Lords Sitting of 20 May 1986

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act,

Industrial Training Act,

Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act,

Ullapool Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

Gull Island Protection Act,

Isle of Wight Act.

Medicines: Economic Prescribing
2.36 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage the more economic use of medicines and the return from the public of unwanted residual portions which may otherwise become a danger for children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government are always actively promoting economical prescribing among doctors. As to the return by the public of the residual portions of unwanted medicines, this we feel should remain a matter for local initiative, and campaigns are generally organised by local branches of the Pharmaceutical Society. The danger of medicines to children has been considerably minimised by the general adoption by pharmacists of child-resistant containers. Parental responsibility is of paramount importance.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. While the Government can only encourage and not direct people to act sensibly in this field, has my noble friend seen the report last month in the magazine Best of Health which indicated that no less than £150 million might be saved from unwanted and unused medicines? Also, is she aware of the warning given by the Pharmaceutical Society about the dangers that arise when medicines are left in places accessible to children?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords, I saw the article and I can give the noble Lord the table of results
126
after Question Time. Doctors do not wilfully prescribe medicine that patients do not want. Doctors prescribe drugs in the expectation that the patients will take them in order to get better. If a patient does not want a drug he should tell his doctor, not just accept the drug and then throw it away.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is not a case of dumping medicines but of patients not properly following the instructions of their medical adviser?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, instructions are now given on containers that patients should follow the entire course of a dose of drugs which is prescribed to them, and doctors are also instructed to tell patients for how long the prescribed drugs should be taken and in what quantities.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, while I warmly agree with both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord about the importance of minimising waste and danger, will the noble Baroness confirm that with the introduction of higher prices for prescriptions many GPs are prescribing larger doses or doses for a longer period, and that this sometimes has the same effect?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the medical profession is anxious to control the level of repeat prescribing. Many doctors recognise the need for regular reviews of repeat prescriptions and operate their own control systems; but I say again that doctors prescribe the drugs that they think are necessary to make a person well.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that in fact many lives could be saved if the Government were to do something to discourage the magpie-like quality with which members of the public hoard the remains of old drugs long after the purpose for which they were prescribed has been forgotten? Is she aware that some people store them up for use on some future unspecified occasion, by which time the drug has decomposed and perhaps become dangerous, or certainly has lost any therapeutic powers which it once possessed?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said, but there are many reasons why people hang on to drugs, and the figures in respect of the "dump" campaign may not relate to a specific period of accumulation. Nor is there any differentiation between whether the medicines that are disposed of come from patients, residential homes, nursing homes or possibly even from pharmacies which are using the opportunity to dispose of out-of-date or obsolete stock.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following up the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Winstanley, would it help if the life expectancy of a drug were to be indicated clearly on the container?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is indicated in many cases. I myself have had eye drops which were only safe to use for a period of one month.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as regards the question of child-proof medicines, can my noble friend provide any information to the House about whether a child-proof top to a medicine bottle which can still be opened by the elderly who have arthritic hands has yet been invented?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, regulations require solid dose aspirin and paracetamol medicines on sale over the counter to be in child-resistant containers. Since these controls came into operation, there has been a significant reduction in the number of hospital admissions of young children who are suffering from accidental poisoning by medicines. With regard to the elderly or people who have arthritis in their hands, I agree that this may be a problem and doctors are advised to ask pharmacists to avoid dispensing drugs for elderly patients in child-resistant containers. Perhaps I may return to the point that it is up to parents to keep medicines out of the vicinity of their children.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Baroness may be aware that I introduced the system of child-resistant closures, but I do not know whether that will bring me any credit. But is it not true that pharmacists will always supply on request to elderly or arthritic people containers without child-resistant closures so that they do not have the difficulties referred to?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords, if they are asked to, but they may not realise that the elderly person has a problem.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is there not a considerable hazard in taking at face value the description of a member of the public of a particular drug and recirculating it for re-use?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords.

Cults: Influence on Family Life
2.43 p.m.
Lord Rodney: 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 combat the increase in the influence of cults which undermine family life and have an adverse effect on the youth of this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, distress and unhappiness are often caused to individuals and families as a result of involvement with certain cults, particularly where young people are concerned; but when cults act within the law there is limited scope for direct government action. Both the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security will continue to keep a very careful watch on cult activities and consider any fresh evidence that becomes available.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that Answer but I have to admit that I do not find it terribly encouraging. As he rightly says, those cults take great care to stay within the law. Is he aware that there are instances reported where some of them indulge in child sex abuse; that some of them use YTS for recruitment and that many of them that have charitable status go well outside the realms of the original terms of their charitable status? I ask him whether he can encourage or persuade his right honourable friend in another place to take a more serious view of those cults.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend takes a serious view of what I know my noble friend and others think of as a serious matter. We are well aware of public concern about the activities of some of those bodies. If anyone discovers anything or feels that there is anything that could suitably be reported to the police, that may be a sensible way to take the matter forward. But I note my noble friend's concern.
Lord Denning: My Lords, in view of the evil influences of those cults, of which I personally have massive evidence from letters by distressed parents, is it not extremely urgent for the Government to do something, especially in view of the intimation that we have had that the final decision of the courts in regard to the charitable status of the Moonies will not be decided for some years yet? Is it not a possibility that we might require them all to be registered like any professional or trade association and then, if it is shown that they are involved in practices that are harmful to family life, they could be suspended or struck off? Is not a scheme of that kind well available to the Government to put into operation at once?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as the charitable status of the Moonies is concerned, I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the reply of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on 28th April. As I understand it, certain of the "new religions" (in inverted commas) are registered as charities, but I note the point that the noble and learned Lord makes about general registration and I shall certainly look into it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, has any evidence whatsoever of any cult taking advantage of YTS in the way that he mentioned he should report it immediately to the Manpower Services Commission? Nothing could do more harm to YTS than for such activities to develop.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. I agree with the noble Baroness. If anything like that has been known to take place, it should be reported to the authorities straightaway. I think that the difficulty in many of these cases is getting evidence that will stick.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, although I welcome what the Government propose and I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his comment about the courts, I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that the best and most effective counter to those sinister cults is the work of the

129
established Church and the other Churches in this country. Is it not up to the Church to take a new initiative to deal with that terrible problem?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that there is a helpful role that the Church can play. One of the other most effective ways to meet the concerns is to give the greatest possible public exposure to those undesirable activities; and some of them are highly undesirable.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, going back to my noble friend's original Answer, will he remind himself that for many years government departments have been watching things without that having a notable effect on the evil and wicked people who cause a great deal of distress? I hope that he will urge his colleagues to resort to action now.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall pass on my noble friend's view. The difficulty is that the law must retain a balance between the freedom of belief and practice and the need to safeguard from abuse the other basic freedoms of members of society. The difficulty too is that one man's cult may be close to another man's religion.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister roughly how many young people each year are sucked away from their families by those cults? Is he aware that one of the only ways to get them back seems to be by kidnapping, which can be expensive for their families?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not believe that there are statistics on the numbers of children who may be affected. I note the point of view of the noble Baroness.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, in view of the fact that we suspect that the leaders of those cults come from overseas, will the noble Lord the Minister tell us whether there are many known cases of such people having broken the Immigration Acts?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is no evidence that any of them have broken the Immigration Acts, but that is no doubt a matter that is looked at in each case. If my noble friend has any evidence that any of them have, I shall be interested to hear it.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is it legal for representatives of those cults to seek money on the streets by begging, to keep the cults going? If it is not legal, will he ask his friends in the Home Office whether they will make the police more aware of what is going on and tell them that the public are being asked for money on the streets of this country?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand that it is possible for house to house collections to be made. If they are being made for charities, they require a licence under the House to House Collections Act 1939. There is nothing to stop a collection which is not for a charitable purpose taking place.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is sufficient use being made of immigration control?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in respect of the particular category in which we are interested here, as I understand it, they are allowed n only within the terms of the Acts. As I said to my noble friend, if anyone knows of any case where someone may have got in illegally or outside the Acts and has evidence to support it, they should bring it to the notice of the authorities.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware of and do they appreciate the serious risk that exists for sixth-formers, school-leavers and university students who are liable to be recruited into cults? Is it possible for my noble friend to advise his right honourable friend the Home Secretary that there is an urgent need for the production of a leaflet to warn teachers and parents of that risk?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. I said that the Home Office and the DHSS consulted together about it. Of course, the Department of Education and Science is also involved. I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of those concerned.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, following my noble friend's question, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that it is young people, especially intelligent young people, who are being sucked into those cults and that perhaps that is the most worrying aspect of all?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. I hope that if any evidence can be obtained to support some of the allegations that have been made, it will be a way to take matters forward.

American NATO Bases: British Employment
2.54 p.m.
Lord Gainford: 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 estimate they have made of the number of British jobs attributable to the presence in this country of American NATO bases.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the presence of US forces in this country is currently estimated to provide, directly and indirectly, about 30,000 jobs for British citizens. The United States forces in Britain buy from us goods and services currently estimated at more than £600 million annually. This includes such items as payments to central and local authorities; wages of Britons employed on the bases; and personal consumption by US servicemen and their families.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for those encouraging figures. Has he any information about any possible increase in the employment of British citizens connected with the US forces?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, so far as I know there are no plans for any significant change in the figures that I have given. Of course, from time to time construction work is carried out at American facilities in this country and that obviously requires the employment of a number of British personnel.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, while I of course welcome the presence of NATO forces and Americans in this country, surely there is a set-off in the money that our forces spend doing a similar job in Germany.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, United Kingdom forces of course spend money in Germany and elsewhere, but that was not the Question that I was asked.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if it is a question of jobs, is there not something to be said for the view that if the Americans were sent home and British servicemen were recruited to replace them, a large number of jobs would be gained? How many jobs would be gained if that were done?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the proposition that there should be a significant expansion of United Kingdom armed forces is not one that I have heard before from the noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so. If United States forces were not present in Europe, that would be a serious matter indeed. They make a crucial contribution to the NATO Alliance in Europe. The total number of United States forces in Europe is in excess of 300,000. I am not sure that the noble Lord had in mind an expansion on that scale of United Kingdom armed forces.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as a member of Her Majesty's Government does the noble Lord the Minister find any satisfaction in revealing such job increases when, as a result of the same Government's policies, more than 2 million people have been made unemployed since 1979?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that that wholly arises from the Question on the Order Paper. I shall nonetheless say that the United States presence in this country is very welcome.

Regional Unemployment: Northern Ireland
2.57 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what economic region in the United Kingdom suffers from the highest level of unemployment; and what measures they are taking to combat this situation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, Northern Ireland had an unemployment rate of 21·7 per cent. on 10th April 1986. Measures to tackle this problem include the provision, through two specialist agencies, of a highly attractive package of industrial
132
investment incentives, schemes to promote business start-ups and self-employment, community employment programmes and a range of training schemes to enhance the skills of the workforce. As the noble Lord will be aware in March of this year the Government announced a £20 million package of additional enterprise and employment measures which should create up to 3,500 jobs in the first year of operation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. However, I am gravely anxious that he had to give it because we have had similar replies over the past four years and unemployment has gone up and up and up. Current figures reveal that unemployment in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom is now cutting deeper than it did in the 1930s. Will the Government look at public endeavour, which will involve private companies, as a way to arrest that terrible decline, and will they make some endeavour to put Britain back on its feet? Particular attention should be paid to Northern Ireland. There is no point in telling Northern Ireland and its people that although they have the highest unemployment level at the moment, under this Government's policies all other regions will increase their unemployment in an endeavour to catch up with them.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the measures that I mentioned in my original Answer. I mentioned a £20 million programme. Of that, £5 million will be applicable this year. There will be up to 600 more jobs through community enterprise and Enterprise Ulster and we hope that there will be 200 new jobs through the LEDU enterprise grant and 1,500 new jobs under the new workers scheme, which is for 18, 19 and 20 year-olds. Those measures are relevant to Northern Ireland and we believe that the figures I have quoted are encouraging. We believe that the measures will make progress towards resolving the problem mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that the last unemployment figures show that in the regions where unemployment is worse in the United Kingdom as a whole, unemployment is increasing, whereas in the South-East, the South-West and East Anglia, where unemployment is at its lowest, it is now falling? Is that occurring by accident or by design? When will the Government do something to reverse that trend?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am afraid that I can only answer for Northern Ireland, which is the subject of the Question on the Order Paper. We intend to see that the figures I mentioned drop, thanks to the measures that I mentioned to the noble Lord and your Lordships.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that the increase in unemployment in the regions has happened at the same time as there has been a substantial reduction in regional aid? When that policy was initiated the Government suggested that it was a cost-effective way of dispensing regional aid. Is it not time that the impact of the disastrous

