Lords Sitting of 1 May 1986

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

Skill Shortages in Manufacturing
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to remedy the shortage of skilled workers in manufacturing industry.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, recent evidence on skill shortages in manufacturing industry shows that some skills are in short supply in a limited number of sectors. It is primarily for industry itself to resolve this, but the Government are investing some £1·4 billion this year in the Manpower Services Commission's vocational education and training programmes in order to create a more positive environment for training and make some direct contribution to the supply of skills in most demand.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure that he is—that just last month, in a joint report between the CBI and the Manpower Services Commission, it was stated that one in seven manufacturing firms in this country has had to reduce production because of a lack of skilled workers? Do the Government accept no responsibility whatever for training workers in this country in the skills necessary to sustain our manufacturing industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should have thought that expenditure of £1·4 billion—an all-time high—would show that this Government are very concerned indeed to ensure an adequate supply of skilled labour.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that yesterday his reply when he was asked about the number of firms applying for adult training schemes was very sad? The vast majority of firms are not making any attempt to carry out adult training. Is it not therefore ironic that the firms that need skilled workers are not taking part in the adult training schemes that are available? Will the noble Lord elaborate on what the Government intend to do to get these firms which need skilled workers to go in for the simple matter of training them so that they become available?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, but these are two distinct matters. I can express some satisfaction with the Government's efforts towards meeting the demand for skills in short supply but at the same time dissatisfaction about the view taken by employers towards their responsibilities for carrying out training.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the shortage of skilled engineers and draughtsmen, particularly in Lancashire? What proportion of the money is being allocated for training such people?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the usual question I am asked in relation to Lancashire concerns the high level of unemployment. I was not aware until this moment that draughtsmen were in short supply there. I shall look into the matter.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord not as disturbed as the rest of us that every time in the postwar economic history of Britain there has been a resurgence of economic activity, and in particular new prospects for our exporting abroad, we seem to come across the same problem? May I mention that I have just come back from visiting an exhibition held by GEC at Wembley, where I was speaking to its executives about problems over the recruitment of trained engineers? I was told that the company was extremely short of people in this category.
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, but that has been a symptom of postwar experience in this country alongside the decline of the enterprise culture. We have somehow not bothered about training or about the provision of engineers. We have looked more towards other skills. That is changing today. I only hope that we have time to make up the shortage.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that whereas there are 600,000 apprentices in West Germany there are only 40,000 in this country? Is he further aware that whereas 94 per cent. of 17 year-olds in Japan are at school or in full-time education, the figure is only 30 per cent. in this country? Is he also aware that between 1981 and 1984 the university population of this country was cut by 10,000? There were 10,000 fewer university students in 1984 than in 1981. Is this not a government responsibility?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is, I believe, safe to say that, ever since 1982 when I went to the Manpower Services Commission, and, indeed, for years before, I was aware of the woefully inadequate measures of training for young people. However, it is unfair to compare apprenticeships which are a formal part of the German education and training system and apprenticeships in this country which have been limited in the main to the construction and engineering sectors. Today, we have the national two-year YTS. We have training for young people on a scale unparalleled in our history. We shall see as the years go by that we catch up with our principal competitors. As to universities, that is another question.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the comparatively high wages that it has been necessary in the past to pay apprentices have been one reason why firms have been loath to take on youngsters for training?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in 1983, the electricians' union agreed a national deal under which it halved the level of apprentice wages. As a result, the number of apprentices in the electricity industry more than doubled. The engineers refused to do the same, and the decline continued. There is a great correlation between the level of young people's wages and the opportunities for work.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the allocation of money for training. Can the noble Lord say precisely how this money is to be spent and through which agencies it will be channelled by his department? Can he say how many skilled workers over the next years will be trained as a result and in what branches of skill they will be trained?
Lord Young of Graffham: Of course, my Lords; up to about 400,000 young people a year will be entering YTS. They will be coming out of a two-year YTS well on the road towards vocational qualifications. That is unparalleled in our history. In a year or two's time, there will be up to 700,000 young people engaged on vocational skill training. In addition, we shall be helping up to a quarter of a million people each year on adult training schemes. There has never been such a concerted effort towards training by government at any time in our history. Ten years ago, when the problem of youth training first came up, the then government looked at the principle of YTS and discarded it because of cost. That speaks for itself.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is the Minister encouraging girls as well as young men to go into engineering? I understand that many girls are interested in pursuing this line.
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. During my time as chairman of the Manpower Services Commission we gave total backing to WISE and towards programmes helping young women and young girls to go into engineering. Indeed, the principle of all Manpower Services Commission schemes has been no discrimination on grounds of sex or, for that matter, on any ground.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Is the noble Lord aware, as he has mentioned the position 10 years ago, that unemployment was then at less than a million? Will he also take account of the serious complaints emanating from the universities and the polytechnics at the Government cutback in the very important work of producing scientists and engineers?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, 10 years ago was the time when we should have laid the foundation for training young people and perhaps then the outcome would have been better. That is, however, a different question. As for universities and polytechnics, the Government have to ensure that the amount of research and training done helps to play a part in the economic life of the nation and is not research done simply for its own sake.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in relation to the question asked by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, is my noble friend aware that there are well over 1,000
388
places in engineering unfilled at British universities because the schools are not turning out people qualified to enter upon these courses?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, and a further cause of concern is this. The Government have entered upon a programme to give additional resources to the universities for the provision of more electronic engineers. I hope very much that the schools system will respond by providing enough people with suitable qualifications for those courses.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that after seven years of a Conservative Government it is a disgrace that there are 1,000 places unfilled?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, all I will say is that the responsibility for education in this country is vested in local education authorities and not in central government. That is something that everyone in your Lordships' House would do well to remember.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord told me that reductions in university places was "another matter". It should not be just "another matter" for the Government that 10,000 places were lost between 1981 and 1983. Is this not reducing essential research and training for our manufacturing industry by reducing the number of undergraduates within the universities, and is that not the Government's responsibility?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is another matter because that is another question. But if the noble Lord was asserting that the places lost have a direct relation to manufacturing industry, I venture to disagree with him. If he would care to put down a Question on the subject, I am quite sure that we shall provide the answer.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, following the replies of the noble Lord, may we take it that he utterly rejects the old fashioned capitalist idea that when labour is in short supply better wages should be offered?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe greatly in the market principle. I am sure that wages rise to increase supply, and eventually supply will rise to fill demand.
Lord Annan: My Lords, has not the shortfall to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred in the universities been partly taken up by the vacant places in polytechnics, and is not the polytechnic level in engineering one that we badly need to improve? Will the Minister consider making representations to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education that more universities should be urged to go over to sandwich course degrees? It is only through sandwich course degrees that we shall get close co-operation between industry and universities.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall gladly do that. There are some who feel that an unsatisfactory outcome of Robbins was the conversion of many very

389
good polytechnics to universities. But we should be looking at our centres of excellence and ensuring that they conform more closely to the needs of industry and commerce and to the life of this country. But I shall convey that message to my right honourable friend.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, if the Minister believes so much in the purity of supply and demand, why is he spending £1·4 billion in this area?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the reason is that I believe in lubricating supply and demand, and that is a very good lubricant.

"Air Transport and the Consumer"
3.14 p.m.
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 what action they propose to take following receipt of the report from the National Consumer Council entitled Air Transport and the Consumer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we have strongly welcomed this report and its support for our campaign to liberalise air services in Europe. We hope that it will be read widely by consumer groups and governments throughout Europe. For our part, we are continuing to press for further liberalisation in Europe, both bilaterally and multilaterally.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was not sure who would be answering the Question today? It was the Department of Trade and Industry which requested the report, whereas the responsibility for civil aviation rests with the Department of Transport. Is he further aware that I say that knowing that the request was made in October 1984; and that may have been the reason?
While we all hope that the report will be widely read, we should like the Government to do something about it. May I ask the Minister whether he agrees that, while the decision reached by the European Court is of great interest, and we shall come back to it later, it has a special significance in that it arose out of a refusal by the court to allow an appeal by the French Government against M. Jacques Maillot, who is the head of Nouvelles Frontieres, which is the second largest chain in France, for the issuing of cheap fares?
Finally, is he aware that the first page of the National Consumer Council Report deals with the Treaty of Rome? Can he comment further on any action that the Government might take?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked her Question of Her Majesty's Government and it was indeed Her Majesty's Government who replied. With regard to the judgment of the European Court yesterday, it is very
390
wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But in view of its importance I think that it would be helpful to the House if I made this comment. The judgment was long and complicated. Therefore I can give only preliminary reactions on behalf of the Government. However, the ruling generally is helpful to our efforts to secure liberalisation of air transport in Europe and it is therefore welcome. We particularly welcome the fact that the court has now made clear beyond doubt what we have said all along, that EC competition rules apply to aviation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl convey to his noble friend Lord Bethell the Government's appreciation of his efforts in this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall indeed pass on the compliments of the noble Lord to my noble friend. But we hope that we shall be able to succeed where my noble friend has not by negotiation.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it sufficient for the Minister merely to say that the Government welcome the report? The report covers 104 pages and has 29 recommendations, and there are six working papers covering another 134 pages. Would it not be advisable for them perhaps to issue a green paper giving full details?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government asked for the report. The comments and recommendations to a large extent support the Government's policy. We have therefore not considered it necessary to issue a further green paper.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: May I ask the Minister, without being referred to the usual channels, and as the Leader of the House is here, whether it would be courteous to the National Consumer Council, which has produced this enormous report after great research, if we had time for a debate, not necessarily on what the Government will do but on what the National Consumer Council has reported to the Government? Does the Minister think that he could recommend to his noble friend the Leader of the House that we might have government time to debate the report?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with my noble friends the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip beside me I can do no more than remind them of the request of the noble Baroness.

HBMC: Finanical Management
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, pursuant to Lord Elton's reply of 21st April [H.L. Debates, col. 1068], which referred to additional expenditure by the marketing division of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission to cover marketing expenditure which "had not been properly

391
authorised", what changes have been made in the original budgets of the other divisions of the commission.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, the budget for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for 1985–86 was £59 million. I understand that at the midpoint of that year the commission identified savings and underspends achieved in the normal course of business which amounted to rather less than 2 per cent. of that total. This was more than sufficient to meet the expenditure to which the noble Baroness's original Question referred.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, I should like to ask him whether there has been any contraction in the other projects of the other divisions—for instance, in historic buildings or archaeology. The noble Lord in his reply said that the excess expenditure in the marketing division was £0.6 million, which represents a 50 per cent. increase over the original budget for that division. I should like to know who authorised this? Who was responsible for controlling it? Are those who were responsible for it still with the Commission?
Lord Elton: My Lords, with regard to the first supplementary question of the noble Baroness, I think that on reflection she will find the reply implicit in my first and substantive Answer. The amount of money involved—which was £600,000—was substantially less than the contingency money available to the Commission at the half-year point. The virement between different vote heads at no stage breached the maximum which requires ministerial sanction.
With regard to the second supplementary question of the noble Baroness, the difficulty arose because the money was not properly authorised. That was revealed by the audit report to which I referred in my first Answer. I can tell the noble Baroness—as I believe I have already made clear—that our own auditors will be conducting a further audit later this year.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister but the situation really is not satisfactory. The noble Lord has not answered the question which I put to him about who authorised this and who was responsible for this expenditure, which the noble Lord described in his Written Answer on 21st April at col. 1068 as not being,
"properly authorised or sufficiently rigorously controlled".
Moreover, if there were an underspend, and if this unfortunate excess expenditure had not taken place, am I not right in assuming that the money would have been available to be spent on other necessary matters instead of there being an overspend by the marketing division which I would certainly give the Minister credit for at no point trying to defend?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is always true that if you spend money on one thing it is not available to be spent on another. In this case the money was from the contingency amount made available at the mid-year in the way in which I have described. As to individual
392
responsibility, that is a matter which has been looked into by the commission. I do not think that I should name in Parliament those who signed cheques, but I assure the noble Baroness that we are seized of the matter and that there will be a further departmental audit later this year.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, surely it is a question, not of who signed the cheques but of who authorised the signing of the cheques which involved expenditure which was 50 per cent. greater than the marketing budget. The noble Lord said in his earlier reply that it was not "properly authorised". Who authorised it?
Lord Elton: My Lords, when a person signs a cheque without proper authority he authorises it himself, and that was the irregularity to which I referred.

Royal Festival Hall: Foyer Space
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the South Bank Board decided to close the "Bookspace" literature centre in the Royal Festival Hall.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the South Bank Board are carrying out a full review of the foyer space in the South Bank concert halls, and are considering the relocation of "Bookspace". It is the board's intention to increase the presence of literature on the South Bank.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and accept that a review is being carried out. However, is it not the case that "Bookspace" has been operating for only a few months, has been very successful and is the one way of bringing literature and books together in a cultural mix with the other arts on the South Bank? Will he give us further assurance that space will be made available, even if in the beginning it is on a temporary basis, so that the continuity will not be broken? Is he aware that the year I have heard mentioned is 1988? It would be a great pity if nothing were done about books or literary events until then.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the GLC asked the designated South Bank Board whether, if they did install the "Bookspace" area, they would propose to continue to use the space for literature. They were told that the South Bank Board would not so decide to do. It is, therefore, rather surprising that the GLC nonetheless went to the trouble and expense of creating something which they knew would be moved in five months' time.
The second supplementary question of the noble Baroness is perfectly understandable: the noble Baroness wants to see literature provided for. There are many plans, and I am sure that they will be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I bear in mind and appreciate what the Minister has said. However, would he not agree that the Royal Festival Hall is the quality cultural centre of not only London but the United Kingdom, and that there are many people involved in these great activities who are somewhat apprehensive as to its future? Will the Minister give some assurance and make some statement, if not today at some time, to assuage those fears?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can see no reason at all why anybody should be apprehensive about the future of the Festival Hall. It is part of the complex for which the South Bank Board are the ground landlords, and I have every confidence in the South Bank Board.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that, even by its political opponents, it is generally agreed that the GLC made a great success of the improvements which they carried out at the Royal Festival Hall? Would the noble Lord also agree that the South Bank Board would be well advised to follow up or to carry on that policy, rather than to make changes for the sake of making them?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, not in this particular case. the fact of the matter is that the area which was called "Bookspace" totally blotted out the splendid view of the Thames and the London skyline, so that nobody could see them at all. Now the South Bank Board have some rather better plans. They are looking into the possibility of accommodating the Arts Council's Poetry Library on the South Bank; they are considering whether the Purcell Room could be more closely identified with literature in performance—for example, poetry readings and play readings—and they are also looking in detail at the scope for exhibitions, and other events related to literature, in the foyer area as a whole.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, what we are talking about here—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I should like to take up the point about the Poetry Library. The noble Lord mentioned that the Poetry Library will be accommodated on the South Bank. Is it not the case that it has been offered the Waterloo Room, which it believes, quite rightly, is extremely inaccessible, that people just passing through that area will not visit it, and that it is looking into alternatives? Therefore, that situation has also disappointed the "Bookspace" staff and worried them about their future.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think that that has very much to do with the "Bookspace" area. I said that this was one of the plans of the South Bank Board. It is being considered, and quite rightly too.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I apologise for not allowing the noble Baroness a fair hearing. Is the Minister aware that what we are talking about as regards the "Bookspace" is an area which used to be the restaurant of the Festival Hall, with a beautiful view over the Thames—an area which the new authority intends to return to that use? Is he further
394
aware that the GLC were given full notice of that matter by the South Bank Board? Moreover, in the context of certain questions which have been answered, is he aware that those of us who are regular visitors to the Festival Hall are already heartened and encouraged by the signs of excellence and of standards which have become evident in the activities of the South Bank Board since 1st April?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is absolutely right. The area in question was used as a restaurant, and certainly consideration is being given to returning it to restaurant use again so that people can not only eat there but also enjoy the view. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord has asked his second question, because the Government would most certainly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said. We believe also that literature has its rightful prominence in the type of centre which is being developed on the South Bank
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is it true that the restaurant to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, alluded is intended, as part of the plan, to be turned into a private restaurant for the use of sponsors, and its use denied to the public? If that is so, why should it be so?—because sponsors already have the use of the Hungerford Room.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have no information on that matter. It will be a matter for the South Bank Board.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on prisons.
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 7.00 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the House will again be in Committee on the Museums and Galleries (Prohibition of Admission Charges) Bill.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Seear set down for 7th May, and on any amendment thereto, shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 37 [Appraisal of performance of teachers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 38, line 42, leave out from ("duties") to end of line 2 on page 39.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 85 refers to the reserve power of appraisal which the Secretary of State is to take under Clause 37 of the Bill, which provides the opportunity, if there is no agreement between the local education authorities and the teachers' organisations or the teachers collectively on appraisal, for him to take that power for himself and to secure that there are regulations for appraisal to his own liking.
I wish to make it clear that, as was said on Second Reading, we on this side of the Committee are not opposed to the principle of appraisal. We hope, as I am sure the Government hope, that it will be possible for a voluntary agreement to be reached between the teachers' organisations and the local authorities on the appraisal that is in our view necessary, and that therefore the whole of Clause 37 will not be necessary, or will not necessarily be implemented. On the basis that the Government feel it necessary to take these reserve powers, we believe that there are two instances in which the reserve powers go too far and offend against the best interests of the teaching profession and the education service as a whole, and Amendment No. 85 is concerned with the first of those.
In subsection (1)(a) it is provided that the regulations shall apply to teachers "in discharging their duties". There can hardly be any objection to that. That is clearly what appraisal is to be about, and we do not question that. But subsection (1)(b) goes on to say that the regulations apply to teachers,
"engaging in other activities connected with the establishments at which they are employed".
That implies that these are not duties. I am conscious that there is, and has been, controversy about the definition of duties between teachers and local education authorities, and indeed with the Government, over a number of years. But one way in which it will certainly not be possible to resolve it is by saying, as the Bill as at present drafted says, that appraisal is to apply to what are in effect voluntary activities.
At this stage it seems curious that the Notes on Clauses say something that appears to me to be different from the provisions of the Bill itself. The Notes on Clauses, which are usually so helpful, say:
"The Government hope that these discussions will produce an agreed definition of duties the performance of which will then voluntarily be made subject to appraisal".
396
I cannot see in this clause any indication that these duties, or indeed any other activities, are voluntarily to be made subject to appraisal. As I read Clause 37 it says that the reserve powers will be to impose appraisal on both the duties of teachers and these other activities.
It may well be that I am reading the provision wrongly; I am no expert in drafting matters. But it appears to me that the clause does not say what the Notes on Clauses indicate, and that what is being proposed here is compulsory appraisal of voluntary activities. That seems to us to be an unnecessary provocation, an unnecessary extension of the principle of appraisal in itself, and one which we query with this amendment. On the basis of the Government reply we shall have to consider what position we take on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: It seems to me that this amendment overlooks the fact that in most schools most staff are required to do duties of some sort outside their actual written engagement, such as invigilating for examinations, being on duty for lunch, or something similar. There are many minor details. Teachers might even be asked to be present on the ground during games, or something like that. It is narrowing down a schoolmaster's activities very much to say that he may do only this, that, and the other. He should want to take part in the life of the school. That is a far better way to engender a feeling of partnership in the school and a desire to do it well.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: We should have clear in our minds the difference between a duty and a voluntary activity. The two paragraphs of the subsection very clearly make a division. The first relates to duties—and nobody can deny that if anything is to be appraised, duties should be appraised—and the second relates to activities which are not duties. Duties are obviously such things as teaching, preparing for lessons, parent meetings, staff meetings, supervision, and the like, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, mentioned. In my view he was referring to supervision duties.
However, paragraph (b) relates to activities undertaken by teachers which they do not have to undertake. I take that to mean the voluntary activities such as the running of clubs and societies which, as I have said before in your Lordships' Chamber, are the chief joy and bright spots in a teacher's day. A teacher's day is always extremely hard working. It is often stressful and, I am afraid, quite often discouraging. But the sort of thing that he can do with children which he does not have to do, such as running a club or a society, is the bright spot in his day. This is because of the very fact that it is voluntary, and it also tends to be successful because it is also voluntary for the children.
If this becomes subject to appraisal, it becomes something that the teacher has to do because he has to think of his future and his promotion chances. As soon as he has to do it, it ceases to be voluntary. That takes the joy out of it for both him and the pupils. I feel strongly that this paragraph should not be there. If the teacher is to be appraised in regard to such activities, he must be appraised by someone who is reasonably expert in them. Suppose you have a woman teacher

397
teaching dancing. How can anyone appraise a dancing club unless they know something about dancing?
I think that teachers would fear—I know that I would have feared, as a teacher, rehearsing a play, which is what I spent most of my voluntary hours doing—that whoever came to appraise them would not know anything about the activity. This may well be a fear of teachers. I am not saying that the out-ofschool activities of teachers should not be taken any account of. They should enter into a general consideration of a teacher's quality, but not in any specific way. Therefore, it is a great mistake to introduce this as a separate paragraph, and I support the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: When the Minister replies will he throw a little light on what is going on between the teachers' organisations and ACAS at the present time? I understood that the reference to ACAS covered conditions of service and other matters in dispute between the Secretary of State and the teachers' unions. The impression I had was that this matter was part of conditions of service and was therefore within the scope of the discussions they were to have with ACAS. They have been given a few months to try to come up with something permanent, agreed, and comprehensive.
Here we are considering putting a matter of this kind into statute law. It is preposterous that Parliament should be occupied, with all its Members and expense, in dealing with a matter of this kind which elsewhere is dealt with as a matter for negotiation and agreement between staff interests, management, and those responsible for the organisation. I know of no other sector in the public service where it is necessary to have a law before you can report on people, and have some appraisal of their qualifications and their aptitude for advancement and of whether the whole organisation is efficient because of the common denominator of quality within the organisation. All this is management.
What an out-of-date set up we must have for the teaching profession and the teaching organisation if we have to have a statute law before we can decide whether or not a teacher is qualified according to some prescription or report made upon him.
The activities referred to in sub-section (1)(b) are external activities in one way. They are assumed always to be voluntary. They may not be entirely irrelevant to the general usefulness, quality and character of a teacher. In many reporting systems—I have had a great deal to do with many of them and invented one of them—outside activities and interests were not irrelevant to the assessment of aptitude and the characteristics and general fitness of an officer. We have all this in the Civil Service. We have a special set of reporting arrangements in a technical department such as the Inland Revenue. We have different reporting forms and systems for management as distinct from other classes and I should expect the form to be prescribed in due course would be different according to the classification of the people being reported on.
I do not object to anybody being reported upon who was engaged in activities for which they were in some degree accountable, especially in the public service.
398
We are all reported upon. Probably the least reported upon people are Members of this chamber. They can get by with anything or nothing. We have no constituents to say how good or ill we are. We might occasionally have a favourable or unfavourable comment in the press or in somebody's speeches against which we have no appeal, but we are not regarded as fitted for promotion by some qualities we display here that are reported upon in any formal way.
It is better to have this appraisal done by agreement so that people accept the structure upon which their qualifications are to be judged. Management is interested because it has to do the invidious job in many cases of making an appraisal of those who are serving with them or under them. In any agreed scheme I should not expect these other activities mentioned in the clause to which this amendment relates to be ruled out entirely. However, if one is asked to put them in, for the Secretary of State to have statutory powers to ask for these items to be included in the report made on teachers, one bridles against it. What are we coming to? We shall soon have to have statutory authority to allow teachers to use lipstick and to make themselves presentable. Many of them are not! But we are making ourselves look ridiculous. I hope that the Secretary of State will have enough gumption—he has plenty surely by this time—to leave this clause out of the Bill altogether, when we come to it, and let this take its proper place in the discussions that are now going on. He can see what he can do to incorporate this in a complete system of new pay and conditions of teachers and get some kind of harmony restored in this outfit. He will not get this while the teachers are in their present state of mind. He will not get this while management is in its present state of mind. This is a dead duck in this Bill. We are wasting time on it. It is about time that we submitted ourselves to an efficiency test and said, "This is rubbish, get rid of it!"
Baroness Phillips: I am delighted to follow my noble friend in his theme. Of all the time-wasting and expensive Bills that we have ever been presented with, this has to take the cake. At a time when the teachers are trying to get a little extra salary we are to spend money on ridiculous things like training governors.
However, when it is said that there is not already an appraisal of teachers I feel that shows a lack of information. What is the county inspectorate doing? What are Her Majesty's Inspectors doing? They are constantly going round schools, appraising teachers and submitting reports. If this is now to be extended to out-of-school activities—and I seem to recall that I spent a lot of time taking primary school children to pantomimes and to sports grounds—then I am not sure whether that would have been in my favour or would have been described as a subversive activity which perhaps would have gone against me in an appraisal.
I support everything that my noble friend has said. The teachers are totally demoralised and here we sit discussing this kind of nonsense when we should leave it to the profession to do their job. No other profession has been interfered with as much as the teachers. For Heaven's sake, let them get on with the job.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My noble friend Lady Young made clear on Second Reading that the Government hope that the negotiations now taking place will make sufficient progress to allow an early start to the practical field work which the Government have long wanted to launch. We do not expect the talks themselves to lay down an exact working model, but we hope progress will be made. We have no national blueprint to impose.
I think that I can answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. ACAS is indeed discussing conditions, duties and appraisals. In fact, four working parties are now sitting and are, I understand, to report in mid June. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the Government wish them every success. We hope that this is the way to do it. Of course, this is the way to do it; but surely it is not provocative—and this is only an enabling power—for this to be put in the Bill in case they do not come up with a satisfactory solution. After all, this was first mooted by my right honourable 'friend in October 1984 and it appeared in the March 1985 White Paper Better Schools. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said, the principle of appraisal is accepted on all sides. I cannot see any provocation in moving it in this Bill just in case it has to be used as an enabling power. As I said, this amendment attempts to pre-empt the outcome of the current talks. If the talks go well, we can expect agreement on:
"a clear definition of the contractual duties and responsibilities of teachers".
These duties should form the core of the appraisal scheme.
In addition, the intention is that other activities, such as running: clubs, societies, weekend activities, and so on, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, should be appraised. The Government firmly believe that many activities which teachers are not contracted to undertake are part of a teacher's overall contribution to the life of the school and there should be scope in the appraisal process for recognising that contribution.
The amendment would effectively deny that teachers make a considerable professional commitment to the well-being of our schools through those activities. If only contractual duties are appraised, the extra commitment made by teachers who run a multitude of other activities will be ignored. That cannot be right. Here I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and also the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips: the idea of this appraisal would be to the advantage of the teachers. After all, if a teacher spends his or her lunchtime running a chess club or taking the children out on walks, it is surely right in the appraisal that these things should be brought to light, and this would go down on the teacher's very good record.
Baroness Phillips: This happens already.
The Earl of Swinton: I should not reply, as the noble Baroness speaks from a sedentary position; but the whole idea is that from now on this should be the situation. She also asked what is the point when
400
already confidential reports are made by authorities and appraisals are carried out. I am delighted to say to the noble Baroness that this was the very first question I asked when I went to be briefed about this. Having served for many years on a local education authority I said just what the noble Baroness said—one gets confidential reports. The point of the confidential reports made now is that they are made behind the teacher's back by somebody and as often as not the teacher has no right to find out what is in them or to question them. This will make it clear that the teacher has a right to find out what is put in.
Surely if the teacher is doing something extra above the call of duty in the school and taking part in school activities at lunchtimes, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, said, this is rewarding, the idea is not that they should have to do it but if they do it and do it voluntarily this should, as it were, be a Brownie point to them. I think that is absolutely fair. It may be argued that the inclusion of non-contractual activities in the appraisal process is unfair to those teachers who are highly competent in the classroom but simply cannot afford the time for additional activities. The Government firmly believe that classroom effectiveness is the prime test of a teacher's success. But they also believe that other factors—for example, relations with parents, pupils and the local community—add to classroom teaching to define the teacher's total contribution to the school. The weighting given to non-classroom factors will always, and rightly, be less than that given to classroom teaching. But if a teacher is able and willing to help with other useful activities, it seems right that that contribution should be formally recognised. It is possible, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that the current talks will not produce:
"a clear definition of the contractual duties and responsibilities of teachers".
If, unfortunately, there should fail to be agreement between the employers and the unions on this issue, the Government would then expect LEAs to appraise these duties which the employers believe to fall within the express or implied terms of their contracts of employment with teachers—together with those other activities by which teachers contribute to the full life of the school.
I hope this explanation helps remove any concerns that this clause might be used in some way to "punish" teachers who do not take part in activities other than duties. This is not the case. The reverse is the case. The Government want to see an appraisal system which is not mechanically restricted to duties but is flexible enough to recognise the extra professional commitment through which teachers contribute to the vitality of schools. Teachers themselves expect that contribution to be recognised, and so it should be. If they are doing things beyond what is laid down for them, it is only right, as I have said, that they should benefit from that. This amendment would destroy that flexibility and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—and I know that he is a reasonable person—will feel having heard that explanation, that he is able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he can clarify something

401
for me. If the appraisal goes against the teacher then what happens?
The Earl of Swinton: The teacher will be able to meet the people who are appraising him and will be able to discuss the appraisal and make very clear what he thinks about it. That is something which does not happen at this time.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I wonder if the noble Earl the Minister can help me on a very small point. Who is to supervise the activities of the teachers who supervise the better part of 100,000 children at Wembley attending the final of the Schoolboys' International? Would that be a function of the Secretary of State?
The Earl of Swinton: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, whom I very much respect, is getting somewhat carried away here. This is not laying down what teachers must or must not do. This is saying that, if teachers do things which are bringing extra credit to them and to the schools in helping the children, that should be recognised as such in their appraisal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the Minister says, I am a reasonable man. I am also noted for my devout adherence to the proprieties of the Committee. I spoke only about the amendment and not about the wider issues which have been raised in debate. I am bound to say that the contributions of my noble friends and others have convinced me, if I needed convincing, that the issue is more serious than what is covered by this amendment, and the reply from the noble Earl gives me much greater concern about what is in the mind of the Secretary of State and whether this is the right way to go about it.
The Minister has indicated the kind of weighting—and he used the word himself—which will be given to classroom activities as opposed to other activities. Clearly, the Government have in mind some sort of balance between classroom duties and other activities. There has been a good deal of discussion about what are duties and what are not duties and, clearly, the Government have in their mind some definition—and not just the definition which may be arrived at by the ACAS negotiations—of what are duties and what are not duties.
The Minister replied to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, in terms of the use to which appraisal is to be put. That is the absolutely fundamental question. Clearly, the Government have in their mind some formula for the use to which these appraisals are to be put. What we are being asked to give to the Secretary of State here is a blank cheque on appraisal. There is no indication of who should do the appraisal. There is no indication of what the objectives of the appraisal shall be; there is no indication of the range of activities which the appraisal will cover, other than that it can be totally all-embracing. There is no indication of whether the appraisal is to be used only to the benefit of teachers in order to encourage good teaching and to encourage professional development among teachers. whether it should be used actually for rewarding teachers—and there are plenty of arguments on both sides of that issue—or whether it should be used for
402
punishing or ultimately removing bad teachers. Again, there are arguments on both sides of that issue.
The more one thinks about the seriousness of the appraisal issues and the more one looks at the description which is made of it in Better Schools and the lack of any precision in this section of the Bill, the more sceptical one has to be about the wisdom of including this clause at all in the Bill as it stands. Before making up my mind finally on what to do, I must ask the noble Earl to respond to the particular question that I asked him about the wording of the Notes on Clauses and how that is reflected in the clause itself. The Notes on Clauses, I remind the Committee, say:
"performance of which will then voluntarily be made subject to appraisal".
I ask the noble Earl directly, where in the text of the Bill is that voluntary aspect of appraisal made?
The Earl of Swinton: The Notes on Clauses refer to the ACAS talks which are going on and where the Government fervently hope that a voluntary agreement will come out. If that is reached then the power will not be used.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with that. That is certainly what is said in the sentence that I read out earlier. But does that mean that every aspect of a teacher's working life, or even, to some extent, leisure life, is going to be controlled compulsorily by appraisal? The whole point about this clause is that this is provision for compulsory appraisal. What may be agreed voluntarily by negotiation is a very different thing from what can reasonably be imposed by the Secretary of State on the basis of statute.
I am afraid that this debate has raised wider issues than those in the amendment itself but the amendment is a boiling down of one of the most important issues on appraisal and I do not believe that it is one which this Committee ought now to pass on from without expressing a decision.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 85) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82: Not-Contents, 103.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Amherst, E.

