have to serve as governors and to the interests of the schools. Let us take the position of the pupils. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has just indicated, they would probably be fairly senior pupils coming up for very important examinations. Surely it is best that they concentrate upon their studies in this highly competitive world of academic qualifications. If they become governors, far from concentrating enough on their studies they will be submerged in the paperwork with which school governors will probably inevitably be confronted. That is unavoidable these days. I think that it would be against the pupils' interest.
Would it really be in the interests of the schools? There might come times, alas—not often, but sometimes—when governors have to sit in judgment upon teachers. The presence of pupils should be avoided. It has been suggested that we could arrange for the pupils not to be present. Supposing we have a rather maverick pupil with a grudge against a particular teacher. Is he to make his complaint to his fellow governors as a governor? Is he to make it having been temporarily excluded from the governors or having excluded himself from them because of what he was going to say and return to make the complaint merely as a pupil temporarily not acting as a governor?
7 p.m.
There is another factor about this amendment which your Lordships should not ignore. It would apply to pupils in special schools, including schools for the mentally handicapped, if the school took children over 14, as most special schools do. Though I am quite in favour of trying to get mentally handicapped people more involved in life, to have them bearing the burden of responsibility as school governors is asking a bit much. Perhaps the noble Lord has just overlooked that possibility.
May I deal with one point in case it is present in the minds of noble Lords, especially those who are familiar with the situation in schools in Scotland, especially in the north of Scotland? It was frequently the custom there for senior pupils to become pupil teachers. I do not know whether that is ever done still. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who has much knowledge of these matters, shakes his head, which makes it unnecessary for me to pursue that point. I was merely going to say that if that were the case it would still be no good reason for accepting the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: You are 50 years out of date!
Lord Beloff: If I may, I come back to this point, partly because I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, misunderstood my last intervention. My reason for emphasising functions was not that I expected that functions could be, or necessarily should be, dealt with at the same time as the composition of

1341
these bodies, but that we could only make sense of our views about composition if we were clear in our minds as to what the functions were that the persons appointed should carry out.
In respect of pupil representation, we have already had a series of concessions, if you like, from the noble Lord and his friends to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and others that there would be a number of functions that governors may from time to time have to perform at which pupil governors, if they existed, would not be expected to be present. The question that worries me now is what are the functions left to which the presence of pupils as governors would make an important and constructive difference? There must be an argument for this, because otherwise the argument is a wholly theoretical one. There must be something which is thought to be, or would be thought to be, missing.
My own feeling is that one reason this issue is being pressed is that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his friends have not fully appreciated the difference that this Bill is supposed to be making to governing bodies. The purpose of this Bill is not merely to alter their composition. It is, as I understand it, to give them a much more active and important role in the schools than they have had in many parts of the country in recent times, where, as is generally admitted, they have been very subordinate to the local authorities which had majorities of various sizes upon them and used those majorities to pursue their own policies.
If now, through the intervention in particular of more parent governors, you are to have a more active and important body, then, for instance, it will perhaps have more to say about the disposition of funds. There will be a greater question of financial responsibility, perhaps by development later on. Though I do not put the legal argument at the head of my considerations, this would perhaps reinforce the legal argument against minors being put in that position.
But even if we neglect that aspect of it, it seems to me that what the Committee has not heard from the proponents of this amendment are points of view on the functions of governors who would not otherwise be present. Clearly, it is important to know what pupils think about the school they are in. It is important to know their views on many aspects of what the school does. But there are other ways of doing this: for example, through school councils, through meetings of representatives of school councils with governors or with a committee of governors. It does not seem to me at all clear that it is necessary for them to go the whole way and be involved with the expense, trouble and concern to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has referred in the business of governing, which we hope under this Bill will become increasingly more important.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: May I make one point? The noble Lord, Lord Renton, spoke of attendance at governors' meetings imperilling young people's chances in examinations. I should like to point out that the average number of times a governing body meets in a year is three and this will not imperil their academic chances.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: I speak with experience of being a governor of what was a girls' grammar school in Fulham which became a small comprehensive school. It was suggested that there should be pupil governors, and of course the girls were rather excited about that to start off with.
I should like to emphasise and support the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because we found after a bit that they were working very hard, particularly in their last years when, generally speaking, they would be likely to be attending as a pupil governor, and they asked off their own bat, whether they might be relieved of this job. We used after that to have meetings with the girls to which the governors went. This appeared to be a very popular way in which the girls could speak to the governors quite on their own and it seemed, as one might say, to do the trick.
Baroness Young: As I suspected when we were debating Amendment No. 4 and the matter of pupil governors was raised, that was not the last word on this subject. I can tell from the number of members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate on pupil governors that this is a matter on which individuals can have very strong opinions based on their own experience.
I should like at the outset to say that the Government are by no means opposed to governing bodies involving senior pupils at secondary schools in their work if they wish to do so, but what we do not believe is that that involvement needs to extend, or indeed should extend, to being a governor. My noble friend Lord Beloff made this point very clearly and my noble friend Lady Airey has also done so, and has described one way in which it is possible to take account of the views of the pupils which a school, quite properly, should do in certain circumstances. There are also many other ways in which this can happen.
Right at the outset of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made it quite plain that he recognised that there were certain issues on which pupil governors should be asked to withdraw from a particular meeting of the governors, and these have been listed. My noble friend Lord Renton has made some suggestions on this matter, and all of us taking part in this debate who have had experience of being a school governor of a local authority school know quite well that there are circumstances in which it would be quite inappropriate for a pupil to be taking part in the discussion.
The fact is that when you have asked for the pupils to withdraw, or when you have your agenda so divided that part of it is for the full governing body and part of it is for when those pupils are not present, you are setting up two types of governor—a full governor and a pupil governor whose functions are quite different. My noble friend Lord Beloff asked a very important question when he said: what is it that the pupil governors are going to be talking about, if they are not full governors?
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, if I may quote him—I wrote down what he said—made some suggestions. He said of course that the pupils could discuss the food. After all, what pupil worth his salt has not complained about the school food. I cannot

1343
imagine a single Member of your Lordships' House who at one stage or another has not indulged himself or herself in that. But perhaps more seriously, they could talk about books and equipment. That is a good subject for pupils to talk about: the content of the library; or about the equipment if they have a view about it; whether they should have a computer; and, if so, what, and how many. That is the kind of thing. But that does not require them to be full members of a governing body.
A technical point was raised right at the beginning by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Opinions have been expressed since Second Reading about whether we are correct in our opinion of the present legal position. The fact is that we can change this position. We accept that there may be more than one opinion on a matter of this kind; if there were no doubt, there would be no need for the provision in Clause 14(12), restricting governorship to those aged 18 and over. But I hope it will be appreciated that we are not resting our arguments on that legal point but have sought to demonstrate why we consider it inappropriate for pupils to have the automatic right to seats on the governing body.
It is very important to note the point made by my noble friend Lord Beloff that we are expecting governing bodies to be of a different character; the kind of character, if I may say so, touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in many of his remarks. His report was a forerunner in looking at the whole issue of school governing bodies, and because—and other parts of the Bill set this out—we are interested in giving to them more responsibilities, it is very important that we recognise what it is we want the members of the governing body to do, and what it is that we want the whole of the governing body to be able to do.
I conclude by saying that the amendment underlines the difficulty of altering the very carefully drawn formula in Clause 3. Both in the case of the largest and the smallest governing bodies, adding two pupil governors would reduce the proposed foundation representation in the case of controlled schools below the one-fifth to which they should be entitled.
I hope now that I have said enough to explain the Government's view about pupil governors. We recognise the importance of involving pupils in the school, of finding a way, either through a school council or some other means of discussion, to take their views on matters on which quite properly their views should be listened to. But I also think it very important to stand by the arrangements that we have made in Clause 3. I have been grateful for the support that I have received from my noble friends. I must resist this amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that in her last sentence the noble Baroness has given the game away about Clause 3. She has convinced me, if I needed convincing, that Clause 3 is in fact a straitjacket. Because it is drafted in that way, because it is drafted in the rigid way that it is, there is virtually no possibility of effective amendment, however good the case may be. I am bound to say that the case made out
1344
against pupil governors seems highly theoretical and highly doctrinaire and to bear very little relation to the experience that has been referred to on the other side in this debate, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, with a lifetime's experience in running a school.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says: that not only should we be concerned with the functions when considering the composition—of course that is right—but also that the functions are to change as a result of this Bill. Of course that is right as well. The objective of the Bill is not only to open up the membership of governing bodies but also to make them more important bodies in the government of our schools. Surely if that is the case, the argument for having the consumers of the service—that is what pupils are—as full members of the governing body is that much stronger.
There are many other subjects which will be discussed at the governing body, functions of the governing body beyond those of discipline and appointments, from which pupil governors will have to be excluded. Indeed I imagine that teacher governors will have to be excluded from some matters of appointment as well. But the broader functions of a governing body to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred, are so wide and so important that it is vital that the consumers should be concerned. It is not just a matter of school meals or the content of the library. The governing body as I understand it will be concerned with major matters of the curriculum of the school, a matter on which pupils have very strong and very well-informed views. It will be concerned with the organisation of the school in terms of the balance between departmental responsibilities and pastoral responsibilities, another matter on which the opinions of senior pupils will be a valuable addition to the discussions. The questions which have been referred to of the resources, and the choices about resources which will be delegated to the governing bodies, is another example. Surely the pupils who are the users of those resources will have something valuable to say about the disposal of those resources. Surely they ought to say so as equal members of a governing body. Surely they should not be treated as second class citizens in this new disposition which is being proposed in this legislation.
There is one point on which I concede that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has a valuable point. I can well understand why it might be inappropriate to have pupils on the governing bodies of certain kinds of maintained special schools, although not all maintained special schools. I do not feel that the Government have made an adequate case against pupil governors. There are a number of occasions later in the Bill when further amendment is possible, notably on Clause 14 to which the noble Baroness referred. It may be better to return to the issue of governors under 18, possibly as co-opted governors, at that stage rather than to seek to ascertain the views of the Committee now. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 20 not moved.]
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) No person shall be co-opted to the board of governors if that person is

(a) an elected member of the authority;

(b) an employee of the authority or of the governing body of any aided school maintained by the authority who is