133
withdrawal of regional aid from areas of high unemployment was reconsidered?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, to take one element of regional aid unique to Northern Ireland, our local enterprise development unit announced yesterday its job promotion figures for 1985–86. These were slightly below target at 3,900 for this year, compared with a target of 4,200. But the LEDU in Northern Ireland—this is particularly applicable to the noble Lord, with his interest in Scotland—exceeded its target in each of the previous four years. Indeed, over five years the target of 12,000 jobs created by this important arm of regional policy was exceeded by 4,000, which is over 30 per cent. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will accept that this arm of regional policy has been a great success in Northern Ireland.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, is it not the case that the Northern Ireland Economic Development Council announced a fortnight ago that it was dismayed at the Government's response to the crisis in Northern Ireland? The council called on the Government to introduce urgently seven specific measures to alleviate the position. How do the Government respond to the call of the economic development council for the introduction of new, additional measures urgently?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord will, I believe, accept that what he asks is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I have given some of the measures that we believe are relevant to reducing unemployment. The question that the noble Lord has raised relating to letters from the NIEDC is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. If the noble Lord puts down a fresh Question, I shall endeavour to answer it.
Lord Molloy: Will the noble Lord the Minister be gracious enough to consider points submitted by the Confederation of Health Service Employees, which feels that if the NHS in Northern Ireland was improved and enlarged many more jobs would be created? Will he also be good enough to convey to the Secretary of State for Employment that if the Government contact the Charter for Jobs organisation and the Foundation for Science and Technology, both specialising in the reduction of unemployment through information technology, he will find that they have a massive contribution to make that would benefit the Minister himself, Northern Ireland and the rest of the country where unemployment is high?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall take on board the points that the noble Lord has raised and pass them on to my honourable friend in respect of the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the noble Lord has quoted with some pride, as his noble friend Lord Young does, the number of young people on youth training programmes. We support these schemes. Will the noble Lord bear in mind, however, that they make no impact on unemployment except in a statistical sense, because there are no jobs for these young people when they have been trained?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the 1,500 young people on the new worker scheme might take issue with the noble Lord. They are in work. They are gaining useful work experience and being paid for this youth training. They would, I believe, take issue with the noble Lord.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, what happens at the end of their training?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord asks what happens at the end of their training. They are receiving training. There are 10 measures altogether. I shall not detail them, but there are nine others apart from that in which the noble Lord showed interest.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that if we could have a united front against terrorism in Northern Ireland more companies would invest there and this would reduce unemployment?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I take on board my noble friend's point.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that in some parts of the country, certainly in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire, with which I am concerned, no less than 80 per cent. of those coming off YTS schemes get jobs?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing this out. I understand that the figures in Northern Ireland are broadly comparable and that the scheme that I have mentioned has been, and continues to be, of the greatest benefit to young people.
Lord Blease: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister not agree that there is an urgent need in Northern Ireland for all Northern Ireland elected representatives, including district councillors, members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Members of Parliament, to join with the Northern Ireland employers' organisations and the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, who have put forward proposals that would generate employment and who have a splendid record of industrial relations? Is there not an urgent need for all elected representatives in Northern Ireland to show their genuineness and responsibility by joining forces to provide employment opportunities by attending the places to which they have been elected to represent people and to give hope to young people in Northern Ireland?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are grateful for that question from the noble Lord. He is absolutely right. It is the duty of everyone, especially those in public life in Northern Ireland, to support any measures we can take to promote investment and industry in the Province. We are grateful to the noble Lord for his help.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Lord over his remark that the question put by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies went far beyond the original Question. In so far as the

135
original Question asks what measures are being taken to combat the situation, he mentioned two measures which the Northern Ireland Economic Development Council regards as inadequate. Can he give some information as to why the Government do not follow suggestions that have been made?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if the Northern Ireland Economic Development Council regard those as inadequate, I can only quote one of my Scottish friends as saying that that is its opinion. There are nine other measures. I shall not detail all of them. I believe, however, that the NIEDC would agree that measures taken by the Government, especially as a result of the Budget, are going a considerable way to reduce unemployment in Northern Ireland. It might not be exactly what the NIEDC wants, but the council would agree, I believe, that our efforts are worthwhile and considerable.

Business
3.6 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, I shall, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on university funding. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Caithness, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on British Rail Engineering Ltd. It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Horticultural Produce Bill will be taken.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while on business, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the Deputy Leader of the House, a business question? Yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a Statement on the South African agression against three Commonwealth states, virtually a declaration of war on the Commonwealth. During her Statement, she said that information was not yet complete because reports that she was awaiting had not been received and could not have been received at that time from the High Commissioners. We all accept that and recognise it. But, as I told the noble Baroness yesterday, it was already clear, before the reports had been received, that at least in Zambia the attacks by the South Africans had been on a United Nations refugee camp at Makeni and not on the ANC. Will the noble Lord urge his noble friend Lady Young, when she has received the reports from the High Commissioners concerned and when she is able to give us the full details that she was not able to give yesterday, to make a further report to this House before we rise for the Spring Recess? Is it not even more important that this should happen when meetings of Commonwealth states are taking place right now and when it has become clear this week that appeasement only increases the danger of South African aggression and that nothing less than economic sanctions can protect our fellow Comonwealth members from future aggression from the same source?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Questions in your Lordships House are, of course, a matter for the usual channels. However, I shall draw the attention of my noble friend Lady Young to what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has said about matters that he believes arise from my noble friend's question yesterday. If my noble friend thinks there is anything that should be added from the point of view of the Government, I know that she will consider it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should like just to put the record straight. We were not talking about questions. We were talking about a Statement. I was simply asking that another Statement be made when the full facts have been received and before we rise for the Spring Recess.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my answer to that question on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House was that I shall of course draw the matter to the attention of my noble friend Lady Young. If she thinks that there is anything that should be added, I know that she will consider it carefully in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has said. If, of course my noble friend does not think there is anything that should be added as a result of the Statement, then, in this House, there is ample opportunity for any noble Lord to raise any question that he or she may wish.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House, since he is in his place, whether he would be kind enough on some future occasion to give your Lordships' House some guidance as to business questions and in particular with regard to the kind of question which has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby—at very great length—and whether this kind of practice is to become a general precedent? To put it mildly, what the noble Lord has said is not commanding a vibrant interest on the part of the whole of your Lordships' House.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I obviously suffer from the disadvantage, for which I must apologise to the House, that because I had an important engagement elsewhere I was not in my place to hear some of the previous exchanges. I am therefore not fully informed. I ought to say to my noble friend that your Lordships' Committee on Procedure makes clear its views as to how the House should conduct itself. It is important to try to follow them.
It is my job to interpret the wishes of the whole House in carrying through the recommendations of that procedure. That I always do. I do not expect to satisfy everyone. That would be quite impossible. If I am too lenient (as I am told by some) or too harsh (as I am told by others) it may be that possibly I have sometimes interpreted the views of the House, which is my job. I shall continue to do my best. I hope that noble Lords will remember some of the procedures we set down and try to follow them, because we are masters of our own procedures and that is the way your Lordships wish to conduct the business of the House.

Agriculture Bill
3.12 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Agriculture Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 11, Schedule 1, Clauses 12 to 16, Schedules 2 and 3.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Drainage Rates (Disabled Persons) Bill
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Lane-Fox.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Procedure in relation to making etc. of instruments and articles]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert ("having regard, in particular, to the status of the school as a controlled, aided or (as the case may be) special agreement school").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, during Committee stage some of your Lordships may have been bored by my various references to a meeting between my right honourable friend and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Menevia. I am happy to be able to tell your Lordships that that meeting achieved a great deal and this amendment is one of the results.
The Churches were concerned at the possibility that LEAs, in making articles of government for voluntary schools, might try to allocate to themselves functions which had traditionally been the province of the governing body. The Government pointed to Clause 2 of the Bill, which allows local disputes over such matters to be referred to the Secretary of State for determination, but the Churches feared that some future Secretary of State might be less favourably disposed towards the distinctive characteristics of voluntary status.
This amendment thus provides a significant extra safeguard for voluntary schools by making explicit what was always intended; namely, that in determining any dispute between the LEA and a voluntary school governing body the Secretary of State will have to have particular regard to the status of the voluntary schools. By his being required to make his
138
determination in the light of that status, it is quite clear that the traditions, values and autonomy appropriately attaching to voluntary schools will be protected. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Governing bodies for county, controlled and maintained special schools]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 38, after ("shall") insert ("subject to section 6 of this Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17 and 18. These are all drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 39, after ("of") insert ("the following (and no others)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend and myself.
At the Committee stage there was a very wide-ranging debate on the complex issue of the composition of governing bodies. I take full responsibility for the fact—since I was responsible for drafting the first amendment—that the debate covered a series of issues. Those were concerned with the representative of non-teaching staff, the position of pupil governors and other matters, rather than concentrating on what we believed to be the single most important issue which should be considered by your Lordships in reference to this Bill; that is, the proper distribution of places on governing bodies in our schools between the various interested parties in the management of our schools.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn 10 years ago published the report which has been referred to in properly favourable terms on many occasions in the course of the debates on this Bill. But the fundamental principle behind theTaylor Report, and one which has been accepted and welcomed very widely in the 10 years since the report was originally published, was that there are four interest groups in the government of our schools: the local education authority, which is responsible for the money; the parents, who in this sense perhaps act as representatives for those who are the objects of education, the staff in the schools, both the head teacher and the teachers themselves; and a fourth co-opted group. This group may represent higher education in the area, community life in the area of the school, industry and commerce, and a number of interests that may be appropriate to that area but for which statutory provision is not required.
The fundamental position which the Taylor Committee adopted was that all those four interest groups should be represented equally on the governing body. It is a matter of sadness—not of

139
indignation—that after a period of 10 years the Government should have failed to implement in this Bill that recommendation of the four equal parts. This recommendation is the single most important element in the Bill in terms of the wording involved in implementing it, in volume terms, and the content.
I should make it clear that I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19 and 20. Amendment No. 4 seeks to provide that the recommendations of the Taylor Report should be implemented properly. It seeks to provide that the number of teachers on the governing body should be increased to equal the number of parents and local education authority representatives; and that the number of co-opted governors should be reduced in most cases by one in order to achieve the equality which the Taylor Committee considered to be right after very extensive consultation and debate. In other words, we are putting forward the simplest possible implementation of the intentions behind the Taylor Report. We are introducing no extra concerns and no matters such as the place of non-teaching staff or of pupil governors at this time, although those are matters about which some of us feel quite strongly.
We believe that the principle, which the Government themselves have indicated is an important element behind the Bill, that there should be no overriding control by any one group of the governing bodies of our schools, can best be achieved by the equal representation of those four groups on the governing bodies.
I apologise for the complication as regards the number of amendments involved. That is simply because in successive subsections the Government have set out a composition of governing bodies for schools of different sizes. However, the fundamental issue behind this amendment is absolutely simple and straightforward. It says that teachers shall be equally represented with parents, the local education authority and co-opted governors. I believe that this is the rational conclusion of a debate which has been going on for more than 10 years. I believe that it would be a handsome gesture on the part of the Government to recognise that the nine years or more of debate which led to the publication of Better Schools last year could properly be crowned by the acceptance of the principles put forward in the Taylor Report. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I find myself in sympathy with the theme behind the noble Lord's amendments, but not with the detail. Therefore I cannot agree with the actual amendments as they stand. It seems to me that the rigour of these numbers which are allocated perhaps leaves not enough flexibility, and it is the co-opted governors who presumably provide the flexibility. There is no doubt that in my part of the world the sort of governorship which has been working very well for a long time would be imbalanced by the figures that are listed in the Bill and would be further imbalanced by the figures listed in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
I know that this is the Report stage and I was unable to speak to this matter at an earlier stage, but if there
140
is to be any change at all here I believe that it must be for more flexibility rather than for more tightness. Therefore I cannot support this amendment because it is going in the wrong direction.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord has just said, but from a slightly different angle. I too would not question what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about the recommendations in the Taylor Report, but I do not think that we can implement them simply by increasing numbers in this way. From our point of view it has a serious consequence.
The controlled schools are an integral part of the maintained system, and the foundation governors of a controlled school have a very important role to play. If this proposal and the others attached to it were implemented, the proportion of foundation governors as a whole would be reduced.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate will permit me, there is no amendment to the number of foundation governors. In each subsection the amendment proposed is to the number of co-opted governors in cases other than the cases of foundation governors in controlled schools. Perhaps I may refer the right reverend Prelate specifically to the first one concerned, which is Amendment No. 5, which refers to reducing the three co-opted governors to two rather than to changing the number of foundation governors.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. My point was not that the noble Lord was making any proposal about the actual number of foundation governors, but that in proportion to the overall number of governors they would be reduced well below the figure in previous Education Acts, which was regarded as the minimum desirable. Although I have a certain sympathy with some of the noble Lord's arguments which spring from the Taylor Report, I would urge your Lordships to resist this amendment and the others attached to it.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment on the ground that it is the teachers who are the professionals and who know about education. The other members of the proposed governing bodies are, when all is said and done, laymen and, what is more, they may be tinged with political feelings, However, teachers are primarily concerned with the question of teaching.
For example, when it comes to the discussion of the curriculum, to my mind the teachers are the only people who are really qualified to discuss it in any detail. Owing to their training and experience they will be able to say what subjects may be taught and what subjects may not be taught with any ease or difficulty, and it is the professional knowledge which they can bring to meetings which seems to me to be most important. Therefore I think that their number should certainly be in proportion to the others.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I want to deal not with the numbers but with the proportion. The thinking behind the idea was the four equal