Ezra, L.

Ampthill, L.

Foot, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Aylestone, L.

Galpern, L.

Banks, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bernstein, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Birk, B.

Grey, E.

Bottomley, L.

Hampton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Caradon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cudlipp, L.

John-Mackie, L.

David, B.

Kennet, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Diamond, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Listowel, E.

403

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Serota, B.

Lockwood, B.

Shepherd, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Stallard, L.

McNair, L.

Stedman, B.

Mais, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mellish, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Oram, L.

Underhill, L.

Phillips, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

White, B.

Rea, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rhodes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Willis, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Rochester, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Ilchester, E.

Bessborough, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Blake, L.

Kitchener, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Layton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McFadzean, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cox, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denning, L.

Porritt, L.

Digby, L.

Portland, D.

Dundee, E.

Reilly, L.

Effingham, E.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Sandys, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Forester, L.

Somers, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Gainford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Swinton, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Terrington, L.

Gisborough, L.

Teviot, L.

Glanusk, L.

Thurlow, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vickers, B.

Vivian, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hayter, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Henley, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hives, L.

Young, B.

Hood, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Swinton: I think this might be a convenient moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Prisons: Disturbances
4.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on prisons which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, as I undertook in the House last night, I will with permission make a further Statement on the situation in the prisons.
"I reported to the House last night on events at Lewes and Northeye prisons. Disruption continued there during the night but the situation has now been brought under control, though at both establishments, and particularly at Northeye, there has been extensive damage to buildings. Police intervention was necessary at Bristol to regain control of one wing of the prison, and at Erlestoke Youth Custody Centre some 40 trainees made a mass breakout: some 16 are still at large. The other more serious incident was at Wymott, where there was a major disturbance but where staff were gradually able to regain control. In addition, a number of lesser incidents took place at 12 other prison establishments.
"The situation in all establishments has now been brought back under control. I want to take this opportunity to pay public tribute to hard-pressed prison governors, those prison staff who remained at their posts and the members of the police and fire services who have helped to restore the situation.
"There will need to be an inquiry into these events. The form and scope of this will have to be compatible with any police investigation into alleged offences, and I will keep the House informed.
"I have taken immediate steps to try to ensure that, now order has been restored, it can continue to be preserved. Prison governors are in touch with their local chief officers of police about the situation in their establishments. After consultations with me, the acting President of the Association of Chief Police Officers has opened the National Information Centre at New Scotland Yard to collate and disseminate information relating to the police involvement in the current prisons dispute. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has ordered preparations in case military camps are needed to house prisoners as a result of the destruction of prison accommodation. Arrangements have been made to ensure a co-ordinated response by all government departments to the present difficult situation.

405
"Although some of the violent action by prisoners may have been imitative, there is little doubt that the occasion for it was the overtime ban instituted by the National Executive Committee of the Prison Officers Association as part of its dispute with the Prison Department about manning levels. This both increased the prospect of trouble in the prisons and reduced the resources available to deal with it. I believe that not only the public but many members of the prison service, including members of the Prison Officers Association, will have been appalled by the events of the last 24 hours.
"I therefore welcome the decision of the National Executive Committee of the POA to suspend its current industrial action to allow talks at the Home Office to take place. The POA ask for a reciprocal gesture, asking us to allow staff to work normally and lift threats of suspension. I see no difficulty about this: staff temporarily relieved from duty, that is to say suspended, can lift their own suspension by agreeing to work normally. We cannot start substantive negotiations until the threat of industrial action has been removed. But I have invited the NEC to discussion at the department with a view to the simultaneous calling off of the industrial action and the institution of discussion about the agenda for the future which I set out in my letter of 22nd April to the POA General Secretary. The House will recall that this agenda involved: a rapid settlement of this year's pay claim, including the outstanding question of a reduction in the working week for prison officers; the immediate payment of tax compensation on housing allowance for 1985–86; bringing forward as fast as possible work on new shift systems and pay arrangements for detailed discussion with the POA, with a view to the new arrangements being in place by April 1987.
"I very much hope that the POA NEC will respond positively and constructively to this package and that the talks I have set in hand will find a way through present difficulties. The House may be assured that I shall be doing everything I can to ensure that the control that has been regained in our prisons is maintained and that a constructive way forward is found from this destructive dispute."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement of the Home Secretary. When we discussed this matter two days ago I ventured to say that we were facing a grave situation in the nation's affairs approaching a national emergency. I fear that the events of last night have confirmed that anxiety up to the hilt. The whole country will have been appalled at the savagery of the events, at their widespread nature and at the anarchy which has prevailed in the prisons.
We deplore and we condemn the violence. What we need, and what I think the nation demands now, is an early resolution of the dispute. As the Home Secretary's Statement has indicated, the Prison Officers Association has today taken a crucial and constructive step towards a truce (which was the phrase I used two days ago) by suspending industrial action. It is therefore essential now for the Home Secretary to respond by taking further steps to
406
facilitate discussions with the Prison Officers Association national executive which could resolve this dispute. Accordingly, I suggest that the Home Secretary instructs his officials to get in touch as soon as possible with the national executive committee of the Prison Officers Association so that they can discuss together the basis for a possible agenda for talks. There is still a good deal of ground to cover.
The House will be aware that the industrial action that has taken place followed a ballot of the members of the association which overwhelmingly supported industrial action. However, an agreement for the agenda as to talks and their resumption could well ease the way for the process that will end this dispute. I hope that the Home Secretary will take action on those lines so that this grave threat to the security of the country and of the people themselves may be met by negotiation—by give and take on each side—in order to avoid a renewal of last night's arson and anarchy. A resumption of that would be intolerable for the nation to endure.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Home Secretary's Statement in the House of Commons, may I ask him whether he agrees that last night's wretched events have undoubtedly done a great deal of damage to the self-confidence and reputation of the British prison service? Can I ask him whether, notwithstanding that, he will pass on to the many dedicated prison governors and staff who did not abandon their positions last evening our congratulations, and I am sure I speak for many in all parts of the House? Without them, people would have lost their lives last night, and it is right that the courageous men who stayed at their posts should have public tribute paid to them. I hope that these words will be passed to the prison service.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one or two questions specifically? There is a suggestion of an unconfirmed report of the death of two inmates at Northeye. If the Minister will forgive my saying so, that is rather a strange statement. Have bodies been discovered? If the prison department now has total possession of Northeye prison, why should there be any doubt about this? No doubt there is an explanation, and I am sure we should like to have it.
Can the noble Lord also say what form of inquiry the Home Secretary is considering setting up into these events? Very naturally, he has said that this cannot get in the way of the police inquiries which are obviously going to have to take place. But is it thought that a member of the judiciary will be involved? I think it would be helpful if he could give us a preliminary indication of what is to be done.
Lastly, may I put this to him again? Does he agree that the background to this problem is twofold? First, there is an urgent need, which I think is recognised by all who care about the reputation of the prison service, to support the position of governors in prison department establishments. We just cannot tolerate a situation where we have this form of anarchy year after year; the often unpublicised anarchy which has taken

407
place. If we are to get some benefit out of the dismal events of last evening, it is critical that the position of governors should be enhanced.
Secondly, does the Minister agree that these very sad events take place in the context of gross overcrowding throughout the prison system? That is emphasised by the fact that military camps may have to be used because of the loss of one prison department establishment; namely, Northeye. Will he consider with his right honourable friend whether it is not necessary once again to look at the provisions of the executive release scheme? The House has discussed this matter on a number of occasions, but unless there is some relief to this huge problem of prison overcrowding, I am afraid there will always be a risk of violence in our prisons.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for their remarks in expressing horror and condemnation of the violence which took place last night. I am sure that is something which we all feel; and, like both noble Lords, I and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary hope that we can achieve an early resolution of the problems which have arisen.
The Statement made plain the Home Secretary's proposals for talks with the national executive committee of the Prison Officers Association. I hope that the formulation which is spelt out in the Statement is one which covers the suggestions made by the noble and learned Lord that my right honourable friend should respond in the way that has been suggested to facilitate discussions. That is what is suggested in the Statement and that is what will go ahead.
I share entirely the views of both noble Lords when they suggest that any resumption of activities of the type we saw last night would be intolerable not just for the prison service but also for the public. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that I shall of course pass on the congratulations of the House to all those who stayed at their posts and to the governors, who, I can state from experience, having been in the operations room until about two o'clock this morning, were performing a most amazing job in juggling the necessary components of the prison service and the police to meet the need as it arose. I shall do what the noble Lord suggested.
On the suggestion that there may have been a death at Northeye, it has been rumoured—the rumour came from prisoners—that two inmates had died there. I am glad to be able to report that there is no substance in those allegations. The debris of the prison has been sifted and no bodies have been found.
The noble Lord asked whether I could give him any further information about the nature of the inquiry which my right honourable friend has proposed; I cannot at the moment. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the paragraph in the Statement which dealt with the matter. As my right honourable friend has suggested, the inquiry will have to be compatible with any police inquiries into alleged offences. He will of course keep the other place informed and I shall no doubt have the opportunity to keep your Lordships informed.
408
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that support for governors is essential. Governing a prison is no easy task. There are many competing claims and difficulties facing governors and they therefore need the support of everybody working in the prisons, and people outside, in order to carry out the difficult task that they face, particularly at a time of increasing costs, and, as the noble Lord mentioned, of overcrowding which in some prisons, as he is aware, is acute.
On that matter it must be said again that we have embarked on a huge prison building programme. Over the next few years 16 prisons are to be built. That will be no mean feat. When it is done it will largely meet the concerns which the noble Lord expressed. It comes of course within the whole criminal justice field and there are other matters which must also be looked at. That is a significant and imaginative project which has been taken forward and is gathering speed.
The subject of executive release was raised by the noble Lord the other day, I think. The early release power contained in Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 is intended for use only in extreme circumstances. I do not believe that those extreme circumstances have yet been reached. It is important to bear in mind that only a dozen or so prisons out of about 125 were affected last night. It speaks volumes for those concerned in the other prisons that nothing more serious happened. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend has said that he is not prepared to use that early release power except in extreme circumstances.
I believe that I have covered most of the points raised by noble Lords opposite.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, apart from the 16 young offenders whom he mentioned had escaped from the Wiltshire centre, in the course of those horrible events any other prisoners, and if so how many, have escaped? Can he also confirm, in the light of the better news that he has given us today, whether the normal working of the criminal courts has been resumed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the latest information I have is that 16 prisoners from Erlestoke are thought to be still at large and 10 prisoners from Northeye are similarly presumed to be at large. Those are the only prisoners at large I know of. With regard to the courts, my right honourable friend issued instructions to the courts yesterday in the form of a circular which I announced to your Lordships the other day. It is too early to say whether that should be withdrawn.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. Nobody can deny that the work of a prison officer is highly skilled and demands a long training and, let us face it, considerable courage. Can he say what steps, if any, the Government are taking to draw more young people into the service, because I understand that one of the great difficulties has been due to understaffing in the prisons?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the task of a prison officer is a difficult, dirty and often dangerous one. Nevertheless, many of those who work in prisons are extremely highly motivated

409
and do a great deal for the benefit of the prisoners. Current plans are to recruit at least 1,200 prison officers during the present financial year. As I said the other day, between 1979 and 1985 the number of prison officers rose by 18 per cent. to nearly 19,000 while the prison population rose by only 12 per cent.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House how far existing prison officers' salaries compare with equivalent grades in the police force? If that information is not immediately available, will he let me have it in writing?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not have a direct comparison with me. I shall let the noble Lord have details in writing. The average earnings of prison officers is in the region of £15,000 a year.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the level of overtime has been and is an emotive issue, does the noble Lord the Minister now appreciate that the working of overtime is called for wholly in the interests of the prison service and that hitherto prison officers have worked overtime to avoid the kind of situation that occurred yesterday? Now that the prospects of talks has emerged, does the noble Lord the Minister accept that prison officers recognise their great responsibility to the service, prisoners, the public and their members and that there must be a successful outcome to the talks? I wish the Home Secretary and the prison officers a fair and honourable resolution acceptable to both parties.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says about overtime, but I am sure he will realise that the amount that is being worked to achieve an average figure of about 16½ hours of overtime a week must in many cases lead to excessive amounts of overtime. I must say that while it is important that one's response to these issues should be measured, there are many examples, of which the noble Lord will be aware, which lead to inflexibilities in the system and to a promotion of overtime. That is why it is suggested that we discuss the package set out in my right honourable friend's letter of 22nd April. I hope that what has been said in the Statement today will go some way towards that.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, has the Prison Officers Association made any claims or set of demands that can be put on the record so that the public may understand what the dispute is about? If we are to resolve it, is it not a good idea to know what it is about? Although I have followed all the events, I have great difficulty in knowing what the row is about and what justifies the action. The public must be as uninformed as the rest of us. What is the reality of the dispute?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is, I suppose, a fairly substantial history to what has arisen over the past few weeks. The Prison Officers Association says that it is concerned about the maintenance of safe manning levels and regimes. It seeks the right in negotiations to determine what those manning levels should be. My right honourable friend and I are as concerned as the POA about the safety of prison
410
officers and their professional standards, and we have repeatedly made clear that management is ready to consult the POA about manning levels. But I cannot concede that the union has a right to determine those levels. In effect, that would give the union and not Parliament the right to set the budget for the prison service.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise from these Back-Benches for a reason that the House will know, by virtue of the fact that I have disclosed an interest in that my firm acts as legal advisers to the Prison Officers Association. I think we all welcome the Minister's Statement, as repeated in this House, and the words of wisdom that fell from my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. May I suggest, in view of the fact that discussions are to take place, that further questions of the nature of the last two are not very helpful? Could we therefore proceed to the next business?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what I think was a suggestion that, at a time when emotions run fairly high and considerable damage has been done, it is not sensible to raise the temperature any further than it has already been raised. I am grateful to him for suggesting that.

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

Education Bill [H.L.]
4.32 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 37.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 39, line 3, leave out ("requirements as may be prescribed") and insert ("arrangements as they may determine")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I acknowledge the decision of the Committee in relation to the previous amendment. I also acknowledge that it is clearly the Committee's view that Clause 37, however defective it might be in the eyes of some of us in practice, ought to be a part of the Bill. I want to put to the Committee the case that the provisions which are made in line 3 of page 39 are an unnecessary, as well as an overbearing, requirement.
The Bill proposes that the appraisal which is to be established under the conditions of this clause shall be,
"in accordance with such requirements as may be prescribed",
and it is clear from this that the prescription shall be by the Secretary of State. Even if one were to accept in full the argument that there has to be some sort of ultimate sanction for the Secretary of State to impose appraisal, if agreement has not been reached—and I repeat that we all share the wish that agreement should be reached and that this clause should not necessarily be brought into effect—it is a different thing to suggest that the content of the appraisal shall itself be determined by the Secretary of State.
I want to suggest to the Committee that appraisal is a matter fundamentally between the teachers themselves, collectively and individually, and their employers, the local education authorities, and that therefore, whatever the original impetus may have been for an imposed scheme of appraisal, surely its implementation and the arrangements for its implementation should be left to the teachers themselves and to their employers. That is what this amendment seeks to provide.
It seems to me that the possibility of conflict and resentment from a scheme which is imposed both on employers and on teachers is far too great a risk for the Government to sustain, and I confess I am surprised that the Government should seek to add this additional burden on to their own appraisal scheme. None of us wants it. It is accepted that it is the wish of the Committee that it should happen, but surely it would be much more effective if, having been imposed, the requirements should be those of the local education authority rather than of the Secretary of State.
I do not see how it can be argued that the local education authorities are unfit to make these arrangements and to lay down the requirements for an appraisal scheme themselves. After all, as was said on a number of occasions on Second Reading, appraisal is not a new thing. Appraisal has been in existence as long as there has been a teaching profession. It may have been informal, it may have taken all sorts of different forms, but the appraisal of teachers as a basis for promotion, as a basis for continued employment, as a basis for the career and professional development of teachers, is something which has been part of the teaching profession ever since the very beginning. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said this very effectively in his speech on Second Reading.
Indeed, when one turns to the role of Her Majesty's Inspectors it could be argued that the corps of Her Majesty's Inspectors actually predates an effective national education department, and that the original purpose of the Board of Education was to receive the reports of Her Majesty's Inspector rather than any other purpose. That, after all, is one form of collective appraisal of the work of teachers in the schools. To that extent, surely it is a very considerable break from tradition to say that the appraisal scheme which is necessary, which we all agree to be necessary, however little we agree about how it shall be achieved, shall itself in its operation and in the arrangements for it be under the direct control of the Secretary of State.
I believe that this is not an amendment that is at all in conflict with the decision of the Committee on the preceding amendment. I believe that it is an amendment which ought to commend itself to the Government in self-defence, if for nothing else, against a charge of being overbearing, which I am sure they would not wish to be levied and, I am equally sure, they would not wish to have sustained against them. I very much hope that the Government will see the rationale of this amendment and find ways of accepting at least its spirit, if not the actual wording. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I must re-emphasise my view that this clause has no suitable part of this Bill
412
at the present time. My difficulty on this amendment is different from that in relation to the previous one, but I want to examine for a moment or two just how difficult it is to ask the Committee to accept the version in the clause and (at the moment equally as difficult, so far as I am concerned) to accept the amendment as making any contribution to resolving the dilemma. I think we want to know to what use these appraisals will be put. Without that, we really do not know what form they should take or whether they should be gone into in greater detail in the statute, if that is where we have to deal with the matter, so that we know exactly what we are doing.
To the question, "To what use are these appraisals to be put?", we can only turn to subsection (2) of Clause 37, which is in general terms of jargon of the statute law, saying that they are for such purposes as may be prescribed. However, in looking at appraisals it matters a great deal to know for what purpose they are going to be used. That indeed is the root of much suspicion by staffs when they are asked to submit to a reporting system. Who is going to see the reports? To what use are they going to be put? Are they confidential? Where can the reports go for other people to see when members of staff are seeking other employment?
If the Secretary of State wants to arrive at some overall assessment of the quality of the teaching profession and to know into what classifications of efficiency, ability and potential for promotion they fall, he will want a common form of appraisal throughout the teaching service. He cannot manage without it. It would be a nonsense to a scheme of that kind to ask the local education authorities to formulate their own appraisal system because they could all be different. An authority would formulate one for itself for internal purposes without necessarily having regard to the use to which the Secretary of State might wish to put it.
There are half a million civil servants—more of them indeed than teachers. There are 75,000 civil servants in the Inland Revenue. We formulate for them a reporting system of general application so that at any time the administration can say what sort of staff it has; it can say what is the standard of recruitment: and it can look at this from the point of view of what pay they ought to have. Is this kind of concept—the use of the appraisal system—going to form any part of what the Secretary of State wants to do; or is this purely a local affair?
If it is a local affair for the information of the local education authority—something that it ought to do as a matter of internal discipline—let local education authorities formulate their own appraisal system. But if the Secretary of State wants this for a wider purpose—and I rather suspect he does; I certainly should if I were in his position—he must have the appraisal conducted on a common form related to the different classes and grades to which the appraisal system is to apply so that the different classifications would have their standard form of appraisal. That is what I think the Secretary of State has in mind.
If that were so, he would negotiate the system through the Whitley Council—that is, if there was one, but there is not. How sad it is that teachers are so bereft of sensible negotiating machinery. He would have to

413
negotiate it with the teachers unions centrally and get it agreed for application to the teaching profession as a whole for all that he wished to bring within the scope of this appraisal system. That is how it should be done.
Then the appraisal would take place within the machinery of the local education authorities, which would be responsible for looking after the work being done, gathering the appraisals together, making whatever summaries they wish, supplying information to the Secretary of State and so on. But we do not know whether what I am offering as a conjectural basis for this appraisal system is what the Secretary of State has in mind. All we know is this jumble here on page 39. It may mean anything. If one is a teacher, one cannot be entirely free of anxieties in the absence of more information as to the purposes to which the provision might be put.
Therefore I am bothered about this. I am bothered about the clause and I am bothered about the amendment. When it says,
"such requirements as may be prescribed",
presumably the statute law intends the Secretary of State to prescribe them. If not, the whole situation is different from the one I have described. Can we please know what is in the mind of the Government?
4.45 p.m.
The noble Earl the Minister said a moment or two ago that this is only an enabling clause. When enabling clauses offer the hope that the Minister is going to do something that you like and want him to do, then you are all behind enabling clauses. But if the enabling clause is almost a covert threat that he is going to do something that you do not like but it is going to be imposed, you have a very different attitude.
We are so lacking in information that we cannot do this job intelligently. I beg of the Minister who has all that documentation in front of him to disclose the mind of the Government on the nature and use of the system that this clause is intended to bring into existence. We may then be able to get on, although I think the more sensible course would be, before we are asked to put the provision into the form of statute law, to discuss it with those who will be the workforce within the system, the management who will administer it and the Secretary of State who is going to use it. Until that is made clearer, the Government should not ask us to pass anything on Clause 37.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to speak for a moment or two about the difficulty that will be involved in appraisal in a scheme any more structured than that which exists already. It is going to be very expensive. We are not talking about that today but I mention it in passing. Extra staff will be needed as well as a great deal of extra computerisation, filing and goodness knows what else.
It will also be difficult for this reason. One has to bear in mind that teachers are not salesmen. Over the past year I feel that there has been a tendency to regard them as such. I want to quote to the Committee a few words from the interesting and thorough survey of appraisal methods that was undertaken by the Suffolk
414
Education Authority. The last words of the introduction are:
"To make or to help make a teacher more effective in the iob must take account of the complexity of the task of teaching, it must take account of the fact that there is and will continue to be a spectrum of teacher competence"—
in plain English, that means that there will be good teachers and less good teachers—
"that much of what a teacher does and achieves cannot be measured and that some of his work indeed does not bear immediate fruit".
Those things should be said about the work that the teachers do.
I should also like to say that this seems an unfortunate moment for legislation about appraisal. I say this for two reasons. The first is the low state of teacher morale at present and the implied threat, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred, that teachers may feel is implicit in this clause. Secondly, negotiations are taking place at this moment with ACAS which involve the teachers and it may be advisable to wait for the issue of these.
I should like to say a few words about teacher morale. The education service has been under attack for a long time. I noticed an instance of that this afternoon. Noble Lords may not have been particularly aware of it, but when a Question came up earlier about skilled workers I heard murmurs from one or two places in the Chamber about it being the teachers' fault. There has been a great deal of this about in recent months and teachers are sensitive to it. They are very aware of it. They feel that their professional competence is being challenged. There is a lot of talk about bad teachers, poor exam results, children leaving school half educated and so on. The profession has been under attack. Of course there are bad teachers, but there are bad doctors, bad lawyers and bad parliamentarians.
The teachers have been at the receiving end of a great deal of veiled criticism of this sort for a long time past, with the result that to the poor pay that they receive and the implied low esteem of society has been added the "incompetent teachers!" cry. I feel that the Secretary of State has forgotten that a pat on the back is worth two raps on the knuckles. I do not think that is a well known proverb, as I made it up this afternoon.
Perhaps I may add a few further words about appraisal. Teachers are told that it is about career guidance, professional development and in-service training and that it is all in their interests: but that is not what teachers think it is about. If one speaks to them it is apparent that their view is much more negative. They think it is about awards and punishments. They think that it is about being awarded with merit pay or accelerated promotion, or punished with decelerated promotion, disciplinary action of some sort and ultimate dismissal.
Teachers feel threatened. I fear that, owing to the bad relationship which they have with the Secretary of State at the moment, this clause on the Secretary of State's enabling power is unfortunate. For those reasons we feel that arrangements should be left in the hands of the local education authorities, which will have to operate any such scheme, and indeed are doing so, in an amorphous way. We feel that it is more sensible and more reassuring to teachers; and nothing could be more important at the moment than for