(i) employed in a school; or

(ii) engaged in educational administration; or

(c) a co-opted member of any education committee of the authority.").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee and at the request of my noble friend Lord Ritchie, I rise to move this amendment. The aim of the amendment, which refers only to co-opted governors, is to ensure that the governors co-opted on to the governing bodies by local education authorities are genuinely independent people from the wider community.
Those directly involved in the local education authority, either as politicians, who are specified in paragraph (a) and also (c), or as employees involved in schools or in administration, as defined in paragraph (b), would be specifically prevented from being co-opted. The aim is not to exclude all local education authority staff. For example, there is no reason why maintenance staff in the direct labour branch of an authority should be banned from being co-opted.
The noble Earl will probably have noticed that the wording of the amendment is similar to that used by the Government at the end of Clause 5(4) on page 7 of the Bill, which is applicable simply to parent governors who are under that subsection appointed by the local authority. Paragraph (b) of the amendment is slightly more explicit than the Government's wording on page 7.
The amendment would not stop LEAs from appointing politically motivated people rather than representatives of community groups but it would restrict their ability to extend that practice into the co-opted field. I am not sure whether it is proper to refer now to Amendment No. 24 of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but it seeks to place a limitation on co-opted members. However, I respectfully point out that it would allow the politicians to be co-opted; that is to say, it would not ban those who are specified in paragraphs (a) and (c) of Amendment No. 21. On those grounds, I believe that the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, to which I have spoken, is preferable. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Since reference has been made to Amendment No. 24, I say immediately that I entirely agree with the noble Lord that paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 21 is a valuable addition, and on that basis alone I shall not seek to move Amendment No. 24.
However, I question whether the noble Lord is on ground that is quite so strong when he refers to the exclusion of a co-opted member of an education committee of the authority. Many co-opted members are teacher representatives and it seems unreasonable that a teacher representative on an education committee should be excluded from serving as a teacher representative, or even as a co-opted representative, for the school at which he happens to teach. I
1346
am not sure that the case is so strong in that respect as in the earlier case that the noble Lord cited. With that possibly minor qualification, I support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: This amendment contradicts the provision proposed subsequently in Clause 14(11) of the Bill, which specifies that elected and appointed governors are to have complete freedom of choice in their decision on whom to co-opt to the governing body. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that we are in this case talking about the governors having the power to appoint, whereas at the end of Clause 5, where the reference is to the appointment of parent governors, it is the local education authority that has the power to appoint.
Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, said that we should beware of co-opted governors. However, the Government have made it clear that the purpose of the category of co-opted governors is to broaden the membership of governing bodies. We believe that the elected and appointed governors should be free to co-opt whoever they wish, provided that he or she is over 18 years of age, and we hope that they will take their decisions on the basis of the strengths that those selected can contribute to the work of the governing body and the school.
The Government intend to offer guidance on how the power of co-option might be exercised. While I think it unlikely that we would be recommending the co-option of extra teachers, members of the non-teaching staff or any of those who would be ruled out by this amendment, we would want to make it clear to governors that their choice of co-opted governors is unconstrained except as regards minors and except so far as the normal disqualification for bankrupts etc. will apply.
While I can appreciate the noble Lord's reasons for tabling this amendment, the dangers he perceives in allowing people such as those covered by this amendment to be co-opted governors are not as significant as he fears. I believe that the aim—which I know the noble Lord shares—of ensuring that governing bodies are a strong force for good in the life of a school is best served by allowing governors freedom of choice in their co-options.
Lord Kilmarnock: I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having directed my remarks to her instead of to the noble Earl at her side; I was unaware that she was going to answer the amendment. I am grateful for her remarks. I turn first to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, although I should say at this point that I do not intend to press the amendment. I shall certainly consider the noble Lord's point before the next stage of the Bill.
I accept what the noble Baroness said about the provisions of Clause 14(11) conferring complete freedom of co-option upon governors; that is what is written into the Bill at present. I should like to consider that matter. It seem that there is still a reasonable case for imposing some limitation there, particularly in respect of the people specified in paragraph (a) of my amendment as presently drafted. I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble

1347
Baroness, Lady Hooper. I should like to reconsider the matter and possibly return to the point at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) Governing bodies shall be required to co-opt members from ethnic minorities in proportion to the ethnic composition of the local community.")
The noble Lord said: Since my committee produced its report, the situation has changed a great deal throughout the country. A number of local authorities find now that it is a good thing in the cause of race relations to bring in minority groups. I believe it would be wise for that to be done, especially in areas where there is a large ethnic minority who can play a very important part in the life of the school. As we are getting near to 7.30 p.m. I do not propose to say much more; I believe that the merit of the amendment speaks for itself.
Lord Beloff: One can appreciate the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in moving this amendment, but it is so vague in its make-up and in its possible effects that I believe it would need more time to be explained, perhaps at another stage. For example, it is not clear whether there are to be additional co-opted members or whether the number of co-opted members is, as it were, to be used up exclusively for that purpose in some or all areas.
Furthermore, it is extremely vague to use in this sense the term "ethnic minorities". The number of possible definitions of a particular ethnic minority may be almost limitless. For example, with linguistic minorities the situation in parts of London is such that to choose one group may in fact merely have the effect of alienating others who may feel themselves underrepresented.
Furthermore, I do not think—and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that things have changed a great deal in the past few years—that the noble Lord has taken into account the fact that a governing body may already have, either through parent, teacher, or LEA representation, a fairly wide ethnic mix. Therefore, one could imagine one or two areas in which the native English might be the under-represented ethnic minority. It is important that the governance of schools should contribute to good race relations, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will agree that we need something much more clear than this amendment to see us on that path.
7.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is certainly right that if it were proposed that this amendment should be inserted into the legislation, rather than being a probing amendment, we would need something much more complicated. That, again, compounds my feeling that we are in an extremely difficult position because Clause 3 is so rigidly and tightly drawn that these objections can arise.
I do not think that the noble Lord can seriously deny that behind this amendment, however vague the
1348
wording, there is a feeling—and, more than a feeling, an actual experience—of great significance to the government of our schools. After all, it was the report of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, which defined the concept of institutional racism and specifically said that the exclusion of ethnic minorities from our school governing bodies was a potential and sometimes an actual cause of difficulty in securing that our schools are really representative of the communities in which they operate.
The noble Lord gave the example—I do not think he did so totally seriously—of an era where the English population could be in a minority. I wonder whether he could imagine a situation where in such a case the English population was in a minority on the governing body as well, and, therefore, had to be protected by an amendment of this kind. I think that commonsense and experience leads us to say that, in practice, where there is a very heavy concentration of school population from the ethnic minorities there seldom tends to be more than token representation of those ethnic minorities on governing bodies. The sort of protection proposed in this amendment, or by amendments which might follow if the Government make suitable noises, is very much needed. The noble Lord's example serves to reinforce the need for such an amendment rather than to undermine it.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned the Swann Report. It is entirely correct that Swann was very concerned about this matter, but I think I am right in saying that Swann made no specific recommendation and was unable to reach a specific conclusion on how to take care of it. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, pointed out, the amendment as drafted is extremely vague; and I accept that it is a probing amendment. For example, what is "the local community", and what are "ethnic minorities"? Do they include Irish people?
I am certainly in sympathy with the aim behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, but I do not think that this is the right way to go about it. One route which appears to me as being helpful in this respect is proposed in an amendment which I shall be moving later. This introduces proportional representation—I can see the look of pain on the noble Earl's face, but this is a serious point—by a single transferable vote and a secret ballot. This is introduced into the system for the election of the parents' ration of the governing body and is likely to promote an increased representation of ethnic minorities. However, that is a point I shall be making later.
The Earl of Swinton: The look on my face was not one of pain but one of acute hunger because I am on a very strict diet and allowed only one meal a day. My stomach has been rumbling audibly for the past quarter of an hour. But I apologise, as I must not be frivolous on this important amendment.
Like the last amendment, it runs counter to the provisions contained in Clause 14(11), which provides for elected and appointed governors not to be restricted in their choice of co-opted governors. As a general principle we believe it is right for the elected and appointed governors to have a free hand in

1349
selecting for co-option those whom they believe can contribute most to the work of the governing body and the school.
The Government of course support the idea behind this amendment that ethnic minorities should be appropriately represented on the governing bodies of the schools which serve the communities in which they live. Indeed, we hope that members of ethnic minorities will be found in all categories of governor. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that it would strike me as being amazing, where you are going to have so many parents elected as governors, that in a school in a predominantly ethnic area you would not get a majority of ethnic minority parents serving on the governing body. I should have thought that was almost bound to happen. I have to say, however, that we do not believe the noble Lord's amendment will achieve the ideal he has in mind. We hope that elected and appointed governors will co-opt the best people for the job, irrespective of race, creed or colour.
My noble friend Lord Beloff made a point about these co-opted members being extra, or not being so. I am glad that was answered because if they are not extra the amendment would have the effect of preventing the co-option of, say, two members of an ethnic minority out of a total of four co-opted governors if the ethnic minority represented less than 50 per cent. of the local community.
I appreciate the argument that a provision of this kind would be a step in the right direction and would in many cases ensure at least some ethnic minority representation. However, for the reasons I have outlined we believe it would not be a constructive step. Nevertheless, I should like to be helpful and I believe that we can offer some assistance to noble Lords. The Government intend, once the legislation is enacted, to offer guidance on how the power of co-option might be exercised. One factor we shall be advising governors to bear in mind is the importance of the governing body having strong links with the local community. In that connection we shall certainly want elected and appointed governors to consider whether the ethnic minorities of the local community served by the school are appropriately represented on the governing body, and to use their powers of co-option to rectify the omission if necessary. With the undertaking that the Government will offer such advice I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: In view of what the noble Earl said and my concern for his tummy, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton: I think this might be a convenient time to adjourn, not only for my convenience but also for that of other noble Lords. Before resuming the House may I suggest that we do not return to this Bill until twenty minutes to nine o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Gas Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Local Authority Grants (Termination) (Scotland) Order 1986
7.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 13th March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is normal for the Order Paper to record that an order such as this has been reported on by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In this case, it was not possible for the order to be reported on until this afternoon, but I am able to tell your Lordships that it has been reported to the Joint Committee of both Houses. I beg to move that the Local Authority Grants (Termination) (Scotland) Order 1986 which was laid before the House on 13th March be approved.
This order is made under Section 15(1), (2) and (3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 and is laid before both Houses under Section 15(4) of that Act. Article 2 of the order terminates, with effect from 1st April 1986, the power to make any new payments of three specific grants. Those are grants for planning redevelopment, town development and rural sewerage. Article 3 provides for the repeal of the statutory provisions specified in Schedule 1 to the order, and Schedule 2 sets out the subordinate legislation which is revoked.
The making of this order follows a review of specific grants undertaken by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Convention of Scottish local Authorities. As a result of this review, the Secretary of State decided to terminate the three specific grants covered by this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13th March be approved.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Bill
7.42 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
My honourable friend for Croydon South, Sir William Clark, who piloted this Bill unopposed through another place, has asked me to pilot it through your Lordships' House. I hope that I shall be as fortunate as the honourable member for Croydon South in finding that this Bill is unopposed.
This is a rather unique Bill. One might indeed say that it has had a rather unique birth. In recent years Her Majesty's Government have encouraged the statutory industrial training boards to increase their revenue-earning activities. Accordingly, some of the boards, especially the Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Board, and the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board have attempted to carry out this objective by providing direct training and other services to overseas nationals who were not intending to take up employment in Great Britain.