141
proportions, which we thought would be beneficial to the community. I am so sad that the right reverend Prelate has taken that particular view. The Taylor Report was not for the Church schools but for the state sector. Our terms of reference forbade us from going into the Church schools. We realised and recognised that there were difficulties within the Church sector, where there are foundation governors, but we were not looking at it from that point of view. We were not trying to introduce a tight, rigid scheme, but we wanted to make certain that the four bodies were there as a partnership. That was most important, because if we got the foundation right and if we got the structure right, the other matters in the Bill would follow. Therefore it is important that we should look at this most carefully.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I was very glad indeed to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said about teachers being professionals. It is quite certain that they are. However, there is a slight danger here. Any teacher is devoted to his own particular subject, and there would of course be a temptation for every teacher to try to push his subject in the curriculum at the expense of others. From experience I have known that to happen. That is certainly an aspect about which one would want to be very careful.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, these amendments seek to put elected teacher governors on governing bodies in equal numbers to parent governors and LEA representatives. In order to limit the consequent increase in size of governing bodies, they also reduce the number of co-opted governors at county and maintained special schools by one in all cases.
As the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Taylor of Blackburn, have pointed out, these changes are very much in line with the recommendations of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. However, as we made clear during the Committee stage debate, despite our appreciation of the work of that committee in opening up these matters for discussion—and I know how very much that committee meant to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and how much the noble Lord meant to the committee and, since then, to the debate on education—the Government do not accept its recommendations in this respect. I should emphasise, however, that the Government's resistance to the Taylor recommendation of equal shares and to this amendment is in no sense a criticism of teachers or of teacher governors.
A school has to be run as a partnership between the LEA, the governing body and the teachers. The governing body should reflect that partnership but should not match it exactly since the partnership can work at its best only if each of the partners has a distinctive voice. In the same way as the Government believe that LEAs should no longer dominate their schools' governing bodies, we see it as equally inappropriate for governing bodies to be dominated by the teachers. There is, of course, nothing in this amendment which would give the teachers a majority, but if, as seems appropriate, the head teacher is also taken into account, the amendment would make teachers the single largest block of governors. My Lords, that does not seem to be right.
3.30 p.m.
The formulation proposed by the Government takes appropriate account of the fact that the staff of a school has manifold opportunities through the exercise of its professional duties—and here I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee—to have a great influence on the life and work of the school. But I would put the other side of the coin to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and that is that its influence must in that respect already be greater than, for example, that of parents or other members of the local community.
While we accept that it is entirely right that they should be represented on the governing body, it therefore seems to us somewhat disproportionate to give teachers at the school, even an equal voice on the governing body with parents and the LEA, who may have fewer opportunities to make their views known on matters affecting an individual school. The Government's formulation also recognises the essentially lay nature of the governing body between the professionals in the LEA and the teaching force.
I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for pointing out that the noble Lord's amendment would give controlled schools a different size of governing body from those of similar sized county and maintained special schools. I suspect that the noble Lord may have retained unchanged the number of foundation and co-opted governors at these schools in order to maintain the minimum one-fifth representation guaranteed by the 1980 Act. However, I have to point out that he has failed to do so in the case of the largest category of school, where his proposals would put the number of governors at a controlled school up to 22, with only four of these being foundation representatives.
Indeed, in all but the smallest category of county and maintained special schools the noble Lords' amendment would increase the size of the governing body as would his subsequent amendments, adding two pupil governors in all cases. The Government believe that it is important to keep governing bodies to such a size that the economical and effective transaction of business is not impeded.
The composition proposed by the Government in Clause 3 is very carefully balanced and intended to ensure appropriate representation of the interests most concerned with the work of the school without creating over-large governing bodies. Nothing that the noble Lord has said has persuaded me that his composition is preferable to ours, and I would ask your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, having made such an attempt to simplify the issues before the House in comparison with the wide-ranging debate we had in Committee, I find it somewhat galling to hear noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, now expressing a preference for the flexibility which was our first choice at Committee stage. It was, after all, an amendment to allow flexibility and to permit local circumstances to have an influence on the size and composition of governing bodies that we took to a Division at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, voted against us in

143
the Division Lobby on that occasion, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? At that stage I was not taking part in the debate.
The Earl of Swinton: Order, my Lords; this is Report stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think it is proper for me to permit an interruption to my speech even at Report stage, particularly when it is not a response which is worthy of the noble Lord. Whether or not the noble Lord takes part in the debate, he has an opportunity to consider the issues, and I hope that his views have not changed since that time.
Of course, we would have preferred flexibility, but the Committee, in its wisdom, decided that the issues were too complex to permit of a flexible structure. Under those circumstance we have tried to simplify and clarify the issues, and to give the House an opportunity to express an opinion on this one issue at the one time.
I am also disappointed at the reaction of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. It is strictly true that in one category of school the increase in the number of teachers brings the number of foundation governors down to just below 20 per cent. But in the context of a debate in which we are all united on the need for no domination by one single party in the management of our schools, and in which we believe in co-operation between the different bodies represented on the governing body, surely the fact that in one case alone the number of foundation governors falls below is not seriously going to influence their important role in our controlled schools.
The anomalies caused to the composition of governing bodies by the choice that the head teacher has of deciding whether or not he will be a member of the governing body of course exist, as the noble Earl says, but they are anomalies which are forced on the House, forced into the Bill, by the rigid structure that is being imposed by the Government in this case. There is no single amendment which will resolve all these anomalies unless governing bodies, parents, teachers, and local education authorities are to be treated as adults and allowed to make suitable changes to fit their own circumstances and the circumstances in which their schools exist.
Under the circumstances in which we have only this method open to us of making a change we believe to be important and to be in line with educational thinking over a number of years now, it is necessary that we seek the opinion of the House on this amendment.
3.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 143.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Banks, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mais, L.

Caradon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Chitnis, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Parry, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Denington, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Raglan, L.

Ennals, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rhodes, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Roberthall, L.

Galpern, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Glenamara, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gormley, L.

Scrota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Underbill, L.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kaldor, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Leatherland, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Davidson, V.

Abinger, L.

De Freyne, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Denning, L.

Alport, L.

Donegall, M.

Ampthill, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Annan, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Astor, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Bauer, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Faithfull, B.

Beloff, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gainford, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Glanusk, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gray, L.

Caithness, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Grimthorpe, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Haig, E.

Chelwood, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cox, B.

Harvington, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hayter, L.

Cromartie, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hives, L.

145

Hood, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hooper, B.

Porritt, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Portland, D.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Inglewood, L.

Reigate, L.

Kearton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Kimball, L.

Rodney, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Romney, E.

Kinnaird, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Salisbury, M.

Layton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

London, Bp.

Sandford, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Seebohm, L.

Lurgan, L.

Sempill, Ly.

McFadzean, L.

Sharpies, B.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sheffield, Bp.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Mancroft, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Manton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Margadale, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Marsh, L.

Sudeley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swinton, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Terrington, L.

Teviot, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Thomeycroft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mersey, V.

Tranmire, L.

Molson, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Moran, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mottistone, L.

Vivian, L.

Mountevans, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Moyne, L.

Westbury, L.

Munster, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Wolfson, L.

Onslow, E.

Wynford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Young, B.

Pender, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

University Funding
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on university funding which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about university funding.
"The University Grants Committee is today writing to the universities to inform them of their grants for the 1986–87 academic year in the context of their planning to the end of the decade. This announcement represents the allocation between individual universities of the recurrent grant for 1986–87 that I announced on 12th November last. The committee will also inform the universities next week of the detailed outcome of the important initiative it has taken to encourage and reward excellence in university departments by selective reallocation of the funds available.
"The detailed results of this exercise will be conveyed to the universities by the UGC. In plain language, they mean the following:

—more funds for the better research departments and less for the less good;

146

— a greater incentive to all universities and departments to improve both their academic standards and their management and use of resources.

"This is a landmark in university funding which the Government strongly support. I am particularly grateful to the UGC for the commitment, skill and energy they have shown in pressing forward in the interests of excellence this initiative directed towards greater effectiveness and value for money at a time when all budgets are under pressure.
"If we are to continue to improve the quality and effectiveness of our universities we must provide positive incentives to individual institutions for better management and better teaching and research. This is what the new selective arrangements for grant allocation are designed to achieve. Instead of basing future funding simply on the accumulation of decisions of the past, the UGC has started afresh and devised a method of distributing grant based on positive judgments about the needs of teaching, the quality of research in all disciplines and the rewarding of institutional enterprise. In this task the UGC and its sub-committees have been helped by advice from the research councils, the Royal Society and other bodies.
"The Government are under no illusions about the difficulties of restructuring and rationalisation involved. As some departments gain, others may have to be reduced and even closed. Universities will have to grasp every opportunity for greater efficiency and effectiveness in using the resources available to them. Decisions about future levels of funding are normally considered in the public expenditure survey. Precise amounts are for consideration then. But in these exceptional circumstances, and in order to give the universities a reasonable chance to adapt to the changes needed in the national interest, I am telling the UGC today that the Government will be ready to consider with them some further financial provision in 1987–88 and the following financial years. The Government's willingness to make such additional provision will, however, depend crucially on evidence of real progress in implementing and building upon the changes that are needed. They will include, as well as the development of the policy of selectivity and the rationalisation and where appropriate closure of small departments, better financial management and improved standards of teaching. If there is to be a new structure for academic pay, the Ministers will need to be satisfied that it will provide the necessary flexibility to enable institutions to recruit and retain staff of the required quality.
"I shall be discussing the way forward with the UGC and with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
"The general letter of guidance that the chairman of the UGC is sending to all universities will be placed in the Library of the House tomorrow and the grants to individual universities for 1986–87 will be published in the Official Report of tomorrow's proceedings. The chairman's letter will be followed in about a week's time by institutional annexes