415
teachers to be reassured. Therefore, I join with the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Irving of Dartford, in supporting this amendment.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to take this opportunity, following my noble friend and following what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, to speak about this mysterious clause. One learns, and my short exercise in government taught me always to beware of that part of a Bill called "Miscellaneous". It always contains the most contentious clauses as far as I can see.
Under the heading Financial effects of the bill, which I always look at first, it states:
"Clause 37 is an enabling power and no costs are consequent on its enactment".
That is very good to know.
"If and when a teacher appraisal scheme comes into being there will be costs at the local authority level, partly for administration"—
and this is the part to note—
"but mostly in respect of teacher time used in preparing for and operating the scheme".
Now we know that it is the teachers who will appraise the teachers. At least we have moved one step further. That makes it all the more difficult to operate and all the more reason why people will feel that there will be some discrimination against someone.
We all know the criticism that is accorded the doctors' complaints board because, it is said, doctors are complained about to other doctors, and that is not desirable. Here we shall have the teachers appraising other teachers, if we can believe the explanation of this clause.
I should like to endorse what has been said. The teachers see it as some criticism of their work, whatever way one looks at it. As I have said, they are already reported on quite enough. At the moment it would not matter how good the appraisal was of a teacher; the reason why they are employed is that they are coming in at the earliest part of the scale and because they are the cheapest. Those are the plain facts. That is because so much money has been taken from the local education authorities.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I am worried about the situation as it has emerged in the discussion. If I follow the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, correctly, the concept of the Secretary of State wanting a national system, so to speak, seems to suggest that the Secretary of State is to become the employer of the teachers. I know of no case where people who are not employees of the Government are subject to such an appraisal.
I am bound to remind the Committee that even when the percentage grant from central government was 60 per cent. of the cost of the education service there was never a proposal other than that the local education authorities were the employers of the teachers; but now that the contribution is about 49 per cent. and the local authorities bear 51 per cent. of the cost, is it suggested that this, so to speak, minority shareholder, the Secretary of State, is to run the whole service? I am appalled at such a suggestion.
The 1944 Act was perfectly clear in its concept of the relationship between central and local
416
government. For 20 years that worked most successfully and the education service was developed rapidly and, in my opinion, effectively. Unfortunately, party politics then became mixed up with it and that caused all the trouble. The Committee will know where it started. It was at a Conservative Party conference in Scarborough, which passed a resolution approving the tripartite system of education. The Labour Party promptly passed a resolution in favour of comprehensive education. They have been arguing about it ever since.
I cannot believe that we will not do dreadful harm to the education service if this Bill emerges with the Secretary of State enjoying a power greater than any Secretary of State in the history of the education service in this country. That frightens me more than anything else. Central control and direction is not the answer in a democratic society. Distribution of power in the education service—as I have said repeatedly and as I said in my maiden speech in this House—is a fundamental condition of freedom in a democratic society.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was not able to be present during the discussion on the previous amendment, and so I hope I shall be forgiven if anything I say on this amendment I should have said then.
My understanding, and I hope that my noble friend will confirm it, is that this suggestion has nothing whatever to do with running teachers from the centre, any more than the move in the examination system towards measuring against national criteria rather than against the group being examined in a given subject at a given time is the centralising of teaching. Surely the setting of national criteria against which local authorities can make arrangements for assessing teachers and in which they can involve teachers in assessing themselves—which, as the noble Baroness observed, is in the financial explanation—is the way that it should be done.
The setting of national criteria can only be a good proposal. If one does not do that one always finds people within one local authority making arrangements against the criteria that they set themselves the previous year and perhaps meeting objections that have occurred the previous year, so that one authority is perhaps lowering expectations and another raising them. How much better to have national criteria within which the local authority works.
I may be misunderstanding the intention, and it is certainly not clear from the legislation precisely how it will operate, but it is no more than that. It seems to me that not to have national criteria would be a great mistake. It is not what people want. They want teachers to know where they are and not to be at the mercy of party politics. A good appraisal system will get politics out of promotion in those authorities where politics are playing far too big a part. It will make it clear to everyone what the arrangement is—and it will not always be the same in every authority—and how teachers can aspire to improve their performance. That does not seem to me to be threatening at all. It is what the public want and I should have thought that it is what everyone wants, except possibly some local authorities which are

417
alarmed that they will not have 100 per cent. of the say. However, they are quite accustomed to meeting national criteria in other ways and they will do so here. It seems to me to be the national mood and the national will, and, indeed, a very sensible arrangement.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: For the second time, I find myself making a "clause stand part" speech on the amendment. We seem to have had a number of points made in the last debate all over again. Noble Lords will be aware that in Better Schools, the Government stressed that appraisal was a key instrument for developing teacher quality. This clause gives the Secretary of State an enabling power to set up by regulation a national framework for appraisal. I stress the words "national framework". The Government's preference remains for appraisal to be introduced voluntarily on the basis of practical fieldwork and voluntary agreement between the teachers' unions, the local education authorities and the Government. If this desirable outcome is achieved, it might well be appropriate to use the enabling power of this clause to set firmly in place this national framework.
Local appraisal schemes are developing. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, mentioned one in Suffolk. We are watching that with interest. A national framework is needed to ensure that the many teachers who move about the country have their performance appraised in a broadly consistent way. Failing a national agreement, a legislative framework would be essential to avoid proliferation of inconsistent local schemes. In either case, the intention is not to create a straitjacket but to provide room for local manoeuvre within broad national guidelines.
I have made abundantly clear—as everyone will, I think, agree whatever their views on the amendment—that the Government's preference is for appraisal to be introduced voluntarily on the basis of voluntary agreement between the teachers' unions, the local authorities and the Government. Even with this desirable outcome, it might well be appropriate to use the enabling power to set up a national framework to ensure that the many teachers who move about the country have their performance appraised in a broadly consistent way.
I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say that this is a break from tradition. I was even more surprised to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, whose knowledge of the education system far outweighs mine. I remember as a very junior member of an education committee trembling in awe and terror before the noble Lord and then having a jar or two afterwards with him. I would, however, point out that there is already a national framework for the appraisal of probationary teachers. If the noble Lord has forgotten that or temporarily overlooked it, he will find it set out in the 1981 teachers' regulations. If all concerned see that a national framework is desirable and acceptable for probationers, why not also for teachers in their subsequent career? As in the probation regulations, the idea would not be to impose a straitjacket but to provide broad national guidelines with room for local flexibility.
418
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. asked me what all this is about. I can perhaps refer the noble Lord to a speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the Industrial Society conference on the Education Bill on 14th April, spelling out what he sees as being the purposes and the various ways in which appraisal might be used. I shall gladly send the noble Lord and, indeed, any other noble Lord who so wishes, a copy of the speech, so that they can study what my right honourable friend has in mind. I should like, in fact, to quote briefly from the speech to give some idea of what it contained. tinder the heading, "What purpose is appraisal supposed to serve?"—the very question the noble Lord asked—my right honourable friend said:
"An appraisal system for school teachers should serve a variety of purposes. The findings of the appraisal system should be taken into account when schools and local education authorities come to decide such matters as planning in-service training provision, selecting in-service training participants and developing the careers of individual teachers, for example, through deployment, promotion, counselling and assistance. The overall purpose is better decisions by local education authorities and school management, feeding through to better teacher performance and better pupil achievement. The whole object is to help improve teaching effectiveness".
This amendment would transfer the power to determine the framework of appraisal from the Secretary of State to local education authorities. Regulations made under such an arrangement would be a patchwork and not, as we see it, a framework. The aim of ensuring a bottom line of consistency between LEA arrangements for appraisal would be swept away. Consequently, I must ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government's replies to this debate are not only unsatisfactory, they are positively alarming. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, put the point very precisely. If it is proposed that the minority shareholders in our education system, those who do not employ the teachers, those who do not run the school systems—in other words, central government—shall have the control over the appraisal of individual teachers throughout their careers, then we have a complete break with all the traditions not only of the education service but of appraisal in any sphere of employment. It seems to me inconceivable that the Government—
The Earl of Swinton: If we honestly had these things, I, for one, should not be moving the Bill from this side of the House. With all respect to the noble Lord, this is a travesty. There is no question of our trying to employ the teachers or trying to form some national system. We are trying to set up a framework for it. I hope that the noble Lord will accept what I say. I would not have anything to do with such a thing as he describes if I had to put it forward for the Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to hear the noble Earl confirm something that did not need confirming. I was not making that claim. It is common ground between us that central government does not employ teachers. It is common ground between us that central government does not actually run the schools. What the noble Earl has now confirmed is the

419
illogicality and, indeed, the undesirability of having central government, which is not the employer and which does not run the schools, actually imposing the appraisal system. It is quite inadequate for the noble Earl to say that we have a national framework for probationary teachers. It is true that our teacher training system—probation is part of that, and an immediate follow-on from that—does necessarily have a national framework because it is providing teachers for the school system as a whole. That is not the way in which our subsequent education system operates. It operates through local control of finance and employment. It is plainly irrational of the Government to seek, on this one matter of appraisal, to impose this national framework about which the noble Earl is so keen. I apologise. It is not, in fact, one matter. We see in the next clause that the Government seek to impose a national framework on the in-service training of teachers. We shall have something to say about that matter, too.
Everything that the Government have said convinces me not only that our individual amendments are correct but, as my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has said, that there is something fundamentally wrong with this clause. The Government appear to have in mind through the words of their spokesman in the Committee today a much clearer idea of the purposes and methods of appraisal than they are prepared to put into the Bill. If it is thought—I can see the justification for this—that it is unsuitable for the face of the Bill to set out a complete appraisal scheme, then, surely, the Government should agree, as the Secretary of State has already been asked by my right honourable and honourable friends in another place, to publish model statutory instruments about the appraisal system before asking the Committee and this House to agree that Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill.
I am not expecting the Government to answer that point now. I leave the thought with the Committee and suggest that, if the Government come back with model statutory instruments that are to the satisfaction of the House, we might well consider not making further moves at Report stage. If there is no move in that direction, I can undertake to the Committee that we shall hear more of the matter. We will not agree to a blank cheque being given to the Government for the appraisal of teachers in service in our schools and in our institutions of further education.
With that indication of our further views I think that it would be appropriate for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 86A:
Page 39, line 22, at end insert ("and
(d) requiring local education authorities to provide for a person of standing, not employed by and independent of the local education authority that is the employer of the teacher concerned, to be involved in each appraisal.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment also addresses the Government's proposals in Clause 37 for the appraisal of teachers' performance. We have already had extensive debates about the propriety of
420
this in principle. I gather that the Labour Party is opposed to appraisal, and so are the teachers' unions. Certainly in the form set out here it does not commend itself to us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? We have never said that the Labour Party was opposed to appraisal. We have said that the Labour Party was opposed to appraisal imposed in the way that Clause 37 proposes to impose it. However, that is not being opposed to appraisal; indeed, we have said the opposite.
Lord Kilmarnock: In that case I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I thought his party's views were somewhat different. I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that.
As I was saying, the proposal does not commend itself to us in the form in which it appears in this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said only a few minutes ago, it gives the Secretary of State a totally blank cheque, including a right to assess what is unassessable, as my noble friend Lord Ritchie suggested on an earlier amendment.
It is arguable that certain of the disputed other activities could be taken into account in a much improved teacher contract, including a right to in-service training and proper career development. Another approach could be the setting up of a teachers' professional body on the lines advocated in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock.
However, that is not what is before us. We have here something quite different. It is an extremely unsatisfactory clause in the Bill. My amendment seeks simply to make the Government's proposals at least somewhat fairer than they are and to allay the very understandable suspicions of the teaching profession.
The amendment simply requires local education authorities,
"to provide for a person of standing, not employed by and independent of the local education authority that is the employer of the teacher concerned, to be involved in each appraisal".
I am not sure that my form of words is necessarily quite right, but my aim is to get the Government to acknowledge the principle and to come forward at some stage of the Bill—possibly the next stage—with an amendment of their own. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who is no longer in her place, talked about teachers appraising teachers, but there are considerable dangers if one keeps it too in-house. So I am not wedded to the wording I have down here. This is a probing amendment and I should like to hear the reaction of the noble Earl to it. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: The effect of this amendment would be to have an outsider, unspecified but defined as being independent of the LEA concerned, involved in the appraisal of each and every teacher. The motive, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has expressed, is to ensure fairness for the individual. Such fairness is clearly essential and the Government are most concerned that appraisal arrangements should embody adequate safeguards for the individual. But the education service would be unique if it were to have an external element carried into its appraisal

421
scheme. As I understand it, model practice in the private and public sector is to build into internal management procedures appropriate checks and balances to avoid bias, favouritism and so on. Some do it by means of "grandfathers" who scrutinise the appraisals of immediate superiors. Also, as is envisaged for teachers—and I referred to this earlier—in Clause 37(2)(b) it is standard for the appraisees to have the right to make representations.
I wonder whether the teachers themselves would want somebody with the judgment of Solomon standing at the back of their classroom, listening to them in action, and then saying, "I, who have nothing to do with the local education authority, teaching or schools, know just what is wrong with you or what is right with you". With all respect to the noble Lord this strikes me as being a very strange suggestion.
As I have said before—but I cannot get this message across—the Government do not have a national blueprint to impose. These important matters can and should be worked out by the parties concerned. But the Government's view is that senior personnel in the schools themselves, and, as appropriate, in the LEAs, should provide the management expertise to operate an appraisal scheme which is sensitive to the understandable anxieties of teachers and embodies adequate safeguards for the individual. I think the noble Lord will have guessed that the Government do not think an awful lot of this suggestion.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The mover of the amendment ought to tell us where this independent assessor will come from. It might be a parent of a child at the school. The child might have carried tales about the school to his parents. I presume that the teacher would have the right to object to the assessor in the same way that an accused person can object to a juror: on the grounds that perhaps he would not get a fair deal.
What is more important is the question: who will appraise the heads and deputy heads? This is a problem with which we had to deal in the Inland Revenue. I am sorry to keep referring to the Inland Revenue, but it is about the most sensible piece of administrative personnel machinery that one can find. We solved this problem by making the inspecting officer the independent assessor for district inspectors, for example, who are in a similar position to heads of schools. I would say that HMI is probably the person who ought to appraise the heads of schools. He already has to look at the school as a whole and so on. All these matters need discussion somewhere, at some time.
Again we have the mischief of trying to do too much without doing enough in the statute law. I am sorry that I cannot support the Alliance on this amendment because I do not think it is necessary. Objections can be raised against it. That is another detail. This is only one of half a dozen important matters which will have to be discussed and negotiated. I think that the best thing to do on this clause is not to try to amend it but to vote against it.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Earl has left me in no doubt of his view of this proposal. I was glad to hear the Government's commitment to fairness and I hope that it will extend to other areas of the Bill. The noble
422
Earl seemed to feel that the proposed checks and balances would be adequate. He also suggested that it would not be encouraging for teachers to have people with no knowledge of education forming part of the assessment process. I would confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I had in mind—though they are not specified in the amendment—such people as HMIs, or indeed representatives from other education authorities. I should have thought that that was a very sensible check and/or balance to introduce into this kind of procedure. However, I put this forward simply to gauge the feeling of the Committee. I shall read the debate. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 86B:
Page 40, line 2, at end insert—
("(4) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section shall not come into force unless they have been laid before and approved by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: It has already emerged from the discussions that we have had on this subject that there are severe disagreements about how an appraisal system could best be run. The Government's Clause 37 has come in for widespread criticism on all sorts of points during the course of our debates in Committee this afternoon.
In the last amendment, I was trying to argue that there could be less teacher opposition if the system were at least seen to be fair and objective and not to permit of any local victimisation. Certainly the Secretary of State does not have the monopoly of wisdom on this subject, as is evidenced by the clause that he has brought before us in so clumsy a form that it presumes to appraise such activities as are at present voluntary and arise from supervision or leadership of non-curricular activities that cannot possibly be assessed. My noble friend Lord Ritchie has already pointed out that such activity cannot possibly be susceptible to appraisal under some kind of points system.
If the Secretary of State can make such unrealistic proposals in the Bill, then it is not at all acceptable to us that he should have the right to make whatever regulations he likes without returning to Parliament. By Parliament, I mean both Houses of Parliament, with particular reference to this House, where there is a great deal of knowledge, expertise and wisdom on those matters, some of which has already been demonstrated this afternoon.
I remind the Committee that the amendment reads:
"Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section shall not come into force unless they have been laid before and approved by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament".
Some noble Lords may secretly feel that that proviso is lacking in value because it lacks teeth. Indeed, your Lordships can reject regulations but very seldom do so, and your Lordships cannot amend them. Therefore, what is the point of such a proviso?
The point is that we can debate regulations, and if we believe that they are misconceived or are open to serious criticism, then we can point that out to the Secretary of State and even move a Motion asking the Government to withdraw them and reconsider them

423
in the light of the opinions expressed in this Chamber. That means that we should at least be able to look at the Secretary of State's proposals and give him the benefit of our advice and the opportunity to take his proposals away and think again if we do not feel that his first effort has been up to scratch.
It really is not good enough to allow the Secretary of State to produce regulations in this very sensitive area, vitally affecting the future of the teaching profession and what our children are taught in schools, without coming back to Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: Here again we have this business of having to consult both Houses of Parliament. If we go on like that, before very long we shall have to consult both Houses of Parliament before we appoint a teacher. It seems to me that it would be much better to let the Houses of Parliament get on with their own work, which certainly has nothing to do with education.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: Perhaps I may say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock. This clause is causing considerable apprehension among the teaching profession, and such an amendment as my noble friend proposes would give teachers some reassurance that the Secretary of State's proposals will be scrutinised. The teachers do not know what may come forth from on high; that is the trouble. A provision such as that proposed would give them some reassurance. I am afraid that all this arises from the lack of trust that at the moment obtains between the teaching profession and the Secretary of State. A provision such as my noble friend proposes would do something to give reassurance in a very sensitive situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am in sympathy with that which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, wants to do, but I share his scepticism about the effectiveness of statutory instruments and regulations being laid before both Houses of Parliament—largely for the reasons he gives; that they are not capable of amendment, and by convention they are not actually turned back, particularly if they have been approved by another place.
I wonder what the noble Lord feels about the suggestion I made a few minutes ago: that before we approve Clause 37 as part of the Bill, we should see a model statutory instrument. It is when considering the later stages of the Bill that we shall need to know in writing, and not simply from the lips even of the noble Earl, what really is in the Government's mind.
The Earl of Swinton: This amendment, as has been admirably explained, would require that regulations made by the Secretary of State on the subject of teacher appraisal should not come into force unless they have been laid before, and approved by affirmative resolution of, each House of Parliament. I would not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on this.
I am sure that all noble Lords are aware that Clause 48 of the Bill makes clear the Government's intention that powers of the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations under the Bill shall be exercised by statutory instrument, and that such instruments shall
424
be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; that is, the negative resolution procedure should apply.
I see no reason why the regulations on appraisal should be treated differently from others in this Bill. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, that they will indeed be of major importance, but I have more than once made clear what is the Government's position on this matter. Our intention is that the framework for appraisal arrangements should be drawn up on a voluntary basis by agreement between the parties concerned; teacher representatives, the local authority employers, and central government.
That process will surely involve much consultation and debate. In fact, that debate has been running for some time and, as far as it is possible with the unions blocking development work to look into the practical issues, my right honourable friend has spelt out the sort of arrangements that he would like to see. They are positive arrangements designed to stimulate professional development and improve management. I should have thought that when the regulations come before Parliament they will contain nothing that has not been the subject of analysis and open debate between the parties concerned.
I can assure everyone that the regulations will not be pulled out of the hat. My right honourable friend really does not have some overpowering white rabbit that he is waiting to unleash upon a miserable band of teachers throughout the country. There will be time for consultation. In those circumstances, the process of negative resolution is surely entirely appropriate. If there remain matters of concern, then the regulations can, after all, be prayed against and a debate must be held. Consequently, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I myself found the Minister's reply to the speech of my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock most disturbing, because it does not meet at all the point on the basis of which my noble friend presented his amendment to the Committee.
The Minister is content in simply saying that he sees no reason to treat this provision any differently from the other provisions of the Bill that may have the effect of empowering the Secretary of State to make regulations. As I understood the speech of my noble friend, he was saying, and in this he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, that the regulations under Clause 37 should be treated differently because everyone who had spoken on the earlier amendments had expressed grave anxieties about the provisions of Clause 37. Indeed, I listened to all the speeches that were made, and no one said a word in favour of them with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for whose judgment in many matters I have the greatest respect. However, it was clear that, in relation to this matter, the noble Baroness had not listened at all to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who expressed the gravest anxieties about the provisions of this clause.
The Minister's answer does not meet the point. Everyone who spoke, with the exception of the noble Baroness, expressed the gravest concern. People who are knowledgeable and experienced as regards the

425
matters with which the Bill is concerned, expressed the gravest concern. Surely that is a perfectly good reason for treating the provisions in this clause relating to statutory instruments quite differently from the other provisions in the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: The noble Lord, Lord Somers, spoke in support of this clause on two occasions. However, I can understand all that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has said if, with all respect, he believes what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, reads into this provision, which is that all the teachers will be taken over by some coup by my right honourable friend and paid for centrally. If Members believe that, then I can understand the reasons for their anxiety. However, as I have tried to explain, that is not the point of the provision. The negative procedure is perfectly adequate to cope with anything which may arise under this clause or, indeed, the rest of the Bill.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I did not say that I thought that that was what would happen. I was quoting the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who said that that would have been the right thing to do. I do not fear the Secretary of State taking over the teachers in this country. He would not be Secretary of State very long if he did so.
The Earl of Swinton: I am most grateful for that remark.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I did not say that it was the right thing to do. I said that I could understand it, and I made the confession that if I were the Secretary of State for Education it was what I would want to do. However, that is not quite the same thing. Let us get the record straight, otherwise there will be more trouble.
The Earl of Swinton: There seems to be a general misunderstanding, but I can give a categorical undertaking that what has been put forward is not in the mind of either my right honourable friend or anyone else in the Government at present.
Lord Kilmarnock: I was as amazed as the noble Earl to hear the noble Lord, Lord Somers, make the remarkable statement—and I wrote it down—that our work has nothing to do with education. If he really means that, he would do the noble Earl out of a job, other of course than in his distinguished capacity as Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that I am not suggesting consulting Parliament upon something trivial; I am suggesting that Parliament should be consulted on a whole new mechanism to be imported into the field of education—an almost revolutionary concept. I do not think that that can be put down as trivial.
As always, I listened with respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who followed me when I pointed out the constraints under which we operate in this House on affirmative instruments. However, I remind the noble Lord that Motions have been moved—and no doubt will be moved—before or after instruments of
426
that kind, asking the Government to withdraw them. If my memory does not serve me ill, regulation have been withdrawn after debate in this House. Indeed, I think that that was possibly the case in relation to a Motion of my noble friend Lady Seear on equal pay for equal work. Perhaps I overdid it myself in suggesting that this form of procedure is entirely toothless; I do not think that it is.
The noble Earl has assured us that regulations will not be pulled out of a hat. He has talked about consultation. I should like to ask him what form of consultation he has in mind. Is he thinking of a discussion paper, a Green Paper, a press release, or what? Perhaps before I decide what to do with the amendment, the noble Earl will, with the leave of the House, say a few words on the matter.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for his support, and I am bound to say, bearing in mind the balance of the debate at the moment, that I am not satisfied that we do not need to bring these regulations back to Parliament in the form of a statutory instrument. A great deal of concern about Clause 37 has been expressed on all sides of the Committee. I do not know whether the noble Earl is able to tell me something about the form of consultation?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, I can indeed, It has been going on for a long time. The Government's intentions on appraisal were first set out in March 1983 in Teaching Quality, which said:
"The Government believe that the formal assessment of teacher performance is necessary."
Since the summer of 1984 the department has been trying to launch practical fieldwork to work out how appraisal might best operate in the schools. Specific grant for this work has been available, but the opposition of the unions has meant that it has not been taken up.
In October 1984 the Secretary of State wrote to the local authority associations and the teacher unions suggesting for the first time the possibility of his taking an enabling power to secure appraisal. Both employers and unions, including the NUT, have continued to endorse the idea of appraisal in principle. For example, when my right honourable friend met the NUT in January 1985 there was considerable agreement on the value of appraisal for the professional and personal development of teachers.
In March 1985 the White Paper, Better Schools, which referred to appraisal, appeared. In June 1985 HMI issued Quality in Schools: Evaluation and Appraisal, and so on. Quite honestly, consultation is taking place the whole time. There is a great deal of discussion taking place at the moment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. He has pointed out that there has been a great deal of discussion of the idea of appraisal in principle, and he has pointed to various discussion and background papers. However, we are now in the area of a statute and that statute is extremely sketchy in this respect. Therefore, although I am grateful for the noble Earl's attempt to satisfy me, I am bound to say that I do not think that he has done so, and I am inclined to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 86B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 109.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Amherst, E.

McNair, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mais, L.

Attlee, E.

Mishcon, L.

Aylestone, L.

Molloy, L.

Birk, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mulley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kennet, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Kirkhill, L.

Underhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

White, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lockwood, B.

Willis, L.

Longford, E.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Auckland, L.

Forester, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Beloff, L.

Gainford, L.

Belstead, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bessborough, E.

Geddes, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Glanusk, L.

Brentford, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Greenway, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gridley, L.

Caithness, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Cathcart, E.

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hives, L.

Cox, B.

Hood, V.

Craigavon, V.

Hooper, B.

Croft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Davidson, V.

Kitchener, E.

De La Warr, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Denning, L.

Layton, L.

Digby, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Lothian, M.

Dormer, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

McFadzean, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Marley, L.

Elton, L.

Marsh, L.

428

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Somers, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swansea, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mersey, V.

Swinton, E.

Mottistone, L.

Teviot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Teynham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Orkney, E.

Thurlow, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Trenchard, V.

Portland, D.

Trumpington, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rodney, L.

Vickers, B.

Romney, E.

Vivian, L.

Rugby, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Whitelaw, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sandford, L.

Young, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Young of Graffham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.46 p.m.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Grants for teacher training]:
[Amendment Nos. 86C and 86D not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have not given notice of my intention to oppose the Motion that Clause 38 stand part of the Bill. It is always difficult to anticipate whether there are going to be amendments from any quarter on a particular clause which will enable one to say the things that have to be said. We appear to be approving, without comment, the provisions for in-service training of teachers.
It is appropriate that a word should be said about the Government's proposals, as with appraisal, on the basis that there is no opposition at all on this side to the in-service training of teachers but there are some doubts about the method whereby in-service training of teachers may be secured, and whether this is the best way of going about it. I rise on the Motion that the clause stand part in order that the Government may have an opportunity to make their position as clear as possible so as to help us in our consideration of how to treat these matters at later stages in the passage of the Bill.
The proposals for the in-service training of teachers were certainly anticipated and presaged by a speech by the Secretary of State in March of last year. There is no question that there has been consultation on these matters and that the matter is referred to in better schools. Indeed, the Secretary of State last year referred, very properly, to the report of 1984 of the Advisory Committee on the supply and education of teachers. However, I should not like it to be thought that we accept the claim made by the Secretary of State that these particular proposals for in-service training follow naturally from the proposals of the Advisory Committee on the supply and education of teachers and would have the support of that committee.
The Advisory Committee is a committee of all partners in the education service. Broadly what it