1351
The industrial training boards naturally thought that they were legally entitled to do this under the Industrial Training Act 1982, which gives the boards their general powers. However, early last year, lo and behold the law officers of the Crown advised the Government that such provision of direct training or other services abroad to overseas nationals who were not intending subsequently to take up employment in Great Britain was ultra vires. One might say that this put the cat among the pigeons.
This Bill is intended to restore the position as it was previously understood by the industrial training boards. It will enable the industrial training boards to provide training and advice outside Great Britain for employment both in and outside Britain. The Bill has two clauses but the only clause which has any teeth is Clause 1. This clause substitutes amended subsections for subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Training Act 1982, to deal with the general powers of the boards in training for employment overseas and in this country. These powers will be exercisable and subject to the consent of the Manpower Services Commission, which is of course given with the approval of the Secretary of State.
As in the 1982 Act, boards will be able to charge for these services and must keep accounts of the revenue earned. These accounts must be kept separate from the accounts of the levy which is raised on home employers. Clause 1 of this Bill also protects funds which are raised by levy on home employers from any liabilities incurred through the board's activities in training for employment overseas, or in other words, outside Great Britain. Clause 2 is of little importance. It concerns only the date of commencement of the Act, should this Bill be passed by your Lordships' House.
Before sitting down, I should like to say that a similar Bill concerning the Agricultural Training Board, having passed through its parliamentary stages unopposed, has recently received Royal Assent. That Bill was also presented by a Private Member. I hope I have sufficiently explained this Bill and that it has as easy a passage through your Lordships' House as it received in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
7.46 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, first of all I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, for introducing this Bill and explaining it to the House so well, and, if I may say so, also for giving Parliament the opportunity to discuss it. The noble Viscount is in luck tonight. So far as I and the Opposition are concerned, he will get his Bill through, and for a Private Member that is a great achievement, as I am sure he and other noble Lords will agree. As I said, this is clearly not a Bill which the Opposition would wish to oppose in any way, especially as it received the consent of another place virtually on the nod.
We on these Benches welcome the Bill so far as it goes, particularly—as we understand it—since there is virtually a new training board being set up, albeit
1352
without proper funding by means of levy or grant, which the noble Lord the Minister will know we support. Bearing in mind that government policy has destroyed 16 of the 23 industrial training boards, this Bill must be considered progressive.
However, I should like to say that we have been concerned about the position of the unemployed in relation to offshore training, especially in so far as it seems that unemployed people have been charged substantial amounts by the oil companies for training which is relevant to work offshore and in order to obtain an offshore survival certificate. Indeed, it would appear that in the case of some training provided by British Gas free of charge, a substantial charge has been levied by contractors on the recipient of such training, although he was unemployed. We hope that this Bill will help to put that situation right.
It has also been represented to me that training in the North Sea is haphazard and there may very well be a case for making it a condition of the operator's licence that training which is properly planned and financed should be made available. If a levy were in place, that would ensure that unemployed persons would be able to receive training free from any worry of paying the cost of such training out of their own pockets; that is, if being unemployed they have any money in their pockets.
Another example of the lack of proper training facilities concerns North Sea divers. As the Minister will know, previous to 1979 their training was undertaken by Manpower and financed through a proper levy, but now, since Manpower was privatised, divers have had to borrow up to £5,000 from their bank or other sources to finance their training. The result of this is an influx of foreign divers and consequently unemployment for potential British divers. This cannot be right and nor is it sensible.
The Government's approach to training is all wrong, I fear, and relies altogether too much on the free market philosophy. The result of this approach is shown up in stark terms by the fact that British companies spend only one-fifteenth of 1 per cent. on training while our foreign competitors spend between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. This lack of a proper training policy is having an effect not only in the North Sea but in my view throughout our economy. The Labour Party will give attention to this problem as a matter of priority and when elected to government will restore the training boards and ensure that they are properly financed through levy.
However, as I have said, we shall not oppose the Bill, especially since I understand that, following discussions between my honourable friends Mr. John Prescott, Labour's employment spokesman, and Mr. Barry Sheerman and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Employment, Mr. David Trippier, a significant concession has been made concerning support for unemployed people seeking an offshore survival certificate which is necessary for many employments in the North Sea. I understand the concession involves the Manpower Services Commission agreeing that, on an experimental basis but without commitment for the long term, it will pay the fees for unemployed applicants for a limited number of places on courses lasting up to five days and leading to the survival

1353
certificate at colleges in Aberdeen, Grimsby and Hull. Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm this concession, since it would be useful to write it into the record. Can he also give an indication of the numbers likely to be involved, and when will be the earliest date for the scheme to start?
With those few comments, some of which I fear have been critical, I confirm the Opposition's support for the Bill, and we shall of course help to smooth its passage through this House.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, let me say at the outset that the Government strongly support this Bill and very much hope that it will shortly find its place on the statute book.
If I may respond to the points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, he is right that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Employment wrote to Mr. Barry Sheerman, an honourable Member in the other place, giving him the assurance to which the noble Lord has referred. I wonder whether the best way for me to proceed in this matter is to let the noble Lord have a copy of that letter, which I hope will set his mind at rest. He will see from it that my honourable friend was not able to give a formal undertaking about numbers or timing, which he said would depend upon local circumstances, but he expected that some places would be offered by the autumn. I shall see that the noble Lord gets a copy of that letter.
The noble Lord also asked about the position of training for divers. I do not have an answer to that question immediately available. Perhaps I can look into the matter and write to him.
7.54 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend the Minister for their remarks. I certainly did not know that people being trained for diving had to pay their own fees for training, but I am sure, as the Minister said, that that will be rectified. I do not wish to hold up the House any longer, and so I end by saying that I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.55 until 8.40 P.m.]

Education Bill [H.L.]
Committee stage resumed on Clause 3.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
("(8) Where in Wales a school is divided on linguistic grounds into an English medium unit and a Welsh medium unit, each unit shall be regarded as a separate school for the purposes of
1354
computation of the number of each class of governors and of election of the parent and teacher governors, provided that—

(a) if the head teacher shall not be a fluent speaker of the Welsh language the senior teacher in the Welsh medium unit shall be a governor unless he chooses not to be a governor; and

(b) there shall be only one governing body notwithstanding the separation of the units for the purposes of computing the number of governors and electing the same.").

The noble Lord said: I am to some extent an imposter in moving this amendment. Fortunately, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies is much more experienced and well informed on the matter. I am not particularly helped by the fact that some of my brief is in Welsh—at least, there is a handwritten section at the end in Welsh, and I cannot be confident that it is entirely polite.
This is a serious matter., It is of great importance to those communities and individuals in Wales who find themselves in the position—this is particularly the case in Gwent—where there is a mixture of Welsh and English teaching in schools and where despite the provisions of the 1980 Education Act, and indeed sometimes perhaps because of the provisions of the Act, those pupils who are taught in the Welsh language and their parents do not always find themselves with adequate representation on the governing body. Their interests are not adequately preserved by that governing body.
The amendment—the first of a number that are related but not formally grouped—proposes that we should adopt the ingenious fiction that where there is a Welsh medium unit and an English medium unit in the same school they should be treated for the purposes of this Bill as two schools. In other words, there should be a governing body or that part of a governing body as appropriate elected or appointed by those in the Welsh medium unit and another governing body, as appropriate, by the English medium unit. There is the further qualification that if the head teacher is not a fluent speaker of the Welsh language, the most senior teacher who is fluent in the Welsh language shall be entitled to attend the governing body as if he were a head teacher—in other words, opting whether or not to be a member of the governing body.
It appeared to me on reading the arguments that this comparatively minor amendment, but one of great importance to those for whom this is a vital matter, was worthy of support and of being aired in the Committee. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Government either in this form or some comparable form and so give expression to the wishes of the parents and the schools concerned. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support very strongly the amendment that has been moved by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. It might be helpful to the Committee if I were to refer to the background out of which this amendment has emerged. I am glad to say that we in Wales are witnessing the renaissance or reflowering of the Welsh language. This is due in no small measure to the contribution of the Welsh medium schools and the Welsh medium units. I had better explain what a Welsh medium unit is. During the past decade or so, a particularly significant development in many

1355
Anglicised parts of Wales has been the provision or the creation of an English medium unit and a Welsh medium unit side by side within the same primary school building, both units having the same head teacher.
In this unique situation, the governing body has a duty to the English medium unit, to the Welsh medium unit and obviously to the entire school. But it is often the case, at least in some counties, that both units do not have a voice on the governing body. It is, I understand, often the case that the governing body does not have a parent governor who has a child at the Welsh unit and does not have a teacher governor who is teaching in the Welsh unit. I accept that it may well be the case that occasionally an English medium unit does not have a voice in the governing body. I believe generally, however, that the lack of representation arises from the Welsh units. This has a very odd result. If one of the two units does not have a parent or a teacher governor, this can clearly favour one unit at the expense of the other unit. That can lead to conflict. I would have thought that if the governing body is to discharge the functions allotted to it, then it must have links with both units.
I accept of course that the two units have a common interest. But they also have different interests. In general, the English medium unit serves the wards around the school while the Welsh medium unit serves a very much wider community and involves the pupils travelling a long distance to the school. Again, each unit is linked to a different secondary school. And, over time, each unit has developed its own instinctive characteristics and identity. For all these reasons, each unit should have a distinctive voice heard on the governing body. That is lacking at present.
We are now moving to a stage when the new governing bodies will be more important and more active. So there is greater reason for each unit having its own distinctive voice in the governing body. This amendment does just that, or seeks to do that. I hope very much that the Government will accept the principle of the amendment. I believe that the drafting takes us there. The Government may take a different view. I hope certainly that the Committee will be sympathetic to the principle enshrined in the amendment and that it will be acceptable to the Government.
Baroness Young: I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said. Perhaps I can say in response to his Welsh credentials that I can claim only that my mother's family all came from Wales and that I like Wales very much indeed.
I have also listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has said on this amendment. Before turning to the details of it, I should like to say that it is important to realise that the eight local education authorities in Wales all endeavour to provide education through the medium of the Welsh language in response to demand. They do so according to local circumstances. In practice, that means that there will be variation in provision.
I understand that this amendment is directed at a single local education authority—Gwent—where demands for primary education through the medium
1356
of Welsh is currently being met through the establishment of units within county primary schools where classes are taught through the medium of Welsh. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable response to a demand which is not yet great enough to justify whole primary schools devoted exclusively to Welsh medium education. When that situation arises I have no doubt that the local education authority will respond appropriately.
We are here talking of county primary schools having Welsh units. Perhaps I should just say that there is no such thing as an English medium unit. Were an amendment on the lines proposed to be successful, we have to face the fact that it might lead to a reaction among English-speaking parents of a kind which would entirely defeat its purpose.
I believe that the primary schools about which we are talking are all large enough to contain three parents on their governing bodies. In these circumstances, if parents of pupils in the Welsh units are enthusiastic enough to stand for election as parent governors, and to vote at parent governor elections, it seems to me that there is every reason to expect that they will gain representation on the governing bodies. Moreover, if a governing body felt that it needed strengthening by the addition of a Welsh speaker the provisions of the Bill for co-option provide the answer. It would be perfectly possible for a Welsh speaker to be co-opted onto the governing body.
Furthermore, the Welsh-speaking parents who might be concerned that they were not represented on the governing body would be able to make representations about this matter at the next annual parents' meeting. There are therefore under the provisions of the Bill a number of opportunities to meet the problem which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, have identified; that is to say, there would be the opportunity for Welsh-speaking parents to stand; to vote; to be co-opted if they were not successful in an election; and, if they were not successful in that, to make representations at the annual parents' meeting.
Where teacher governors are concerned, we have already indicated our reluctance to agree to greater representation on governing bodies. The effect of this amendment would be contrary to that. I cannot accept its implications that a head teacher of a primary school which had a Welsh unit would discriminate against that unit. I should have thought that we would all agree on that.
For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendments proposed. However, I hope that I have said enough to indicate that the Bill as it stands, in the particular circumstances which have been identified under this amendment, provides the possibility for a Welsh-speaking parent to become a governor of a school. With that, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I do not believe that the principle of this amendment would be confined to the county of Gwent. I believe that the problem has been highlighted in Gwent, but it is not confined to Gwent.
Under the Bill, the parents of the Welsh-speaking pupils can stand for election to the governing body.