147
relating to the student numbers and research funding of each unversity, which will also be placed in the Library."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place even though the Statement is one of what can only be called studied imprecision. We on this side of the House agree with the Secretary of State that the process of re-revising the determination of the recurrent grant and the block grant by the University Grants Committee is a worthwhile process. I am sure that it is necessary for the historic, accidental basis of the calculation of recurrent grant and block grant to have been revised and overhauled.
However, the financial conditions under which the University Grants Committee is operating in its grants for the forthcoming year and in its planning targets for successive years are by no means satisfactory. I wonder whether the noble Earl can put any more flesh on the bones of the Statement which he has repeated that the Government are willing to consider with them some further financial provision in 1987–88 and in the following financial years.
Is it not the case that the purchasing power of the recurrent grant fell by 5 per cent. last year; that it is planned to fall by 2·15 per cent. In 1986–87; that it would have fallen by 2·55 per cent. in 1987–88 and would have fallen by a further 2·52 per cent. in 1988–89 if the Government had not made this offer? Will the noble Earl assure the House that the additional financial provision will be sufficient to overturn those falls in purchasing power which are forecast by the UGC in 1987–88 and in future years?
Will he assure the House that the Prime Minister's statement to the Association of University Teachers two days before the last general election that she would hold level expenditure in real terms after 1985 on higher education will now be adhered to? If it is the case that there is to be additional funding for the universities, will the noble Earl assure the House that this additional funding will not come from the public sector higher education, to which he made no reference, nor from the schools sector, which will certainly be affected by the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate which is due tomorrow?
Is it not the case that if cuts in all educational expenditure were to be avoided and if there were to be level funding until 1988–89, this would require a figure of 3·5 billion over the next three years? Has the Secretary of State for Education and Science gained the agreement of the Treasury to that level of continued funding which is necessary not only for the universities but also for the remainder of educational expenditure? This Statement contains more holes than cheese and it would be helpful if the noble Earl could give the Statement a little more weight and put a little more financial fact behind it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I must say that I agree with the noble
148
Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it is extremely opaque. There are a lot of intentions expressed here and talk of a landmark but very few facts and, although the Statement uses the phrase "in plain language", nothing very plain emerges from the text. Selective allocation is referred to. May I ask on what principle that will be carried out? We remember the savage cuts at Aston and Salford. Is it the case that the university allocation of the current grant announced on 12th November of 1,342 million remains unchanged?
There is mention of more funds for better research. I quote: "better research". Who is to judge the balance between strategic, basic and applied research? Does this mean, for example, that 40 per cent. of alpha projects currently being turned down will be restored? There is reference to positive judgment on the quality of research. Who is going to take those positive judgments? Will it be the civil servants? Or will the Government heed the dire warning of the advisory body for the Research Council?
On the question of restructuring and rationalisation, there was a reference to possible closure of departments. Is it possible that there are still some whole universities at risk? Is it not the case that the UGC has said that a continuing decline in funding would lead inevitably to that conclusion? We have reference to further financial provision in 1987–88 and the following years. This is a little coy. The question I really want to ask the noble Earl is this. Does this amount to the level funding called for by the CBI and many other interests? And have the Government taken fully into account the implications of a continuing 1 per cent. cut or of a continuing 2 per cent. cut respectively as set out in Chapter 8 of the UGC's Strategy for Higher Education into the '90s?
On pay, can the Government say whether it will now be possible to award university staff something more realistic than the miserable 2½ per cent. which was proposed? Finally, we are told about all kinds of things that will be placed in the Library tomorrow, but I think that what the House will want to know in principle this afternoon is whether the Government have finally been converted to level funding which is the overwhelming demand not only of university interests but of business interests and of parents up and down the country, as they have recently demonstrated in the elections which have just taken place.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful for the way in which both noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Kilmarnock, received the Statement today. I am afraid that I am not going to be very helpful because the bulk of the questions from both noble Lords were on how much will be forthcoming—which I think is probably a very natural question to ask. But I simply do not know the answer. That can only be decided at the forthcoming public expenditure survey. It will depend upon expenditure constraints and on relative priorities as well as the needs of the universities.
As I have said, the crucial factor will be evidence of progress in implementing and building upon the changes upon which the Government and the UGC are embarked. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked me whether this was going to come out of the public sector higher education budget. My

149
right honourable friend has suggested to the NAB that in considering their advice to him later this year on PSHE they should plan on the basis of a range of funding assumptions including an increase in funding for 1987–88 in line with the Government's forecast for inflation. A decision on the amount to be available will be taken after the Government have determined the total of local authority expenditure and, within that, the amount available for education.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about pay. The Government will expect any further financial provision to be used so that the policies of selectivity, rationalisation and good management are effectively pursued. I recognise that a restructuring of academic pay could contribute to the Government's general objectives for the universities and, in particular, increase responsiveness to market forces and help the pursuit of quality. But it remains to be seen whether the universities can come forward with restructuring proposals that meet identified problems of recruitment, retention and motivation.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one simple question? It is whether the Government and the University Grants Committee are going to ensure the grant block principle in the universities. That means that the University Grants Committee is not going to take over the detailed running of the university programme. Will he please answer that question?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords. There is no question of the UGC taking over the running of the universities.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that nobody in the Government has yet explained what is meant by "selectivity"? Can the noble Earl explain exactly what the Government mean by it? He referred to good and less good university departments. What will be the criteria for deciding which are the good and which are the less good? Secondly, can he tell us quite simply whether the grant for 1986–87 represents a drop in real terms? Thirdly, can he tell us which universities are going to be closed; and does he know how many university departments will be closed?
4 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the noble Lord asked how the research quality will be assessed. This will be done by the UGC. The UGC subject sub-committees, involving over 100 academics and others, have considered research statements from all departments, their publications, their record and their success in attracting funds from the research councils and industry. The subject sub-committees have been able to call on the advice of members of many other bodies such as the Engineering Council, medical charities and the specific subject societies. So far as the drop in real terms is concerned, it will be about 2 per cent. I am afraid I have forgotten the third question the noble Lord asked me.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the noble Earl care to expand on his answer to the noble
150
Lord, Lord Hunter, in that he said there was no intention for the UGC to take over the running of the universities? In fact, in the Statement it says,
"to encourage and reward excellence in university departments by selective re-allocation."
Does that mean that the UGC will supply funds to a university which must be used on a department indicated by the UGC?—because if that is the case they are taking over the running of the universities.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think there is a difference of words here. They will spread the money around, as they normally do. I understand they are sending money to all universities. That is the third question: there is no question at this stage of any university being closed down. I can give that categoric assertion. I do not know how many stages there may be in the future of the world, but at this stage there is no truth in that. I think this is just a question of a difference of words.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, would the noble Earl reply to the question I asked on the subject of research? Who will take positive judgments on the quality of research and on the balance of that research as between basic and applied? Will the judgments be taken by civil servants or by paying attention to the guidance given by the advisory body? With respect to the noble Earl, he did not pick up that point.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am afraid I did not pick it up then but I did pick it up in answer to a later question by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. This will be done by the UGC and its subject sub-committee.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is it not now a fact, after listening to the Statement, that no longer is the UGC an independent body but a branch of the Department of Education and Science?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, I welcome the Government's Statement, with its forward-looking attitude. I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two points. First, would the Government be prepared to provide matching funds for very much needed investment in research in the scientific, technological and medical areas? A lot of this goes on in countries such as America and Israel, and it does create a stimulus and give universities an incentive to look for additional funds. Salford was mentioned by one noble Lord, and they have done extremely well. They are obtaining 39 per cent. of their funds from the private sector.
Secondly, significant savings are possible in energy costs, but that needs a modest investment. I say "modest" because I have actually seen one or two of these projects. Would the Government be prepared to fund such schemes on a fairly rapid pay-back?
Finally, the Statement refers to reducing waste and to achieving more efficiency in universities. With great respect, it is not the academic expertise which is needed to do that, it is a business expertise. I wonder whether consideration has been given to setting up a

151
business group or groups for central buying, for supplies and services and for buildings and equipment, where there are significant and considerable savings to be effected.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for those suggestions. I shall certainly draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would it not have been far more satisfactory if this Statement had been made tomorrow, when the detailed figures of funding would have been before Members of the House? Secondly, if I may don my hat as Pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales, may I ask the noble Earl whether, in the funding, account has been taken of the special problems of the University of Wales? Although it is the second largest in size in the United Kingdom, it is nevertheless in respect of its constituent institutions sited throughout Wales, three of the colleges being in areas of fairly sparse population without industrial back-up of any kind. Would he say whether the funding figures have taken careful account of that fact?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, nobody feels more sympathetic towards the noble Lord's first question than I do! I wish it could have been tomorrow; I should then have had a little more time to do some work on it myself—but that would be purely selfish on my part. Also, we may not perhaps have quite such a busy day tomorrow: we have a long Education Bill to go through later today.
The UGC is responsible for universities throughout Great Britain, and its allocation of grant rests on general principles which do not discriminate between institutions by region. Welsh universities are judged by the same criteria as others, as indeed are the Scottish. Grants to individual universities are settled by the UGC and, by convention, successive governments have not sought to alter the UGC's allocations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that Wales is not a region: it is a nation? Is he not aware that the University of Wales is the only national university not only in Britain but in the rest of Europe, and that it deserves special treatment and special recognition? Is he aware that his words will be received with shock and resentment in Wales? Will he tell his right honourable friend that special treatment is required and that we shall be looking at tomorrow's figures very carefully indeed?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, not only do I apologise to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition but, as somebody who lived in what, in my day at any race, was a Principality (which I think is even more grand than a nation) I apologise to any Welsh Members of your Lordships' House, inside or outside of it, against whom I might have erred. Of course I shall draw those facts to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Earl take account of the fact that I am speaking
152
not as Leader of the Opposition but as leader of the Welsh opposition in this instance?
A noble Lord: Where are they?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I find the noble Lord far more terrifying when he is leading the Welsh than when he is leading his party.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will there be a further Statement tomorrow on the allocation of the grants themselves?
The Earl of Swinton: Not if I can help it, my Lords!
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition (or the leader of the Welsh opposition, in his other capacity) has raised a point about rural areas. Surely the same considerations apply to areas of very high unemployment. In the North-East we have the highest unemployment in Great Britain—higher by far than Scotland or Wales, if I may say so—and in Middlesbrough, as I pointed out to your Lordships, it is now 28 per cent. It is going up to 40 per cent. because of the closure of the last shipyard. We have two universities, and it would be a tragedy to cut out any department of higher education in an area of that kind, because if such an area is ever to pull itself out of the old industrial attitudes of the past it must have higher education on its doorstep. Would the noble Earl pass that information on to his right honourable friend?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, I also know the Geordies, and I think I am right in saying that that is a region.
Lord Parry: My Lords, as self-appointed Chief Whip to the Welsh opposition, may I ask the noble Earl not to miss entirely the important point that was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones? It would be wholly appropriate, would it not if there were a Statement some time following the publication of the figures?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl: is it not because of the existence of all these difficult questions that we entrust the division of funds to the University Grants Committee?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, indeed, my Lords.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, following this wide-ranging discussion on the Statement, will the noble Earl acknowledge that there will be widespread dismay in the universities and among those who attend them, or who are responsible for them, that not one single assurance that I sought has been given by the Government in response to the questions raised? No assurance has been given that there is not a real shortfall in 1986–87 of more than 2 per cent.; no assurance given that the extra money to be available in 1987–88 will, in fact, restore level funding; no assurance given that any money will not come from

153
the other public sector higher education; no assurance given that school education will not suffer as a result; and, above all, no assurance given that the desperate financial needs of education have been recognised not only by the Secretary of State, but also by the Treasury and by the Government as a whole. Are the Government aware that these gaps in the replies that the noble Earl has given will be noted very carefully by those responsible for our universities, and that the answer will be given at the ballot box in due course?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, that remains to be seen. The fact is that the noble Lord originally welcomed the Statement. I pointed out that there will be more money available, but said I did not know how much that would be because it is a matter that has not been decided. But there will be more money and I should have thought that everybody was grateful at this time for more money.
Lord Annan: My Lords, in connection with the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, about the block grant, can the Minister say whether the University Grants Committee is likely to do as it has done in the past—to make a block grant for a university, but to give some indications as to how that block grant might be spent, or on what principles the grant has been given? This would meet the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, raised. Can the noble Earl also say whether in giving such indications there would be any indications about the number of students that a university was expected to take? It was with alarm that some of us saw that the national advisory board was advising in the public sector that they would have to reduce the number of students if the unit of resource was not maintained. Surely this would mean Byzantine immobility in higher education. The Government surely must be entitled to say that the staff/student ratio could, in fact, in some cases worsen a little. So I wonder whether the noble Earl can say whether these considerations are in the Government's mind.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I welcome very much what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has asked me. It is a pity that when I was making my Statement I looked to see whether he was in his usual place and did not see him there, because I thought I might have a little support from that quarter. The answer to the first question is, yes, there will be a letter to the universities next week from the UGC. So far as student numbers are concerned, we are not committed to any one projection of student numbers. We have long made clear that projections, prepared for planning purposes will be regularly reviewed, and we hope to publish revised projections in the summer. In fact, the opportunities to enter higher education are now greater than ever before.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that those of us who have been pressing the Government to make additional financial provision for the universities, in a way which means that expenditure can be maintained on level real terms, fully accept the need for the universities, if this is done, to play their part in continuing to implement and build on changes that are needed; for example, in
154
rationalising departmental and committee structures and management procedures?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful. I think that that is very much in line with the thinking of the Government.