429
recommended was a programe of in-service education and training for teachers which should be accompanied by an increase in funding for the purpose, and that the local authorities should retain the power to decide how the money is spent. In view of what is said in the Notes on Clauses on this clause it is important that the in-service training system should be "systematic and purposeful"—I do not think anybody would disagree with that—but also that it should concentrate on "areas of national priority".
I am not convinced that the advisory council, if it were reassembled to consider this clause, would be so confident either that the resources are being made available or that there is sufficient agreement about areas of national priority to justify the way in which this clause is being proposed. I remind the Committee of what the advisory committee said in its recommendations. It said that there should be a general grant to education authorities for in-service education and training; and that it should be paid at 90 per cent. and distributed on a basis agreed between central and local government. Local education authorities should have discretion on how to use the grant within the INSET field, and the recommended target should be 5 per cent. of the expenditure on teachers' salaries.
The important matters here are two-fold. The first is that there should genuinely be new money for this purpose. I should welcome some words of assurance from the Government that the money which will be devoted to in-service education and training will be in addition to the general grant going to the education service. The second is that, as ACSET recommended, the power to decide how the money will be spent shall remain with the local authorities.
It is all very well to talk about areas of national priority. We can all identify areas such as, and particularly, science teaching or teaching in computing and information technology. One could name a number of others where this is of high priority for the development of our scientific, technological and industrial skills in this country. But that does not mean to say that an individual local authority necessarily has the same priorities.
It may be that an individual local authority has a high standard of scientific or engineering teaching and that in its case the money should be spent more on teaching basic mathematics, languages or other subjects which are as important but which may not have been identified by the Government as areas of national priority. To that extent surely local authorities must have the ability to take account, by all means, of the national priorities which the Government set, but to adapt them not to their own prejudices or to their own ill thought out wishes but to the actual quality of teaching in different areas that is available to them and the needs of the teaching staff that they have in their service.
This is not making any revolutionary point and it is certainly not making a point against the improvement and better co-ordination of the in-service education and training of teachers. That is an objective which we all share, but I should be grateful for something more than is in the Bill or was in the Second Reading speeches to indicate the way in which the Government see this provision taking place; an assurance that it will be genuinely new money, an assurance that the
430
individual needs of local authorities will be taken into account and that the many recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers will be taken into account in the implementation of the clause.
The Earl of Swinton: Clause 38 will enable the Government to grant-aid local authority expenditure on the in-service training of teachers and certain others closely involved in the education service. It is idely accepted that the current arrangements are imperfect and that a more systematic approach to the planning of in-service training is required at local level. A new system of grants would create the framework for more purposeful and systematic planning.
I am aware that the local authorities wish to see an increase in expenditure on in-service training from the beginning of the scheme. We fully accept that our policies for improving schools will make increasing demands on teachers and that extensive in-service training will be required to equip teachers to respond to these demands. We also consider that in-service training should form a part of the career development of all teachers. The amount of local authority expenditure to be grant-aided under the intended new scheme in 1987–89 will be determined later this year as part of the Government's wider consideration of local authority expenditure.
The Government cannot take decisions on the financing of the scheme ahead of their general consideration of public expenditure, and so the question of whether it is new money has not yet been decided. But the new grant should simplify and systemise the existing arrangements for supporting expenditure by local authorities on training. I hope that the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities will enter into dialogue with us on the detailed aspects of the scheme to help to ensure that the new scheme provides the benefits which we intend.
I am also aware of concern that the new grant mechanism would be incompatible with the proper exercise of local authority discretion over the deployment of resources for in-service training. In reply I would stress our intention that the prime responsibility for planning, and implementing in-service training would remain with the local authority. Our aim is to create a better framework for more effective local planning and management which we believe is in the interests of local authorities and of teachers.
As I said, detailed arrangements for the new scheme are currently under consideration. We intend that grant will be provided to support local authority expenditure incurred after 1st April 1987, subject to enabling legislation and the coming into force of the necessary regulations.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 86E:
After Clause 38, insert the follow 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: In moving this amendment I should also like also to speak to Amendment No. 92 which is concerned with the same issue of ensuring that governing bodies have the training and skills necessary for the proper exercise of the functions laid on them by the Bill. I noticed that my noble friend Lady Phillips expressed scepticism about the training of governors. I do not know whether she was confident about the ability of governors to exercise their functions without training or whether she felt that it was a wrong use of public finance. No doubt she will be able to enlighten me on that point.
I say to my noble friend and to the Committee that for some years now there has been recognition by governors that the proceedings of a governing body, the effective conduct of governing bodies and the way in which an individual governor can perform effectively as a governor is not something which comes as a matter of animal instinct. It requires, particularly for those who have not been used to committee procedure, some introduction and training. A number of local authorities and the National Association of Governors and Managers particularly, have taken pains, at their own expense and not at the expense of the public purse, to provide training materials and courses for new members of governing bodies. I have seen the programme of the National Association of Governors and Managers and I express my admiration for the work that it has done within the limits of the resources available.
The Bill proposes, in our view rightly, that there should be a wider responsibility for governing bodies and a different method of composition of governing bodies. It seems logical that if we are to have considerable numbers of new people coming on to governing bodies—and many more governing bodies, apart from anything else, because the provision for governing bodies is universal and the provision for grouping of governing bodies is very restrictive—there will be literally thousands of members of governing bodies (sometimes a majority of a particular governing body) without the experience of committee work or of the education service which is available to those who have been serving on governing bodies in the past.
Therefore, to provide the minimum, as we see it, in these amendments—
"A central advisory unit … to collect and publicise … training materials … promote good practices in governor training … and develop new initiatives in governor training and … support
—and then, in Clause 43, if I may anticipate it, to see to it that the local authority has the responsibility of ensuring that governors are provided with such training and support as is necessary for the effective discharge of the functions of a governing body seems to us a useful corollary to the intentions of the Government. It in no way conflicts with the purpose of the Bill. It does not involve central government in substantial additional expenditure and, indeed, with the continued co-operation of a body such as the National Association of Governors and Managers it need not involve substantial additional expenditure for the local authorities themselves.
I hope that the Government will feel that these amendments are in the spirit of the Bill and that they
432
will find some way of accepting them or of giving recognition to the principal behind them. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I rise to support this clause. I think that it is one which is necessary and which very much needs inclusion in the Bill. The reason I support it is that some time ago when I was going round looking at governing bodies I realised that many of them were unaware of what were their rights as governors and, because of their unawareness, all kinds of decisions were taken that should not have been taken—decisions which had to be corrected by the local education officers.
I should like to use the analogy that I have used on numerous occasions in emphasising the need for training. Years ago, when I was first appointed a magistrate, there was no training for magistrates. My only way of gaining experience was by sitting back and listening and then asking questions, after the case had been tried, of the people who were on the bench or of the learned clerk. I feel that the new decisions of the Lord Chancellor's department—and they are not really new now; they have been in force for several years—on training magistrates are good and proper. I feel that due to that we have many good magistrates who are doing a very useful job throughout the country.
If we had a similar scheme for the training of governors, it would again improve the government of schools. I am not suggesting that we introduce a training scheme that would enable all governors to come away with a diploma or with a B Ed. Degree; I am wanting something simple that can be operated. I differ from my noble friend Lord McIntosh on this. I would rather see a national agreement on training than leave it to the local authorities. I would leave it to local authorities to administer, but I should like to see a national body that would devise a scheme that would be acceptable to local authorities—but we are getting on to that matter later. I feel at this moment that the amendment before us is good, is practicable, and will work. Quite a number of good local authorities, sensible local authorities, have introduced this already, and it is proving of great benefit to a great many people who spend a lot of time in service to education as governors.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey (because I think that he said that he was speaking also to Amendment No. 92), what he has in mind by the use in that amendment of the word "support". Support apparently is something distinct from training. I do not think that there is much dispute about training, but "support" is a very general expression. Does it mean support of a financial value—the provision of a secretary or a car? It is a very imprecise expression, as I understand it. It might possibly be the basis of some abuse. At any rate, before the Committee is asked to decide on this amendment I should like to know how the noble Lord himself understands that word.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am happy to answer the noble Lord, although I think that my noble friend

433
Lord Taylor, has in effect already answered him by his analogy in relation to magistrates. I would remind him that Clause 43 at present provides that local authorities shall make available,
"to every … governor (free of charge) such training as the authority consider necessary".
The word "support" means that not only should the training be available but that such things as fares to the training centres, subsistence to pay for meals while the training is going on—that kind of thing, which is proposed by the Government themselves in Clause 44 for the meetings of governing bodies—should also be available on those occasions when training takes place. I think it is rational that if you are providing support for governors to attend governors' meetings you should provide the same support when they are attending a course of training.
Baroness Phillips: Since my noble friend mentioned me, although I had no intention of speaking on this particular amendment I naturally rise to the bait that is laid. I do so whether it comes from my own Front Bench or from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has not actually laid me any bait in this particular discussion. But I would question very much whether people who are trained for voluntary exercises actually perform them much better than those who adopt the old system of, "Sit next to Nellie!" Like the noble Lord here, I went on the Bench when there was no formal training. I do not think that I was ever a very bad magistrate, because I have got reasonable intelligence and I was given an idea of what my particular functions were.
Equally, as a chairman of governors I found that our governors, when they came on to the boards of the voluntary schools—and I am beginning to think that the voluntary schools must be quite different from state schools, bearing in mind the different matters that have emerged from these debates—were each given the details of their particular conditions, of the fact that they were governors and of the things that they could and could not do. I cannot recall any occasion when we ever came into conflict with the local education authority or, indeed, when we did not perform an excellent piece of work.
I was, equally, an unpaid and untrained councillor many years ago. I do not think that the quality of local government then was any less than it is today. There are moments when I think that it was decidedly better. I think that you can overstate the value of training voluntary people. I think that if you get people who are intelligent and have a knowledge of life, they cannot go very far wrong. My reason particularly for being concerned about this is that if this Bill is going to cost £10 million then it is all going to come from the same source. It is going to come from a local education authority. If you are spending it on training governors while at the same time you have books in the schools which are a disgrace and in some cases almost unreadable, and if you have teachers who are not receiving an adequate salary, it seems to me that the money would be better employed in that direction rather than in introducing some frills. If, much later on, another government is elected which want to put more money in, that is a different thing. But that is my particular objection. I say to my noble friend that I
434
should like to see the money spent on the things that are really vital; namely, the children and the people who are teaching them.
Lord Beloff: If I may intervene between the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it seems to me that a lot of the argument depends on what is thought of in terms of the amount of time that would be devoted. The word "training" means all sorts of things. If you are talking about training for a man to pilot an aircraft, then this is a matter of months or, in some cases, of years. Or are you thinking of something which could be done on a Saturday afternoon, just learning the rules of committee procedure? Or is there something in between? Unless we know the density, as it were, of the training, and the amount of time which governors are supposed to spend on it, we cannot answer the question as to how much the support would cost. Nor do I think we can altogether estimate the willingness of governors to submit themselves to training in addition to the work that they already do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening between myself and my noble friend. I suggest that I am intervening between him and the Bill he is supporting, because the questions he is raising apply not only to the amendment but also to Clause 43 of the Bill. It is his Government which are proposing that,
"there is made available to every such governor (free of charge) such training as the authority consider necessary for the effective discharge of those functions."
If his question is valid—and I believe it is—it is to his own Front Bench that he should be directing the question. I can only give my personal answer; I cannot answer on behalf of the Government who are proposing to enact it in law.
My personal answer to my noble friend would be that I readily concede that when she first became a chairman of governors or a magistrate her native wit and understanding of the way in which our society operates made it unnecessary for her to have formal training. I am in no doubt about that whatsoever. However, in view of the many thousands of people without committee experience who are going to be involved—and I hope we are not going to become a nation of committee members because that would be a fate worse than death, even though I suspect most of us spend more of our time in committees than we would wish to—as new members of governing bodies a modicum of help would be useful on how to achieve certain things, when and how to ask questions and what the rights are of going to a school and talking to people there. I believe the Government are sincere in wishing to open up governing bodies to more people and different kinds of people. There are many things which are already the content of training for governors in good authorities and which could be valuable to these new governors. I do not believe that is in any way in conflict with the Government's wishes.
6.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): Perhaps I can start by saying that I agree with a good deal of what the noble Lord,

435
Lord McIntosh, has just said on the training of governors although I do not wish to come between him and his noble friend Lady Phillips, with whom I may say I quite frequently find myself in agreement. I think that Clause 43 has been widely welcomed in connection with the training of governors and it has to be read in conjunction with the early clauses in the Bill, setting out the greater importance and the greater proportion of governors who will be parent-governors, the greater importance we attach to the role of the governing body and therefore the need quite properly to train those who are to take part in these governing bodies.
I think one can advance very good reasons for this training; and it is on that point that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because I think there are many good reasons, particularly for parents who perhaps will not have had the experience of serving on a committee or of being a school governor, so that they may become from, as it were, day one, more effective governors than they otherwise might have been. Of course, some people are naturally good and they make naturally good governors without training, but I think that Clause 43 has been widely welcomed and that its provisions are to be seen in relation to the earlier clauses in the Bill on the role of governing bodies.
That said, I hope I can show that the new clause which is proposed in Amendment No. 86E is misconceived and not necessary,principally for two reasons. The first is the implication that local education authorities will not or cannot effectively organise the necessary provision. Until a year or so ago every survey showed that the provision of, and presumably interest in, governor training was extremely patchy; but things have changed dramatically. Many schemes are evolving in LEA areas, and arising from this two-thirds of LEAs put in extremely high-quality bids for the 10 pilot projects in appropriate forms of governor training just starting with the aid of education support grants. The results will be available in time for the new Clause 43 duty about training. I think that is good news, and news that we would all welcome.
LEAs do not have to be self-reliant in governor training. Many make use of other agencies which are active in the field: for example, dioceses in respect of voluntary schools, the Open University, the Workers' Education Association, the National Association of Governors and Managers, the Society of Education Officers and the National Association of Head Teachers. Clause 43 allows continued use of all these organisations and the talents that they represent.
The second misconception relates to the nature of the training needed. The aim is not to train governors to the point where they can in some way "out-perform" the school's teachers, on the one hand, or the LEA on the other. The aim is to give governors sufficient background knowledge and self-confidence to apply their natural ability as governors within the carefully drawn-up framework of responsibilities in Part III of the Bill. Those functions recognise the governing body as an essentially lay body between the professionals in the teaching force on the one hand,
436
and the LEA on the other. The necessary training therefore need not be elaborate.
If I may now turn to the second amendment, Amendment No. 92, where changes are proposed to Clause 43, here the first change is that the training has to be "provided" rather than "made available". Under this Bill, training is not to be obligatory and of course in that regard it differs from training of magistrates which, as I understand it, is obligatory. But the completion of training cannot be a pre-condition of taking up service as a governor. The Government very much hope that new governors will avail themselves of the opportunities for training. Against this background, I believe that the present formulation in Clause 43(b) is the right one.
The second change is that that which is to be provided has to be "necessary" to some absolute standard, rather than as judged by the LEA. As it is the LEA that is responsible for securing the provision, it has logically to be for the authority to decide what is required. Of course that does not give the LEA carte blanche: it would need to be able to demonstrate that it had seriously addressed the issue and come to a reasoned judgment. If it failed to provide anything or discharged its duty in a manifestly frivolous way, it would be liable to corrective direction by the Secretary of State under Sections 68 or 99 of the 1944 Act. That would of course be an extreme case. A much more obvious day-to-day force on LEAs is the fact that I am sure the governors will make it all too clear if they feel they are not being adequately prepared. It would therefore seem unnecessary to have some central standard set here, presumably by the proposed central unit, although I see that its role is to be only advisory. Indeed, such prescription could actually stifle welcome innovation and yet higher quality provision.
Finally, there has been some discussion about the word "support". My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked what it meant. As I understood the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, he suggested that this would include such matters as travelling expenses and subsistence, which might be available to those undertaking training. The answer would be that this would be covered by the provisions already in Clause 44 if the local education authority had a scheme of paying such allowances; and so that particular point would be covered. I very much agree with what my noble friend said: if it does not mean that, it is an imprecise term and it would be difficult to translate it into a meaningful duty to be added to the statute book.
I think it is encouraging that there is every sign of great life in the whole area of governor training. Again, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said about this. This is anticipated in the new, and widely welcome duty proposed in Clause 43. Given governors' own clear interest in receiving appropriate training, the Government see no need to alter the wording of Clause 43 or to construct some new central agency by means of a new clause. I believe that this would add to bureaucracy. It would be an unnecessary drain on resources. It may even stifle some of the welcome diversity that is now emerging. I hope that the Committee will be reassured that we are mindful of the points that are raised, and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have found that a helpful and constructive reply, and I shall certainly read carefully what the noble Baroness said. I noticed that the brief that she was reading from at one stage was written on the assumption that the central advisory unit was prescriptive rather than advisory. She herself observed that this was the case, and what we were proposing was advisory rather than setting central standards. I think that that is an important distinction which we ought to have made more clear in moving the amendments.
I was also encouraged to learn from her, and it was due to my ignorance that I did not know beforehand, that there had been so many applications for grants under the education support grant. I wonder whether she feels able to say whether the pilot project, which was so successful, would now be extended to cover all local education authorities and a wider range of projects. I do not know whether that is something which the noble Baroness feels able to answer now or whether she would prefer to write to me, having read what I have said. I am happy to leave it on that basis. I believe that we are not far apart on these matters and I am sure that the intention is in the right place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Recoupment]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 41, line 11, after ("amount") insert ("reflecting the average cost of provision to the providing authority").
The noble Lord said: We now turn to the complex area of recoupment among local authorities for educational expenditure, and I have to say immediately that I am by no means an expert on this subject. I understand that it is an area in which a certain number of people in the Department of Education and Science are expert and a large number of other people are happy to leave it to them, so anything I say about recoupment I say with considerable diffidence. If I may, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 88 and 89, and I should like to treat them as probing amendments because my understanding of the situation may be totally wrong.
As I read it, it appears that there are two ways in which the Government can determine the basis on which recoupment takes place. As I understand Clause 39, the Government's intention first of all is that wherever possible there should be agreement between the authorities concerned about the level of recoupment. I think we can all be agreed on that; but it says that if there is no agreement about the level of recoupment the Secretary of State shall lay down regulations to cover the level of recoupment.
There are two ways of doing it. One would be the average cost of provision to the providing authority, and the other would be the marginal cost of provision. As I understand it, the marginal cost of provision could lead to difficulties, either when the actual level of provision varies greatly between one local authority and another, or where the unit costs are substantially
438
different, as for example where you have an inner city authority, let us say the Inner London Education Authority (which has the additional costs of London weighting), the additional costs very often of higher rateable values and higher rates, and higher costs of expenditure, provision of ancillary staff, and so on.
The intention of this amendment is to see whether the Government can be a little more precise than they have been in Clause 39; to see whether it is possible to reflect the necessary differences in costs between different authorities; and to see whether there is any way of making clearer to local authorities the way in which recoupment costs are going to be settled by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am very happy to start by agreeing with the noble Lord opposite that this is an extremely complex area. The purpose of Clause 39, as I understand it, is to put beyond doubt the legality of the existing inter-authority payments committee system which has been operating successfully for many years. It will also allow the Secretary of State to use his default powers to bolster that system where appropriate by giving directions based on national average costs. This system inevitably contains an element of rough justice, but I think it is to be preferred to one based on actual costs because of its administrative simplicity and because it provides a better balance between the interests of the home and the providing authority.
As I understand the noble Lord's amendments. the average costs which he suggests should be reflected would, in fact, be the average between the providing and the home authority, whereas, as I said, the acknowledged system under the inter-authority payments committee system reflects the national average. Therefore, the amendments appear to frustrate the purpose of the clause and should he resisted.
I do not know if I have helped to clarify, but perhaps not, judging by the look on the noble Lord's face.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, but what she says is not in accordance with my understanding of the way in which the inter-authority payments committee actually operates. I understood that it was not a single national level but that it was an agreed and negotiated level of recoupment which includes a London weighting in the consideration. Therefore, if there is a recoupment between the Inner London Education Authority with its necessarily highest costs and another neighbouring authority, the London weighting as applied to ILEA's costs would be taken into account under existing arrangements; but there is no assurance that it would be taken into account in the arrangements as proposed by the Bill. However, this is a technical matter, and rather than detain the Committee with this I would prefer to read what the noble Baroness has said. I am sure she will wish to write to me if there is any difference of understanding or of evidence. I think it is preferable if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 41, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(" (b) further education of a kind such that expenditure on its provision would fall within paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 to the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.")
The noble Lord said: This is on the same subject but it is not quite such a technical amendment, although the wording of it does seem to be totally technical. Certainly, when I first looked at ways of achieving what we wanted to do I was amazed that there was no clearer way of producing it. The intention of the amendment—I hope we have got it right—is to extend the recoupment system to adult education and not just to advanced further education. The reasons for this are more than technical because it is increasingly recognised, not only by the Department of Education and Science and the education community as a whole but also by those concerned with training in the Manpower Services Commission and elsewhere, that there is no longer a hard and fast line to be drawn between advanced further education and vocational education and training. There is a somewhat illogical division between the education and training sectors in our society and government. I am not in any way arguing for a Department of Education and Training, in case anybody should draw that conclusion. While we have differences in the organisation of different aspects of what is after all a whole, which is the determination in our society to have a better educated and trained adult population and workforce, it seems illogical for adult education to be excluded from the recoupment provisions in the Bill, and I hope that Amendments Nos. 87 and 90 will achieve the objective of extending the basis of recoupment. I hasten to say that it should not involve any increase in public expenditure because it is a balancing out between local authorities. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The effect of these amendments would be to extend the principle of automatic recoupment enshrined in subsection (1) to all types of further education except those financed from the advanced further education pool, as the noble Lord has explained. The Government are keen to remove the undesirable restrictions and anomalies in the present voluntary recoupment arrangements for non-advanced further education and, in particular, to eliminate the difference in the arrangements relating to those pursuing post-complusory schooling and those seeking further education in a college. However, we do not believe that automatic recoupment is appropriate for all types of further education for a number of reasons.
I recognise that the amendment's objective is to include within the scope of the automatic recoupment provisions non-vocational adult education. That is something that the Government are opposed to in principle. The Government believe that the generality of non-vocational adult education students should make a significant contribution to the cost of that type of provision. However, authorities' policies on the degree of subsidy to be offered for adult education vary widely, and the Government would not wish to create a situation in which authorities which themselves provide little or no subsidy for non-vocational adult
440
education classes were forced to accept recoupment charges from authorities pursuing a policy of high subsidy.
Another significant factor in the Government's thinking is the rate of change and development in the types of provision offered on non-advanced further education and the mechanisms for financing them. Increasingly, and at all levels within the further education service, training provision is being offered to employers on a full-cost recovery basis. Other types of provision—for example, off-the-job training under the YTS—are still in the process of development, and the local authorities are themselves considering whether recoupment arrangements are apropriate and what form they may take. In that developing situation the Government consider it sensible to define the scope of the free-trade provision in regulations rather than have a definition written into the primary legislation which may prove inappropriate or inadequate in a relatively short space of time.
We also need to consider the intention of recoupment arrangements with the system for assessing authorities' needs as part of the distribution of rate support grant. Our proposals are designed to be consistent with the existing rate support grant system but would also give scope for changes to respond to alterations in the system for financing local government. That flexibility would be lacking if the amendments were accepted. In the hope of maintaining maximum flexibility in this matter, I ask your Lordships to reject the amendments.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I wonder whether I could ask the noble Baroness the Minister to reconsider this matter. I think that adult education is excluded because it is not concerned with vocational training, and that is true. However, if we look far enough into the future it could become an important sector of education. The likelihood is that with the advance of technology the working week will become substantially reduced. The idea that people will be utterly happy about that will depend entirely on their capacity to do things when they are not working. It is 20 years since I set up an adult education body because I was worried about that. I am even more worried about it now because the prospect of what I am suggesting is much closer.
There is no reasonable doubt that the concept of the 40-hour working week will not be sustained for the next 10 years. We must prepare for retirement. People will not be happy if it just comes and they have not prepared for it. We need adult education to help people. It is important that the education service should provide people with the opportunity to develop interests and skills, not necessarily for work or production but so that they can live happily. I therefore ask the noble Baroness the Minister to look at this matter again, because I do not think that it is as simple as the Bill suggests.
Baroness Hooper: I can reassure the noble Lord by saying that this is a subject which is generally considered to be important and the Government will continue to look at it. In my original response I explained that we see this as a developing situation. That is why we seek the maximum flexibility, which we feel the amendments do not necessarily provide.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad that the noble Baroness felt able to start to heed the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, because what he said is true. The distinction between vocational and non-vocational education is no longer a tenable distinction from the point of view of statute law when we have, as we have now and shall have in the future, a population, many members of which do not have access to a full-time job and whose working life will change in ways they do not expect and do not want, and who face retirement earlier than they would wish and without the preparation that they would wish to have for retirement.
We see a growth in our service industries at the expense of manufacturing industry. That growth will certainly include a growth of leisure industries, for which adult education of the type that we understand is probably a more relevant preparation than some of the stricter vocational training which falls within the scope of automatic recoupment.
When we look at those changes over decades and not years, it will be seen in due course that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has it right, and that increasingly that distinction will not be possible and the Government will not be able to sustain it. I was equally unconvinced by the argument that some local authorities provide more support for non-vocational education than others and that therefore it would be unfair to those which choose to provide a lower level of support.
I remind the noble Baroness that she successfully resisted my previous amendments which provided a basis upon which recoupment could be calculated. As she did successfully resist them, the amount is to be determined in accordance with the direction given by the Secretary of State. It is therefore in the Government's hands to set the recoupment at a level which avoids the injustice which the noble Baroness was pointing out.
I am not satisfied by the Government's answer. I hope that the Government will be able to go further than the noble Baroness did in her response to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. I would certainly welcome, as I am sure he would, any indication of further thinking between now and a later stage of the Bill. Failing that, it may well be a matter to which we shall feel it necessary to come back. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 90ZA:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Costs of establishing new voluntary schools.
Where any persons submit to the Secretary of State, under subsection (2) of section 13 of the Education Act 1980, proposals for the establishment by them, or by persons whom they represent, of a new school and for its maintenance by the local education authority as a voluntary school, the Secretary of State shall by order direct that the whole of the cost incurred in the establishment of the school as would, apart from the order, fall to be defrayed by the persons who establish it, shall be defrayed by the local education authority, provided that he is convinced that the establishment of such a school is a desirable addition to the range of educational provisions available within the local education authority area.").
The noble Lord said: I think I should start by admitting that this amendment is technically defective. If I did not do so, the noble Earl would, I am sure, point it out to me. But I think I am right in saying that it should refer to Section 13 of the Education Act 1980 and not to the 1944 Act. But I hope I shall be forgiven by the Committee for that lapse, as this is simply a probing amendment designed to explore the attitude of the Government to the proposal which it contains.
There is undoubtedly a crisis in education at present and a sign of this crisis is the philosophical debate raging about where power and control over education should lie. There are forces at work, not only in the Conservative Party, urging that even greater involvement by the Secretary of State is the way ahead. The latest idea for Crown schools, for example, is merely an extension of the highly interventionist style of the present Secretary of State whether in regard to exams, the curriculum or the quality of teachers.
There is an alternative approach or philosophy, which is one that the Alliance supports, and which sees the strength of the education system as residing in local control and decentralisation. Already within the maintained sector there is an alternative type of school, particularly in inner city areas. The voluntary sector, mainly through denominational schools, remains popular and successful. In these schools, there seems to be perhaps an additional quality arising, it could be, from a certain inner coherence that comes from the religious dimension or from the spirit of the original founders. But it is difficult, if not impossible, for a group of people with some vision about education, but not necessarily denominational in origin, to come together to start a new school.
At present, as I understand it, new voluntary schools can be established with the maintenance being paid by local education authorities, but with at least 15 per cent. of the capital cost of setting up the school having to be met by those establishing the school. This 15 per cent. hurdle, or barrier, effectively prevents groups of people other than institutions with financial resources, such as churches, from being able to set up new schools in the voluntary sector.
The amendment seeks to answer that difficulty and it provides a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State, if he is convinced of the desirability and the necessity of doing this can, out of a special fund, provide that 15 per cent. of pump priming money. One can imagine that perhaps in some prosperous areas it would not be difficult for parents to come together to do that themselves; but in other areas, particularly within the inner cities, this might not be so easy. So the amendment is designed to get round that difficulty.
6.45 p.m.
I suggest that there is a real need for new voluntary non-fee paying and non-selective schools, especially in areas with problems. It is not just the local authorities, the churches or indeed the state that can have bright ideas about education or that can breathe new life into educationally deprived areas. Rather than developing an entirely new concept such as the Crown school, which the Government have floated or mooted, and which would presumably be centralist and selective,

443
why not adapt the system we already have by allowing the Secretary of State discretion to meet the 15 per cent. of the capital cost of founding a voluntary school from a special fund?
A new school in the voluntary sector which is founded from within the community with the parents as the driving force could add a new dimension to a local authority's provision, particularly if it is small in size. We should, I suggest, be willing to encourage experiments and new ideas along these lines but still within the maintained sector. The Secretary of State, on the advice of HMI, should be able to prime the pump of this process by some mechanism along the lines suggested in the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has explained that this is a probing amendment and that the intention behind it is to facilitate the establishment of new, small aided schools in inner-city areas, especially by parents, who may not be able to afford the promoters' financial responsibility for such schools. The Government very much sympathise with the thinking behind this amendment and I am sure it strikes a chord with many noble Lords. However, I do not believe the amendment provides the right answer, quite apart from the technical defects which the noble Lord himself admitted.
Aided schools have a greater degree of autonomy from the local education authority than other schools in the maintained sector. But that autonomy is in return for the governing body's or, in the case of a new school, the promoters' bearing certain financial liabilities. They are responsible for the capital costs of establishing the school and, thereafter, for external repairs and any capital alterations. They are eligible to receive 85 per cent. grant aid on such expenditure from the Secretary of State leaving the 15 per cent residue which is the subject of this amendment. Incidentally, I am not clear whether it is the noble Lord's intention that the governors' continuing liability for alterations and external repairs, once the school is in operation, is also to be borne by the LEA. The fact that they have to be responsible for that 15 per cent. is one of the reasons for the very success of aided schools.
The last part of the amendment seeks to restrict the concession to those new schools which the Secretary of State is convinced would be a desirable addition to the educational provision in the area. But every new school, of whatever type, whose establishment is approved by the Secretary of State would come within that description. All statutory proposals for new schools are decided on their merits, and there can be no question of a proposal being approved unless it would be a desirable addition to the educational provision in the area. The noble Lord might then argue that the role proposed for the Secretary of State could be made discretionary. But it would be highly invidious for the promoters of some new aided schools to have to find their 15 per cent. while, for others, this requirement was waived.
It is difficult to see how such a power could ever be exercised differentially. It would either lie unused or have the practical effect of reducing to nil the financial
444
liabilities of promoters and governors in respect of aided schools. That would not only have significant resource consequences; it would also do great damage to the foundations of the dual system which allows aided school governing bodies a measure of independence from LEAs in return for their financial contribution. Indeed, Section 15(2) of the 1944 Act currently allows the Secretary of State to grant aided status only if he is satisfied that the promoters are able and willing to meet their liabilities. There would thus be a quid, but no quo—in fact, there would be an awful lot of "quids" falling upon the head of the Government—and the continuation of that independence, which noble Lords on all sides of the House have supported, would be hard to justify.
I said that the Government are sympathetic to the noble Lord's arguments. What, then, he might well ask, are we doing about them? We have brought forward this Bill, one explicit aim of which is to increase the scope for parents beneficially to influence their children's education—in all schools, not just those in inner-city areas.
Under the Bill's various provisions, parents will be able to play a greater part than ever before in the running of their children's schools. They will have greater representation on school governing bodies and so share in the enhanced and clarified responsibilities which the Bill guarantees for such bodies. Only a minority of parents can become school governors, but Clauses 24 and 25 offer new opportunities for all parents to become more involved in the work of their children's schools. The annual parents' meeting will offer a forum for parents to probe local policies and to make their feelings known to to the governors, the head teacher and the LEA: those feelings cannot just be ignored. The Bill as a whole will serve to make LEAs and schools more responsive to the needs of the parents and the wider communities they serve.
In inviting the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, I repeat that I understand his arguments but am clear that his amendment is not the right way to go about things since it would do substantial damage to the basis of our highly valued dual system. Instead, I ask him not to under-estimate the impact this Bill's provisions will have on the life of all schools through harnessing parents' natural and special interest in their children's progress.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the care he has taken in his reply. I have accepted from the outset the technical deficiency of the amendment. The noble Earl seemed to be concerned about the possibility of a sheep and goats result from this amendment in that it would be difficult to distinguish between those parents' groups which should be assisted and those which should not. It could be done by establishing special funds for special areas where there is a genuine crisis, which is I think almost universally acknowledged, particularly in the inner city areas. You could do it on an urban aid basis. Therefore, there would not be discrimination between those and perhaps more prosperous middle-class areas.
The noble Earl referred to the "quids" and the "quos". He said that this would cost a lot of "quids" and that these "quids" would be falling on the head of the Government. It is obviously true that no