1357
But if one has 90 English-speaking parents and 50 Welsh-speaking parents, their chances of being successful in the election are not high. This is part of the problem. We have the two units and there ought to be equality of representation for the two units on the governing body. I should not have thought that it is good enough to say, "You can all stand for election", because the chances of the minority being successful in that election are remote.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness said. I appreciate the force of the alternatives that she has suggested: that there may be ways by election or co-option whereby Welsh speakers could be added to the governing body. However, I am bound to say that experience, certainly in Cardiff, does not encourage that view. There is experience of a smaller Welsh unit in a larger English school being ignored or neglected from the point of view of addition to the governing bodies.
I should point out to the noble Baroness that the amendment now proposed works both ways. If there is a Welsh unit and an English unit in a school, both those units are provided for in the additional members of the governing body proposed. The reference to a head teacher not being a fluent Welsh speaker is in one direction only, but I assume that that is on the basis that there are not too many head teachers in Wales who are not fluent in English as well as in Welsh.
In regard to the single governing body composed of those two units, there is no difference between the Welsh and the English languages. I cannot see the possiblity of the backlash from English speakers to which the noble Baroness referred. Nor were we making any accusations of discrimination by English-speaking primary heads in Wales against Welsh-speaking children. That was not in any part of the argument that was being put forward.
However, the analysis of the noble Baroness deserves careful study. It may be that we shall wish to come back on this at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had given notice of my intention to oppose the Question. That intention was based on the hope that the Committee would see the wisdom of agreeing to Amendment No. 4. In the circumstances, I do not wish to pursue this matter.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Governing bodies for aided and special agreement schools]:
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 15, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) The instrument of government for such a school shall provide for the governing body to include—

(a) parent governors, whose numbers shall be determined as in section 3 above;

1358

(b) governors appointed by the local education authority, the numbers of such governors to be determined as in section 3 above;

(c) foundation governors;

(d) in the case of a school which has fewer than 300 pupils, at least one teacher governor, and

(e) the head teacher, unless he chooses not to be a governor.

(3) The instrument of government for such a school shall provide for such number of foundation governors as will lead to their outnumbering the other governors by one.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment. I wish to make clear that I am speaking personally and not on behalf of the Labour Party.
This is a matter which, in the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, starts to affect the dual system because it provides in aided schools for a diminution in the proportion of the governing body which is to be provided by the foundation governors. Let me make it absolutely clear from the beginning that it is not proposed in any spirit of antagonism towards foundation governors.
The principle behind the proposed amendment is not negative but positive in the sense that we believe that the benefits which will flow from the increase in the number of parent and teacher governors from the Bill as a whole and as it relates to county, controlled and maintained special schools will also apply to aided and special arrangement schools. We agree that it is important that parents and teachers should be adequately represented on the governing bodies of county, controlled and maintained special schools. However, there are the same kinds of parents and teachers in the aided and special arrangement schools. Surely every effort should be made, consistent with the rights and past participation of foundation governors in the work of the school, to see to it that parents and teachers are as well represented as possible?
This is not a major amendment, and it is certainly not a revolutionary one. It maintains the overall majority of the foundation governors on the governing body. Admittedly it maintains it at the lowest possible level—there is a majority of one rather than a majority of two or three, according to the size of the school, which is proposed in Clause 4 of the Bill. It seems to us logical and rational to accept that if parents and teachers can make a contribution in the county and controlled schools, then the same kinds of parents and the same kinds of teachers have something to say, have a right to be represented and have a right to be heard in as close as possible the same proportions in the aided and special agreement schools.
I have made it clear that I am speaking for myself. If any of my noble friends who have a particular interest in the aided school sector have anything to say which differs from what I have said, I certainly shall not feel offended. This is a matter which verges on an issue of conscience, and I speak from the Dispatch Box in full recognition of that. I certainly do not propose to pursue the amendment to a vote. I hope that the Government will recognise that it is, in a sense, a logical extension of the purposes of the Bill as they have put them forward, and that, on that basis, it will be given sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: The reason why aided and special agreement schools are treated differently under this Bill is simply that they are different. I should like to take this opportunity of repeating the high value

1359
that the Government places on the diversity these schools bring to the maintained sector under the dual system of county and voluntary schools which the Government are committed to preserve and foster. At this point I should like to echo the comments made earlier in the evening by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, when she described the good work that these schools are doing.
One of the main aims of the Bill is to re-establish governing bodies as a force for good in the life of individual schools. No such re-establishment is needed in the case of aided and special agreement schools. Their governing bodies already serve to give them a distinctive life of their own which is part and parcel of their distinctive and, as I have indicated, highly valued status.
The governing body of such a school is also the agency through which the voluntary body responsible for the school exercises that measure of control and direction which has been accorded to it since the 1944 Act. It has never been the Government's intention to disturb these arrangements, which continue to serve the nation well, and I am not persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord say that he was speaking for himself rather than on the part of the Labour Party.
I accept that re-enacting the 1980 Act formula in Clause 4 obviously leaves parents with fewer governorships at these schools. I see nothing anomalous in this given the schools' rather different nature which turns, in large measure, on the composition and functions of their governing bodies. I would be more concerned if parents found the difference unacceptable. The evidence however clearly shows the contrary: such schools continue to be highly popular.
However, notwithstanding the proposed retention of the 1980 Act's formula, parental influence and involvement in these schools will be increased under the Bill. The governing bodies of both aided and special agreement schools will, by virtue of Clauses 24 and 25, be under the same duty as other governing bodies to report annually to parents on the discharge of their functions and to hold annual meetings at which the parent body as a whole can discuss particular matters of concern to them.
To turn briefly to the detail of the proposed amendment, the important functions exercised by the voluntary body through the governing body, not least in the employment of staff, would make it quite unacceptable to reduce the foundation's majority to the bare one proposed. I assume that it was an oversight that the amendments did not provide for the number of teacher governors—presumably at least two—in the case of a school with at least 300 pupils. I note that no provision is made for minor authorities as in Clause 4(2)(b) (and, in relation to Clause 3 governing bodies, in Clause 6(1)). The effect of necessary adjustments would be to increase the size of such governing bodies. By my calculation, the largest governing body would be approaching what would seem the quite unrealistic figure of 30.
Aided and special agreement schools do their job well and to general satisfaction. There is no need to tinker with a successful formula, particularly when this
1360
could tamper with essential features of the settlement in the 1944 Act which, to great advantage, brought aided and special agreement schools into the maintained sector. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord say that he had no intention of pressing this amendment to a vote. I hope that, having heard my explanation, he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his remarks, and I confirm that I shall be withdrawing the amendment. However, despite the absence of any of the right reverend Prelates tonight, and despite the absence, to my knowledge, of any spokesman for the Catholic hierarchy, I should like to make the following appeal to the Churches. On the basis that there is to be no attempt in any way to undermine the dual system to which reference has been made, would it not be a valuable and co-operative gesture on the part of the Churches to make some attempt to see to it that foundation governors themselves adequately represent the parents and the teachers at the school?
I know from personal experience that the connections between the Churches and the aided schools are good. Where these connections are good, it ought not to be too difficult for the Churches to see to it that some of their foundation governors are qualified on other counts by their direct relationship with the school as parents or teachers. I would hope that any representative of the Churches reading this debate might be impelled to make some move in that direction. In that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: Before the noble Lord sits down let me say that from the Lancashire authority co-operation on the lines that he has just indicated is now taking place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to hear that. It confirms what I have just said, and it confirms my intention to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Appointment of parent governors by local education authority]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 12, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to ensure that in the case of residential schools—that is to say, boarding and hospital schools—where at least 50 per cent. of registered pupils are boarders the parent governors should be elected as in all other schools and not appointed by the local education authorities as intended by the Government in Clause 5.
One of the principles on which this Bill is constructed is that of giving more power to parents. It seems therefore to be rather odd that parent governors at county, controlled and maintained special schools are to be elected by the parents, yet at boarding schools they are to be appointed by the local education authority. There is, I acknowledge, a difficulty over the hospital schools to which I shall return in a moment.

1361
I am prepared to accept that my amendment may not be quite correctly drafted as it stands, but my object this evening is to probe the Government on the principle.
I think I am right in saying that Lord Taylor's committee, when it produced its report—he will correct me if I am wrong—came down in favour of the election of parent governors in boarding schools. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, nodding at me, so I am correct there. As I indicated at Second Reading, this is a section of the Bill about which I feel particularly strongly, as I happen to be the parent of a child at an ILEA boarding school. It is a boarding school in Suffolk, something like 80 miles outside London, but it is fully under the control and management of ILEA.
This school at present holds elections for its parent governors. It holds them by single transferable vote. There is a postal vote. I am sorry to come back to this. It is the second time I have mentioned it this evening. I shall mention it once more, but I am not making propaganda. I am simply reporting the fact that at the present moment the school holds elections by that method for its parent governors. The parents' association is just as active as at any other school. It holds exactly the same types of meeting and the same sort of events. It forms, I would submit, a well defined and natural electoral constituency.
I also mentioned at Second Reading, and I repeat it this evening, that it seems to me that if a child is at a boarding school, that school plays a much larger part in the child's life than a day school, and that is an additional reason for the parents being able to elect the representatives of their choice. At the school to which I refer the next elections are due in July of this year. Should this Bill have become law by then, that system will be outlawed and we shall have to submit to appointments by the local education authority. I cannot believe that the noble Baroness, the noble Earl, or indeed the other noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, have any wish to deprive me and my fellow parent governors of our existing rights in a system which is working particularly well. That is my point on election for boarding schools.
I have already accepted that there is a difficulty over the hospital schools, which are also covered by the amendment. There are only a few such schools which have a stable population. Of the Inner London Education Authority's six schools, one is long term and the rest cover periods of only weeks or months in the child's life. I accept that there would be a difficulty there in having elected governors. However, we should be able to come up with an arrangement which will allow long-term hospital schools to function normally and to elect their governors like other schools. We could talk about that at a later stage of the Bill, but I wanted to mention it now in case the noble Earl or the noble Baroness brought it up in their reply.
I am not happy about the second part of Clause 5 concerning the proposals in subsection (4) for local authorities automatically to appoint when a sufficient number of parent governors has not come forward. A compromise position might be to say that only in the last resort should local authorities fill vacancies and one or more efforts should be made to find suitable parents to come forward before that is done. My
1362
amendment does not cover that, though it would be covered by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, if he moves that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, which would remove the whole clause. I should have some sympathy with that.
I revert to my main point. It seems unjustifiable that parents of boarders with thriving parents' associations and a perfectly adequate system of meetings, who perform their parental functions in exactly the same way as the parents of any other school, should be deprived of this right to elect their governors. I shall not press this amendment this evening. I was hoping to receive from the noble Earl or from one of the noble Baronesses an acceptance in principle that what I am saying is right. We could then consider the matter before Report stage and see whether we could produce an amendment jointly which would cover the difficulty I have mentioned about hospital schools. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to add a word of support to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, on this amendment. It seems to me that this is another example of the Government having trapped themselves into complete rigidity in the composition of governing bodies and of now being forced to take an extreme position. It is an extreme position to say that all the parent governors in boarding schools should be appointed by the local authority when, as the noble Lord has convincingly shown us, it is possible to have elected parent governors of a boarding school. They have a community of interest which is just as strong, despite the fact that they do not all live in the same neighbourhood. There are working examples of elections by parents and the successful functioning of parent-teacher associations in schools of that kind. In those circumstances, it is the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who is being moderate and reasonable and, in the formula laid down in Clause 5, the Government are being exclusive, unreasonable and unrecognising of successful practice in another way. If the noble Lord does not press the amendment he may consider at a later stage some intermediate amendment which will allow for the possibility of election but which will also allow for the possibility of appointment if election is not feasible.
That takes us on to Clause 5(4), which, it seems to us, gives much too easy opportunities for a local education authority to make a gesture towards the election of parent governors and then to retreat and say that it is not possible and that they will be appointed after all. I do not think that was the Government's intention, because they have made much play of our support about the importance of truly representative parent governors. This is a matter on which all Members of the Committee are united. But the way in which the Bill has been drafted makes it far too easy for local authorities to bypass the election provisions for parent governors.
I give notice that although I shall not pursue the issue of whether Clause 5 stand part of the Bill I, too, shall be looking for ways in which to amend Clause 5(4) to provide something which, although it is still available for appointment as a matter of last resort, does not give the open invitation to local education