BR Rolling Stock Manufacture and Maintenance
4.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement that is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the announcement British Rail are making to their trades unions at the Rail Council today about their future arrangements for manufacture and maintenance of rolling stock.
"We have set British Rail the objective of modernising the railway: to that end we have agreed a massive investment programme. Over £400 million of new rolling stock has been approved over the last two years, and some £700 million is planned to come forward over the next five years.
"As the House must realise, new modern designs of rolling stock require less maintenance and repair. For example, on average two of the new sprinter vehicles are able to replace three old DMUs and each one requires 30–40 per cent. less maintenance than its predecessor. So overall there is a reduction of 50–60 per cent. in the BREL maintenance workload for that service.
"Similarly the new Class 87 electric locomotives have much higher availability than the designs of the 1960s which they will replace. Again, two new vehicles will replace three old ones, each requiring less maintenance; so again there is a dramatic fall in workload.
"As a result, capacity reductions within BREL have been occurring for a number of years. I regret to have to tell the House that the same factors of workload reduction are the major reason for BREL's announcement to their unions this morning that they expect further job losses over the next three years. These are the subject of the normal processes of consultation with the unions.
"BR announced in January that a new build and heavy repair group would be set up and separated from maintenance and repair and that the latter would be brought closer to the operation of the railway.
"The main elements of the new build and repair group are Crewe, York and the two works at Derby. Here the numbers employed will to some extent vary with the orders obtained—and some export orders are coming through—but there is expected to be some decline in employment as lighter maintenance work is transferred elsewhere.
"In the maintenance group of works, BR's proposals are as follows. At Eastleigh BR believe

155
that productivity can be improved and overheads reduced sufficienty to enable the works to continue with its present job of refurbishment and heavy overhaul of Southern Region third rail electric stock—but over the next three years up to 500 jobs may go.
"Doncaster will continue to carry out wagon manufacture and wagon overhauls, and will also become a major maintenance depot for locomotives and other rolling stock. Doncaster will also become the site for BR's new national store for supplying spare parts to BR depots. Together these proposals mean lower levels of employment at Doncaster—down over the next three years from the present level of 3,100 to between 1,430 and 1,690.
"Wolverton will become a major maintenance depot for a wide range of coaching stock, and as an interim measure will complete its programme of electric train refurbishment. But over the next three years employment there will decline from the present level of 1,900 to between 650 and 850. Glasgow Springburn will become a regional maintenance depot for ScotRail with jobs for about 200 people. Job losses in regional depots will amount to about 300 a year, as was envisaged in BR's 1985 plan. Thus BR's new estimate of manpower requirement points to reductions of between 4,200 and 5,000 jobs in BREL over the next three years, together with 1,750 previously notified to the trades unions.
"Both the Government and British Rail are deeply conscious of the consequences of these changes for a large number of staff and their families. The board intend to appoint a senior director to co-ordinate measures to help those affected by the changes. He will work with BREL in redoubling their efforts to find alternative employment both within and outside the industry for those displaced, and to develop retraining programmes. British Rail will be recruiting some 20,000 people over the next three years to jobs in all departments of the railway. BR will also be approaching the local authorities with a view to setting up, or supporting, in each area a suitable development agency on the lines that BREL has done with considerable success at Shildon, Horwich and Swindon. They will provide financial and other support through these agencies for job creation schemes."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. However, I think all noble Lords will appreciate that this is one further devastating blow for British Rail Engineering Limited, and not only for BREL, but also for the towns concerned, bearing in mind that most of them are already suffering from very high unemployment and from lack of manufacturing employment. I think this is the third year that we have had an announcement in Parliament on cuts in BREL. I believe we were told in 1985 that the announcement made then was expected to be the last on any cuts, but now we have this further announcement today.
156
I understand that in 1981 the staff numbered 35,000. Today the figure is about 22,000. With the cuts of 1,750 which the Statement says were announced previously to the trade unions, plus the 4,200 to 5,000 jobs announced by this Statement, the staff of BREL will be reduced to some 16,000, a reduction of well over 50 per cent. in a period of just a few years.
The Statement refers to the fact that over the next three years British Rail will be recruiting some 20,000 people to various jobs; but it does not say what kind of jobs these will be. One must bear in mind that the BREL staff consists mainly of skilled personnel—personnel with great design experience and expertise. There is little in the Statement about the manufacturing side. When a Question was asked in your Lordships' House recently on sprinters or super sprinters, or both, I referred to the fact that some 2,000 DMUs were required to replace stock which was constructed in the 1950s and early 1960s. These need urgent replacements.
The Statement suggests that the maintenance section is to be brought closer to the operations of the railway. I cannot quite understand that; I thought that this was so already. But why not bring the build closer to the operations of the railway, or have the Government given up hope of BREL and lost their confidence in the expertise displayed by the BREL staff hitherto?
Is it correct that in addition to the DMUs that have to be replaced there is urgent need for the Freightliner wagon fleet to be replaced? Is it correct that some freight business is being lost because of the lack of replacement of the Freightliner wagon fleet? Why not have a phased manufacturing programme for BREL? Why not decide over the next few years to have so many replacement DMUs and so much replacement of wagons, instead of relying on vague market forces to deal with the situation?
There is also to be a Channel Tunnel with fast passenger trains and fast freight trains. Are the Government preparing to use BREL for that development, or is it not considered worthwhile to look so far ahead? We are told also that the numbers employed on the new build section depend on new orders. I have said that that can be done by proper phasing and proper planning, using BREL as a building unit. Is it correct that despite all the expertise in BREL it has succeeded in obtaining only 30 per cent. of the international orders for which it has applied? If so, how can that position be improved?
The Statement mainly concentrates on the question of maintenance and repair. Can we really rely upon the statements in the document which were repeated more than once that less maintenance will be required on new equipment? Some of us can recall that it is not so long ago since maintenance was cut in some regions—in the South-East region by as much as one-third—with disastrous consequences. The unions and their personnel have co-operated in productivity. I do not think that the Government will deny that.
The Statement says that this announcement was discussed with the trade unions today. Can we be told what was the response of the trade unions? The whole Statement seems to be a tragedy for BREL, a tragedy

157
for the towns concerned and a tragedy for the expertise of the personnel engaged in BREL at the present moment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl the Minister for repeating the Statement perhaps I may say that we on these Benches view it with considerable sadness, as one must when manufacturing jobs are once again disappearing in this country. I should like to probe one or two points in addition to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The first is the question of export orders. The Statement is very laid back on the subject of export orders. There is no indication that the Government intend to do anything to assist British Rail in obtaining further export orders. What is holding back BREL from obtaining further export orders? Is it credit, or are there other problems?
There is a curious statement about Doncaster which I frankly do not understand as the logic of it does not seem to hang together. With something of a flourish the Statement says that Doncaster will continue to carry out wagon manufacture and overhauls, that it will also become a major maintenance depot, that it will also become a site for British Rail's new national store for supplying spares, and that together these proposals mean lower levels of employment. There seems to he a certain lack of logic there in that employment will go down over three years from the present level of 3,100 to between 1,430 and 1,690. What will happen to those places that do not get new business? It is deeply depressing.
There are one or two points in the Statement that one has to applaud. I refer to the appointment of a senior director to co-ordinate measures to help those affected by the changes. One desperately hopes that these will be as effective as some of the measures taken by British Steel have been. But in relation to the recruitment of 20,000 people, is there any intention to give priority to the people who are being laid off at the moment, or is it likely that the 20,000 jobs, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has suggested, will be less skilled than the jobs that are going for the time being?
Finally, may I say that at the back of all this is the fact that the Government have been putting British Rail under considerable financial pressure for a number of years and that perhaps a little less stringency in that direction might help the situation until times are rather better? With the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State in another place saying yesterday that something like £800 million of railway orders for the Channel Tunnel were being held up by delays in the progress of the Channel Tunnel Bill, would it not be wise just to hold back some of these redundancies until we know what is the position on the Channel Tunnel?
It is a depressing Statement. Certain measures are being taken to try to alleviate the situation, but at the end of the day it is another massive attack on manufacturing industry in this country.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, for their welcome of the Statement—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Earl the Minister—and I wish him no harm—we do not welcome the Statement. We are grateful to him for repeating it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. That is a more accurate description. That is what I was trying to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me a number of questions. He asked me whether the Government had lost confidence in BREL. The answer is certainly not, and nor have British Rail; but it must adapt to the changing circumstances in which it has found itself. As the noble Lord will know, there has been a substantial inquiry and a discussion about the future of BREL, and we hope and look forward to seeing a vibrant BREL from now on. The noble Lord asked me about replacement DMUs. This is already taken into account in the £700 million for further rolling stock which I mentioned in the Statement.
I am grateful to both noble Lords for raising the question of the Channel Tunnel because this is an opportunity for BREL in the future. Many hundreds of millions of pounds worth of work is available for British Rail and for BREL within the figures, and I would very much hope that both Opposition parties would seek to extol the advantages of the Channel Tunnel and the opportunities that this can give to BREL.
With regard to export orders, the present export order book stands at some £34 million. BREL is making a major effort on this front. Last year it put in for some £580 million of tenders and indicative bids, and the staff made more than 400 trips overseas. I am pleased that as a result of the work that BREL is doing we have good news in that it has just won a £5 million contract with China.
So far as concerns the Government, we are offering encouragement in every way that we can through visits overseas. Indeed, when I was on a shipping visit to Greece I also saw the appropriate Minister with regard to railways. As the House will know, we have given a £700,000 grant to help develop the international coach, but as the House will know also, the export market is a fiercely competitive one—but we are pleased with the new initiatives of BREL.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about the trade union response. I hope that it will be a positive response, to work with the director appointed by BR to examine what further help can be given. BR are proposing that a further £3 million be spent to help local development agencies which, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, have been successful elsewhere. The sooner that the unions and BR work together with the local authorities, the easier it will be for everybody.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked about the 20,000 people BR will take on in the next three years, and whether, if there are suitable jobs, those who are unfortunately made redundant now will be able to take up some of those 20,000 jobs. I am sure that BR will be the first to encourage that.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, having listened to the Statement repeated by the Minister, I ask whether

159
he does not understand that the trade unions representing those employed in BREL and on the railways in general are incessantly being told that these will be the last jobs reductions and that if the redundancies are accepted, it will make the railways fitter, leaner, and more able to compete? The trade unionists I know who work in the industry will not accept that it is the final answer, because they have been told that before.
I should like to put one or two questions to the Minister. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, that the statement regarding Doncaster has a double meaning. It begins by painting a glowing picture of the future, but the end result will be that the workforce will be cut by 50 per cent. That is in an area that already suffers extremely high unemployment levels. South Yorkshire has some of the highest unemployment in the country. I believe that the same can be said of Springburn in Scotland.
What is behind it all? The Government consistently tell us, Ministers tell us, the Prime Minister has been telling us recently, and so has the Secretary of State, that high wages are the cause of the job losses in manufacturing industry. I would be surprised if many of the people employed in the manufacturing section of British Rail enjoy high wages compared with other industries. I say with a great deal of sadness, as an ex-engineer who used to make steam locomotives many years ago, that the people now being made redundant will not, if my information is correct, enjoy the greatly enhanced redundancy payments that the NUM is able to negotiate, or that the people representing steel workers can negotiate.
Some employees will have spent a lifetime working in railway engineering workshops, working on behalf of the community. In comparative terms they will draw very poor redundancy payments. I say to the noble Earl that both he and the Government must stop hiding behind the facade of retraining. What will an adult who has been trained as an engineer do when he is thrown on the scrap heap? What will he retrain as? Will it be for the great vista of service industries that the Secretary of State for Employment keeps mentioning? Are we really to believe that engineers of more than 40 years of age or 50 years of age will want to retrain as wine waiters or waiters for the tourist industry? That is a lot of nonsense. They already have a special expertise that is being thrown on the scrap heap. I wish that, just for once, the Government would view the matter in its proper context and not try to disguise a very bad cake with attractive icing.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, this is a very sad Statement. Last week we heard about British Shipbuilders and—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, what is the Minister's answer to my noble friend?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I may respond now to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and clarify the point about Doncaster. The existing work is declining, as the noble Lord knows and as the House knows. However, there are three facilities that will be located there. One is the wagon building, which
160
is part of the new build group. The second is the national store. The third is a light maintenance depot. Those will help to stabilise the position at Doncaster in the future. If there were not those facilities, the situation might be even worse than that about which I have had to tell the House today.
With regard to the continuing decline that the noble Lord mentioned, it is very difficult to have it both ways. If one wants to have a modern railway with modern rolling stock that lasts longer and requires less maintenance, it is very difficult in those circumstances to continue employing a workforce of the same size as previously, when there is not the work there for it.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I was saying that this is a sad Statement. Last week we had a loss of jobs in British shipbuilding, which is another traditional industry of this country. Today we are faced with further redundancies in the railway building industry, which is an industry with a proud tradition and a long record, whose locomotives are operating in all parts of the world and particularly in the former colonies, in the Commonwealth.
It is rather different from shipbuilding in so far as in attempting to attract orders for shipbuilding we inevitably have to compete on an international basis, while in the case of railway building we are in control of the market. British Rail engineering workshop is the 95 per cent. supplier to British Rail, and therefore we have a special responsibility. The programme of £400 million for new rolling stock over the past two years is not adequate; neither is the promised programme of £700 million spread over the next five years. I regard that as being wholly inadequate.
It might be acceptable if we had a modern railway, but we do not have a modern railway. We have a great deal of clapped-out stock. We have DMUs that are more than 20 years old and require replacement. If one makes comparisons of the investment programme of £700 million spread over five years with that of any Continental railway, one sees how far short we are in our investment programme. It would be far better to invest in building new railway stock to provide a better infrastructure in a modern railway system than to pay unemployment benefit to people for doing nothing.
I ask the Minister this question. New agencies are to operate with existing agencies in attracting new employment. That is becoming a somewhat crowded field. The British Steel Corporation has its own agency, the coal mining industry has its own agency, and last week in regard to shipbuilders a new agency was announced for attracting employment. I ask the Government to look at that aspect, because it will result in many people spending a lot of time advertising the advantages of this and that to the benefit only of advertising and public relations agencies. It would be far better to boost the existing agencies, such as the Scottish Development Agency, rather than cut them at this stage; otherwise there will be duplication in attracting new employment.
Springburn is at the heart of the railway industry, and it has a tradition. It is to be cut to 200 jobs, and yet regional aid in Scotland was cut by 50 per cent. last year. What sense does it make to set up these little individual agencies when the overall grant for regional aid is being cut in the areas to which I have referred?