445
educational initiative designed to meet the disastrous situation in areas of educational deprivation can be taken for nothing. That is clearly true. There would have to be some new money for an initiative of this kind. If the Government did a cost-benefit analysis of educationally deprived areas and tried to sort out what would be the results of having good, small, popularly supported schools in these areas, they would find that the overall real cost was not that great.
I am slightly disappointed. I am genuinely grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he appreciates my motives. I am slightly disappointed that the Government are not prepared to be a little more imaginative about this. I shall certainly not press it, but I shall go away, read the debate—the debate has been between the noble Earl and myself—think about it and come back possibly with some other proposal along these lines at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [compensation payable by governing body on change from controlled to aided status]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 45, line 7, leave out from ("as") to ("to"), in line 8, and insert ("the Secretary of State thinks fit having regard").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 90A, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 91 standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I think that his concern was to clarify the basis of the valuation of the compensation to be paid by the governing body to the LEA. The Government share that concern. We recognise that valuation is not an exact science and our intention in this clause, which is, I think, made clear by our amendment, is that the Secretary of State, in making any determination under subsection (1)(b), will be guided, but not constrained, by the current value of the buildings in question. We intend his discretion here to be quite wide because we feel that that is most likely to achieve the fairest result.
I understand that it is feared that there could be confusion over whether the valuation should be by reference to the current use of the property or to the development value. There is provision, in subsection (3), for the Secretary of State to take advice on the valuation, and his appointed adviser would normally be the district valuer. Some of your Lordships, and, I am sure, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, will be familiar with the provisions of paragraphs 7 and 8 to the 1946 Act, which require similar sorts of valuations. On many occasions we need the assistance of the district valuer in these cases, and he appears to have had no difficulty in producing a figure.
However, the important point is that because of the many variables there can be in individual cases we do not intend the Secretary of State to be bound by a particular formula when making his determination, though we do intend, as our amendment indicates, that he should have to take account of the valuation. Against this background I hope your Lordships, and especially the right reverend Prelate, will accept the
446
Government's amendment in preference to Amendment No. 91. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for what he has said. Our concern was that there should be some kind of guidelines about valuation, on which there clearly might be confusion if there was different practice from one area to another. In view of what the noble Earl has said, it is not the intention to move Amendment No. 91.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 91:
Page 45, line 8, after ("current") insert ("use").
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: In the unavoidable absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, Amendment No. 91 is not moved.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Reports to Secretary of State]:
On Question, Whether Clause 42 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I read this clause with some incredulity and I looked back at the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to see what provision was being made for extra civil servants in the Department of Education and Science to read all these reports to the Secretary of State. The governing body of every county, voluntary and maintained special school and establishment maintained for further education shall make reports and returns tc the Secretary of State. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State will read or have anybody read for him reports from every school and every further education establishment in the country.
I am encouraged (or, if you like, discouraged) in that view by the knowledge that the Department of Education and Science or its predecessor was originally set up in the 19th century to receive the reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors. That was the only original purpose. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, is not here to confirm my history, that the only purpose of the department was to receive the reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors. Yet in recent years, because it was an excessive burden on the department to receive the reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors, that reporting has been dispensed with.
If, because of pressure of work, the department is not able to undertake its primary and original task of receiving reports from inspectors, how on earth will it receive reports from every county, voluntary and maintained special school, and what use will be made of those reports? I suggest that the Government have fashioned a rod for their own back. If the Government are determined to proceed with this course, I ask them to tell us truthfully what use will be made of the reports.
The Earl of Swinton: I find myself in difficulty, because I thought that the noble Lord was going to oppose this clause for a completely different reason

447
than the one he has given. I thought that he might be opposing it because he felt that it was a crafty route for the Secretary of State to bypass local education authorities and to obtain information about schools or colleges and governing bodies behind his back.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: As if he could think that!
The Earl of Swinton: I cannot imagine how the noble Lord could not have thought of that, but he did not!
I am of course well aware that Section 92 of the 1944 Act already requires LEAs to provide the Secretary of State with such information as he may require for the purpose of the exercise of his functions under the Education Acts. Here are the reasons. Sometimes, the information sought is for a particular policy initiative and is then requested through a circular sent to all local education authorities. I must stress that we agree that it would be quite inappropriate for information of that sort to be requested from individual governing bodies. I agree with the noble Lord that it would also be totally outside the capacity of the DES and the Welsh Office to cope with thousands of individual replies.
On other occasions, however, the information sought from an LEA concerns a particular school. That arises particularly where the Secretary of State is investigating a complaint under either Section 68 or Section 99 of the 1944 Act. Those sections are concerned respectively with unreasonable behaviour by LEAs or governing bodies in the exercise of their functions and with breaches of the statutory responsibilities of either LEAs or governing bodies. The Committee will note that both sections refer explicity to governing bodies, so where the Secretary of State is investigating a complaint against a governing body under either of those sections, clearly he needs to be empowered to obtain information from the governing body.
On such occasions it would not be appropriate for the information to be obtained through the agency of the LEA. It is not unknown for a complaint against the governing body to be made by the LEA. It would clearly not be fair for the governing body's side of the case to have to be submitted via the LEA with whom it was in disagreement. If the LEA were not involved in the complaint, which might relate to a matter wholly the responsibility of the governors, it again seems inappropriate for the LEA to act as the information-gathering agency. Either it would put its own gloss on the information—in which case it would no longer be a true reflection of the governing body's view of the matter—or it would simply send it on—in which case it would be adding a quite unnecessary layer to the proceedings and increasing the time taken to resolve the matter.
I can give the assurance that the Government do not intend to use that new power to cut out local education authorities from those matters on which it would properly be their responsibility to report to the Secretary of State. I believe that I have given the reasons why such information is necessary from time to time and why it is to be allowed to be gathered in and not made compulsory; I assure the noble Lord
448
of that. He will be delighted to know that it would be embarrassing my Secretary of State extremely if all that information was sent in just as a matter of course. Having heard that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that the noble Earl should think that I am so distrustful of the Government's motives that I would believe that they would wish to bypass local education authorities in an unjustified way. I have great faith in the noble Earl on a number of matters.
With the assurance that the Secretary of State will not be seeking reports from every county, voluntary and maintained special school, but will only be using that power in the way that the noble Earl described—to deal with particular needs for information from individual schools or possibly groups of schools, rather than from schools throughout the land—I am happy not to oppose the Question that Clause 42 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Information and training for governors]:
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: This might be a convenient moment to break. In moving that the House do now resume, I suggest that we do not return to this Bill until five minutes past eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

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

Museums and Galleries (Prohibition of Admission Charges) Bill [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jenkins of Putney.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the Question is put, may I say that when this Bill was debated on Second Reading there were many pleas that we should allow it to go to Committee so that it could be carefully discussed in detail? When it first came to Committee, I ventured to protest that it came on very late at night and that that was unsuitable for a Bill whose provisions all of us who attended thought were important.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, accepted that point with his usual courtesy and put himself in the hands of the House. I have no doubt that he was

449
correct in interpreting the feelings of the House; that as we were all there and as a Second Reading of a prior Bill had been withdrawn, we should go on with the Committee stage. As I have said, I believe that the noble Lord was right in saying that that was the feeling of the House.
Nevertheless, there was very soon an early Division in which there was no quorum in the Lobbies. As a result, the Committee stage was then adjourned. The Bill now comes before your Lordships with a great deal to discuss in the dinner interval only. I certainly do not oppose the Motion that your Lordships should now go into Committee on the Bill, but I say that it is a most inconvenient way of dealing with a matter of considerable importance. My view is that we cannot possibly finish the Committee stage this evening in the dinner hour. If the remaining Committee proceedings are either going to be in a dinner hour or very late at night—and some of us have to travel a considerable distance because we attach importance, like the noble Lord, to these matters—it is not treating the subject matter, to which we all attach great importance, with the seriousness that it deserves.
This Bill cannot possibly pass into law this Session. However, there is the duty on your Lordships' Chamber to see that it is put in proper order and not left indefinite and with questions outstanding. That means that there must be serious discussion in Committee. I venture to say only this to the noble Lord. If we cannot finish the Committee stage this evening perhaps he will be good enough, having made his point on Second Reading although in a very sparsely attended House, to call it a day and leave the Bill for the remainder of the Session and, with his usual enthusiasm, introduce it again next Session. It is really a most inconvenient course to have the Committee stage either very late at night, as it was on our previous Sitting, or in the dinner hour when there is a great deal of great importance to discuss.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will allow us to make progress. A private Member, of course, as the noble and learned Lord knows, is in no position to select time. He has to take the time that is available to him. In all the circumstances I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will, as I think he has already indicated, allow us to go ahead in the hope that we make good progress in the time available to us.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think the protest of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is well justified. It is an important Bill. It is a fact that, whoever is responsible, the Bill was pushed in at the end of the day when it was unreasonable to expect a reasonable House to deal with it. Now we have come to the Committee stage, having progressed through Second Reading, and we find that it is in the dinner hour when, of necessity, it is confined to a period of time when one cannot hope to do justice to the number of amendments on the Marshalled List.
While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that it is not for a private Member to arrange the allocation of time for these matters, perhaps he will forgive me if I say that private Members, in trying to work the parliamentary system as it is, have certain
450
responsibilities. I have always argued that private Members' responsibility in this field is not to use the Private Member's Bill procedure for matters which are of full national consequence. The procedure carries responsibilities and powers that are not within the realm of private Members to adjust to their time.
The Private Member's Bill procedure is a valuable one but, in my judgment, it should be used on matters which do not involve the whole of what would be national policy on an issue but should be on matters of amending existing legislation or inviting legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in wanting to implement his very strong views on this important national matter, did wrong in not first of all convincing his own party which has the power to decide certain allocations of parliamentary time, that he had a good case so that this important issue could have been given, under the normal procedures, the time that it deserves. Therefore, I think that the protest by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is well justified and I hope that a lesson will be learned both by Members on the Front Benches, who arrange the times, and by Back-Bench Members when they choose subjects on which to use the Private Member's Bill procedure.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkins is perfectly in order to bring a Bill on this subject at any time that he wants. The noble lord, although he may have been in order, was quite wrong in spirit and sentiment in what he said.
We have now spent a quarter of an hour talking about whether the Committee stage should go ahead. May I suggest that if any noble Lord wants to move that the Committee stage should not go ahead he does so now; otherwise we should get on and not spend any more time talking about it?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly on Clause 2.
[The LORD STRABOLGI in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Prohibition of admission charges]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): In calling Amendment No. 1, I remind your Lordships that the debate upon it was adjourned at the previous Sitting pursuant to Standing Order 55. Unless, therefore, the noble Lord wishes to continue the debate, I shall now put the Question.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("without the approval of the Arts Council of Great Britain.").
The noble Lord said: We have already been reminded of what happened on the last occasion. There was not a quorum, so the amendment I had moved could not be accepted on a vote. Therefore, I shall now repeat my amendment, although I shall not necessarily repeat the whole of the argument.
Baroness Birk: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. The point at which the proceedings came to an end was when all the debate had taken place and the Question had been put for a Division to take place. Surely, in view of what has now been said both by the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, it should now be for the noble Lord to have the Question put, as the Chairman suggested as one of the alternatives. We all have Hansard before us. The noble Lord put his case very strongly and eloquently when we last sat, and I think it would be taking up his own time and that of the Committee to repeat it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I was in the process of saying that I did not intend to repeat my speech but since we had to adjourn on the previous Sitting because there was no one to hear my speech and, therefore, insufficient Members for it to become effective, it seems to me reasonable that now noble Lords are present who have the authority to do something about it they should know what the argument is all about. I intend to push my amendment again to a vote. It is as well that the people I suggest should join me in the Lobby should know what the argument is about.
The argument is clear. This Private Member's Bill removes from the trustees of museums and galleries (trustees who are eminent and illustrious from every point of view) the right given to them under an Act that was passed by both Houses of Parliament in 1972 to decide how they should obtain money to carry out their functions as trustees, in addition to the grants given by government. They have instituted schemes such as opening shops, and so on, and in some cases making a charge or asking for donations in order, as they see it, to carry out their functions as trustees most efficiently.
This Bill removes that power from them. It was a principle decided when we voted on Second Reading. That vote was marginal—indeed I believe 34 votes carried the day. It did not truly reflect on such an important matter what I consider to be the real view of this House. One had to accept the principle because the Second Reading received a majority and, under the procedures of the House, that principle had to be accepted as being the desire of the House.
However, in Committee it is the right and duty of Members who feel that that principle is a bad principle and ought not to be allowed to go through in its full form, to try, if they feel strongly about it, to amend it to a point where the objectionable removal of all the powers from all the trustees is replaced with something which does not remove those powers, which recognises the principle of the Second Reading vote but which retains some powers for the trustees to carry out their functions as we expected them to do when they were appointed as trustees.
On the basis that our Second Reading vote means that the trustees should not have complete power to charge or to ask for donations, my amendment proposes that where the trustees consider it right to charge in the interests of maintaining the museum at its proper level of excellence, as every other country does and as Apsley House and the Tower of London do one could give a whole list of places where it has
452
been accepted that people who enjoy viewing and learning from treasures should pay—they should be able to charge only if the Arts Council does not disapprove of it. This really means an extra tier of decision before the general principle of making no charge is breached. So the amendment does not move away completely from the principle decided on Second Reading: it makes use of powers possessed by trustees—trustees whose standing is such that they should have that responsibility.
In the debate that took place prior to the Committee being adjourned my noble friend Lord Eccles, who, in 1972, introduced the Act under which the powers were given to the trustees, said that he did not like my amendment. I was arguing that the trustees could have powers to charge if the Arts Council agreed. My noble friend said:
"If, however, one compares the councillors of the Arts Council with the distinguished trustees of museums, it would clearly be ridiculous to give the Arts Council power to override the museum trustees".—[Official Report, 20/3/86; col. 1123.]
That is not what my amendment does. However as one or two people may have been influenced, as rightly they should, by the eminence of my noble friend Lord Eccles, I should add that the Arts Council is not being given the power to charge. The power to charge would still be left with the trustees. It would be a power that could not be implemented unless it had gone through the further sieve of the Arts Council saying that from an arts point of view it did not find the proposal objectionable. I feel that this is going some way along the lines of the Bill itself, while preserving the vital ingredient of allowing the trustees to carry out their function, which was the intention when they were appointed.
My noble friend on the Front Bench, speaking on behalf of the Government, did not altogether accept my arguments on the adjourned Committee stage. He said that,
"it does not fulfil the important point of principle that trustees should be free to exercise their judgment in the discharge of their responsibilities."—[Official Report 20/3/86; col. 1123.]
I agree with my noble friend. I would much prefer that the trustees, appointed for their quality, should have the power given to them under the 1972 Act to make the decision and to implement it without having to refer to anyone else. The principle that my noble friend wanted to preserve means that he would not take any account of the Bill we are now considering. I am saying that half a loaf is better than no bread. Rather than the trustees giving up the complete power under any circumstances to be able to do what they think right, I would settle for them having to satisfy themselves through having to obtain Arts Council agreement before the implementation could take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, criticised the merit of my argument. I had to remind him, and I remind your Lordships again now—it is the common sense of the argument—that I introduced to your Lordships' House the Theatre Trust Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is vice-chairman of the Theatre Trust. The power of the Theatre Trust is that any planning authority has to have the agreement of the trust before planners can carry out what they think right in regard to altering the use of anything used as

453
a theatre. That principle accords exactly with my amendment. One is leaving the powers with the trustees and making them go through another sieve to make sure that they are not doing anything outrageous and wrong. One is not quite achieving the principle that my noble friend wanted, but it is a step nearer to what we believe right. By voting for the amendment that I shall be submitting in a moment, I believe that we shall be nearer to what my noble friend wanted.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Lord wish to move the amendment?
Lord Harmer-Nicholls: I now formally move Amendment No. 1 in my name.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Before pursuing the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, should have asked himself why, on the last occasion, he failed to secure any support from his own Front Bench. He failed to secure the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who was the architect of theatre charging. If anyone is enthusiastic about theatre charging it is the noble Viscount. The reason is that the amendment is a nonsense. I hesitate to suggest to the noble Lord that it is deliberately a wrecking amendment: however, I have not heard anything in my whole parliamentary experience that sounded more like a wrecking amendment.
The noble Lord must be aware that the Arts Council has nothing to do with the matter. The noble Lord is trying to place upon the Arts Council a duty that the council would reject out of hand. The moneys that go to the museums affected by the Bill come direct from the Ministry. They pass nowhere near the Arts Council. To give the council a duty to intervene on a matter that is not within its purview is a function that it would reject out of hand.
Without further ado, I hope that noble Lords will recognise the amendment for what it is. Let us by all means have serious discussion upon the amendments which follow, but an amendment designed to destroy the Bill out of hand—a Bill that has already been given a Second Reading—is one that should not be allowed to waste your Lordships' time any longer.
Lord Annan: I am not entirely in accord with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. This is a perfectly reasonable amendment. The Bill is formed on a hypothesis. The hypothesis is that the trustees are pusillanimous, weak-kneed, incompetent and mean spirited because they do not really have the public interest at heart. 'That is the hypothesis on which the Bill is founded. I concede that, from some people's point of view, it is a reasonable hypothesis. People are perfectly entitled to take that view of trustees of our museums and galleries.
I would, however, suggest that there is another hypothesis. That is the advent of a new government which immediately falls into financial difficulties; there is a run on the pound; there is high inflation; and immediately there are demands from the unions, understandably, whose members work in museums and galleries. All this will lead to a substantial diminution in real terms of the grant that the museums and galleries receive. This is an hypothesis. I do not
454
believe that it is any less reasonable an hypothesis than the hypothesis on which the Bill is founded. If, however, this hypothesis is taken the amendment tries to say: "Look, the trustees will be placed in an impossible position. They have not got enough money, but they cannot go to the government for more. If the government give them more, it will be wiped out by increasing inflation". What are they going to do? They must be able to appeal to someone. I take it that the point of the amendment is that the Arts Council is the only body to which they could appeal. The Arts Council is skilled in these matters. It faces them every day in regard to its own clients. Therefore, to my mind this is a perfectly understandable amendment to put forward. If the noble Lord moves it, I shall vote for it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It has been moved.
Lord Belstead: I ought to make clear from the Government Front Bench that, with regret, I do not support my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls on this amendment. I find that characteristically he is being too reasonable on this occasion. I must confess to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that on behalf of the Government I disagree fundamentally with this Bill. I therefore do not believe that there should be any seive or court of appeal of the kind which has just been suggested. I believe that the trustees, who are distinguished people, should be completely free to exercise their judgment in the discharge of their responsibilities. But I must confess that I do not believe this amendment is a waste of time. I do not believe that it is a wrecking amendment. Nonetheless it would not be fair to the Committee if I did not say that I cannot support my noble friend in the Division Lobby, for the reason I have given.
7.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 35.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Beloff, L.

Layton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Butterworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dormer, L.

Newall, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Glanusk, L.

Sandford, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinfen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Vickers, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Attlee, E.

Denning, L.

Birk, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ennals, L.

455

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rea, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Rhodes, L.

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Kennet, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kissin, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Tordoff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McNair, L.

Ypres, E.

Phillips, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should like to know whether Amendment No. 3 is being taken with this amendment. There seems to be a large overlap. Amendment No. 3, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, proposes, first, what Amendment No. 2 wants to do, and it then inserts something in its place.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I prefer my amendment to be taken separately. From reading the words of the amendment, I see the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is making, but I believe that as regards this matter we ought to have a very clear message from the Committee. The clear message of my amendment is that subsection (2) should not be allowed to stand in the Bill. The argument is similar to that put forward as regards Amendment No. 1, except that I believe that if we let this subsection go through we shall be making this House look rather ridiculous in the light of the practical common sense of how any organisation must be run—and certainly organisations as important as the museums and galleries.
Under subsection (2), not only can they not make a charge—that was decided by a very narrow majority on the last vote, which we lost, and for the time being until Report stage we must live with it—but that subsection, which I want to erase, goes even further than that, because the trustees of the museums will not even be allowed to ask people to make a voluntary contribution. They will not even have the power to point out the importance of the museums and the galleries. They will not be given the power to point out how vital it is that they should have money in order to replenish their possessions. They will not have power to allow those people who derive enjoyment and benefit from museums and galleries and who leave them with a desire to want to maintain them, to make a contribution to ensure that they are maintained.
I believe that to appoint trustees of the eminence of the trustees who sit on the boards of these museums and galleries, and to say that they shall not be allowed the judgment to decide how they obtain their finances in terms of advertising the value of what they have on offer and encouraging people to make a voluntary contribution, is nonsense.
456
I am quite certain that the Bill will not be allowed to go through both Houses of Parliament. I am convinced that it will never become the law of the land. It is an exercise in the furtherance of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I greatly respect his assiduity and tenacity as regards the views which he holds, with most of which I rarely find myself in agreement. However, to satisfy him by having his view placed upon the record, even for a short time, would result in your Lordships' Committee being made to look rather stupid. It would be rather stupid for the Committee to agree to this type of provision so that, even for a temporary period, it appeared to be the law of the land. The idea of not being able to allow these eminent trustees even to accept contributions is, as was said by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches, almost an insulting attack upon the integrity of the people who do so.
The Victoria and Albert Museum already implements a request for people to make voluntary contributions when they go into that museum. The chairman of the Victoria and Albert Museum is the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who was the Leader of this House and whose eminence is such that he is expected to give guidance on matters which affect the world and the nations of the world. However, in the report issued only last week in defence of the Victoria and Albert Museum's achievements, he sets out that it has taken this action and the success which is flowing from it. For a Private Member's Bill to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his fellow trustees shall not have the power to be able to do this is to my mind rather stupid if it receives full acquiescence by a vote of this House.
Therefore, it is with some confidence—whatever happened on the last amendment—that I now move my second amendment, which would remove subsection (2), which places this insulting embargo upon the trustees of our museums and galleries.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Since this Bill has been introduced. the Museums Association, which I think all Members will agree is the representative body of museums, has carried out a survey of its membership. By an overwhelming majority it has decided to support the Bill. It decided to do so because it regards what is happening at, for example, the Victoria and Albert, as something which ought not to have happened there and certainly should not be allowed to happen anywhere else. That great institution is being brought into considerable disrepute by the nonsense which is taking place at the so-called voluntary turnstiles. Therefore, it is essential to the purpose of upholding what the Museums Association recognises as the reputation and standing of our national institutions that we get rid of this absurd nonsense which reflects no credit upon the Victoria and Albert.
I gravely doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—who, if my memory serves me correctly, is no longer chairman of the Victoria and Albert—would approve of this. I think that this nonsense was introduced by the present chairman, who I believe to be a Mr. Conrad.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Only last week we had the report from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, chairman of the Victoria and Albert trustees. The noble Lord was answering the museum's critics. Of course he is chairman. I should like to know the name of the body which the noble Lord says held this vote. Is it the one standing outside the Victoria and Albert with placards, trying to prevent the trustees doing what they think is right?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am open to correction. I may be mistaken, but we shall have to find out tomorrow. It may be that the report from which the noble Lord is reading refers to last year's business rather than to what has taken place recently, but we shall see. I am not absolutely certain that I am right, but I believe it to be the case.
The essential point is that museum people throughout the country are in favour of the Bill. Why are they in favour of it?—because in principle our great national institutions have always been open without charge to our people. What we are seeking to assert here are Victorian values. We are ensuring that there shall not be substituted an access charge, which I believe would be better than the nonsense which is being carried out at the Victoria and Albert. What is happening is that you go in, you are told how much you ought to pay and you are made to feel very mean and nasty if you do not pay it.
I am not against donations. I had planned to make this point as regards my amendment, but perhaps I should make it here and now. I am not against donations. Indeed, in a modest way I participate in them myself. However, I am against the erection of a notional charge before you can get into the museum—a statement in the museum, with donation boxes; a statement before you leave the museum saying that if you have enjoyed what you have seen, there is an opportunity to make a contribution. All this would be reasonable, but to erect a barrier—in effect a barrier against entry—would keep away precisely those people we have always said must be given free access to these museums. For that reason, I hope the Committee will agree not to accept the proposed amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I abstained on the last Division, but I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, described what was going on at the Victoria and Albert Museum as "squalid blackmail". Then your Lordships heard the experience of my noble friend Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, gave testimony to the same effect. There was obviously nothing going on there, so far as they experienced, which in any way justified the language of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, or indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has said today about the Victoria and Albert Museum.
The noble Lord said that museum people through-out the country were opposed to this because the tradition has been for free entry. That may be true of the main London museums and galleries, but it is certainly not true throughout the country. For example, in the North of England we have a counterpart of the Wallace Collection at the Bowes Museum
458
at Barnard Castle, which has a fine mixed collection of pictures and decorative art mirroring that of the Wallace Collection and in some respects exceeding it. It charges for admission. All except two of the museums and galleries in York charge for admission, and one of the exceptions makes a charge for car parking, which is difficult to find in York.
As for invitations to make a voluntary contribution, so far as my experience goes we have had that as long as I can remember. I cannot remember a time when that large coffer (filled with notes and coins) was not just at the entrance of the Tate Gallery to solicit contributions. It seems to me absurd to say that suddenly one must attach a notice to it. Similarly when the Tate Gallery was seeking to buy the Rodin carving of The Kiss voluntary contributions were solicited. That was immediately adjacent to the entry and exit, which of course are the same.
In my submission to the Committee it is intolerable to tell experienced trustees, appointed because of their knowledge and standing, that they shall place this or that placard next to any collecting box; that they must not have turnstiles, for example, to monitor entry so that they know how many people are coming to the museum; and if they have turnstiles they must not solicit contributions there. It is an intolerable insult to such people as we expect to be trustees and governors of museums and galleries. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will press this to a Division, and I shall support him if he does.
Lord Annan: May I add one word before we divide on this? I am in favour of this amendment, but for a slightly different reason from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. This provision has a nonsensical quality about it. You are not allowed to make any voluntary contributions on entry. Again the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, intends to move says:
"In this section the making of a charge for admission".
What about exit? Why should you not make a charge on exit? Indeed if this became law that would be the natural thing for trustees who were in distress to do. It is already done.
It is when the public are going out that they are asked for contributions by notices, by boxes and by other receptacles which solicit gifts from the public. But it would be perfectly possible and legal, if this Bill became law, to do precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, does not want done on entry, on exit. I therefore think that this provision has a real defect in drafting and in law.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support this amendment, partly for the reasons mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It is not unusual to see notices in the press of a masterpiece in danger of being sold abroad because we cannot raise the funds to buy it and keep it in this country. Anyone visiting a gallery would be precluded, under the Bill as now drafted, from helping by making a donation as they go in. If a major donor, who happens to be a busy man, arrives at the gallery and says "I have only 10 minutes, what do you want?", this would stop the director, as he takes him into the gallery, from saying, "I want some money from you". That would be an illegal act, as I read this Bill. Therefore, it is essential that this amendment be agreed to.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in reply to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that there was a large body of support for the Bill. But as my noble friend Lord Swinfen has clearly shown, there are other views about this. I was glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made the point—which as, I understand it, is absolutely right—that subsection (2) would force museum trustees to abandon their existing arrangements for charging for entry at outstations.
My advice is that some of the arrangements to which the noble and learned Lord drew attention have been operating successfully for more than 30 years. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I harbour the belief that the noble Lord is not right. If the noble Lord cares to do his homework he will find that there are long-standing arrangements in the outstations which the parent bodies have believed to have been right for many years.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I can tell the noble Lord that when I was Minister for the Arts those arrangements continued during a period in which no charges were made at the central bodies. The reason for my shaking my head was not to deny that it occurred but to deny that it would be improper even if the Bill were in existence.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps the noble Lord can draw attention to the part of the Bill which would continue to make that proper.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: If necessary we shall put down an amendment to that effect.
Lord Belstead: As the Bill stands it would prevent outstations from charging. When we debated the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that there were ways in which the museums could replace the money which his Bill, if it became law, would deny to them. Indeed he went further and said that we should no doubt be able to discuss the ways in which other moneys could be raised in Committee. I have been waiting to hear suggestions from the noble Lord as to how those other moneys could be raised, and I think that those suggestions could come on this amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I have been waiting to hear the noble Lord say that the Government will recover a little generosity. It is time that we heard something about that, is it not?
Lord Belstead: May I remind the noble Lord that the money which has come from the Government to the Arts Council has gone up in real terms very considerably over recent years?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am talking about the museums.
Lord Belstead: Nonetheless, I am talking here about the Arts Council. Let us hear from the noble Lord where the alternative money, which will be denied by this Bill, will come from if all the museums, including the outstations, are refused the right to be allowed to
460
charge. The noble Lord invited us to discuss this matter in Committee. Now is the moment for the noble Lord to put forward his suggestions.
Baroness Birk: I wonder whether I can get a word in here? I was hoping to speak before the Minister, but he jumped up. First, I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Jenkins said. It was quite clear that he himself has moved some distance now from what was in the Bill. He said that he was agreeable to having voluntary contributions and perhaps having notices put up saying:
"If you have enjoyed your visit to this museum any contribution you would like to make would be welcome"—
or words to that effect. Therefore what we are discussing—I do not think he will disagree with me about this because we have discussed it—and what he is prepared to have are the voluntary contributions, which is the case in many museums all over the world where they do not make a charge.
When charges were imposed on museums in 1972 or 1973, when the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was Minister for the Arts, there was no question then, so far as I remember, of getting agreement from the trustees of all the museums. It was a Government Act. The Government made a decision that there would be charges. Now it is the other way round, we hear protests that there should be complete freedom given to the trustees. What my noble friend is doing in this Bill is taking a line which fits a particular practice and philosophy and which he and a great many other people believe. But this does not do away with giving donations or contributions.
The Minister asked: "How, if you do not do this, are you going to finance it?" Up till now the experience of the Victoria and Albert Museum has not been so happy. The numbers going to the museum have dropped. The museum itself has altered its approach. I noticed the approach at the beginning when there was this pressure about which there have been many protests. This has now been dropped and although the turnstiles and people are still there to my knowledge there is no effort any more to try to persuade people to pay to go to the museum. One of the reasons why so many people are against charges is that one of the great traditions of the museums is that one can drop in for half an hour.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Birk: No, the noble Lord has had plenty of time. I shall not sit down now. One can drop in for half an hour; but many people will think twice about paying £2 for a short visit. This would be contrary to all the educational and other functions of the museums.
Lord Annan: Will the noble Baroness give way? I cannot follow the argument that she is making. I think she said that she was entirely agreeable to a request for voluntary donations being made when the public leave the building. Would it be legal if this Bill is passed to say: "We ask you, if you have enjoyed your visit, to make a contribution of £2"?
Baroness Birk: But it is not my Bill; it is my noble friend's Bill. I should not be in favour of putting a sum to it. Some people may give £5. Some foreigners may be used to charges in their museums and they may give more. I should leave the amount to the individuals. Where a request for a specific sum is made it could be hard on a family with four, six or eight people in the family. I should leave it like that or have other things which would attract people, like throwing coins in a fountain, making it an attractive proposition to contribute to the museum. This does not mean that this is different from the charges. From what my noble friend has said already I think he would be prepared to amend the Bill himself or accept a reasonable amendment, but not on the lines of some of the amendments that have been put down.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to know where I stand. She used the word "we" on so many occasions in defending the Bill. Is it a Private Member's Bill or is it an official Opposition Bill? The noble Baroness is the spokesman for these matters. She is speaking from the Dispatch Box and from the Front Bench. Is it a Private Member's Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, or are we dealing with the official Opposition who believe that the trustees should not have these powers, who believe that the commitment should be made by the Chancellor to cover all of the expenses that might occur? I think we ought to know where we are, particularly since the noble Baroness has already indicated a point which I do not think is fair, when she said that what had happened at the Victoria and Albert Museum had already shown that it was losing out. The report from the trustees issued only last week said:
"We are on target to achieve the £500,000 from donations we set for the first year, of which the voluntary contribution was part of our scheme".
Whose Bill is it? Is it the official Opposition's Bill? Does she stand by what she said against what the trustees themselves have reported? If she cannot, then I do not think the impression ought to be left on the Committee which she has left.
Baroness Birk: It is a Private Member's Bill. The party policy is against charges, but not against voluntary donations. I do not agree with some parts of my noble friend's Bill and he knows that as well as I do. Nevertheless, the question of contributions and donations is something which I certainly support and from what he has himself said this evening in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, he also supports in certain circumstances. But it is a Private Member's Bill.
Lord Swinfen: If, as the noble Baroness said, this is a Private Member's Bill and it is her party's policy to agree to voluntary donations, will she be going into the lobby in favour of the amendment?
Baroness Birk: I did not say it was the party's policy to agree or disagree. So far as I know that has not been worked out in detail yet. My own view is, and I stand by my view, to go along with the donations. But that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was trying to do when he moved the amendment. He
462
goes further than that. As I understand it, he still wants the trustees to be able to decide whether they should make charges or not. This was what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said and they seem to be in agreement about that. I am not in agreement with this and that is why I pointed out that when the Government levied charges on museums the bodies of trustees were not all consulted. It was a national option and the Government decided that in future there should be museum charges.
Lord Swinfen: If I misunderstood the noble Baroness, I apologise. I thought she said it was her party's policy not to be against voluntary donations. This amendment deals solely with voluntary donations.
Baroness Birk: No, I am sorry, what I said was that I am in favour of voluntary donations. I did not discuss anybody else.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I think that the noble Baroness will find in Hansard that she mentioned the party, too. But this has nothing to do with admission charges. We have decided that. This has to do with voluntary donations. I move the deletion of this subsection so that the trustees can use their experience and knowledge to decide what to do in this regard.
8.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 22.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Hooper, B.