1363
authorities to make gestures only at the election of parent governors.
The Earl of Swinton: The moment has come when I am going to show that the Government are far from rigid on this point. I think that I shall go the whole way that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked me to.
The 1980 Act provided for parent governor elections for all schools except those maintained special schools established in a hospital where the LEA considered elections impracticable. In such a case, the LEA appoints the parent governors. It seems like an oversight that the 1980 Act did not similarly provide for schools with a high proportion of boarders. As the noble Lord pointed out, the difficulties of holding meaningful elections in some of these cases are obvious. He cited the case of a hospital school where there may be a very high turnover of pupils. Alternatively, and in the case of boarding schools, the pupils' homes may be many miles away from the school so the parent body is very scattered in a way that makes it difficult for individual parents to be fully involved and equally difficult to regard the parent body as a single entity.
In view of the greater demands to be placed on parents to stand for election to reconstituted governing bodies, the Bill recognised these difficulties by providing for parent governors to be appointed in the case of all hospital schools and other schools where at least half the pupils were boarders.
After the concerns expressed tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and by others at Second Reading, the Government would be ready to move an amendment at a later stage to revert to the 1980 Act approach whereby parent governor elections have to be held unless the LEA considers this impracticable. I think I can go further, because this would not give the LEA carte blanche. If it acted unreasonably in the matter—and whether meaningful elections were being held under the current arrangements would be a significant factor—the Secretary of State could issue a corrective direction under Section 68 of the 1944 Act.
The Government would not be prepared to move quite to the point that would be reached under the amendment of the noble Lord of requiring elections in all instances. The noble Lord himself has confirmed on reflection, I think, that he believes it is right, too; since it seems quite clear that there will be some cases where elections for all practical purposes would be out of the question. With the commitment I have given to move an appropriate amendment in due course, I feel certain, judging by what the noble Lord said, that he would be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: This is a happy occasion and I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. I knew that his heart was in the right place and that it would show sooner or later, and it has shown on this amendment. I would agree with him that it will be necessary to write in some mechanism to draw the line between practicality and impracticality in the case of the short-term-stay hospital schools and the long-term-stay hospital schools. I have no doubt that the Government with their ingenuity will be able to do that.
1364
I am particularly delighted that he has accepted the point that I and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have put to him, because, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, boarding schools have a great community of interest which overcomes the dispersal of the parents and perhaps gives them an even stronger sense of community and common interest, or no less strong a sense of community and common interest, than the parents of a day school. I shall not go over that again. The noble Earl has accepted that point. We look forward to seeing the amendment that the Government are proposing to move at the next stage of the Bill. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Appointment of representative governors in place of co-opted governors]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, line 30, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
("by a panel of representatives of voluntary organisations concerned with special educational needs, appointed by the local authority, or under a procedure established by the local education authority.").
The noble Lord said: I am very pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is still in his place because I think that this is a point where I might be seeking his support and the value of his extensive and profound knowledge of our special schools system. The Bill as drafted provides that a governor shall be appointed by a voluntary organisation designated by the local education authority in relation to the school as the appropriate voluntary organisation concerned with matters with respect to which the school is specially organised. That is all very well as far as it goes, and there may be a number of schools for which that is an appropriate measure.
However, the experience of those who have been concerned with our special schools is that there are many cases where there is more than one voluntary organisation interested in the school's special educational needs. It could be a national organisation specialising in a particular handicap—deafness, blindness, mental handicap or whatever it may be. In addition to such national organisations whose participation in governing bodies can be very valuable, there are often local organisations with perhaps less professional expertise which may be interested in the charitable aspects of the handicap and whose participation would also be enormously helpful to the school's work.
The amendment does not propose an alteration in the final composition of the governing body; it proposes a more open method of selection and places an obligation on the local authority to consult, where appropriate—I say no more than that—as many local organisations as may contribute to the appointment of a member of the governing body. In other words, this is a natural extension of opportunity. There is not a greater diminution of opportunity, as unfortunately there has been in some previous amendments. I hope that the amendment will secure the support of the

1365
noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the Government's approval. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: For reasons which the noble Lord has been kind enough to mention, I naturally took great care to study his amendment and to compare it with the words in the Bill which he proposes should be left out. May I deal with the Bill as it stands for the moment? I should not like those words to be left out. If I needed to give a reason, it is to be found in the Notes on Clauses where in relation to Clause 6(3) they state that the subsection provides:
"to have a representative of the appropriate voluntary organisation or, if there is more than one such organisation, for those organisations to make a joint appointment".
That is quite clear. The notes go on to say something which pleases me very much and which is in the Bill although I should not expect it to be. The notes state:
"For example, if a special school caters for mentally handicapped children, the appropriate voluntary organisation might be MENCAP".
I should not dare to agree with anything that disturbed that satisfactory situation. Having said that, my mind naturally travelled on to the possibility of getting the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, the noble Lord's amendment does not allow us to do so. However, if he had allowed the words of the Bill to stand and added a new paragraph to subsection (3) preceded by the word "or" and followed by the words that he has on the Marshalled List, I should have been glad to give him my half-hearted support. That, alas, is not the situation with which we are at this moment faced.
The Earl of Swinton: Having heard from my noble friend, at the express invitation of the noble Lord who moved the amendment, I do not think that I need say very much. I was not absolutely certain what was behind the amendment because, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, the Bill provides for specialist representation on the governing bodies of maintained special schools not established in a hospital by the appropriate organisation or organisations.
9.30 p.m.
I cannot see what this committee would do if there were disagreement, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, between two groups of very worthy charities which both decided that they were the right ones. I should have thought you would then have a rather cumbersome and bureaucratic committee set up to decide what could and should be done by a get-together of the various interested parties round the table.
Under this Bill things are even better than my noble friend Lord Renton said, because I should emphasise that once the LEA has made a decision that need not be the end of the matter. If the governing body are unhappy with their instrument of government, they are free to make representations to the authority to have it changed. Under the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill, the LEA would be required to give serious consideration to such representations.
Of course, if parents thought that the wrong charity, as it were, had been appointed they would be perfectly free to bring this up and register their view at the annual meeting. Again, the LEA would be required to
1366
give the proposal very serious consideration. So I really do not think that the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, envisaged, and which my noble friend did not, are likely to arise. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to both noble Lords. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, promised me that he was half-glad to give me full-hearted support, that would give me even greater pleasure. But I recognise the force of the points made. I also recognise that the Bill provides for joint appointments when that is appropriate. I still feel that there could be an advantage in a panel of this kind, which need not be as formal as the noble Earl suggests. But I will consider the form of the amendment in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has suggested, and see whether it is more appropriate to put it forward in that way at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Governors' proceedings and tenure of office]:
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 26, after ("of") insert ("up to").
The noble Lord said: I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, which are consequential on each other. I do not feel that there is very much to say about them, because it seems to me that there is a possible omission from the drafting of the Bill and that the need for some amendment such as this is self-evident. The object of being a parent governor is that you should be a governor during the time when you are a parent, and the object of being a teacher governor is that you should be a governor during the time when you are a teacher, and both sorts of governor become irrelevant after that time. As I said, I feel that the need for some amendment such as this is self-evident. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The virtues of this amendment seem to me so apparent that I am sure the Government will give way, and it would be inappropriate for me to make any grumbling noises. I rise only to say that I support wholeheartedly what the noble Lord has said. I recognise that his wording is preferable to that of my own Amendment No. 32, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and my noble friend Lord Irving will agree with me on that. I hope that the Government will give as sympathetic consideration as they can to something which I am sure must have been intended, and which I am also sure is what parents, teachers and all governors would expect to be the conditions of appointment to a governing body.
Lord Renton: I appreciate the purpose of this amendment. However, I am a little worried about the large number of by-elections to which it will give rise. I think that it is going rather far to put it in the terms of the amendment. At the same time I must confess that I am not happy about the Government's provision in subsection (2) of Clause 7, that the

1367
governor shall hold office for a term of four years unless it is an ex officio governor. As I understand it, the only ex officio governor will be the headmaster if he serves. All the other governors, once elected, will be there for four years. Does that mean that there will be a general election every four years in every school? Democracy is a very good thing but you can have a bit too much of it sometimes.
Baroness Hooper: In spite of the apparent virtues of the amendment extolled by noble Lords opposite, I hope that I shall have the support of all your Lordships, and of my noble friend Lord Renton in particular perhaps, when I say that these are matters which are best left to the regulations which the Secretary of State will make under subsection (5) of this clause.
The 1981 regulations currently make the provision suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his amendment. In the case of teacher governors, we intend to make the same provision in the new regulations. For parent governors, the story is a little longer. We proposed the same provision in the Green Paper "Parental Influence at School". We then received many comments to the effect that it would aid continuity particularly on the governing bodies of infants' schools and sixth form colleges which pupils attend for only two to three years, if parent governors were permitted to serve out their term of office even if their children had left the school. In response to these comments, the Government announced in the White Paper Better Schools that parent governors would indeed be allowed to serve out their term of office. This announcement promptly provoked comments from those who had agreed with the Green Paper's proposition and had therefore previously remained silent. I think that all goes to show that there are arguments both ways.
However, I repeat that these are points which we intend should be covered in the regulations rather than in primary legislation. So far as concerns teacher governors, I believe that we are in agreement over what the provision should be—though we would agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the end of the school year should be the relevant point, not the end of the term as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. On parent governors, there are arguments both ways. The Committee will be aware that the regulations are to be made by statutory instrument, subject to negative resolution of either House of Parliament. The Government will consult widely before making the regulations, and on the question of the term of office for parent governors we will take account of what has been said today as well as comments arising from our consultations before deciding which way lies the balance of the argument. I hope therefore that the noble Lords will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that I do not understand her argument and cannot follow it in relation to the Bill. She says that this matter which is governed at the moment by subsection (2) is to be governed in future by the regulations to be made, and they will be made
1368
under subsection (6). But if we look at subsection (6)(d) we find that the regulations are to be subject to subsections (2) and (4), so that it seems as though—
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend to say that the regulations I referred to are to be made under subsection (5) of Clause 7.
Lord Renton: Yes, but that deals with another matter. It does not deal with the tenure of office, which is what I thought we were discussing on the amendment. I think my noble friend will have to ask those advising her to look again at the matter in the light of this discussion. It is a very confused situation in my opinion. I should certainly wish to read what my noble friend has said before being at all satisfied, because I must confess that I am perplexed.
Lord Kilmarnock: If I may add to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it seems to be perfectly clear that subsection (5) is concerned with regulations that
"make provision as to the meetings and proceedings of the governing bodies".
It says nothing at all about the length of the appointment of governors. It seems a very confused position if subsection (2) is to be subject to or overridden by subsection (5), which does not itself refer to the subject matter of subsection (2).
There is the further provision in subsection (6)(d), which, as the noble Lord pointed out, makes it subject to subsection (2). We shall need clarification before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to remain on my feet long enough for the noble Baroness to obtain advice on this matter. It would be preferable to have the matter clarified now rather than wait until a later stage of the Bill.
It seems clear to both the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and to ourselves that subsection (5) refers to the meetings and proceedings of the governing bodies, and that subsection (6), which refers to the regulations that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, mentioned, as well as to tenure of office, is quite unqualified in saying that subsection (2) and (4) have precedence in terms of the way in which regulations may be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is an expert not only on the subject of governing bodies but also on what should be on the face of Bills and provided for in codes of practice and in regulations. I am absolutely certain that his advice to the Committee is correct and that there ought to be an opportunity now for this matter to be resolved by the Government.
I shall take a moment or two more to refer to the issue of whether the tenure should run to the end of the school term or to the end of the school year. Reference has been made to the fact that if it were to run to the end of the school term, there might be an excessive number of by-elections. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that such would be undesirable. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, has herself referred to her preference for using the end of the school year rather than the end of the school term. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, and I would happily agree to reach a compromise of that