161
I should like to ask the Minister about the 20,000 jobs. It is no fun sacking skilled railwaymen and increasing jobs selling hamburgers at the Casey Jones in Victoria station. We ought to be looking at making use of those skills.
I shall make one other remark; it is to ask whether the Statement that has just been made has any relevance to the proposed privatisation of BREL, because I understand that BREL is one of the candidates for privatisation. If so, it means that the taxpayer is picking up the tab for the redundancies in order to make it an attractive proposition to the investment institutions, which take a very limited and short view on financial returns from investment. Will the noble Earl reconsider this question of privatisation with a view to retaining BREL as a business with some social responsibility?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, British Rail does want to make use of the very high skills of its work force wherever possible. I am sorry that the noble Lord saw fit to criticise BREL's efforts, which have been of enormous success at Shildon and Horwich.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I am sorry, my Lords, but the Minister seems to have misunderstood my comments; maybe it was my fault. I have a deep affection for BREL and for British Rail, which I served for 11 years as a member of the board.
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, but as I was trying to point out, the noble Lord seemed to be criticising BREL's efforts in seeking to work with local development agencies because there would be too many of them. I think that we need to give every support to BREL for the management and the unions to work together with the local development agencies in this matter, because I am sure that that is the right way forward. With regard to privatisation, as the noble Lord will know, that is a completely separate issue and British Railways believe that the restructuring of BREL is needed irrespective of the future ownership of the company.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the noble Earl not agree that the contraction of British Rail Engineering has been taking place over the last 20 years under different governments and that the reason for this represents one of the basic problems of British manufacturing industry? Most of the British Rail Engineering workshops are well over 100 years old, are totally uneconomic and are designed for vehicles which bear no relationship to those which are manufactured today. Indeed, had we been able to modernise and rationalise those workshops many years ago, more people might have been earning more money as a result of their production today.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for those comments. I think that there is a great deal of truth in them. This is one of the problems of trying to achieve a modern railway with modern rolling stock; inevitably, alas, it will lead to reconstruction.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that over the past 10 to 15 years the
162
employees in British Rail Engineering have indeed improved their productivity considerably, and the net result, certainly in Swindon and elsewhere now, has been the loss of jobs? Surely the problem is that the Government and British Rail are seeking to cater not for an expanding railway system, but for a contracting railway system. In fact, were they looking, as I believe they should be, for an expanding railway system, there would indeed be greater need for the British Rail Engineering jobs and facilities. Is the noble Earl further aware that after the decision was taken to close the Swindon railway workships it was discovered that there was not sufficient foundry capacity throughout the country to provide castings for British Rail itself and the foundry had to be reopened? Can we be assured that capacity in other railways workshops will not be closed so that British Rail will then find itself without the components with which to continue to run the railway?
Finally, may I ask the noble Earl to answer properly the question that was put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe? Is it not a fact that in accordance with the Serpell Report the Government are now hiving off the new build capacity in preparation for selling it off or privatising it? Will that not be bad for British Railways and bad for the taxpayer? We need an answer to that question.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have given the House an answer to that precise question of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I agree with his question—one of his many earlier questions—with regard to improved productivity by BR, and this is noticeable in an improving rail service. I do not think that he can accuse this Government of reducing the railways in any way whatsoever.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl about the agencies at Shildon, Horwich and Swindon which have been established by BREL with the support of the local authorities. The Statement referred to their success and that point has been repeated this afternoon. Can he tell us how many new jobs have been created in each of these three areas?
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, my Lords; I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for asking the question so that I can explain the situation to the House. At Shildon so far 710 jobs have been found and the potential is to rise to 1,900 over the next two to three years. At Horwich the figure is 374 jobs and the potential will rise to 500 over the next two to three years. Unfortunately, Swindon was a late starter because, I have to say with regret, the unions did not talk to BR who could therefore not talk to the local authorities. However, discussions are now under way. At long last they have got their act together, as it were, and we are hopeful on this front too. That is why I say that if the unions and management can get together as soon as possible and talk to the local authorities and the local development agencies, we may hope for much quicker results.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I speak as a customer of the railways. I do not think there is anyone in your Lordships' House who travels up and down on railways as much as I do—that is to say, twice a week almost every week. I am very keen on the railways and devoted to the staff of the railways who are always most obliging and most kind, and of course I am in the happy position of knowing personally a great many of them simply because I travel so frequently.
I should like to ask the Minister whether the cuts will mean fewer trains? The other day I had to travel fairly late in the evening on the Glasgow express from Birmingham to Carlisle. The train was absolutely packed and there was not a single first-class carriage. That did not matter very much and I did finally get a seat. The trains can be used, are used, and should not be cut down.
I come to my second point. If new railway stock is to be built—and I am not talking about engines because I know nothing at all about them but I do know about compartments, in particular sleeping accommodation—may I suggest that the railways ask the consumer for advice about design? The consumer knows something about comfort in compartments and sleepers and about how it could be improved. I should like to suggest that if there are to be new designs, the consumers should be asked to give advice on them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that both the questions of my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood are detailed matters for BR and I shall be happy to make sure that they are passed on to them. As a regular user of the railway the noble Baroness will realise that there has been substantial capital investment which has led to new and better rolling stock and engines and that there has been no shortage of investment under this Government.
Lord Parry: My Lords, as a footnote to the debate—I am sorry, I mean to the Statement; it is so easy to fall into these traps—may I ask whether the noble Earl the Minister will accept that a comparatively short while ago in Wales, for the best of reasons, a whole series of mineral train networks were paying off men and closing down and that those mineral railway networks are now the great little trains of Wales and the stock-in-trade of a new industry?
As the noble Baroness said, over the next few months the trains will be increasingly crowded as they carry tourists from one part of Britain to another and it is essential that the communities at which they end up are supported and sustained. Is the noble Earl satisfied that the level of payment mentioned in the Statement is likely to make up to a community what it loses by the closure of a rail network or the paying off the majority of its workers?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with due respect, the noble Lord's comments bring us into a far wider ambit and concern the whole of British Rail and the network rather than BREL specifically.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, although naturally in our questions on the Statement we are mainly concerned with the position of BREL, the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is
164
important. We are dealing with human beings who are being displaced. May I take it that the figures that the noble Earl gave for Shildon and Horwich are new jobs for what were BREL personnel? Can he or the Secretary of State for Employment place in the Library a list of those jobs?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not have the precise details for which the noble Lord asks, but I shall look into the matter for him.

Education Bill [H.L.]
4.51 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) two pupil governors, in the case of a school admitting pupils of 14 years of age and over").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that this amendment is again somewhat of a recapitulation of a debate that took place in Committee, but again it is a recapitulation of a debate that took place in a more confused way because a number of different issues were dealt with at the same time. In putting down this amendment now, we feel that we are not abusing in any way the traditions of the House, because this will enable a debate to take place on much more clear-cut lines than was possible before.
The issue of pupil or student governors aroused, I suppose, only a modest amount of interest on the previous occasion. The more that I have thought about the matter since the Committee debates, the more it has been borne in on me that much of the other debate in Committee, particularly on political education in our schools and on partisan political indoctrination, ought to have been informed by consideration of the issue of pupil governors.
If there is one overwhelming argument for pupil governors or closer pupil involvement in the government of our schools and colleges, it is the need for young people at as early an age as is practicable to feel that they are involved in the democratic government of the institutions in which they spend their time in order to gain experience of the democratic government of the society in which they are to live when they are adults.
I am sorry to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is not here, but I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who spoke eloquently on these matters in Committee, to consider whether there is not a connection between an early appreciation of democratic responsibilities in the government of our schools and an appreciation of the checks and balances, restraints and opportunities that are bound to exist in politics and in public life at a later stage.
In 1976 the Taylor Committee did not go so far as to recommend that there should be full pupil governors in our schools, because it received advice from the Department of Education that there were legal obstacles to under-18s serving as full governors. Instead it recommended that:

165
"secondary school pupils should participate in school government to the fullest extent allowed by law until they are eligible for membership".
Yet the subsequent 1981 Education in School (Governing Bodies) Regulations include provisions relating to pupil governors and there are, as we know, pupil governors in quite a number of education authorities in England and Wales.
Indeed, when my youngest son read the report of the Committee debate he was most indignant that I had not referred to the fact that he was a statutory pupil governor in a Haringey comprehensive school, and I believe a very good pupil governor. Certainly the head and the others with whom he came in contact and with whom I also came in contact felt that he and other pupil governors in Haringey—and we have had pupil governors there for 10 years at least—have fulfilled a useful function and contributed to the democratic government of our schools. From personal experience I can say that it has helped the pupil governors themselves and those who elected them to have a better understanding of the issues involved in responsible public life.
I speak from personal experience. I am able to say with some confidence that there is no practical difficulty about the appointment of pupil governors. We have modified the proposals that we made in Committee to say that they should apply only to those over the age of 16. But the amendments to which I am speaking—and I take the opportunity of saying that they include Amendments Nos. 11, 16, 21, 38, 39, 47, 93 and 97—provide for additional pupil governors to the numbers already provided for in schools.
We have put forward the amendments in this form for the benefit of clarity. I read again the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in response to the debates in Committee. She made reference again to the difficulty that the Government think that they have with pupil governors, in that it is held that to be a governor is an office of public and pecuniary trust—I think that I am quoting it correctly—and a minor is not eligible for that. I appeal to the noble Baroness to say that this is a matter in which Parliament should be sovereign and not one in which the lawyers who have made these interpretations should be sovereign.
If it is the wish of Parliament that a minor should share the responsibility with other governors for the management of our schools, the difficulty of an office of public and pecuniary trust is surely overriden by the will of Parliament, because it is Parliament which makes our laws. I appeal to the noble Baroness not to use that argument again, but instead to look at the issue on its merits and to advise the House as to how far the Government are prepared to go to secure what I believe to be an overwhelming case for participation by elder pupils in the government of our schools.
I should be prepared to withdraw the amendments if the Government were to go so far as to endorse the statement made in the Taylor Report. If they were to say that:
"secondary school pupils should participate in school government to the fullest extent allowed by law until they are eligible for membership",
that might not be as far as we should like to go but it would be a step forward from the present position,
166
which is actually backwards. The position as proposed by the Bill is that existing schools which have governing bodies of which pupils are members will no longer be able to have them as members in the future. Any movement that can be made by the Government in the direction of encouraging pupil participation, even without legal status, would not satisfy us but it would go some way to help us feel that we were not moving backwards.
For all those reasons—to encourage responsible involvement in public affairs at as early an age as is practicable and legal and to involve in the schools those who, after all, are, even more than the teachers, most affected by them, because this is the only school life that they will have—I urge the Government to find a way to move the country forward rather then backwards on this matter. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said. I should like to begin by a further reference to the Taylor Report, which said:
"Every effort should be made to draw on pupils' knowledge and ideas for the benefit of the Governing Body.".
That expresses the matter well. It is important that the governing body, some of whose members may only visit the school comparatively rarely, should be able to come into contact with and hear at first hand what the consumers (the pupils) have to say about the school. No one knows about a school in the way that pupils do.
I should like to confirm the fact that Haringey is one of the local education authorities which has pupil governors. There are 10 others. There is no doubt that has been working. If pupil governors are needed at any time, they are needed in schools with sixth forms. If a pupil does not become eligible to be a governor until he or she has reached the age of 18, that would mean that they could not become a governor until they had nearly finished their time at school, possibly half-way through their last year, in which case they would have only a matter of weeks to exercise their function.
There is nothing magic about the age of 18. Surely it would be possible for pupil governors to be appointed at the age of 17 so that they could spend their 18th year in that position.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when he spoke to an earlier amendment. He read out rather rapidly the number of the amendments to which he was speaking. I though that he was including this amendment in his earlier speech. I apologise for confusing the matter. What I said in my earlier speech applies even more to this amendment because merely adding to the number of pupil governors reduces considerably the proportion of foundation governors.
I must confess that I was not convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said earlier when he said that we were talking about a few governors only—just one or two. I do not think that the noble Lord would take that line if he were to win his amendment by one vote. He would not then say that one vote was of no consequence.