Attlee, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Auckland, L.

Layton, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Brentford, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L. [Teller]

Mersey, V.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Rhodes, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Sandford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Croft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Davidson, V.

Strathclyde, L.

De La Warr, E.

Swinfen, L.

Denning, L.

Swinton, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Teviot, L.

Glanusk, L.

Thurlow, L.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Hives, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L. [Teller.]

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Birk, B.

Phillips, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Shackleton, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: It seems that we have exceeded our time and therefore I think it best that without further ado I should move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Education Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 92A:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("First aid skills in schools.
.—Every Local Education Authority shall secure that, where no qualified medical personnel are available in a school, sufficient members of staff (at least one per school, the level of provision to be approved by the Health and Safety Executive) shall be trained in first aid skills to a standard to be approved by the Health and Safety Executive.")
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak only briefly to this amendment because its purpose is self-evident and I gave some of the more detailed reasons during my speech at Second Reading. I would therefore merely remind the Committee that there is an urgent need for legislative provision to ensure that there is first aid cover in our schools. At present although teachers are covered by legal requirements in their status as employees, there is no such provision for pupils. Some teachers, from a sense of professional responsibility, have of their own volition taken courses in first aid and a diminishing number of schools still have a school nurse. But in many schools there is no one with the necessary knowledge and skill to cope with emergencies—emergencies in which failure to provide the right treatment in the crucial early minutes could result in unnecessary loss of life, brain damage or other permanent injury.
The need for first aid expertise is made all the more urgent by the disturbing growth of violence in many of our schools. A recent report by one of the teachers' unions, the NAS-UWT, has given details of an alarming increase in serious injuries such as stabbings being inflicted by pupils on other pupils in some of our schools. But even apart from that worrying development, every day in every school, however well ordered, pupils are inevitably exposed to potentially dangerous situations—for example, to burns from acids or other strong chemicals in laboratories; to cuts from broken glass; to burns in schools' domestic science kitchens; or to injury during hard body-contact games.
The fact that ambulance services may be able to be on the scene in a fairly short time is no responsible solution. If a child starts to haemorrhage or stops breathing, it is the first few minutes which are all-important. If a child fractures, say, a rib, mishandling can lead to a perforated lung. If a child is scalded, the wrong treatment can lead to exacerbation of tissue damage and could increase the likelihood of permanent scarring, and so on.
I could continue for a long time with a list of potentially devastating serious results of failure to provide the right treatment in an emergency. I know the noble Lord, Lord Rea, from the opposite Benches would have made another point in this connection. It refers to the consequence in many cases where an injury has occurred, where teachers, because there is no one on the spot to provide first aid, have to take a child to either a GP or a hospital's accident or emergency clinic for treatment. That treatment could have been better applied at school. The child and the parents are worried by having to go to a hospital or to a doctor, and of course having to take the child there is a totally unnecessary waste of expensive medical time and of the teacher's time.
I was amazed when I learnt that schools do not now have to provide first aid cover for children as well as for teachers. It seems extraordinary that we put teachers' wellbeing above that of the children for whom the schools are in loco parentis. If parents were aware of this situation, I believe they would be horrified and furious. Surely we cannot continue to tolerate this situation; and this Bill provides us with an opportunity to remedy this totally unacceptable anomaly.
If my noble friend the Minister replies to the effect that there is not the money to make this provision, perhaps I may point out that there is money in the education support grants which could be used and also that the magnificent voluntary organisations such as the St. John Ambulance Association and the British Red Cross Society are willing to help to provide the necessary training as economically as possible. Therefore the costs of providing for skilled first aid cover are relatively cheap, but the price of failing to do so could be incalculable in human terms. The question surely must be not whether the Government can afford to accept the amendment, or something on similar lines, but whether they can afford not to do so, not only in human terms (which are the most important) but also in economic and political terms.
I know that noble Lords in every part of your Lordships' Committee have pledged strong support for this amendment. I sincerely hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the time is ripe for us, as a nation, to accept this responsibility for our children's safety and that he will not require us to show our support for this amendment in the Division Lobby, if not tonight. then at the Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I, too, very strongly support this new clause, but I should like to have a definition of the word "staff". Is the noble Baroness referring just to the teaching staff, or is she referring also to such people as a good caretaker (who probably is there much longer than other members of the staff), a school secretary (who again may be there much longer), or a groundsman, in the case of an accident in the school grounds? If the noble Baroness intends the new clause to cover a wide conception of staff in that way. I support it completely.
Baroness Cox: I am happy to cover it in those terms. The important thing is that there should be someone on the site, readily available to give emergency treatment in those crucial first minutes and who is

465
qualified according to the appropriate standard recognised by the Health and Safety Executive.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: I also should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I should like to do so in addition on behalf of the British Red Cross Society. It has always been surprising to us that the care of children in schools did not come under the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981. I know that the Red Cross and, I am sure, our colleagues in St. John, have already succeeded in training teachers in first aid who now also teach children as part of the curriculum. Why do we think this is necessary? It is because children in these modem times are exposed to a great many hazards, such as accidents in laboratories, with gas and electricity in cooking classes,by using sewing machines, on the playing fields, on expeditions or in coaches and arising from violence in schools. There are of course also the health hazards which have already been mentioned, such as diabetes, probably followed by a coma, heart attacks, fits and so on.
On all these occasions immediate first aid treatment—immediate and correct first aid treatment—can sometimes save lives as well as nearly always avoid complications. Saving life can cost money; but may I remind the Government and the health authorities of their responsibilities to other people's children? I ask the Minister to give this amendment serious consideration.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: The noble Baroness who moved the amendment is under no illusions that I share in any way her general views on education; in fact I am totally opposed to them. Nevertheless, on this amendment I give her 100 per cent. support, and I do so partly for personal reasons. I have spent a considerable part of my life in various functions within the game of rugby football. As a boy at school during a match I had an injury which 20 years later was diagnosed as a broken neck. I know there will be some noble Lords on the other side of the Committee who consider that it was not broken quite far enough. I am sure the noble Baroness is not one of those, but I am not so sure about the Front Bench. However, injuries are not an unusual occurrence in the game of rugby. My injury was not diagnosed because I was carried off the field, which I should not have been, and taken by car to the local hospital, which I should not have been, and there the injury was misdiagnosed. I am stuck with that for the rest of my life.
A much more serious accident occurred a few years later during another match, in which one of the opposing team also sustained a broken neck and died two days later. He was also carried off the field and, to my horror, he was carried off the field by medical students. He should never have been touched. I could go on: I remember a cricket incident where an umpire (a fairly old man) was hit very severely behind the head, but we had sufficient knowledge to leave him there and to call the ambulance. Nevertheless he never worked again.
Those kind of accidents will occur in sport. Sport is an essential part of the education system. When I gave up playing rugby, I refereed for many years, and I refereed many school matches. I was always horrified
466
at the lack of skilled medical attention on the touchline whenever there was an injury.
There is only one consideration here that I should like to put to the noble Baroness. I think the amendment probably needs a little clearer definition of health training. When we were refereeing—and I may say that at that time I was refereeing in conjunction with somebody who has become well known since then, Mr. Denis Thatcher (I keep curious company)—as London referees at school matches all over the country the one thing we would never do if there appeared to be serious injury was to allow St. John's Ambulance men to treat it, because they were simply not trained sufficiently to treat any serious injury. It might have required an ambulance; it certainly required a qualified doctor.
In supporting the noble Baroness in this amendment, I am wondering whether on consideration she might not think that the situation is so serious in schools where sport is played that there should be a clearer definition of the kind of medical training that should be essential for at least one member of staff, or preferably two as a cover. Many of these injuries cannot be diagnosed simply; they cannot be diagnosed without a full medical training. It may be that in a school having over a certain number of pupils it should be a requirement that there should be a fully trained doctor available, particularly during sports periods.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but I think it would be quite inappropriate if a word were not said from these Benches in total support of the noble Baroness. Lady Cox. I have nothing very exciting to add to what has already been said by noble Lords, except that I do recollect on many occasions having to supervise swimming at school. I do not think swimming has been mentioned. I was always in dread and fear of having to cope with an accident which involved drowning or half drowning. That is yet another thing that can arise.
Another point that could be made is that it would give much more confidence to teachers who were supervising playgrounds or out-of-school activities if they felt that there was somebody around who could cope with an emergency. Of course, it is no good having a member of staff trained in first aid if he or she is not on the premises. One would have to stipulate that such a member was at all times on the premises when the children were there, which might give rise to further complications. However, in general I should like to express my full support for the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: If noble Lord are wondering why I have wandered for a moment from my job as a Whip on the Front Bench, it is to give my support to this amendment, based on a programme which was on television at the weekend. I do not know whether any noble Lords or noble Baronesses saw the programme, which showed a number of young people suffering from spinal injuries and broken necks from the rugby field who were literally paralysed for the rest of their lives. The subject of the programme was rather different. It concerned the question of insurance, to

467
allow them, though totally paralysed from the neck downwards, to carry on through life with some sort of financial support rather than just being confined to a single room for the rest of their days. If this amendment can help in even the smallest way to eliminate that, I think it is worthy of support, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me for having moved from my position on the Front Bench as a Whip just for a few moments.
Baroness Young: I am sure the whole Committee will have considerable sympathy with the spirit of the amendment which has been proposed by my noble friend Lady Cox. The safety of our schoolchildren is a matter of the greatest concern, and it is right that we should take this opportunity to consider whether the present arrangements relating to it are sufficient or whether they could be improved by legislation along the lines proposed. Perhaps I may say right at the beginning that I am a very great admirer of the work that is done both by the Red Cross—I know, having heard Lady Hylton-Foster speak of the important role that she plays as, I think, president of the Red Cross—and by the St. John's Ambulance. I am sure all of us are full of admiration for the voluntary work that they do on so very many occasions in our country, and we fully appreciate the offer that they have made about training suitable people for this task.
What I should like to do in response to the amendment, because I think it is a very serious one, and I want to show that the Government do indeed take this matter very seriously, is to set out just what the current provisions are, for there are already a number of legislative provisions. First of all, there are common law requirements which are relevant to the question. In the first place, under the duty of care which each local education authority and its head teachers and other teachers owe to the children in their charge, there is a requirement that reasonable and sensible provision shall be made for the children's health and welfare. This is a most important common law right and duty.
To turn to the statutory requirements, it is sometimes said—indeed, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said this—that the main piece of legislation in this field, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, applies only to employees in their place of work, and that it does not offer any protection to others such as children at school. That is by no means the case: the Act lays down health and safety requirements not only for employees but also for "persons other than persons at work" (Section 1(b)); similar requirements in rather more detail are also found in Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, for example. It is hard to see how authorities could hope to discharge these various duties without taking proper measures to ensure that suitably trained staff are available where required.
Noble Lords may ask, however, how far these various requirements actually affect the provision which is made. I must acknowledge that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State does not at present collect detailed statistical information about the qualifications of this kind held by the teaching force or of their distribution through the school system. Nevertheless, there is a good deal of informa-
468
tion available from the observations and other work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate which points to the conclusion that the great majority of schools (and of further education colleges—though these are not mentioned in the amendment of the noble Baroness) take their responsibilities properly and seriously. This picture indicates that the minimum provision put forward by the noble Baroness would be very much less than is the general practice in our schools and colleges. Indeed, it may help noble Lords to know that my right honourable friend's department already publishes and has published for many years a series of booklets of guidance on various safety matters, one of which is specifically on the question of first aid in educational establishments. This advice is reviewed, corrected and updated from time to time as required.
If I may just look in detail at the noble Baroness's amendment, first, there is always the danger in setting a minimum standard at a very modest level that that standard will come to be seen as the most appropriate level of provision when a well-run school is already likely to be much better off in this respect.
Secondly, the Government consider it inappropriate to intervene in great detail through statutory means in the provision of educational services which would best be provided for flexibly in accordance with local needs. It seems to me that the arrangements we already have are adequate—general requirements enforcing the need to act in a proper way, regularly published advice on points that need to be observed, particularly on new developments, and considerable latitude to implement arrangements in a way which meets local circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and I usually disagree on all matters, but, having said that, I would not have wished that fate to befall him on the rugger field. He raised the point of having suitably qualified staff. I am not sure that the amendment would meet his case, because it provides that where there are no qualified medical personnel available in the school—I take it that that is not defined and means somebody who is either a qualified doctor or nurse—there should be somebody qualified in first aid. But there is no evidence to show that the person qualified in first aid would have been able to make the judgment that would have helped the noble Lord. From his story, his misfortune was that the medically qualified people made a mistake. Nothing that one writes into legislation or anywhere else will provide against a wrong diagnosis, which I think we would all agree is a misfortune of the greatest order. It was obviously not intended, but it was a misfortune.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Will the noble Baroness—
Baroness Young: May I just conclude? I see the point that the noble Lord is making. I do not wish to be flippant, but when I was a Girl Guide I passed a course in first aid. However, I should hesitate to say that I was qualified to advise on injuries on a rugger field or to give medical advice, except of the simplest kind. I suspect, although this is a personal judgment, that many teachers qualified in first aid would hesitate considerably when dealing with somebody else's child to take the responsibility and would first call for an ambulance and take the injured child to hospital if they thought the injury was serious.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. I only wish that her Girl Guides had been living somewhere near the rugby field! The point that I was making was that the misdiagnosis was incidental to my anecdote. I was taken from the rugby field across a road, put into a car and driven to hospital. That should never have been done. It was only because there was nobody in charge of the rugby match who had the medical knowledge that the mistake was made.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: I thank the noble Lord for elucidating that point. Specialist PE teachers would be supervising and they will almost invariably have had relevant first aid training. Science teachers in any case have a general duty to instruct their pupils in the safe handling of chemicals and equipment, because science laboratories, and indeed kitchens, can be dangerous places and require stringent supervision. Furthermore, the health and safety regulations require there to be certain facilities, including first aid kits, available to teachers and other employees. It is inconceivable that those facilities would not also be available to pupils in the event of an accident.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the dangers. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, spoke of his anxiety about swimming pools. He made the important point that if one is embarking on the policy of having a qualified person, one must have that qualified person there throughout the school day, and presumably, if there are extracurricular activities during the time of those activities, out of normal school hours.
We have heard a great deal of theory about what might happen, but to the best of my knowledge there have been no cases where the treatment of a pupil after an accident has been found to be deficient. Negligence during the period leading up to an accident, but not afterwards, has occasionally been alleged. I make that point because it must be a reassurance to the Committee on what is a serious matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raised a point about violence in schools. I understand that no case of injuries arising from violence which have not been satisfactorily dealt with in the medical sense has been reported to the Department of Education and Science.
I hope that with those reassurances about what the law lays down in the health and safety Acts and under the common law, about the training of teachers for PE and science, whose obligations, as well as the instruction of their pupils, include their safety, and about the case law, the noble Baroness will feel that the point that she has raised is being met and will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I tell her that the first aid standard approved by the Health and Safety Executive is extremely high? Anybody who holds that certificate would be perfectly capable of knowing what to do in the case of the accident on the rugger field and, more importantly, would know what not to do, because the essence of first aid is not to mess things up so that the case becomes more complicated.
470
With due respect to a number of noble Lords, the Red Cross and St. John's Ambulance have medical officers who are trained in first aid. Their view is that few ordinary doctors know anything about first aid, although they know their own job very well.
Earl De La Warr: Let me say how disappointed I was in my noble friend's reply. I expected her to say that the Government at least thought that it was a good idea to have somebody in every school who was trained in first aid, even if there were cogent reasons why that could not be done. It seemed to me that she was diligent to avoid such an opinion. She suggested that under certain circumstances it may be better not to have somebody, because they would be worried about having to fulfil their duty even perhaps while the ambulance was coming.
After all that we have heard from both sides of the Committee, we were entitled to hope and expect that the Government would say that they would like to take this matter away and look at it. We had no such thing, I am afraid.
Lord Mottistone: I should like to support my noble friend Lord De La Warr. The reply was disappointing. We required greater support for my noble friend Lady Cox. It is all very well to say that there may be people who are qualified, but there needs to be a statutory element to support what my noble friend was saying. Whether the clause is right, whether it needs changing, is another matter. What we are pleading for is a statutory endorsement of what my noble friend the Minister is saying is there, anyhow, because I do not believe that it is everywhere it should be. That is the sort of thing we want.
Baroness Young: I am very disappointed by what my noble friends have said. I have taken this amendment very seriously indeed and I have tried to set out what the statutory position is. I recognise what my noble friend Lady Cox is asking for, and I have tried to indicate that I believe it is fulfilled. I think that my noble friend Lord De La Warr was ma king a debating point about people who are qualified and about how they will deal with children. My noble friend Lady Cox shakes her head. After all, she is a qualified nurse; she has the confidence to deal with accidents. I have myself seen her deal with an accident and, if I had one, I could not be more confident of being properly looked after than if I were being looked after by my noble friend Lady Cox.
We are talking about a teacher in a school who will be trained to do this, but may not always have the confidence that is required and feels that he or she ought to call an ambulance because it is somebody else's child. I do not think that that is an unreasonable proposition, nor do I put it up as a debating point. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord De La Wan has himself had the experience of looking after other people's children, but I can assure him that if you are in that position, you think a good many times about what to do if there is an accident. So this is something to be taken seriously.
I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, about the standard of qualification of the Health and Safety Executive. I have no doubt that it is a high qualification. That assumes that people will be

471
willing, or will be obliged under this amendment, to be trained in those circumstances for every school in the country, which is an immense training programme to undertake, on the assumption that there is not somebody, such as a doctor or a nurse, currently there. There will be a tremendous expense if it is not a qualification which people have already gained in their training to be a teacher in the first place, be it of PE, science, home economics or whatever.
I hope very much that my noble friends will not feel that the Government are doing other than looking at this amendment very seriously indeed. I have tried, in all I have said, to make it plain that we believe that in the present situation the point that is made in the amendment is covered and that writing it on the face of the Bill is not necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have refrained from intervening because several of my noble friends have done so in terms with which I fully agree. I, too, am disappointed by what the Minister has said, not because I dissent from the reasoning behind it in many ways, but because there is a gap between the provision which she says is now available and the practice in many of our schools. There is a difference, as my noble friend Lord Dean said, between those schools that have adequate insurance and those that do not. I know that the amendment is not about insurance, but there are differences between the schools.
I should have thought, given the unanimous view of the Committee, that it would have been incumbent on the Minister to say not that she accepts the wording of the amendment—of course, that is not the point—but that she could see her way to encouraging her right honourable friend to formulate regulations which would provide for significant progress towards the objective of this amendment over a reasonable period of time, and that she would be prepared to have such regulations indicated as being available at a later stage of the Bill. Without such recommendations I could not suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, withdraws her amendment unconditionally.
Baroness Cox: I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, and noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion so constructively and so supportively. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for the novel experience of finding ourselves in agreement, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for moving to the Back-Benches in order to offer his support. I am most grateful for the helpful and constructive suggestions that have been made. I take note, particularly, of some of the suggestions; for example, with regard to rewording and redrafting, which will meet some of the points about deficiencies in the current wording of this, at this stage, exploratory amendment.
Perhaps I may say, sadly, that I am very disappointed by the reply from my noble friend the Minister. I appreciate her expression of sympathy for this amendment, but it seems to me that that is sympathy essentially without substance. I think one of the most important criticisms that has been made—and it is certainly something that I should like to seek to clarify in taking this amendment forward in
472
a different form for the Report stage—is about specifying the standard which would be needed in order to ensure safe cover for first aid for emergencies.
I think I am able to assure the Committee that the standard of well qualified first aiders from the British Red Cross Society's training schemes, and from those of St. John's Ambulance, would certainly be able to provide cover needed for the kinds of emergencies which would be likely to occur in schools. The standard of courses which they provide for certain certificates is very high indeed, and would certainly give the maximum safety coverage that would be required in any responsible school, either to treat people or, at least as important, to prevent the wrong treatment of people who have suffered some kind of injury.
So I must reluctantly say that I was not convinced by the arguments of my noble friend the Minister. It seems to me that what is at stake is not the fact that there are certain guidelines, handbooks or recommendations of various kinds, or the fact that some schools adopt good practice. Our concern is a question of a gap in the cover for children who are inherently vulnerable given the nature of their situation. It is not enough to say that science teachers or domestic science teachers instruct their pupils in how to deal with chemicals in the laboratory, or how to deal with potentially dangerous situations in domestic science kitchens. That will not forestall an accident, and accidents can occur at any time, no matter how good the preventive treatment or the preventive teaching may be.
If there were any gap in the provision of first aid cover, and if a child were to be vulnerable through failure to provide life-saving or injury-saving treatment, it would be very tragic to condone the situation. Surely this Government must accept as fail-safe a position as possible so as to prevent unavoidable injury or unavoidable exacerbation of injury to children in schools. Do we have to wait until a tragedy does occur before such legislation is deemed to be necessary?
I take heart from the widespread support from all parts of your Lordships' Committee. We will work at trying to bring forward an amendment which meets some of the very relevant points that have been made. At this stage I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I must say that I have every intention of returning at Report stage. I hope very much that those noble Lords who have indicated their support for this amendment in its spirit at this stage will then, if necessary, join me in the Division Lobby to support it, because I feel very strongly indeed that we owe this to the children of our land. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Travelling and subsistence allowances for governors of schools and establishments of further education]:
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 46, line 17, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: We turn now to another of the miscellaneous provisions. This is bound to be a choppy session because we are moving from one clause to another with very little relationship between one clause and the next. The issue of travelling and subsistence allowances for governors of schools and establishments of further education, although a subordinate matter, is a proper corollary of the intention of the Government and of the Bill to improve the democratic government of our schools and of our establishments of further education.
Noble Lords whose experience like mine is mainly in cities, particularly those of us who carry bus passes so that we do not incur extra expenditure for travelling and subsistence, may not be fully aware of the difficulties which will face governors especially in rural areas and especially in areas where considerable distances may be travelled to governing body meetings. I remind the Committee that the provision for governing bodies includes also boarding schools, special schools and even special schools within hospitals, although on slightly different terms.
The provisions of Clause 44 which say that a local education authority may pay travelling and subsistence allowance seem somewhat in conflict with the intentions of the Government which are to break the governing bodies away from the shackles of local education authorities, make them independent, make them more representative and make them more effective. I am not suggesting that many local authorities will deliberately and spitefully restrict travel and subsistence allowances in order to make governing bodies less effective; but it is surely not unreasonable that this minimum provision for facilitating the meetings of governing bodies and the full attendance of those who would otherwise find it difficult to attend governing bodies, should be a statutory requirement on local authorities.
I should have thought that such a provision and such a protection for governing bodies against the over-riding power of local authorities was very much in the spirit of the Bill as it has been drafted. I hope that the Government will find it an unexceptionable addition and improvement to the provision they are already making. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: The Bill is all right as it is. Lawyers are often concerned with whether "may" means "shall" and "shall" means "may". Usually the courts give the sensible interpretation. What it means is that the local education authority has the power to do this and shall do it unless there is good cause to the contrary. It seems to me that there is no difficulty whatever in leaving it as it is.
Baroness Young: There is no doubt that the present arrangements for allowances for governors are highly unsatisfactory. Under dubious vires, councillors in some areas receive a range of allowances for service as a governor while other governors are entitled to nothing. Clause 44 sweeps all this away by providing a new and fairer system in which, if a local education authority chooses to make a scheme, travel and subsistence allowances would be available to all
474
governors of selected classes of establishment, whether or not they are councillors. This amendment would make it compulsory for authorities to have such schemes for the payment of allowances.
The Government do not believe it is necessary to move from the essentially discretionary position that now obtains, except to rule out the differentiation between categories of governor and, consistent with their view that governorship is a form of voluntary service, to limit allowances to those payable in respect of travelling and, where appropriate, subsistence. To go further would seem inappropriate in view of the resource implications that this would inevitable have.
Such a move would also seem to be generally unnecessary. At various points, the Government have been criticised for being too rigid in this Bill. Here we are criticised for being too flexible. It seems entirely right that the issue of allowances should be settled area by area in the light of each area's circumstances and the views of those involved. I have no doubt that governors affected will make their views known.
We believe that this is the best way of dealing with this matter. If the Bill were to impose a duty to pay allowances, as proposed by this amendment, it would also seem necessary to prescribe what those allowances should be in order to ensure that a nonsense is not made of the duty by the payment of only token allowances. We should then have a complicated structure in place of the simple framework provided by this clause and which is all that is required. With that explanation—and, if I may say so, with the very interesting intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in support of Clause 44—I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am impressed by the clarity and brevity of the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I certainly yield to him in his interpretation of what is meant by "may" and "shall", although it seems different from the way in which I use these words in ordinary life. I am bemused by the intervention of the Minister. Unless I misunderstand her, the noble Baroness says that it is compulsory to make a scheme, but that the scheme although it is compulsory may not result in the actual payment of travelling and subsistence allowances. I shall read carefully what she had to say; and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 46, line 19, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 94, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 95 with I hope suitable brevity. It may well be said that this is within the terms of the Bill as drafted. "Subsistence allowances" is a male orientated term. On many occasions it means something more like compensation for loss of opportunities—not necessarily loss of financial earnings but loss of opportunities. To eat at home, to have a meal