1369
kind, provided that we can secure an adequate commitment from the Government as to the effective provision of what I believe it is that we all want.
Baroness Hooper: I am most grateful to my noble friend and to other noble Lords for their helpful comments. Obviously the position is not absolutely clear. I will only mention that subsection (6)(d) refers to "tenure of office". I had therefore assumed that the regulations that were going to be relevant to these amendments were those to be made under subsection (5). I simply add that we note the comments made and will clarify the position.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that we might ask the noble Baroness to go a little further than that. In view of what she has said, and whatever may be the position in respect of subsection (6), it would not be unreasonable of us to ask her to confirm the Government's view that it would be desirable, if it can be achieved, not to have lame duck governors, either parents or teachers, after the end of the school year in which they are either teachers or have pupils at the school. If the noble Baroness will confirm that, and will simply say that a means must be found of achieving it, then she will deserve and receive the gratitude of parents, of schools, and indeed of this Committee.
Baroness Hooper: I am sure we shall do our best to achieve the most desirable solution, but I think the main point to be made in relation to these amendments is that any detail will be governed by regulations rather than by primary legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Forgive me for intervening again but the matter is governed by primary legislation in subsection (2). We are totally relaxed about whether it should be primary legislation or by regulation at the end of the day. We are saying that the primary legislation on the face of the Bill does not achieve the objective which I think all Members of the Committee want.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I can only repeat what I have just said. We have noted the comments and shall consider the matter.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I feel that we have threshed out this amendment and I offer my thanks to all who have contributed to trying to undo this knotty point. On the undertaking from the noble Baroness that the matter will be looked into, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question, but let me enable your Lordships to relax by saying that I do not propose to divide the Committee. I use this legitimate device as a peg on which to hang a plea to the Government. I am partly
1370
inspired to do so by the speech made towards the end of the Second Reading debate by the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford—and Dartford is where I was born. Having referred to me in over-generous terms, the noble Lord said:
"There is no doubt at all that, in terms of the report, and in terms of properly devised legislation, much of what is in the Bill should at worst be either in the schedules or in regulations, and at best in guidelines".—[Official Report, 10/3/86; col. 463.]
I dispose of the guidelines at once. I think that that would be a deplorable way of setting out the detail, if it is necessary to have it.
I suggest to your Lordships that regulations are justified when the law has to be amended from time to time, with a change in the value of money, and so on, but we should not have important provisions in regulations when, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would say, they deserve to be in primary legislation: I quote the phrase used by the noble Lord in our last discussion.
I turn to Clause 7 in the light of those comments. In Part II of the Bill generally there is a mass of legislative detail which deals more with matters of administration and organisation than of principle. I suggest most seriously to the Government that they should look in particular at Clause 7 and, to save your Lordships being burdened with another speech on the same point from me, at Clause 14 as well, as I had given notice of my intention to oppose Clause 14. There is a vast amount of matter which often these days the draftsman puts into schedules. To do him credit, we frequently find that matters such as we have in Clause 7 and 14 go into a great deal of detail about which there is not much controversy. If there is, the schedule can be amended.
I think it would make for a better presentation of the Bill if the Government were to use the usual sort of device by which one subsection of Clause 7 need not be a subsection at all but just a few lines of a clause saying that the provisions concerning governors' proceedings and tenure of office shall be as set out in the first, second or third schedule—whatever it may be. The same applies to Clause 14, which merely has a side note saying "Miscellaneous". There is a mass of miscellaneous provision there dealing with matters that have to be tidied up because of what is being enacted in Part II of the Bill.
One only has to look at the excellent Notes on Clauses to see what Clause 7 is about and how it can be summarised. The notes simply say:
"This clause contains a number of technical provisions concerning governing bodies' proceedings and governors' terms of office. It provides in particular for the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning the meetings and proceedings of governing bodies".
Perhaps I should eat my own words in respect of that. Sometimes, because of the small print, even though regulations do not deal with matters which are temporary, nevertheless they are matters which should be in regulations. That is what this clause does.
The notes then add:
"Generally, the clause draws together the previous provisions that appeared in the 1944 and the 1980 Acts, with some clarification and extension".
It is what one might call the small print of primary legislation. Let it be primary legislation, but let it not clutter up the clauses. Let it be placed properly in the schedules.
Lord Irving of Dartford: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for quoting from my speech. He and I have known each other for many years. In fact, for many years we were pairs in another place. I knew he would not let me down but would defend the excellent report of the committee which he chaired with firmness and conviction. If by any chance he should be persuaded to go into the Lobby, I should be glad to follow him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I also intended to say that I should be delighted to follow the noble Lord or to act with him as a teller if he felt inclined to give effect to statements with which I entirely agree, but for another reason.
The fact of the matter is that though, as he says, the Notes on Clauses are excellent, in this case they are somewhat less than excellent because, as we have seen from the preceding discussion, Clause 7 does not concern itself merely with technical matters. The question of the terms of office of parent governors and teacher governors after they have ceased to have their original connection with the schools is by no means a technical or unimportant matter but one which would arouse a great deal of feeling if it were abused other than by resignation, if it actually happened on governing bodies. If governing bodies were to contain a significant number of people who did not have their original connection with the schools, the credibility of the governing body would be very seriously diminished.
For that reason, we pressed the Government on this matter. I hope that they are still thinking about it and that they will come to realise that the reasons given for rejecting the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, are not satisfactory and the matter can be corrected at a later stage. As it stands, Clause 7 is something which needed and still needs debate. It could indeed have been debated if it had been in a schedule rather than in a regulation, but it is not yet in a satisfactory state.
Lord Renton: I am deeply distressed, as I seem to have lost an ally. I thought that the noble Lord started off by commending the suggestion that we did not want the primary legislation to contain too much detail in the clauses but that it should go into the schedules.
As to this question of appointments and tenure of office, I do not have the information at my finger tips but, if my memory is correct, the proceedings of various statutory bodies—indeed, of local authorities as well, I think—will frequently be found in recent statutes. When it comes to a question of laying down appointments, tenure of office, dismissal, proceedings and so on, it will all be found in the schedules. I am so
1372
relieved to find the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, nodding his head like the good friend and ally that he has been for so many years.
Baroness Hooper: I am glad to have the assurance from my noble friend that he does not propose to divide the Committee on this particular point. Of course, we were fully aware of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, during the Second Reading debate, and indeed of the report of my noble friend Lord Renton which has been referred to.
On the question of whether procedural matters of this kind are in a schedule rather than in a clause, I think that this is essentially a matter of choice. After all, it does not greatly affect the parliamentary process. The matters dealt with in this clause will be of considerable interest and use to governing bodies; and I think that they will find them helpful to have them stated in a clause in the part dealing with school government. It is essentially a housekeeping clause, as has been said, and since it is largely a technical one I hope we need not be further detained on it.
Lord Renton: I am very disappointed.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Training of school governors.
. A central advisory unit shall be set up to—

(a) collect and publicise governor training materials;

(b) promote good practices in governor training; and

(c) develop new initiatives in governor training and support.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment, when I look at it, is a very sensible one, but it is in a rather curious place. I really think that this matter ought to be dealt with in Part IV of the Bill when we are concerned with matters such as training. Clause 43, I think it is, is concerned with training.
I hasten to say that this is a matter on which we are in very substantial agreement with the Government and any amendments we put forward will be designed to give greater effect to the Government's intentions, and of course to secure the funding position for local authorities. However, on reflection I think that this is not the right place or the right time to debate this amendment. I shall seek to have it reinserted at a more appropriate place for a later stage in Committee and not move it now.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Grouping of schools under single governing body]:
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 10, line 14, at end insert—
("save that in Wales a school designated as a Welsh medium school or a school with a Welsh medium unit shall not be grouped with an English medium school.")
The noble Lord said: I think this can be dealt with fairly rapidly, because our opposition is to grouping of any sorts of school and is therefore to the whole of Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill. I move the amendment now formally only to establish whether the Government have sympathy for the objective, which seems to be reasonable and modest, to secure that Welsh medium schools are not submerged in English medium schools; and it is only in order to give the Government an opportunity to react now that I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to preclude local education authorities from resolving that any two or more maintained schools may be grouped for school government purposes if any school involved is a Welsh medium school or one that has a Welsh medium unit attached to it. I must draw attention to subsection (1)(c) of Clause 9 which, I believe, meets the point behind the amendment. That part of the Bill makes it clear that in the kind of case the amendment seeks to cover, grouping of schools under a single governing body by a local education authority cannot be automatic. It must be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State for Wales.
This was a deliberate insertion in order to meet the legitimate concerns of parents and pupils in Welsh medium schools and units. We believe that this is the right way to handle the matter rather than by specific exclusions. There may be exceptional cases where a local authority feels that it has a strong case for grouping English and Welsh medium schools, and it is right in those circumstances that it should have the opportunity to make out its case to the Secretary of State. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I have indicated that we believe that the point he makes has been met in this clause of the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are grateful for Clause 9(1)(c) but it does not meet the point of the amendment. Clause 9 distinguishes between the two categories of school in Wales for grouping purposes. There are the schools where there is no significant difference between them in their use of the Welsh language. They can be grouped without the consent of the Secretary of State. Then there are the schools where there is a significant difference in the use of the language, and their grouping can proceed only with the consent of the Secretary of State. This amendment establishes a third category; namely, where there is a designated Welsh medium school or unit, it cannot be grouped with a non-designated Welsh medium school or unit. In
1374
other words, the Secretary of State, in this case, would not have the authority to approve such a grouping.
I understand that the Welsh medium schools that have been grouped with non-Welsh medium schools are highly critical of the Secretary of State's decision that authorised the grouping. Having experienced his judgment once, they want to put the issue henceforth beyond his discretion. They do not want to rely on Clause 9(1)(c). In Cardiff, every Welsh medium school in the primary sector is grouped with an English medium school. Indeed, there is one Welsh medium school that has been grouped with two English medium schools, although the parents had objected to the application to the Secretary of State. Time is getting on, and I shall not give particular examples. But the evidence that we have of the grouping of these two categories of school draws attention to the difficulties inherent in grouping. The inference that we should draw from the evidence is that the two categories should not be merged and that this should be beyond the discretion of the Secretary of State so that there is a distinction. The amendment deals with the position that Clause 9(1)(c) does not deal with satisfactorily.
Baroness Young: I take the point that the noble Lord makes that there is this problem. If I have understood the position correctly, it is similar to that referred to in the earlier amendment on schools with Welsh medium units attached to them. The noble Lord's concern is that they should not be grouped with English schools. He has given examples of where this has happened. I shall look carefully tomorrow at Hansard to see what he has said about the matter and come back to him if I have not correctly understood.
My understanding of the position is that in the circumstances the noble Lord has described the Secretary of State for Wales would clearly need a great deal of convincing to override the kind of considerations which he has adumbrated in his remarks on this amendment. There would have to be, from the point of view of the local authority, overriding reasons for consenting to a grouping of that kind. I take that point. Primia facie, that would appear to go against the kind of considerations which underlie the whole of the principle of this Bill: that schools would have their own governing bodies because of their distinctive character.
I hope that the noble Lord will understand that under the provisions of Clause 9 there would be this opportunity for the Secretary of State to look at it, and to consider the situation carefully against the background of all the provisions of the Bill. I therefore think it unlikely that the kind of situation which he has described would happen.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I shall certainly undertake to look very carefully at what he has said. If there is something more I shall undertake to get in touch with him either by letter or by meeting him to go more fully into the situation which the noble Lord has described.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I find myself wholly convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord

1375
Prys-Davies. I think that the Minister has gone as far as one can reasonably expect. The noble Baroness will have to do some reading of my noble friend's speech; and my noble friend will have to do some reading of her speech. In the light of that, I do not doubt that we shall come to a satisfactory conclusion at a later stage, whether or not we have to put down a further amendment. In the light of those considerations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friends and I have given notice of our intention to oppose the Questions on both of these clauses. Clauses 8 and 9 are closely related. My noble friend Lord Taylor will no doubt wish to refer to the very lengthy considerations of the Taylor committee about the grouping of governing bodies. This was a matter which caused them considerable concern, not least because of the very substantial abuses which took place under the preceding legislation. Reference was made at Second Reading to the fact that Manchester Local Education Authority for many years thought it appropriate to group all of their schools together under one governing body, which was in effect the education committee. Reference was also made to Sir James Graham of Leeds, who managed to use the 1902 Act to circumvent the provisions of the 1870 Act. This is a matter which goes back a number of years.
I am the first to accept that, in particular in Clause 9(1), the Government have closed most of the loopholes which are available for abuse of grouping powers. Clause 9(1)(a) says that the Secretary of State has to give his approval to a proposed grouping unless the group consists only of two primary schools both of which serve substantially the same area, and neither is a special school, and the Welsh provision with which we have dealt in the preceding amendment.
The reason for opposing these two clauses is threefold. First, this is another example of the attempt to put on to the face of a Bill extraordinarily complicated procedures which should be dealt with in schedules or regulations. There is virtually nothing in Clause 8 which ought to be in a Bill. Secondly, despite what has just been said about Welsh schools, we are not entirely satisfied that the Secretary of State's say-so will be an effective block to undesirable groupings, partly because it is difficult to see how, if there are a considerable number of proposals for groupings put to the Secretary of State, he can actually deal with any number of them effectively. There are several places in the Bill where the Secretary of State puts upon himself and his department obligations to concern himself with the day-to-day activities of individual local education authorities and individual governing bodies which seem to us wholly undesirable. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the Secretary of State's approval is an adequate safeguard.
Thirdly, on the issue of two primary schools serving substantially the same area, we presume that what is being referred to is what used to be called "JMI schools", where the infant school and the junior school
1376
are in the same building and share some common facilities. The assumption appears to be that it is satisfactory to have a group governing body for those two schools. I have served on the group governing body of a JMI school and I have served on the group governing bodies of more than two primary schools in the same area. I am bound to say that I found both of those types of governing body wholly unsatisfactory. In one instance the governing body concerned managed several primary schools and it consisted of little more than head teachers' reports and cosy questioning, but no real consideration for the needs of the school. We were all seated on tiny chairs listening to a series of head teachers giving necessarily abbreviated reports.
In the case of a joint governing body of a JMI, the situation is rather different. Of course the people concerned know each other rather better. However, when there is an infant and a junior school together there is definitely the feeling that the infant school is somehow inferior to the junior school in other ways apart from the age of the children. There is the feeling that such a group governing body does not really do justice to the needs of the infant school.
Therefore, in the particular case of the two primary schools both serving the same area, I would say that the consent of the Secretary of State—if that were a sensible procedure at all—would be even more strongly needed. In other words, what we are saying is that there are no real exceptions to the rule that the grouping of governing bodies is undesirable. There are many local authorities which have succeeded in having ungrouped governing bodies. There is no reason to suppose that the requirement to have ungrouped governing bodies will cause excessive difficulty to local education authorities. In the circumstances, surely it is better to remove all the provisions in Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill.
Baroness Young: I have listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has said on both Clauses 8 and 9, and with the permission of the Committee I should like to speak to both clauses at the same time. Clause 8 re-enacts Section 3 of the 1980 Act and provides for the detailed procedures to be followed where schools are to be grouped under a single governing body, or where those groupings are to be terminated. However, it introduces a new requirement for grouped schools which, like every other school, are to have an instrument of government to establish the constitution of the governing body and to contain other provisions for their proceedings, term of office and related matters.
In the past, such matters were dealt with in an arrangement made by the LEA, but we believe that it is important that the governing body of a grouped school, like any other governing body, should have a formal instrument of government subject to all the procedures for making these documents in Part I.
10.15 p.m.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said—and as was argued by many noble Lords at Second Reading—he believes that each school should have its own

1377
governing body and that none should be grouped. We have no difficulty in agreeing with the general proposition that the governing body is a major determinant of a school's individuality and that therefore schools should, by and large, have their own governing bodies. But the 1980 Act recognised that there were some schools and circumstances where it was not only sensible but positively advantageous for them to share a governing body; for example, an infants' school feeding a junior school on the same site, perhaps with strong curricular links.
We have slightly tightened in Clause 9 the conditions in which the LEAs can group schools without the consent of the Secretary of State because, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, rightly said, under the 1980 Act some LEAs had observed the letter but not the spirit of the law, and had grouped primary schools many miles apart. We believe that schools should be grouped only where a single governing body can adequately meet the school's distinctive needs, but we recognise that in some circumstances grouping may be beneficial and we therefore believe that the provisions in Clauses 8 and 9 are necessary.
Perhaps I should add, on Clause 9, that the powers of the Secretary of State to approve groupings are used sparingly. The guiding principle is that a single governing body should adequately meet the distinctive needs of the schools involved. The sort of cases that might be approved are either an infant and junior school linked, or two infants' schools which both feed a nearby junior school with close curricular links, or a junior and senior high school, or the upper and lower parts of an 11 to 18 school which happened to be organised as two separate schools.
I hope that with this explanation it will be accepted that the provisions of Clause 9 restrict the circumstances where grouping is permissible so that schools are still able to develop their own individual identity and sense of purpose, because that is a fundamental principle of the Bill. Following our experience of the 1980 Act it will be apparent that the circumstances of grouping have now been restricted further than they were before, and are allowed in particular circumstances where the local education authority and the Secretary of State believe that it would be to the advantage of the schools concerned.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I disagree entirely with the noble Baroness on this. In my experience, since the 1980 Act was introduced it has not worked even where you have two schools on one site co-operating together. At this time in the evening I have no intention of entering into a long debate, but I give notice of my intention of putting down an amendment at Report stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I always find the noble Baroness a very effective advocate. I must say that on this occasion I find her brief wholly unconvincing. Nine-tenths of it was devoted to saying how little grouping there was going to be, and the only statement of defence for the remaining grouping was to say, "In some circumstances grouping may be beneficial". She
1378
did not say in what circumstances grouping may be beneficial, and she did not say what benefits might be thought to arise from it. I suggest that when my noble friend fulfils his promise to bring the matter back to a more populous Committee, or at a later stage of the Bill, the Government ought to have a better brief than they have had this evening.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Miscellaneous]:
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 17, line 10, at beginning insert—
("( ) It shall be a duty of the local education authority to consult the head teacher of a school before the appointment of a governor to the governing body of that school by the local education authority. After the appointment is made, the head teacher shall be notified of the names and addresses of any governors so appointed. The head teacher shall have the right to object to that appointment within two weeks of receipt of notification of appointment. In the event of such an objection being made, the local education authority shall be obliged to reconsider the appointment. If the appointment is confirmed, there shall be no right of further objection.").
The noble Lord said: We have spent a long afternoon and evening discussing the composition of governing bodies. No mention has yet been made of the position of head teachers. I have great sympathy for head teachers. There is no reason why we should have discussed them yet, but I should like briefly to do so now.
We tend to stand on the touchline and to observe, comment and criticise from the outside, but head teachers, deputy teachers and their staffs have the very tough job of running schools. It is most important to them, and to the head teacher in particular, that the governing body with whom he or she has to deal should be sympathetic and supportive and should also be active and dedicated. We have confined our thoughts to their being non-political, and that is a necessity as well. But governing bodies need to have those other qualities.
Not all governors do, I am afraid. As a matter of fact, there is a survey which shows that there is an enormous variety in the governing bodies in the country, between those who have those qualities that I have outlined and those who do not. I told the Committee earlier this evening of one school governing body I heard of a little while ago, and of whom the headmaster had to say quite honestly that only four out of 18 governors were of the slightest use, or had any dedication or true interest.
It is for these reasons that I feel there should be some communication between local education authorities and the head teacher over their appointments or nominations for governors. Not only is the head teacher very often not consulted, but he often does not even know who is appointed. I heard of a case a little while ago in with the head teacher learnt who was to be the newly appointed governor from the person herself. She just said, "Hello. Good morning. I'm your new governor".
I therefore feel that something needs to be done about this matter. I heard of another case in which the