167
I emphasise what I said earlier, that this proposal would alter the balance and proportion of foundation governors, which we regard as important. There is much to be said for involving pupils on school governing bodies. I was encouraged by what the noble Lord said when he asked whether the matter could be looked into. I ask your Lordships to resist the amendment because I do not believe the way to handle this matter is merely to add two pupil governors to the number which is at present proposed in the Bill. I believe that it confuses the issue and reduces the proportion of foundation governors.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I often find myself in agreement with the right reverend Prelate, but I do not on this occasion. As I understand it—and the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—I think that the 1968 Act allows for governors at 16 plus (the age which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is advancing) in colleges of further education. There therefore seems to be no good grounds for discriminating against those of that age who remain inside the secondary system.
So far as I know, the 1980 Act is silent on that issue.
If the Government do not want to write in 16 or any specific age it would be better to leave matters as they stand rather than to write 18 into the Bill. It means, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has pointed out, that schools which already follow the practice, and have been doing so successfully, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said, will have to desist from doing so. It seems rather extraordinary to take a backward step of that kind in what is after all a consumer-oriented Bill. In the Bill, we are thinking about parents and pupils. On this occasion, I am afraid that I must beg to differ from the right reverend Prelate and support the amendment.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in preparation for what I might say during the debate on his series of linked amendments I reread what was said during the debate in Committee. I thought it was a long and interesting debate in which a number of important arguments were adduced. The noble Lord has introduced an extra one. We all admire what his son does. He should perhaps have declared an interest in this matter.
An important point has been raised. One of the main points made the last time we discussed this matter was that there were many items which a governing body would discuss where it would be inappropriate for pupil governors to be involved. That point was put by a number of my noble friends and the Government share that view and believe strongly that putting pupils on governing bodies as full members would result in the creation of two categories of governors—governors and pupil governors. The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh, Lord Ritchie and Lord Kilmarnock, made the point that there are currently pupil governors on schools who fulfil a useful role. They ask what the difference is. The difference is that in Part III of the Bill significant powers are guaranteed for governing bodies. As we know from our
168
discussions on earlier amendments and on Second Reading, governing bodies will have more powers. The consequence would be that pupils would have to be asked on numerous occasions to withdraw.
As my noble friend Lord Beloff said on an earlier occasion, before discussing the subject of pupil governors we need to look at the functions of the governing body. When one looks at the functions of the governing body one sees the role of the governors. That is in no way to denigrate the valuable point that has been made, that pupils may have a contribution to make. The Government are by no means averse to the involvement of pupils in the life of the school or, indirectly, with governing bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, quite properly said how important it was to listen to pupils. I should have thought that there would be no good school with good practices and a good governing body that would not do that.
Although I have said that governing bodies need to listen to the pupils' views, that does not mean that they should be invited to become full members of the governing body. Governing bodies need not be prevented from inviting pupils to a governing body meeting as observers, or even holding their own separate meeting with perhaps a school council to enable them to establish the pupils' views when they wish to do so. Nothing need stop those meetings occurring every term or more often if that were thought to be the right way to go forward. In saying that, I hope that the importance the Government attach to the theme behind the amendments will be recognised.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that I rested my argument last time on the legal status of minors as governors. It was correctly pointed out that if the law at present suggests that pupils, being minors, may not hold office of public or pecuniary trust, such as we believe full governors to hold, we could use this opportunity to amend that part of the statute. That was a point made quite properly by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Indeed, we accept that there is doubt over this interpretation, in the absence of any clear ruling by the courts, and for that reason we have included in Clauses 14 and 47 the provision that no minor may hold office as a governor, precisely to put the question beyond doubt. But, as I said earlier, I do not rest my argument on this legal point, but rather on the point of principle that we do not believe that it would be appropriate for schoolchildren to act as full governors on governing bodies as established under the Bill.
There is one further point that I should like to make. The amendments would add two pupils to every governing body of schools with pupils over 14 years of age and would therefore automatically increase the size of governing bodies. We have received representations to the effect that our proposals will already result in over-large governing bodies. We do not accept this, and we believe that the framework proposed in Clause 3 will result, on average, in smaller governing bodies than those at present established under the 1980 Act framework. In any event, the amendments would clearly increase the size of governing bodies under this Bill. I confirm what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said—that for most controlled schools foundation representation, if the

169
amendments were carried, would be taken below the one-fifth minimum guaranteed by the 1980 Act. That would greatly affect the governing bodies of controlled schools. As the right reverend Prelate has said, this would not be welcome to the Churches.
I would also suggest that schools might find it difficult to meet this new requirement. I have in mind particularly schools with an age range of 11 to 16. Perhaps the pupils go on to tertiary colleges or sixth form colleges after their fifth year of secondary school. Such schools may well find only a small number of pupils eligible, by virtue of the noble Lords' subsequent amendment to Clause 14, to serve on the governing body and this will, of course, be in their final year at this particular type of school when they are likely to be sitting important external examinations. One wonders whether pupils would welcome the extra work that serving on governing bodies would imply. I recall that at Committee stage my noble friend Lady Airey suggested that they would not.
To make pupils full members of the new and important governing bodies that we are establishing under the Bill would be inappropriate. We see their involvement in other ways. There is a real problem raised by the amendments in regard to controlled schools. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hoped in what I said at the outset that I was making it possible for the Government to make some smaller concessions than the acceptance of the amendment. It would have been possible for us to have moved amendments that would have made pupil governors part of the co-opted sector of the governing body that would have relieved the concerns of the right reverend Prelate and the Government about the 20 per cent. laid down by the 1980 Act. It would have been possible for us to have moved amendments that would have fallen short of full membership of the governing body. It may be necessary for us to do that at Third Reading.
I am bound to say that despite every effort that I have made to secure what seem to me modest and reasonable demands—demands that we should move forward into an era of greater responsibility for our young people in public life rather than move backwards—the Government have not felt themselves able to move. The noble Baroness recognised that there was a proper resolution available to the issue of the office of public and pecuniary trust. She recognised that it was within the authority of Parliament to redefine that restriction. But the redefinition that she chose is, in our view, on the wrong side of the fence and is destructive rather than progressive.
I was amazed to find raised again specific points about items inappropriate in regard to the participation of pupil governors. In practice those local authorities that have had pupil governors and teacher governors who are also restricted in certain ways have found no difficulty. It is possible to put all the items that are inappropriate for pupil and teacher governors at the end or at the beginning of the agenda and to secure the exclusion of those who should not participate in the discussion. In practice this has been shown to work. It has not caused any real difficulty. I
170
am surprised that the noble Baroness should have thought it necessary or appropriate to raise that objection again.
We have made no progress in the matter. The sweet voice of reason has not been listened to on this occasion. We shall continue to seek ways, within the limits of what is likely to be acceptable to the House as a whole, to improve the opportunities for young people in schools and colleges to participate in the government of their own institutions as a preparation for responsible participation in public life in later years. We have clearly not yet found a way to do that. I am convinced, however, that there must be a way forward out of this impasse. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 11, at end insert ("subject to section 6").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the word, in fact, "subsection", as printed on the Marshalled List, or should it read "subject to section 6", as it was in the first instance?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, it is probably a printer's error. The amendment should read, "subject to section 6".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 12, after ("of") insert ("the following (and no others)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 12 and 13:
Page 4, line 24, after ("shall") insert ("subject to section 6").
Page 4, line 25, after ("of") insert ("the folowing (and no others)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am delighted to say that Amendment No. 12 does say "subject to section 6". I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for spotting the earlier error. I have spoken to this amendment and also to Amendment No. 13 previously.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
Page 4, line 37, after ("shall") insert ("subject to section 6").
Page 4, line 38, after ("of") insert ("the following (and no others)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 23, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 3 on page 7 and insert—
("The instrument of government for any county or controlled school, or for any maintained special school which is not established in a hospital, may provide that if at the time when the instrument is made, or at any later time when there is a vacancy for a parent governor—

(a) at least fifty per cent. of the registered pupils at the school are boarders; and

(b) it would, in the opinion of the local education authority, be impracticable for there to be an election of parent governors;

the parent governors, or (as the case may be) the parent governor required to fill that vacancy, may be appointed by the authority.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in responding to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, during Committee stage I undertook that the Government would bring forward its own amendments to provide for parent governors of residential and hospital schools to be elected, rather than appointed by the LEA, unless elections were impracticable. Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 honour that undertaking.
For hospital schools Amendment No. 22 restores the position to that of the 1980 Act. I think it is widely accepted that, whereas elections for parent governors may be wholly appropriate for schools in hospitals where the children stay for long periods, they could not be feasible for schools in short-stay hospitals, where the turnover of pupils may be very high. We believe that the same argument also applies to residential schools. In many cases elections there will be perfectly feasible, but in others the pupils' homes may be many miles away from the school and widely scattered, so that is difficult for parents to get involved with the school to the point where elections could not be meaningful. We accept that, for residential schools, the picture may not be constant; sometimes elections will be practicable, sometimes not, Therefore the form of this amendment is deliberately flexible and allows the LEA discretion on whether or not to hold an election whenever a vacancy for a parent governor occurs. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, it is appropriate that at this stage I should express my thanks to the noble Earl for taking to heart the point that I made, both at Second Reading and at Committee stage, about the position of parents of children at maintained boarding schools who were previously excluded from the right to elect their parent governors.
The noble Lord, as he undertook to do at Committee stage, has gone quite a long way to meet what I had in mind. I think that he has almost succeeded. As I understand the effect of this amendment it is to extend the election of parent governors as a general principle which will include boarding schools with the exception of the derogations in this amendment. If I am wrong the noble Earl will correct me. I fully accept that where enough parents do not come forward it is reasonable for the local education authority to fill any gap by appointment. There is no difference between us there.
I am slightly worried by paragraph (b) of the amendment. I take it that the intention is to take care of the schools with an unstable population such as
172
hospital schools, which we all agreed at Committee stage would not be practicable. But I rather fear that the LEA is given almost excessive latitude with the interpretation of what is impracticable.
The noble Earl referred to scattered population and seemed to imply that it might be difficult to engineer an election in such circumstances. However, we have the possiblility of a postal vote. That is the subject of a later amendment on the Report stage of this Bill. I would not accept that that is an impossibility. I shall certainly not quarrel with the amendment of the noble Earl but I shall ask him, before he sits down, to assure me that his department will do everything in its power to see that the local education authorities exercise a reasonable interpretation of the word "impracticable" in his series of amendments.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I can see his point. Some hospital schools have a very quick turnover of parents and one might have to be elected or appointed in a hurry. I can certainly give him that assurance. If a parent feels that the LEA has wrongly decided not to hold an election he can always complain about it either at the annual parents' meeting or direct to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State feels that the LEA has acted unreasonably—in the sense of that word as interpreted by the courts—in appointing a parent governor rather than holding an election it would be open to him to direct the authority to remedy the matter by holding an election. Whether or not practicable elections have been held previously would clearly be a factor in such a decision.
I hope that, with those words of encouragement and complete agreement with the noble Lord he will accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 4, leave out from ("county") to ("shall"), in line 6, and insert ("controlled and maintained special school at which parent governors are to be, or may be, elected").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 13, leave out from ("(3)") to ("provide"), in line 14, and insert
("Where, in the opinion of the local education authority, it is likely to be impracticable for there to be elections of parent governors at any maintained special school which is established in a hospital the instrument of government for that school may")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Appointment of representative governors in place of co-opted governors]:
Lord Irving of Dartford Lord Irving of Dartford moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 11, at end insert—
("or;
(c) by a panel of representatives of voluntary organisations concerned with special educational needs, appointed by the local authority, or under a procedure established by the local education authority.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McIntosh moved a similar amendment at the Committee stage, although it was not quite identical.