475
prepared by one's wife, is the way in which I am sure it is often thought of. We hope that the encouragement being given to different people to serve on governing bodies is being given at least equally to women as to men.
Child care allowances are, from the woman's point of view, as important as subsistence allowances are for men and for women. It seems a natural extension of the provisions in the Bill, and one that ought not to cause enormous difficulty. It is not suggested that there should be the provision of child care; simply that there should be allowances equivalent in some cases to probably not much more than the babysitting allowances that are already made by local authorities to their members. There are adequate precedents for such allowances, and it seems reasonable that they should be extended from members of local authorities to those who serve on governing bodies. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: As we have already made clear, we regard service as a governor as a valuable form of voluntary service. In considering such service, parents and other governors will clearly give careful consideration to their domestic circumstances in the light of the commitment necessary to enable them to discharge that important task effectively.
The noble Lord, in making his suggestion to add to Clause 44 a child care allowance, would introduce a completely new form of allowance, and so far as I am aware it is not one that is written into legislation available for councillors. We would be embarking in this part of the Education Bill on a new form of allowances for school governors.
I recognise the sincerity of the noble Lord in moving the amendment, and its purposes in the light of the Bill's aim to increase parents' involvement in and influence over their children's schooling. However, it would be difficult to make such a provision statutorily in a Bill of this kind. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that school governors' meetings will be fixed at a time that would suit the majority of the governors. Normally, governors would have the opportunity to make their availability known before those meetings are arranged. A governor unable to attend a meeting will always be able to submit written comments on any matter to be discussed, although I acknowledge that he or she would not be able to vote should the matter be taken to that formal conclusion.
I recognise the point that the noble Lord is making, but it would not be right for me to do other than to state what the Government would see as clearly being quite extensive resource implications if such a provision were to be written onto the face of the Bill. The Committee may agree that this is not the appropriate place in which to introduce a completely new type of allowance that would have considerable resource implications. We are saying that travel and subsistence allowances will be available. I do not think I would accept that subsistence is a male-orientated term. I do not think that my husband would take that view of it, at any rate, even if everyone else did. Subsistence means what it says: the ability, when one must have a meal out because of a meeting, to be able
476
to have that meal paid for, and to have one's travel expenses met. I believe that such payments are accepted and are equally applicable to me or to women governors as the case may be. I hope very much that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that explanation. The noble Baroness may well be right about the definition of the word "subsistence". There are always different interpretations to be put on words of that sort. Before I withdraw the amendment, I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government have formed a view on this point. If a local authority did decide to grant child care allowances, then would it be prohibited from doing so by the terms of the Bill, or would such payments be within the discretion of the local authority to make to governors if it so wished? My understanding is that there are local authorities that do such a thing for their councillors at the moment. If the noble Baroness does not have that information available now, perhaps she will let me know the answer later.
Baroness Young: The best that I can do is to write to the noble Lord on that point, and I undertake to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In anticipation of that reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 95A and 95B:
Page 47, line 27, leave out from ("No") to ("to") and insert ("allowance may be paid").
Page 47, line 29, leave out ("any allowance").
The noble Earl said: These are drafting amendments, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Repeal of section 4 of the 1944 Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know that this is a matter to take to a vote but it seems that after the very distinguished history of the central advisory councils for education over a period of 40 years—perhaps not over the past few years but for many of the past 40 years—it is a very mean provision that the 1944 Act should be amended in this way.
The central advisory councils have played a very significant role in our understanding of educational problems and in the way in which we have looked to the future over the post-war years. It would be invidious to single out individual reports, but certainly the name of Plowden, as of others, rings in the heads of those concerned with education.

477
It may be that individual Secretaries of State find it more convenient to be served in an advisory capacity by ad hoc councils and committees. There has certainly been no shortage of those in recent years, even if the central advisory councils have not been used. However, the advantage of having continuing central advisory councils, even with membership which changes in some ways, is that there is a recognition of the role of—I hesitate to say the great and the good—those who have a lifetime of experience in the education world, who have wisdom to give to the Secretary of State and the education community and who have proved their worth on many occasions.
It is difficult to see on what basis, other than a pulling up of the drawbridge, the Government wish to say that for ever in the future there shall be no equivalent of the central advisory councils for education. I hope the Government will find it possible to say a few words of comfort to those who have valued the work of the central advisory councils and will indicate that this totally blank prohibition on future advice of this sort is not the intention of the Government in the long term.
Baroness Hooper: There was certainly no intention to be mean about this provision of the Bill. It was simply intended as a tidying-up operation. It is, in fact, over 20 years since the last central advisory council report was published. That is not to say that successive governments have not continued to value the contribution of informed outside opinion on a wide range of policy matters. As the noble Lord suggested, this is now done on a more ad hoc basis: examples are the Cockcroft Committee on the teaching of mathematics, the Swann Committee on the education of children from ethnic minority groups, and the Warnock Committee on special educational needs.
In 1982, in response to the second report of the Education, Science and Arts Committee, the Government undertook to abolish the central advisory councils, and nothing has happened since then which has made us change our view. I hope that helps the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am bound to say that I am disappointed with that reply. While recognising the value of the work done by the ad hoc committees—and I certainly join in everything said by the noble Baroness—I should have thought the Government would not have wished to close the door they are now seeking to close however long the notice they gave of it. However, I can see that we are not going to make much progress on this and I will not pursue my intention to oppose the Motion that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Discontinuance of Secretary of State's duty to make annual reports]:
On Question, Whether Clause 46 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is a crazy clause. There is no other word for it. The Government are demanding reports from all and sundry about all
478
aspects of our education system. Even bearing in mind the gloss which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, put on an earlier clause about reports from governing bodies, the whole reporting structure of governing bodies—the reports back from the governing bodies to the parents, the preparation for the annual parents' meetings, the inter-linking obligations for information between the local education authorities and the governing bodies, the governing bodies and their constituencies—forms a major part of this Bill. In clause after clause we have requirements—rightly, in my view, and I am not disputing that—for regular, consistent and statutory reporting back from those who have a responsibility for some part of the governance of our education system. However, the one aspect of this which affects the Secretary of State—the requirement, in existence since 1944. that the Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament—is to be removed.
I am simply not going to be convinced by any argument for the Government that no one pays attention to the report of the Secretary of State. I am sure that this is what we shall be told. In practice, what that means is either that the Secretary of State is not taking the responsibility seriously and is not making the report as informative as it should be—I am sure that such criticism will apply just as much to Labour Secretaries of State as to Conservative Secretaries of State—or that Parliament is not doing its duty and debating the reports of the Secretary of State when they are available. Both arguments may be advanced.
It may be said that they are not good enough reports, or that they are not considered adequately. This does not mean that the obligation to produce them should be abolished. What it means is that the Secretary of State should take them more seriously, that Parliament should take them more seriously, and, above all, that informed public opinion should be brought up against the real facts of what is happening in our education system on a regular basis, not less than once a year. I hope very much that the Government will give further consideration to this illogical, irrational and, I would say, improper intrusion into a Bill that is designed to increase democracy in our education system.
Baroness Young: I am not sure that I shall be able to be as reassuring in response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as he would like. I wish, however, to set out for the benefit of the Committee the reasons that have led the Government to include the clause in the Bill. Despite the interest shown by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the Secretary of State's annual report to Parliament is not being read as widely as it once was. Sales have declined steadily over recent years from about 4,000 a year in the late 1960s to about 1,000 today. On the other hand, for those who want to read a great deal, the total number of publications produced by the DES has risen from about 100 to about 400. Given the comparatively limited scope of the department's publications programme in earlier years, it was probably wiser to produce the annual report. Indeed, it was a necessary and useful source of information about the Government's education policies. But times change. The annual report now

479
largely repeats information already reported to Parliament or made public in other ways. The bibliography to the chapter relating to the department in the annual public expenditure White Paper, for example, provides a reference point for the main publications about education and science.
It will also be helpful, I believe, if I say that the Department of Education and Science will be producing an annual sources document that will be freely available, and that will list its parliamentary and non-parliamentary publications by subject. Copies will be lodged in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. The list will include statutory instruments, circulars and administrative memoranda and statistical sources as well as press notices that cover, for example, all major speeches made by Ministers. The material that was available in the annual report will continue to be available, we believe, in a better form. It will be available for anyone to look up, as copies will be available in the Library. It will, of course, be available for debate. It is perfectly possible for any of your Lordships to debate different aspects of government education policy, backed up by the particular publications to which they refer. As public interest in the report has dropped considerably, it seems to the Government that it is no longer necessary to publish it. As I have already indicated, all the material that would be in the annual report is now largely repeated information which has already been given to Parliament and the public.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We must be grateful to the noble Baroness for what she says about the sources booklet. I am sure that it will be valuable to Members of Parliament. However, in almost every other respect that reply was deeply disappointing.
In the first place it seemed to indicate that the primary interest of the public in this education matter is that of Members of Parliament who have access to such documents as are placed in the Library. Secondly, there seems to be a total confusion about the need for communication. I should have thought that above all this Government, and above all at this time, would have recognised that there is widespread dissatisfaction and distrust regarding their education policy and those who have the political responsibility for carrying it out.
Under these circumstances if the speech of the noble Baroness were read at Conservative Central Office, she would find very considerable astonishment at the complacency which she expresses about the need for the Government to explain themselves to a wider public than Parliament. If it is indeed true—and I do not doubt what the noble Baroness says—that the circulation of these annual reports has reduced from 4,000 to 1,000, Conservative Central Office will tell the noble Baroness that something must be done to increase the circulation and to provide a more popular document which people want to read and which states what the Government want to say about our education system.
Putting it in a less political way, the advantage of an annual report is that it has consistent, continuous and
480
predictable contents which can be expected at a certain time every year. It provides a consistent basis for comment and criticism on the performance of our education system and of the Government in their responsibilities towards it.
I suspect that the motives of the department in wishing to abolish this annual report are widely at variance with the motives of those who are advising the Conservative Party on political matters and that if it were known to whoever are the successors to Sir Gordon Reece, they would be horrified at what is now proposed. If the Government wish to handicap themselves in their communications with a wider public, so be it. There is no more than we can say about it.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Minimum age for governors of establishments of further education]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 96:
Page 48, line 8, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("sixteen").
The noble Lord said: There was a very considerable debate on the question of pupil governors on Clause 2 of the Bill on the first day of Committee. We feel that it was not a debate which was as coherent as we would have wished because it included discussion of pupil governors with a whole range of other issues relating to the composition of governing bodies. Nevertheless, I believe that the Committee felt that at that stage Members had an opportunity to comment on the issue of pupil governors. We are not satisfied with the result, but at this time of night on the fourth day of Committee it is probably better if we reserve our rights to come back to this in perhaps a more coherent and effective form. I do not propose to move Amendment No. 96.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 97 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 97A:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Duties of Secretary of State in exercising powers under Education Act 1980.
.—In considering any proposals required to be submitted for his approval under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980, the Secretary of State shall—
(a) give reasons in writing for his decision and provide copies to those who have objected to the proposals;
(b) announce his decision within three months of the date of such submission of proposals to him;
(c) take account of the need for maintaining the balance of provision between county and voluntary school places in the area concerned; and
(d) make available on request to any statutory objector all papers, submissions, reports and minutes of meetings and any other material relevant to the proposals.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 97A is not a standard amendment from this Dispatch Box. It is not

481
one of a series of amendments which we have been moving with concern for the state education system in mind. Amendment No. 97A arises from a very considerable feeling of discontent in many parts of the country about decisions regarding closure, or indeed non-closure, of schools made by local education authorities and confirmed or not confirmed by the Secretary of State.
I imagine that quite a number of noble Lords will have been the recipients of very effective lobbying by the Reverend Paul Nicholson of Turville in Buckinghamshire, who is protesting against the closure of three schools in Buckinghamshire by the Buckinghamshire Education Authority. His protest is not merely that a wrong decision has been made—although that is the basis of his argument—but that the local education authority refuses to discuss the issues adequately with him and that when the matter goes to the Secretary of State, despite the intervention of at least one MP for the area, he relies on his powers under existing legislation not to give his reasons for the decision or to provide copies to those who have objected to the proposals. That is one case which concerns the closure of a school where parents and local residents are in conflict with the local education authority.
There is another example in Sherborne in Dorset where the issue concerns a number of secondary schools, both grammar schools and secondary modern schools, which are by modern standards too small for the purposes of education in the area. In that case, the parents in the area and the local education authority are both agreed that these unsatisfactory, small, selective schools should be closed and that they should he replaced by larger comprehensive schools in the area. I would not say that that is the unanimous view, because that would be impossible, but it is the view of a substantial number of parents and of the local education authority.
The Secretary of State, in his wisdom or otherwise, has decided that those closures shall not take place and that the schools which are wanted by local people shall not be opened. Using his rights under existing legislation, he has refused to give his reason for that decision. Whichever way the issue goes, and whether or not there is disagreement between local parents, or it could be governing bodies or the local education authority, where the issue goes to the Secretary of State for decision it is surely quite unreasonable and out of keeping with the general spirit of the Bill before us that the Secretary of State should not be obliged to give his reasons in writing for the decision.
I can predict what the Government will say. They will not use these words but they will say, in effect, that any reasons that are given by the Government for a decision are a hostage to fortune because they can be challenged, and there is therefore the possibility that there will be further debate, further discussion and further trouble for the Secretary of State and for the department in securing their objectives.
I suggest that, in the light of the Government's well known determination that the government of our schools shall be more democratic, it is not unreasonable to say that the Secretary of State shall:
"(a) give reasons in writing for his decision and provide copies of it";
482
and then under paragraph (b) that he shall do so within a reasonable time, and we suggest within three months of the date of submission of proposals.
Under paragraph (c) the Secretary of State shall:
"take account of the need for maintaining the balance of provision between county and voluntary school places in the area concerned".
I should have thought that that was an argument which would apply particularly strongly to those noble Lords and right reverend Prelates who have expressed their concern for the continuation of the dual system. Then, under paragraph (d), he shall:
"make available on request to any statutory objector all papers, submissions, reports and minutes of meetings and any other materials relevant to the proposals".
It does not just apply to the Secretary of State; it is also true for the local education authorities themselves.
Under the Education Act 1980 a local authority which excludes, or fails to give a place to, a child in a particular school preferred by the parent is obliged to give reasons to the parent for that exclusion. Even though a local authority has all of those obligations to an iiidividual parent, under the legislation as proposed the Secretary of State can make decisions affecting literally hundreds of children without having to give any explanation to the parents. That must make it more difficult for those parents to mount any reasonable objection. It must make it more difficult for the governing bodies, whose powers and scope are to be increased by this Bill, to do the job laid upon them by this legislation as effectively as they should.
It is a total anomaly that we should have a Bill which lays all these obligations on local education authorities, on individual parents and on governing bodies, and fails to make the same sort of obligation incumbent upon the Secretary of State. I do not believe that objective supporters of the Bill, objective supporters of the Government, could seriously wish this anomaly to be included in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will feel that there is something defective here, and will encourage the Government to think again about this matter.
It is not a party political matter: it is one felt strongly by parents and local education authorities in many parts of the country, and particularly those concerned with the voluntary schools. The fact that I am saying it now from this Dispatch Box ought not to have any influence on the issue. It is a matter which deserves to be taken above the realm of party politics and treated with all the seriousness and humility that the Government can command. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: Under Sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980 it is for local education authorities, or where appropriate the governors of voluntary schools, to make proposals for the establishment, discontinuance or significant alteration of a school. They do so by publishing notices of their intentions. The notices are expected to be the outcome of a period of public consultation, and recent High Court decisions have confirmed that those affected have a legitimate right to be consulted on proposals for school reorganisations, which is enforceable to the same extent as a statutory requirement to comult.

483
Once notices have been published, the Act provides for a period of two months during which objections to the proposals may be made and, in the case of proposals made by a local authority, a further month within which the objections, with the local authority's comments on them, should be passed to the Secretary of State. Thereafter it is the Secretary of State's duty to consider and decide upon the proposals on their individual merits having regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the views of any objectors. His power under the Act is solely one of approval or rejection: he cannot modify proposals save in the most limited fashion, and only after consultation with the proposers; nor can he substitute his own judgments for those of the proposers.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would, first, impose on the Secretary of State the duty to give reasons in writing for his decisions and to supply a copy to the objectors. Where the Secretary of State decides to reject proposals, the proposers—as providers of education in a particular area—have a direct interest in knowing the grounds on which they have been rejected, and the Secretary of State already gives his reasons in such cases under the 1980 Act. But in cases where approval is given, the Secretary of State is in effect saying that, having considered all the relevant factors and all the views that have been put to him, he favours on balance the case made by the proposers. The grounds for their proposal should already be clear from the consultations they have carried out, the adequacy of which is one of the factors that the Secretary of State will take into account in reaching his decision. A further statement of reasons would be superfluous.
Secondly, the noble Lord seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to reach decisions within three months. Under the provisions of the 1980 Act, which I have just explained, a period of three months from the publication of notices must elapse before the Secretary of State can embark on his consideration of proposals. But even if the noble Lord's intention is that the three-month period for consideration should run from the time when objections and comments are passed to the Secretary of State, the amendment would still represent an unacceptable constraint on his ability to give full and fair consideration to all the issues in what may often be complex sets of proposals. Objectors and proposers alike often ask for meetings with Ministers to set out their case long after the proposals were published, and it is important that they should have a hearing. The Secretary of State is aware of the anxiety and the administrative difficulties that may result if decisions on reorganisations are unduly delayed, and is constantly seeking means of improving his ability to make prompt decisions. We believe that the imposition of an arbitrary time-limit for decisions would be to the detriment of careful and balanced assessment of proposals.
Thirdly, the amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to take account, in reaching his decisions, of the need to maintain the balance of provision between county and voluntary schools in the area concerned. The Secretary of State is conscious of,
484
and is committed to maintain, the valuable contribution made by the voluntary schools to the education service. In considering any proposal involving a voluntary school the balance of local provision, the views of the governors and the voluntary bodies concerned and the preservation of parental choice are factors to which he already attaches considerable importance. They have, however, to be balanced against other considerations which in a particular case may be equally pressing. We believe that it would be invidious to enshrine this consideration alone as one which the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to take into account.
Finally, the amendment seeks to oblige the Secretary of State to make available on request to objectors any material, including submissions, reports and minutes of meetings, which is relevant to the proposals. To make available in this way documents relating to the consideration of the proposals within the Department of Education and Science would be a clear breach of the established conventions on the confidentiality of official advice to Ministers and is not acceptable to the Government. But I think that what the noble Lord probably wishes to secure is the release to the objectors of the comments that the local education authority makes to him on its objections, together with any supporting material provided.
Normally the Secretary of State regards this matter as one between proposers and objectors. He considers that in the usual run of such cases it would not rest with him to make this material available to objectors. Some local education authorities already disclose their comments as a matter of course, and the Secretary of State endorses this practice. Where proposers are not inclined to follow it, he considers whether the proposers' submissions have raised new facts or arguments, previously unknown to the objectors, which are likely to be crucial to his decision. Where this is the case, the Secretary of State in the interests of fairness takes steps to ensure that the objectors have a further opportunity to comment within a specified time limit. The proposers would then themselves have a right to comment on any further points made by objectors. The Secretary of State thus ensures that objectors are not put at a disadvantage in making their case: he would not wish to be obliged to go further in disseminating material made available to him by proposers.
I have gone into a lengthy and detailed explanation. I have done so because I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. This matter was debated, I well recall, extensively during the passage of the Education Act 1980. He said quite properly that it had been referered to in various cases and proposals which have come before the Secretary of State. I have set out as fully as I can the reasons for not accepting his amendments. We believe that the considerations that apply and the way that the 1980 Act has worked have proved to be helpful. I hope that he will perhaps read again what I have said and consider it. I hope too that he will recognise that I have gone into detail because I should not want the important points he is making simply to be picked up and not considered fully. I hope that my explanation will be helpful to the whole Committee and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I listened to what the Minister said with mounting disbelief; and those who feel strongly that justice is not being done in many Conservative parts of the country will read what she said with mounting disbelief. It is literally true that the powers of the Secretary of State in dealing with cases that are brought to him are restricted to accepting or rejecting the proposals and he has no power to amend them.
But of course the power to accept or reject is the greatest of the powers that any Minister can have, and when—as in the case of Sherborne in Dorset—the Secretary of State overturns the united view of the parents in the area and gives no reason at all for his decision, it will take more than the speech of the Minister to convince the people of Sherborne in Dorset that their case has been heard reasonably, promptly and with the due attention to the issues which are important to them in the lives of their children. I fear that they will not be convinced by what has been said.
Again, on the issue of the time limit, perhaps three months is the wrong period. It may well be that there are complicated cases which will take more than three months. It is certainly the case that Labour Secretaries of State have taken more than three months to deal with matters of this kind and are just as open to criticism for delay as any other Secretary of State. But there must be some kind of time limit; there must be some provision whereby, in natural justice, parents, pupils and education authorities who have to refer to the Secretary of State for adjudication and decision, can have some assurance that at some stage there is a time limit for the reply and that it is not simply open to the "Department of Circumlocutions" to postpone decisions until it is more politically or administratively convenient to announce them.
Again, it is useful to have the assurance of the Minister that the Secretary of State takes account of the need for maintaining the balance. But, surely, the point about having it in this amendment is that the decision of the Secretary of State and the reasons given by the Secretary of State for his decision must plainly and clearly be in accordance with that obligation and that the two must be related to justify the decision. I accept that legalistically it is not in the power of the Secretary of State to make available papers submitted in confidence by a local education authority, and I accept that there is a constitutional convention in this country that advice to Ministers is not normally made public; although that has been breached with impunity recently by a jury in the Old Bailey.
If that is the case, then there must be some other obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that, in ways which do not breach either the constitutional convention or the confidentiality of those who are submitting evidence to the Secretary of State, the arguments are fairly put before the objectors. I heard no sign in what the Minister has said that any of these important points, which are not points about the wording and not legalistic points but points about the basic rights of parents in our education community, have been accepted or understood by the Government at all.
486
This is not the time of night at which we proceed to a Division but I do not withdraw this amendment without the most serious warning to the Government that there must be an occasion to raise this matter again. It ought to be raised at a time when far more Members of the House are here in Committee to hear the arguments. I believe that the arguments are ones which will appeal to many supporters of the Government in this Committee and in this House. I believe that the issues of fundamental human rights which are involved here are ones which are common to all of us.
Here, unfortunately, is one of those cases of a bureaucracy entrenching itself against information and against disclosure. I believe that if I were to press the matter to a vote now it would find support on many sides of the Committee; but I believe that it would be wrong to do so when, inevitably, fat more Members of the Committee would not be able to express an opinion. This is not a matter which will go away. It is one on which the Government will have to recognise the strong feeling which is in the minds and hearts of many people in different parts of this country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 98A:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of local education authority to disclose information.
.The local education authority shall give reasons for proposals made under sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980 and shall make available to any statutory objector all papers, submissions, reports, minutes of meetings and other material relevant to the proposals.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands back to back with Amendment No. 97A, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has just moved. That amendment addressed the secrecy which surrounds the Secretary of State's decisions on closures, against which parents have only the expensive recourse of judicial review, which, as the Committee will know, is a costly process. In the case of one of the schools to which I shall shortly refer the cost was £7,000 for counsel's opinion and so on, and in another case the cost was £4,000. It is not a cheap matter for parents to go for a judicial review against a decision of the Secretary of State.
This amendment addresses the equal opacity surrounding the LEA's proposals to the Secretary of State: the wretched parents are presented with two blank walls of silence and their attempts to make an impact on the very important decisions affecting the opportunities for their children are thereby diminished.
Is not this Bill one which enshrines the principle of greater parental involvement in the running of schools? Is it not therefore an appropriate vehicle in which to put this manifest injustice right; or, putting the question the other way round, should we not be guilty of a grave lapse in our duty to parents and their children if we failed to grasp the opportunity to do so?
Perhaps I could put an actual case before the Committee, that of the Turville Church of England

487
voluntary-aided primary school in Buckinghamshire, threatened with closure. The Secretary of State would not divulge his reasons; the local authority would not provide the background information on its closure proposals; and when the leader of the local campaign, the Reverend Paul Nicholson, wrote to Buckinghamshire County Council he received the following answer from the county secretary:
"In reply to your letter of the 27th February, I am not prepared to undertake the inquiries or provide the information which you have requested, for reasons which have been well documented in our previous correspondence".
What a cheek, and what a way to treat the parents of Buckinghamshire!
It is not only closures that parents object to. Sometimes they want rationalisation, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already pointed out. In Stroud and Gloucester, thousands of parents wanted a reorganisation which would have made better use of the existing facilities but which would have involved the demise of the eleven-plus and having 11-to-16 year-old comprehensive schools in every neighbourhood, with a sixth form college based on the grammar school site. But the determination of the authority to preserve selection put this out of court and will probably kill one secondary modern school serving an isolated community.
In Gloucester it is even worse. There there are grossly unviable selective schools already, and the Secretary of State resists any change. Neither from him, nor from the authority, can the parents get the crucial background information which would assist them to argue their case successfully, or at least more successfully.
Behind this veil of secrecy, in some Conservative-controlled councils secondary modern schools are made to bear the whole brunt of falling rolls, while grammar schools with less than one form entry are preserved. You can argue, if you like, that this is the proper way to go about things and that grammar schools of whatever size must be preserved at whatever cost. One may hold that view. But it is also fair to bring out into the open the thinking and the facts which lie behind these decisions, so that those who oppose them can advance their arguments to the contrary. Surely we are carrying our national obsession with secrecy to a grotesque degree.
It must by now be clear that the state of the law in this field is not satisfactory and the obfuscatory instincts of the Secretary of State and the local education authority sometimes reinforce each other. For example, on 27th March of this year the chairman of the Buckinghamshire County Council wrote to the Reverend Paul Nicholson, whom I have already mentioned, as follows:
"Without going into detail, I know that it has been made clear to you that you do not have the right as a ratepayer or an objector to the accounts to see any document in the County Council's files which you choose; that the DES made it clear that they are not prepared to release correspondence with the Authority over the closure proposals. In the light of the DES policy, the County Council are not prepared to release such documents either".
Can that be right? I must say that I should have thought that that was indefensible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, may tell me that the position is now covered by the Access to Information Act which came into effect on 1st April. If she can assure me that a letter similar to the letter I have just quoted from the Chairman of the Buckinghamshire County Council on 27th March could not have been written after 1st April, I might see a gleam of hope, but my understanding of that Act is that it does not do the trick or have that effect. It is therefore my contention that we require this new clause to ensure that such a letter can never again be written. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to say a few words about a parallel case, also from Buckinghamshire concerning three schools, one at Stokenchurch, the Bartholomew Tipping School, and two in High Wycombe, the Pembroke and Wellsbourne Schools. The story is that in October 1984 the local education authority announced the proposed closure of those schools. This would involve disruption for something like 1,500 children of secondary school age—that is to say, at a very crucial and vulnerable stage of their education. The parents involved got their act together and organised protests and objections. They made their feelings felt both to the education authority and also to the Secretary of State. It was not until February 1986 that the Secretary of State's decision was made and the decision was announced that the closure would go forward. He also said that he was not required to state his reasons for closing the three schools.
In support of what my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock has just said, I should like to say that there are three good reasons why certain information should be disclosed. A great deal of time and money is spent by these very concerned people working in the interests of their children. In doing that they are behaving as good democrats. Surely this is what democracy is all about. In return, I think they have the right to expect democratic behaviour from the organisations which they have elected—that is to say, to have some idea of the reasons adduced, the arguments put forward, and the dissent recorded in the deliberations of that elected body.
Further, where such deliberations are kept confidential there is inevitable suspicion of discreditable or questionable motives, and inevitably a loss of the confidence that would be there with open government, as well as a lot of aggrieved parents. One might argue that open government in these circumstances might involve further and very lengthy discussions, but they could hardly be lengthier than what has in fact taken place—that is, a delay of 15 months before the Secretary of State made his decision. I should therefore like to support the amendment.
10 p.m.
Baroness Young: I have listened with great care to what the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Ritchie of Dundee, have said, and particularly to the cases that they cited. I think there are three such cases, in fact, including the one that was cited by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh on the preceding amendments.