1379
head teacher of a large school learnt of the appointment by the local education authority of a governor who, in her words, was completely persona non grata. I was unable to discover from her exactly what she meant by that, but I understood her to mean that she was the sort of person who should not be in a school and should not have any dealings with a school. She was the nomination of the local education authority.
I therefore feel that head teachers should be more closely involved in some way in the local education authority appointments. I am not claiming that the drafting of this amendment is perfect. I think it could be improved, but I hope that some consideration will be given to this matter by the Minister and that the Committee will also give it consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I understand the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, in moving this amendment, but unfortunately I have to say that I do not think the amendment adds particularly usefully to the existing legal position.
As the amendment recognises, it would not be appropriate to give the head teacher a veto over the local authority's appointment of a governor. What is proposed is that there should be a formal opportunity for the head teacher to ask the local education authority to think again about an appointment. Head teachers already have equivalent powers. No one needs specific statutory powers to make representations to a local education authority. A local education authority is under the usual administrative law duty to give proper consideration to matters brought to its attention. It would be acting unreasonably otherwise and subject to correction by the Secretary of State using his powers under Section 68 of the 1944 Act.
The Government are understandably reluctant to add unnecessarily to the statute book and, as I have indicated, although sympathetic to the reasons behind this amendment, the intention of the amendment is already fully available. Indeed, given that we are talking of what is probably only a small minority of possibly sensitive cases, I think it might even be counter-productive to seek to deal with such matters in the high profile way that this amendment suggests. In all the circumstances, I must ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I thank the Minister for her reply. I am aware that the amendment as worded appears in the first half to offer to the head teacher the power to veto; and this I feel is too strongly worded. My plea was that the head teacher should have the right to see the names and to object, and if objection were overruled that would have to be accepted. However, in the circumstances, and bearing in mind what the Minister has said about the facilities already being available, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 17, line 25, at end insert ("subject to guidelines provided by the Secretary of State")
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to the conduct of parent governor elections. I am conscious that there are other amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, on this matter and, indeed, another amendment in my name and in that of my noble friend Lord Irving. But I think that this is probably the least controversial way in which to raise the issue of parent governor elections.
We have had it represented to us, and I think that it is the experience of many, that there are possibilities for head teachers, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said, to influence the election or selection of parent governors. It is not an entirely fanciful thing to say that there can be parents' meetings at which the question of the election of a parent governor arises and the head teacher says, "Now we come to the election of the parent governor. So-and-so is your existing governor. He or she has done an excellent job". Then he may say either, "Are there any other nominations?" or, "I propose that so-and-so should continue as the parent governor".
Whatever sympathy one may have with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, to have the head teacher consulted, I do not think that anybody would wish the head teacher to have an influence on the election in the way that it can, and, indeed, does happen. What this amendment would achieve is that the Secretary of State should provide guidance to local authorities on how to conduct successful elections for parent governors. The Advisory Centre for Education has carried out a survey on this and has found that there are many cases where either the head teacher or the clerk to the governors has the responsibility for the election of parent governors. There is a huge diversity of practice, and I should have thought that most head teachers and clerks to governors would welcome guidelines as to how to conduct democratic elections.
This is not in any way an imposition on the authority, on the head teacher or on the clerk to the governors. It is trying to help all of those concerned to produce the satisfactory outcome which I believe to be the intention of the Government. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: I draw attention to the provisions of subsection (5) of this clause which gives some guidance on the conduct of parent governor elections. The Government recognise that there has been some confusion about the provisions of Section 2(9) of the 1980 Act and parents' rights to participate in parent governor elections. Subsection (5) clarifies the position. It prevents, for example, LEAs or governing bodies deciding that only one vote per household is allowed.
I do not believe that more detailed guidance is practicable or desirable. It is appropriate that LEAs—and, in the case of aided and special agreement schools governing bodies—should be able to determine the precise election arrangements that best suit their local circumstances. I do not think that democracy is necessarily harmed by having a variety of electoral

1381
arrangements, and any guidance offered by the Secretary of State could only be so broad as to be meaningless. I ask the noble Lord not to insist that he undertake such a wasteful task.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am afraid that I dispute that, even at this time of night. The noble Earl is assuming that the Secretary of State in his guidelines has to specify either exactly what form the elections should take or make the guidelines so vague as to be useless. There is a third option. It is possible for the Secretary of State to describe a number of ways in which the elections could take place and leave it to the local authority to decide which of those ways is the most appropriate for its circumstances. In that way the Secretary of State would not be overbearing or forcing a particular solution on a local authority; he would be providing the kind of practical help for what is after all a complex matter which I should have thought most local authorities would welcome and find helpful.
I do not want to spell all that out by putting it on the face of the Bill. I should earn the justified criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if I did that. Here is an example, because it is not on the face of the Bill and the amendment speaks of guidelines, of how it is possible for our intentions to be seriously distorted, no doubt unwittingly, by what the noble Earl said. We shall have to find some other method of convincing the Government of the justice of the case. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 17, line 27, leave out from ("dates") to end of line 29 and insert—
("( ) An election of governors to the governing body shall be conducted under the principles of proportional representation using the single transferable vote system.")
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl has just chided the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for wishing a wasteful task on the Secretary of State. In this amendment I am relieving him of that wasteful task by suggesting the method that should be used. Apart from the basic fairness of the proportional system, I should like to return to the remarks that I made when we were considering Amendment No. 22 which, the Committee will recall, was an attempt to give some effort to the Swann Committee's concern over the election of parents from ethnic minorities.
It seems to me that if we want to ensure a spread of parent governors, STV is clearly the best system. Many people are likely to exercise a second preference in favour of ethnic minority parents where the school's ethnic mix makes that a fair and reasonable thing to do. I have already spoken this evening of a specific school where that is done with success and where the result reflects very much that school's ethnic mix.
In view of the noble Earl's generosity to me this evening, I do not propose to elaborate the point any further or to deliver yet another speech on PR to him, but I think that I have made some of the shortest speeches in favour of PR ever advanced in the Chamber. I hope that I shall be given some credit for that. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I should have been disappointed had the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, not moved his amendment tonight, particularly after he talked in such moving terms about his experience of PR in a boarding school run by ILEA. I am sure he must have been the person to influence the governing body to come to that decision. The noble Lord I see shakes his head. However, it shows how high is my opinion of his ability to put his case well that I should have thought that the boarding school governors would have decided to have their elections by PR. I think the Committee would have been disappointed had we missed this opportunity to discuss PR.
However, I do not think the Committee will be surprised to hear me suggest that it would not be appropriate to require proportional representation in the election of parent and teacher governors. But I should like to reassure the noble Lord and his noble friends that neither are we requiring the first past the post system. We are leaving electoral arrangements to be determined by the appropriate authority, subject only to the requirements of subsections (4) and (5) of this clause for a secret ballot, and for ensuring that parents are enabled to participate in the elections.
Therefore, if LEAs or governing bodies agree with the noble Lord about the effectiveness of proportional representation, they are free to conduct the election in accordance with that system. The Government believe that LEAs and, as appropriate, governing bodies are best placed to determine their own electoral arrangements in the light of local circumstances. It is on these grounds, and without considering whether proportional representation is or is not a desirable matter, that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: Just as the noble Baroness was not surprised that I moved the amendment in the terms that I did, I am not surprised that she has advised the Committee to reject it. I did not intend to press it at this late hour; I simply wanted to air it. I want to discuss the matter again with my noble friends before we get to the Report stage of the Bill, and on those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 17, line 31, after ("secret") insert ("postal")
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to something which is more fundamental. I accept that there could be an argument in favour of leaving to local decision what form of election is to be used, but the mechanics of that election are of the greatest importance. The Government have already specified a secret vote and we have simply added in this amendment the single word "postal". I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his Amendment No. 41, also asks for a postal vote and I think his amendment is a little less specific than mine, stating,
"and must include the opportunity for a postal vote".
But the point seems to be made in both amendments that this is important.
Voting, even at a well-attended meeting with a ballot box, will not spread the net in such a way as to catch all the parents, and, if the Government are really

1383
interested in extending parent power as widely and as fairly as possible, I suggest that they accept the proposal in this amendment so that the opportunity to vote will reach all those who are entitled to that vote. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I prefer my amendment, Amendment No. 41, and I do not think it is appropriate to have two debates on two different amendments. The reason why I prefer my amendment is that I think an opportunity for a postal vote is more appropriate when there could well be a considerable part of the voting actually taking place at a meeting and when the need for a postal vote is complementary to that. In my professional organisation we have an annual general meeting. Postal votes can be sent in by the time of the start of the meeting, but those who come to the meeting can cast their votes in a secret ballot at the meeting itself, rather than sending them by post. That seems to me to be a more appropriate solution to the compulsory postal ballot which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is proposing.
I should also say that in the terms of the Bill the Government are committed to a secret postal ballot or a ballot with an opportunity for a postal vote. Subsection (4) refers to a secret ballot. Subsection (5) refers to an obligation that the authority should,
"take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every person who is known to them to be a parent of a registered pupil at the school is … given an opportunity",
to vote at the election.
If I were a parent and I were, for example, disabled or working night shifts and unable to go to a meeting, I would certainly want to argue to the local authority that that obligation under subsection (5) required the local authority to give me an opportunity to cast my vote by post, because I certainly could not get it in any other way. I would argue that a postal vote is "reasonably practicable". Therefore, if the Government make the right noises now, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and I could withdraw our amendments and retire happy.
Baroness Young: I have listened very carefully to what has been said on both these amendments. We think the provisions proposed in these amendments concern matters which are best left to the LEAs and the governing bodies' discretion. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was making this point quite clearly when he quoted Clause 14(4) and (5), which governs the general circumstances of the voting.
There will be schools whose circumstances will make a postal ballot the most practical method of conducting parent governor elections, and the LEA or the governing body, as appropriate, is free to adopt such a method if it wishes to do so. In some cases, a postal ballot could be more expensive than voting by a ballot box and voting in person. This will clearly be a factor which those conducting the elections should be allowed to consider. In particular, we would find it difficult to agree that it is necessary for teacher governor elections to be conducted by postal ballot. One has to assume that most of the electorate would have no great difficulty in voting at school.
1384
In some schools serving tightly-knit communities, personal voting could well be a perfectly satisfactory method of conducting elections, especially if it was combined with the normal proceedings on the hustings for the candidates. We would not want to rule out this option. But as I indicated at the start of my remarks, nothing in this clause precludes a postal ballot or the opportunity for a postal ballot, and what is important is that the electoral arrangements are read in conjunction with all the provisions of the clause which makes these alternatives possible. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Renton: I am sorry to trouble the Committee further at this late hour, but a very serious point arises out of the prospect of leaving it to the local authorities. May I explain the experience of my former constituency of Huntingdonshire where there were several thousand men serving in the RAF on two large stations. Some of their children were educated locally—therefore, no problem—but most of the airmen were on temporary posting to these places, and their children were in different local authorities all over the country. Therefore, if we leave it to the local authorities some airmen may find that they have a postal vote and others would find that they have not. That would not seem to be appropriate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, replies, I think that our colleagues who have responsibility for the employment brief would be amused to find the Government supporting workplace ballots and the Opposition supporting postal ballots if it came to trade union legislation. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, thinks, but I thought that the Government's reply was peculiarly unsatisfactory and requires further action.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in that respect. When he explained the reasons behind the wording of Amendment No. 41, he won me round to it. I am bound to say that it seems better to take account both of avoiding expense where that expense is unnecessary and casting one's net wide enough to make sure that one gets everybody in. In the light of this debate, and perhaps after further discussions with the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Renton, I may return to this point at a later stage of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I had given notice of my intention to oppose the Question, That the clause shall stand part of the Bill, but when I spoke to Clause 7 I said that I would not make another speech. I was so disappointed by the reply that I received on Clause 7 that I do not wish my disappointment to be doubled.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: We have probably made enough progress on the Bill for one evening. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Museum of London Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.