489
The grounds for the local education authority's proposals should be clear from the consultations which it will properly carry out with parents and local people as well as, of course, within its own committees. The Government do not believe that it is appropriate or necessarily helpful to informed discussion to impose upon local education authorities a duty to disclose in every case all the material which may have contributed to the formulation of the proposals and all the stages in their internal considerations. It should be for the local education authority to consider how best to explain and justify its proposals. As a matter of fact, the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 makes council minutes but not correspondence subject to the Act. That is one of the points covered by the amendment.
The noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and, Lord Ritchie may have in mind the observations which, under the terms of the 1980 Act, local education authorities may make to the Secretary of State on the objectors' comments on their proposals. Some local education authorities already make those available to the objectors, and the Secretary of State commends that practice. However, he does not consider that authorities should be compelled by law to adopt it. In cases where the local education authority's comments disclose a fact or an argument previously unknown to the objectors which is likely to be crucial to the Secretary of State's decision, he takes steps to ensure that the objectors are given a further opportunity to comment.
The existing legal requirements on local education authorities with respect to consultation and the present arrangements for ensuring that both sides have an opportunity to put their case to the Secretary of State are, we believe, adequate to ensure informed and balanced consideration of the merits of the proposal. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am of course grateful to the noble Baroness for trying to satisfy the point that I made, but she has not done so. I feel almost as indignant as did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the related amendment that he moved earlier, Our
490
whole approach to this matter seems to be extraordinary. We are obsessed with secrecy. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said, the decisions made have not been discreditable in any way, so why on earth should the information not be available to ratepayers, electors and parents? I find that extremely difficult to understand.
I think that the noble Baroness suggested that in the interests of local autonomy the Government do not want to impose upon local authorities any obligation to disclose information, but a duty is already imposed, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh pointed out, on local education authorities in relation to school admissions. They have to set up an appeals system and give reasons for their decisions. That argument does not convince me in the least.
The noble Baroness has gone a tiny way towards answering my query on the Local Government (Access to Information) Act. She has confirmed what I thought: that it was not extensive enough to give the type of protection to parents' interests which is advanced in the new clause. The minutes are opened up but not the background correspondence, which is what would be relevant in a case in which there is a great deal of complicated consideration. Having said that, I can promise the noble Baroness that I shall certainly be coming back to this at the next stage of the Bill; but I shall withdraw the amendment for the moment.
I should tell her that there is a tremendous amount of parent steam behind this movement for greater access to information in this field. The Government certainly should not go away with the idea that they are doing anything for their own popularity in resisting that great parental movement which there is up and down the county. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware of the fact that there was a lobby here just the other day, when we met some of the representatives. So I do not think the Government should get the impression that this is a problem which will go away. We shall certainly come back to it at the next stage of the Bill; but with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing moved Amendment No. 98B:
Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Freedom of speech in institutions of further and higher education.
It shall be the duty of any university, polytechnic or college of further or higher education to use available resources, including if necessary requesting the help of the police, to prevent serious interference with freedom of speech within the law on their premises.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in my name, among others, and I am sure I should have support if this Committee were more full of genuine democrats, wherever they may sit. We must all have been disturbed to see indications in recent months of freedom of speech being denied to honourable and high-minded people in some of our over 40 universities, in some of our 30 or so polytechnics and in colleges of further and higher education. The polytechnics have now drawn up a code of conduct and 30 of them have signed it. This is a move in the right direction, but I cannot help feeling that a Government dedicated to law and order should strengthen their hand. With this Bill going through Parliament, this is a wonderful opportunity to stop those who wish to prevent free speech.
The Government may do as they did when some of us suggested in another amendment that parents should be allowed to have syllabuses made available to them, when they said that that might be dealt with in a regulation and by issuing a statutory instrument. They sent me an example of a statutory instrument and I am not convinced by that argument.
I have asked them whether they will tell me how many statutory instruments have been issued in connection with education in recent years. The one that they sent to me is SI.630, where it is laid down just what LEAs should provide in details and addresses of all the people concerned with schools in their areas. I want to know what happens if hard Left LEAs totally disregard those instructions.
This statutory instrument was laid and came into operation on 25th May 1981, so we have had very nearly five years when all this information should have been correctly noted. Have they all done this? Have they answered all the points in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2? Have they done it correctly? What happens if they have not done it correctly? Unless we are given convincing information that a statutory instrument is an effective method, I hope that the Government will be rather more forthcoming than they were on the amendment dealing with syllabuses.
None of us who put down the series of amendments was trying to strengthen the hand of the law. I was not intending on any of the six or seven amendments, about which we felt very strongly, to divide the Committee, because we were assured by the Government that they would think most carefully and sympathetically. I hope that on this occasion, when we are coming to the end of the group, we shall hear honeyed, helpful and constructive words to the effect that they will take this away and, in the gap between tonight and Report stage, which is due on 20th May, they will have time to reflect, to redraft if that is necessary and to bring something forward.
If nothing is brought forward, we shall certainly divide the House at Report stage and I hope that we
492
shall have the support of members of the Alliance who are dedicated to democracy; I hope that we shall have the support of some of the 200 Cross-Benchers who feel just as strongly as we do, and I also hope that we shall have the support of those people on the Labour Benches who are a little worried about the Militant Tendency, and not only the 11 who are being attacked in Liverpool and who have temporarily gone to ground, like other moles, but who will emerge when they see the chance is greater for them and when the host is free of critics.
The need is very well brought out by the fact that in the period from the middle of September until the end of November—just over two months—there were many occasions. I could give chapter and verse, but I shall not give all the instances. The Trent Polytechnic on 18th September forbade people putting the Conservative case from expressing their views. It happened at Huddersfield Polytechnic on 25th September; at North London Polytechnic on 25th September; at the Gwent College of Higher Education on the 25th; at Thames Polytechnic on the 26th; and at Liverpool Polytechnic on the 27th—"they would do that, wouldn't they", if I may use the famous words of a good lady; a lady, anyhow—and at Middlesex Polytechnic on the 28th. It is not just an accident. In a period of 10 days people wishing to express a Conservative view or recruit Conservative students to their cause were totally denied that opportunity, had their stalls broken up, and were physically assaulted by a number of thugs—well organised thugs.
I hope that the Front Bench will make helpful noises and that we get support from other parts of the Committee. Law and order is an important matter. Law and order starts in our schools, and perhaps even now starts in the kindergarten with five-year olds. Surely we are proud of our universities, of all places—all 43 of them. In no place is it more important that freedom of speech should be upheld. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I should like to support this amendment. Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle of our constitution—not written, but laid down by the judges for the past 300 years. Freedom of speech means not only freedom for the views of which you approve, but also freedom for the views of which you most heartily disapprove. I have encountered some of these things myself. I went to speak at a large university college in London. I was surprised. While I was speaking groups of students were shouting "Out, out, out" and when I was being escorted through the doors they attempted to hustle me. But thank goodness some good strong-arm students on my side helped me through. I managed to get through unharmed. All that happened was that a few bags of flour appeared on the car afterwards.
That is the kind of treatment which even I received when I was speaking in favour of law and order and in favour of freedom of speech. The law condemns all such conduct. When these groups of people disrupt meetings it often leads to a breach of the peace, and in my view they are all unlawful assemblies. It goes back a hundred years to Beatty v. Gilbanks. The Salvation Army went along singing their hymns in the streets of

493
Weston-super-Mare—perfect freedom there we hoped—but they were set upon by rivals, the Skeleton Army. There was trouble. The unlawful assembly was not the Salvation Army, but the Skeleton Army who tried to interfere with them.
Your Lordships' Committee will remember a more recent case at the Garden Court Hotel in Cambridge. People arranged dinner in the hotel—supporters of the Greek people. There were some students in opposition—and, I am afraid, one or two dons, too—who led an attack upon those people peaceably having their dinner. They threw the chairs about and did a great deal of damage. Again, of course, it was unlawful assembly and the leader was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
All were occasions when students disrupted meetings and tried to prevent free speech. They were all unlawful assemblies and such disruptions should be dealt with accordingly.
10.15 p.m.
Surely the best people to deal with them are the authorities of the universities themselves. They have ample disciplinary powers. There was a case in 1971 when some students at Keele University went about and portrayed themselves naked in the open, affronting all the others. Disciplinary powers were invoked by the vice-chancellor, who fined them £10 and sent them down.
We all know how the disciplinary powers at Oxford are well exercised. I wonder whether the Committee remember, as I do, the way that we dealt with the proctors there:
"See me dodge the proctors, see me cover the ground. See my coat-tails flying as the bulldogs chase me round. As his hat comes round the corner, my feet begin to go. For a race with the junior proctor is the jolliest game I know".
I only recite that to show that the disciplinary powers are there in the universities and that the universities are the proper people to deal with such matters. They should do so because it is their duty to deal with them.
The proposed new clause says that such shall be a duty and that it can be enforced by the law. There is now the remedy of judicial review that is available against universities—they are public authorities—and all the others. The law and the judges can order the university authorities to do their duty, as it says in the clause, to make resources available to deal with the situation, if need be. If there is a real danger of violence, then they can call the police.
At all events, the miscreants who are abusing freedom of speech—and I do not mind which side it is—must be prevented from interfering with our fundamental freedoms. In view of the prevalence lately of such incidents, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, mentioned, and of their repetition, there ought to be something in the statute to compel university and other authorities to do their duty and to stop interference with freedom of speech.
Baroness Cox: Freedom of speech under the law on the campus is a freedom essential to a free society. The
494
centres of higher education must enshrine that principle of expression of all ideas, including ideas that some might find unacceptable or even offensive, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has emphasised.
That is so because the open expression and criticism of diverse views is vital to the pursuit of truth, which is the central function of the academic enterprise. Once academies begin to condone censorship, they are betraying their central purpose, and a society that allows that is taking a significant step on the road towards totalitarianism.
That is why the increase in the number of cases where people have not been allowed to speak on campus is so serious. Sometimes—and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has referred to many examples—they have been silenced by physical or verbal abuse. On many other occasions the silencing takes place before speakers even appear on campus, by refusal to offer invitations to people who might be seen by the authorities as likely to cause provocation to militant groups, or by rescinding invitations once they have been offered.
The publication by the Federation of Conservative Students entitled Licence for Thuggery describes many cases where speakers have been prevented from exercising the right of free speech. It gives many examples of situations where Conservative students have been subjected to pressure not to invite speakers who might become the focus of militant reaction.
I briefly give three examples to illustrate the seriousness of the situation. First, at Essex University meetings with Conservative MPs have had to be held off-campus in Colchester due to the violence that occurred when Teddy Taylor, Harvey Proctor and Cecil Parkinson tried to speak to the university last year. University authorities tried to ban Conservative MPs due to—I quote—"excessive costs" of security, but took no action when a speaker from Sinn Fein stated that the Brighton bombing was perfectly legitimate, or when striking miners, while using the student union facilities free of charge, were told where Conservatives held their meetings and even where they lived on campus.
Secondly, also reported in Licence for Thuggery, at Guildford College of Law the college authorities last autumn informed the Conservative Association that the two major political speakers due to visit the college during the year—Mr. Jeffrey Archer and Sir Patrick Mayhew—were "too controversial" and "likely to incite trouble" by their "presence" and so would not be allowed to speak.
Thirdly, I have in my hand a copy of a letter sent to the valiant Mr. Ray Honeyford, former headmaster of Drummond Middle School in Bradford, which rescinds an invitation from Bristol Polytechnic in February of this year. I quote:
"When the invitation was known about, expressions of concern were made to me as Chairman of Governors and I felt it appropriate to seek a decision from the full governing body. The question was discussed and it was agreed that permission should not be granted because of the clear possiblity of making the Polytechnic a focus of disturbance."
One of the most serious features of situations like this is the use of anonymous expressions of concern to

495
justify taking this serious step of censorship; in other words, the capitulation to blackmail without even the attempt to ensure freedom of speech under the law. Incidents such as these are occurring at an increasing rate. The most recent example reported in the press occurred in the last few days at the University of East Anglia, where attempts to prohibit Mr. John Carlisle from speaking proved successful.
I am well aware that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of Universities has issued guidelines which support the principle of freedom of speech. As my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said, the Committee of Principals and Directors of Polytechnics is producing similar guidelines. However, these guidelines contain let-out clauses which can condone censorship in the interests of security. Our concern is that there is growing evidence that some institutions of higher education are using this as an excuse for prohibition of speakers in the interests of a quiet life. It is in the light of this evidence that we believe that the time is ripe to enshrine in law the commitment to the principle of freedom of speech and also the requirement that every effort will be made to prevent overt or covert censorship on the campuses of this country.
Therefore, I support this amendment, which I believe commands popular support both within your Lordships' House and throughout the nation.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: One of the most likeable things about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is that, despite his long and distinguished career in the law, he still has an attractive instinct for simple justice and simple remedies for delinquency. If I may say so, I cannot understand why he can support an amendment of this kind which is quite clearly defective and inadequate for inclusion in statute law.
We all know the mischief. The mischief is this disgraceful manifestation in some of our educational establishments of the well-known and common dislike that human beings have of hearing what they do not agree with. That is the whole problem of freedom of speech. We do not like hearing what we do not agree with, and it is no good pretending that we do. When you have a crowd of people who share that dislike, it generates its own electricity, its own energy and its own reaction. It is very difficult to establish the right of free speech by calling in the police to stand by while you utter what you have to say. It may not be easy to stop counter-noise to prevent someone speaking, as against physical interference.
It reminds me of a long account I once heard of Sir James Grigg, when he was Finance Member for India, playing golf with Sir John Anderson, later Lord Waverley. When they went to the tee, they had to wait to drive off until a line of troops had been put on either side of the fairway. Both were indifferent golfers. If one of them sliced a drive and went off the line of route, a signal had to be sent for reinforcements. This is the sort of ludicrous situation in which we could put ourselves if we follow the line of thought in the amendment.
In all my lifetime a great deal of licence has been conceded to university undergraduates. It is believed
496
that they have youthful spirits that they should be allowed to ventilate, whereas lesser mortals who went to boarding schools or secondary schools are just yobs if they do the same thing in their own town. There is a class distinction between rowdyism in the universities and rowdyism in the council schools. That tradition has been maintained, and it continues.
Look at what happens in another place! New Members come to another place and before long they are making the same noises as those who have been there for 25 years. If we are talking about freedom of speech, have not some of us been present when Ministers, and even Prime Ministers, have been shouted down and prevented from being heard, and Mr Speaker has had to adjourn proceedings owing to grave disorder and wait for things to cool down? I have witnessed this with my own eyes. We thought it all good fun, in keeping with the traditions of Parliament and all that kind of thing.
There is hypocrisy as well as class distinction and tradition in this matter of making enough noise and making a nuisance of yourself to prevent other people saying what you do not want to listen to. There should be other remedies. It is like crime, punishment, delinquency and all the rest of the problems of the social conditions at the present time. They are baffling. They are difficult to overcome. We do not know the answers. We rely on the simple prescriptions that we have had over the years.
I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in her last ministerial occupation. She was defending a kind of hybrid school beating system that the Government wanted to incorporate in the law to conform with the ruling of the European Commission of Human Rights. I thought at the time that she was so fed up with what she had been given to do as her first job as a Minister that she was throwing her hands up in order to get back to a civilised occupation. But no! It seems that she has got the iron in her soul. She is now the scourge of Left-wing militants who want to indoctrinate our children. She wants to deal with this form of unacceptable conduct in the only way that she apparently knows, and the only way that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning knows, and that is to call in the police.
Look what the poor police have to do! The prison officers go on strike, and what about the police? We seem to think that the police are there to deal with any failure of society and any mistakes of government in ruling the country. I do not think that it is fair on the police to expect them to do this all the time. If we are to spell this out we have to say "including mounted police if necessary", or "they should be allowed to draw their truncheons if necessary". We should have to provide a schedule before we can translate this into intelligible law.
10.30 p.m.
What about the more peaceful remedy? Why not put some of these institutions out of bounds to visiting speakers or guests whom they wish to invite to speak on a non-curricular matter? That means banning all the political organisations, Conservative, Labour or Liberal. One can say that they shall not have them on university premises. One can put a prohibition upon the use of university and other educational establishments

497
for non-educational and non-curricular purposes. There are surely some forms of restraint and restriction which could be employed. But these require studying.
With great respect, in this combination of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who is quite a noted hardliner in various directions, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we are resisting the cane, because they do not know anything else but the cane. There are other ways. I think that some other remedy should be tried.
I am a hardliner in this sense. I never had a university education. I never got near a university and had no hope of going to a university. When I see how students behave at university I wonder what right they think they have to act as they do. We are too soft with them. Many more should be sent home and told to find a job. Why should we put up with that behaviour? These are the feelings of people in the street who cannot bear these demonstrations by those who are given the best in our education system and who are being made fit to rule even if they are not born to do SO.
I shall be glad to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has to say on this approach. I am sure that it is the only sensible one. This is only one of several problems of this kind with which we have to deal. For example, we have not solved ordinary delinquency or misbehaviour. We have many problems in society at the present time which are baffling us all. We have to approach them steadily and soberly to try to find what can be done to improve the situation. That is the only sensible approach. I do not have any better suggestions to put forward at the moment than those I have mentioned, because they are difficult to find. But the proposed amendment is not the answer.
It is about time that some of us began to recognise the limitation of statute law. It will not do everything, by any means. Nobody knows that better than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. The statute law is a very imperfect instrument by which to translate the wishes of Parliament into the law of the land, precisely and clearly, so that they can be applied by the courts with the least controversy on the construction of the meaning of words. It is very limited and nearly always lacking in comprehension.
However, I have said enough. It is late at night and I am sure that noble Lords want to go home. Let us try to find some other approach. In the meantime, I am afraid that I must strongly oppose this amendment.
Lord Butterworth: I shall not take up much of the time of the Committee at this late hour, but I feel I must intervene, in particular on behalf of the institutions that have been subjected to criticism this evening. I must try to assure the Committee that the universities are deeply committed to the principle of freedom of speech. Their function could not be carried on without it. It is the sine qua non of the existence of institutions of higher education.
I would applaud the suggestion which has already been made that the institutions should be allowed to set their own house in order. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has, as we have already heard, issued guidance to universities as to how they should fulfil their duty in this respect. My noble friend
498
Lady Cox referred to what she thought was a lacuna in that advice, and I shall come to that in a few moments. The Committee of Principals of Polytechnics is, I understand, about to issue a similar and strongly-worded document.
We should ask the proposers of this new clause what they intend to achieve by it. I shall not go over the ground that has already been traversed. However, I should like to ask this question. Do they intend by this clause to state the existing law, or is it their intention to change it? My objections to the clause, from a narrow point of view, are two-fold. First, it seeks to impose a duty upon the institutions, but does not provide any sanction for those who fail to fulfil it. In my view, that is not the function of a statute. Secondly, and more importantly, one sentence is trying to encapsulate all the principles of a very difficult piece of law. The danger is that because of this imperfect encapsulation in one sentence, many people may gain a wrong view about the existing law, unless, indeed, it is the intention of the movers of this amendment to change the law. That, I suspect, is what many people may think is happening.
Let me try to illustrate what I mean. My speech is obviously bringing gloom to the whole Committee. I, shall, therefore not take long. The problem which I wish to get home to Members is the complication of the different cases which arise and which have to be dealt with, and which cannot be satisfactorily treated by the one sentence which we have before us tonight. It is far better to leave this to the general law of the land, in order that the differences and the subtleties can be applied to the different circumstances as they emerge.
One case is when a member of staff is prevented by the members of that institution from speaking. A recent case has occurred at Bristol University, and Members will have seen that the Vice-Chancellor is taking action against a number of students. That case was not given as an example tonight. However, difficult cases arise when a person from outside is invited into the institution to address what is often a single meeting. One may be presented with the case of a man or woman who is activated by malice or by a determination to provoke a breach of the peace among a very sensitive audience. I can tell you what the head of almost any institution would do in practice in that case: he would go to the police to ask for advice. It we were to pass this clause as it exists tonight, it might in my view inhibit the police from giving the advice they would otherwise wish to give. It might prevent the institution, or its head, or the police, from fulfilling a duty which is incumbent upon them, which is just as great as the maintenance of freedom of speech, and that is the maintenance of the Queen's peace.
Frequently there are situations where the two issues, the freedom of speech and the maintenance of the Queen's peace have to be balanced. This amendment, in a marginal situation where there are desperate and difficult conditions, might inhibit those upon whom a sovereign duty of maintaining a peaceful situation would lie. It would therefore be far preferable that we should leave the institutions to set their own house in order, and if in due course Parliament is not satisfied with the situation, then some other remedy might be

499
brought forward. I am convinced that this clause is no remedy for any problem in the institutions of higher and further education.
The Earl of Swinton: The Government have great sympathy with the views underlying this clause. We have repeatedly reaffirmed both in this House and in another place the vital need to uphold freedom of speech within the law, and above all in our institutions of higher education. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was not pleased at being pelted with flour. I can assure members of this Committee that my noble friends and my right honourable and honourable friends in another place also do not enjoy being pelted with either flour or eggs. I always find it quite amusing, when students seem to complain about their grants, that they always seem to have enough money to buy eggs and flour to pelt at people that they do not like.
Institutions possess the powers and resources to meet the kind of threats to this freedom that we have seen in recent months. I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that this is nothing more than student highjinks. I think this is an essential threat to freedom. I do not think that the way is either to turn a blind eye or, even worse, to say that you cannot have anybody coming in to talk on politics in institutions of this kind: that they must just concentrate on whatever it is they are studying. After all, a number of students at universities and polytechnics are studying politics.
We believe also that institutions have come to a new realisation of the significance of these threats and are showing themselves prepared to take the steps needed to defend freedom of speech. The action required of them, that of ensuring adequate arrangements to avoid the creation of a situation where disruption can be imposed. is essentially practical, and would not be materially assisted by the proposed clause.
Institutions are already well aware of the need to seek and follow the advice of the police in appropriate cases. The Government believe that the guidance to universities issued at the end of last year by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals offers practical help of the kind needed by institutions in planning a resolute response to the threat of disruption. As my noble friend said, it is also good to note that the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics intend shortly to provide such guidance to its members.
I can assure my noble friends Lord Orr-Ewing and Lady Cox that institutions themselves are aware of, and committed to, this need, and most are taking steps to protect this most precious of our rights. There do however remain a few which have still not woken up to the danger in their midst, and the Government will not fail to pursue with each and very one of them any failure to protect free speech by every means available.
But I think my noble friend Lord Butterworth made a valuable point. This clause would impose a duty on institutions without providing any sanction or basis for enforcement. It could not be supported by directions from the Secretary of State under Section 68 or Section 99 of the 1944 Act, since these sections do not apply
500
to the universities. In our view this clause would not help because it does not bite on the real problem.
This is one of organisation and determination, of having arrangements in place to anticipate and combat disruption where it may occur and having the will to take the appropriate action.
Finally, I assure my noble friends that the Government take this matter very seriously and are monitoring carefully incidents and institutions round the country. I can go further than my noble friend Lord Butterworth would wish me to go and I was very glad about what he said. We have already undertaken that, if the institutions do not put their houses in order, the Government will intervene, if necessary, with legislation. But as my noble friend Lord Butterworth said, institutions should be given a reasonable time first to act on the guidance which they have received.
I hope I have given perhaps a more helpful reply to my noble friend than he considers I have given in some of the answers to him and my noble friend Lady Cox during the course of your Lordships' Committee, but I do so in the light of the Government's clear undertaking to act further if matters do not improve, and I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My noble friend on the Front Bench has been more sympathetic. My noble friend Lord Butterworth asked what is the object of the amendment. The object is to take the opportunity of legislation passing through Parliament to strengthen the hand of those whose hands are, at the moment, too flabby and too irresolute. My noble friend Lady Cox so correctly quoted the instance of Guildford College of Law which found it impossible to allow a Law Officer of the Crown, Sir Patrick Mayhew, to talk to the students because it might cause trouble. Surely we need to strengthen the hands of those who are flabby. What about the case where Douglas Hurd, who, after all, is Secretary of State at the Home Office, wished to address King's College and a large gang of thugs turned up from the LSE, not too far away, and prevented him from entering the meeting itself, proceeded to chant slogans outside and pelted him and Conservative students with eggs when they attempted to leave the building? Clearly something needs to be done.
I could have listed 32 cases in a period of just over two months. We have heard that Bristol is bringing a case under the present law. It would seem, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has suggested, that we would be wise to take this opportunity to strengthen the hands of those who probably desire to do the right thing, but who under present legislation do not have the courage or the guts to do it.
In view of the helpful reply I shall not press the amendment at this stage. However, we shall consider it most carefully and try to amend the wording in accordance with the views put forward from different parts of the Committee so as to please a greater section of those in the Chamber when we come to Report stage. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Interpretation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 49, line 5, at end insert—
(" "corporal punishment" means anything done for the purpose of punishing a pupil which, apart from any justification, would constitute battery;")
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in moving Amendment No. 56A, which the Committee will recall was carried on a Division. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.]
Remaining clauses agreed to.
In the Schedules:
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Grouped schools]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 101A and 101B:
Page 51, line 10, leave out ("grouped")
Page 51, line 10, after ("construed") insert (", in relation to any grouped school,")
The noble Earl said: I speak to both Amendments Nos. 101A and 101B. These are both drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [New Schools]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 101C:
Page 54, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
(" (5) Where the requirement for there to be an instrument of government for a new school has taken effect, the temporary governing body of the school shall, until such time as the governing body is constituted—

(a) continue in existence (notwithstanding that the arrangement under which they were constituted has come to an end by virtue of paragraph 5 below); and

(b) be treated as if they were the governing body.")

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 101D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 101 E:
Page 56, line 31, after (" (1) ") insert (" or (2) ")
The noble Earl said: The Committee will observe that paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 provides two alternative methods for the appointment of temporary parent governors: by the LEA or, where the new school is to be opened as the result of the closure of two or more other schools and the LEA so determines, by the governing bodies of the closing schools. Under the first alternative, the LEA has to appoint those with children who are likely to become pupils at the new school or, failing that, who have children of compulsory school age. This requirement was not previously extended to appointments made by the
502
governing bodies of the closing schools but, on reflection, the Government believe that it should be.
It is hoped that, in practice, those appointed in such circumstances will in may cases be elected parent governors of the closing schools; such people would normally meet the first criterion, of having children likely to attend the new school, and would almost certainly meet the second, of having children of compulsory school age. However, if these parent governors were not willing to serve on the new school's temporary governing body or if perhaps some of these had children above compulsory school age who would not be moving to the new school, it seems right that the governing bodies should be under the same constraint in making their appointments as the LEA is by virtue of subparagraph (6). That is achieved by this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 101F, 101G and 101H:
Page 57, line 23, leave out ("election or")
line 36, leave out ("election or")
line 38, leave out ("election or")
The noble Earl said: With permission, I shall move Amendments Nos. 101F, 101G and 101H together and speak also to Amendment No. 102A. The wording of the provisions in Schedule 2, paragraphs 10(1), 11(1) and 11(5) at present exactly reflect, as is intended, those of the equivalent provisions in Clauses 7(1), 14(8) and 14(12) for full governing bodies. However, the consequent references to elections are otiose as the circumstances of new schools mean that temporary governors in all categories are appointed and never elected. These four amendments thus remove the references to elections. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No 102A:
Page 58, line 12, leave out ("election or")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No 102B:
Page 61, line 23, leave out ("26") and insert ("25 and 26(1) and (2)")
The noble Earl said: The Committee will observe that the difference between the Bill as presently drafted and the change proposed by this amendment is that sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 26 would thereby apply to aided schools. This is something of a long-stop provision, as we do not envisage many occasions when the temporary governing body, for whatever type of school, will be without their clerk. However, there may be times when the clerk is absent—he may even have fallen under the proverbial bus, which I hope happens to none of your Lodships on your way home tonight at this late hour—and on such occasions it seems to us right that the temporary governing body should still be able to transact its business by asking one of its members to act as clerk. Paragraph 26(3) at present provides this for all except aided schools, and it seems sensible for the provision to extend also to those schools. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No 102C:
Page 62, line 27, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)")
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions]:
[Amendment No 103 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.