173
The noble Lord said that the Bill as drafted provided that a governor should be appointed from a voluntary organisation or organisations designated by the LEA in relation to the school as the appropriate voluntary organisation concerned with respect to matters for which the school was specially organised. However, he made the point that there could be several organisations in this category and his amendment placed an obligation on the local education authority to consult where appropriate as many of these as possible, and provided the means by creating a panel.
My noble friend sought for his amendment the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who has long and distinguished service in this field. The noble Lord said that, if the word "or" was added to the amendment thereby extending the options, he could give it at least half-hearted support as it would then give him the best of all worlds.
The noble Earl in replying for the Government felt that this would be a cumbersome and bureaucratic way of dealing with the problem of disagreement between different organisations, as the governing body could change its mind, and if they were unhappy the instrument of government could be changed by representation. However, it seems to us to be so simple and obviously sensible to write this into the Bill that we hope, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to be able to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rise to say I hope that the Government will be sensible and accept the substance of what the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, has said.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, in this amendment the noble Lord has sought to give my noble friend Lord Renton the best of both worlds that he requested during Committee stage. However, I have to say that we do not consider the amendment to be an improvement on the existing provisions in the Bill.
Clause 6(3) currently provides for the local education authority to designate an appropriate voluntary organisation as the body to appoint a governor to a maintained special school, except a hospital school, where the district health authority is to appoint a governor. Where there is more than one voluntary organisation concerned with the work of the special school, the local education authority may designate two or more such organisations to make the appointment jointly. If relevant, this could be a combination of local and national voluntary organisations.
In spite of what my noble friend Lord Renton says, I am unclear how this amendment usefully adds to this latter course. As I understand it, the necessary appointment would still be made by organisations designated by the local education authority but mediated through some panel or procedures. This seems only to complicate matters by making procedures—as the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, said—more cumbersome than they need to be for what I agree is an important, but relatively straightforward, task of appointing a governor from time to time. Perhaps there may be some haste to appoint this governor. This process might delay matters rather than help.
174
In all the circumstances I feel that the amendment of the noble Lord is unnecessary. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, it is perhaps unnecessary for me to say that I am disappointed at the reply of the noble Earl. It seemed to us that it would widen participation in a quite critical field and prevent disagreements which could be rather bitter and unnecessary. It therefore seemed a small thing to do to avoid these matters. I should like to test the House and the support of the noble Lord. Lord Renton, by calling a Division.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 148.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Amherst, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Barnett, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bernstein, L.

Lockwood, B.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mar, C.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Mayhew, L.

Caradon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Parry, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Denington, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Raglan, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ezra, L.

Serota, B.

Feversham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Foot, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stedman, B.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Greenway, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hayter, L.

Walston, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kennet, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilbracken, L.

175

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Kinnaird, L.

Abinger, L.

Kitchener, E.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Ampthill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Annan, L.

Layton, L.

Arran, E.

Loch, L.

Astor, V.

London, Bp.

Auckland, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Bauer, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Beaverbrook L.

McFadzean, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beloff, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blake, L.

Manton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Buchan, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Butterworth, L.

Caccia, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Middleton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Molson, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Moyne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cox, B.

Pender, L.

Croft, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cromartie, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Cross, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Porritt, L.

Davidson, V.

Portland, D.

De La Warr, E.

Radnor, E.

Denning, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Derwent, L.

Reigate, L.

Donegall, M.

Renwick, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rodney, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Romney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Salisbury, M.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elton, L.

Sandford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Soames, L.

Gainford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Glanusk, L.

Swansea, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinton, E.

Gray, L.

Terrington, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Teviot, L.

Gridley, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Haig, E.

Torrington, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Tryon, L.

Hastings, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Vickers, B.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

Hood, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Hooper, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Inglewood, L.

Wolfson, L.

Ingrow, L.

Wynford, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Kimberley, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.38 p.m.
Clause 7 [Governors' proceedings and tenure of office]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 4, at end insert ("or from being disqualified, by virtue of regulations made under subsection (5) below, for continuing to hold office")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, withdrew his amendment No. 30 on the understanding that the Government would look again at the drafting of Clause 7 to see whether the interrelationship between subsection (2), which provides for a standard four-year term of office for all except ex-officio governors, and any provisions in subsequent regulations, which would prevent people either from taking up office as a governor or from continuing in office, was as clear as possible. Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 are the result of the Government's consideration of the matter.
Amendment No. 26, which amends subsection (3), makes clear that the four-year term of office will not apply to anyone disqualified under any provision of the regulations. Amendment No. 27 puts beyond doubt that the regulations may make provision for governors to be disqualified from holding office; while Amendment No. 28 removes paragraph (d) of subsection (6), which, as I recollect, was the source of the confusion at Committee stage. I believe that these amendments adequately clarify the position. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose we must be grateful for that as far as it goes. I would prefer to have said that the amendments provide the framework whereby the position might be clarified, because the intention of the original amendments was to ensure that, where parents cease to be parents and where teachers cease to be teachers, they would no longer be eligible to be governors, even though their four-year term had not expired.
If we are to accept the assurances given by the noble Baroness, I am sure that what we need to be told is what the regulations are going to say, and to be given some assurance that they will be drafted in such a way as to achieve the objectives of the amendments originally proposed. It is no good having the framework without some indication of the Government's intentions of what to put into the regulations which will be framed under subsection (5).
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government will take into account as many points of view as possible, and certainly the views expressed here in your Lordships' House in the course of this Report stage and the debate at Committee stage when deciding what provision to make in the regulations, which will in any event be the subject of wide consultation in draft form.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, since we are at Report stage may I say that I am grateful for that small mercy, but it is incumbent upon the Government to indicate their attitude towards the content of the amendments put at

177
Committee stage. Unless she is prepared to write to me—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, would wish to be involved as well—and indicate the Government's starting position before consultation about the eligibility of parents and teachers after their connection with the school has expired, we may well have to consider further action at Third Reading.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think I can certainly agree to write to the noble Lord as he requested.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert ("and the circumstances in which persons are to he disqualified for holding office as governors of such schools.").
Page 9, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("and"), in line 33.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Grouping of schools under single governing body]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 11, line 26, after ("Act") insert ("and the authority consider that the grouping should be continued").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Clause 8(4) requires the LEA to review a grouping in the light of changes in local circumstances. Paragraph (b) then requires them to report to the Secretary of State the results of such a review where the grouping would require his consent.
There is point in the Secretary of State being informed and deciding whether to consent to the continuation of the grouping only if the LEA wish it to continue. If they have decided otherwise, the grouping can be brought to an end under subsection (7). This amendment therefore provides for the result of a review of grouping to be reported to the Secretary of State only if the LEA wish the grouping to continue. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Review of constitution of governing bodies of county, controlled and maintained special schools]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
Page 14, line 4, after ("16") insert ("(1)").
Page 14, line 5, leave out from ("sites") to end of line.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments 30 and 31 are both drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 14, line 31, leave out from ("shall") to ("consider"), in line 34.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential upon Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Effect of change of circumstances on instrument of government]:
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 16, line 41, after first ("to") insert ("subsection (lA) below and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 33 I should like to speak to Amendments 34 and 37. This series of amendments looks highly complicated, but in fact take care of a relatively simple point concerning schools which, after a change such as enlargement, build up to their maximum number of pupils over a period of years. I think that the purpose and effect of the amendments can best be shown through an example.
Let us take the case of a secondary school which has been the subject of a proposal for a significant enlargement. The statutory proposals under Sections 12 or 13 of the 1980 Act will perhaps have stated that the school is expected to cater for 700 pupils eventually, but that it will build up by admitting, say, 30 extra pupils a year for the next seven years. A review of the governing body will be triggered by the implementation of the statutory proposal and the new subsection (1A) now provides that, at that review, the pupil numbers will be assumed to be 700 (the maximum referred to in the proposal) rather than, say, the 520 actually in the school. The governing body therefore has the composition specified in Clause 3 for a 700-pupil school.
Four years later, another review is due. The school still has not built up to its maximum numbers and 700 is still deemed to be the relevant figure for the pupil numbers. Three years after that, the school should have reached the 700 figure. If it has, subsection (1A) ceases to apply automatically. If it has not, and if it looks unlikely to do so, under subsection (1B) either the LEA or, in the case of a voluntary school the governing body, may determine that subsection (1A) ceases to apply. By virtue of subsection (5A) any adjustment that needs to be made to the composition of the governing body because of higher or lower pupil numbers than those planned is picked up at the next four-yearly review—in the case of our example, one year later.
The provisions are analagous to those for new schools in paragraphs 3(2) and (3) of Schedule 2 and will, we believe, help the stability of governing bodies for schools which have seen significant changes. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are trying desperately to claw their way out of the trap they have dug for themselves with overprecise legislation. This is exactly the kind of difficulty that we anticipated when we saw that every single detail of the composition of governing bodies was going to be laid down by statute. I am sure that there will be subsequent amendments along this line when the draftsmen discover other examples, or other examples are referred to them, of exceptions which cannot be dealt with within the framework of the Bill as drafted.

179
It was a delightful explanation that we had from the noble Earl, and we do not wish to dissent from the improvements that he is making. However, is it not the case that the statute book should not be encumbered with detail of this kind, because detail feeds on itself and becomes a veritable forest. That is what we are getting now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 16, line 44, at end insert—
("(1A) Where a proposal of a kind mentioned in section 10(2)(a) or (b) of this Act has been implemented in relation to any school, the number of registered pupils at the school shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) above and until the number of registered pupils at the school reaches the maximum number of pupils provided for by the proposal, be deemed to be that maximum number.
(1B) Where subsection (1A) applies in relation to any school, the local education authority or (in the case of a proposal under section 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Act) the governing body may determine that it shall cease to apply (but without prejudice to its operation in relation to the implementation of any further proposal).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 17, line 17, leave out from ("school") to ("shall").
Page 17, line 22, leave out from ("school") to end of line 23.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments 35 and 36 are consequential on Amendment 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 17, line 29, at end insert—
(" (5A) Where subsection (1A) above has applied in relation to any school but the local education authority or (as the case may be) governing body have subsequently determined that it should cease to apply, subsections (2) and (5) above shall have effect as if a change in the number of registered pupils at the school had occurred at the time when that determination was made.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 33. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Miscellaneous]:
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Lord Irving of Dartford Lord Irving of Dartford moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 18, line 28, at end insert ("subject to guidelines provided by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McIntosh moved a similar amendment at Committee stage designed to secure guidelines from the Secretary of State on the election of parent governors. He indicated that there were many cases where the head teacher influenced the election of parent governors, and that that was undesirable. The Advisory Centre for Education has carried out a survey on this, and found a great variety of practice. In some cases the head teacher is responsible, and in others the clerk to the governors. It seems to us that most head teachers and clerks to governors would welcome guidelines on how to conduct democratic elections.
The noble Earl in his reply thought that detailed guidance was neither practical nor desirable. We are not asking for detailed guidelines but that the Secretary of State should describe a number of ways in which the election could take place, and leave it to the authority to decide which of those ways is the most appropriate in its circumstances. This would be practical help for what is indeed a complex matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, introduced a similar amendment to this at the Committee stage, he indicated that the Opposition would refer to these amendments again. At the Committee stage the noble Lord agreed that it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to issue detailed guidelines, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, has confirmed that this afternoon. But he suggested that the guidance might set out a number of options, one of which an LEA or governing body would adopt. We do not believe that such guidance would really be doing any more in many instances than stating the obvious, and it remains the Government's view that guidance in this area would either be so detailed or, indeed, so superficial that it would not fit the Bill in either instance.
I accept that there have been teething troubles with governor elections held under the 1980 Act, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Irving, agreed to that. To the extent that these should not be overstated, we believe they were due in fact to inexperience, and that hurdle has now been overcome.
In other cases the local education authorities may have been taking rather different views of the fairly open provisions of the 1980 Act, and in this connection I would draw your Lordships' attention to the new provisions in Clause 14(5), which would make quite clear who is to be entitled to participate in an election for a parent governor. We believe that this provides helpful information on the face of the Bill. If in fact something goes wrong under the elections, there is of course the first remedy available, which is a complaint to the Secretary of State. In fact, few complaints have been received on governor election matters, but in the event action by the Secretary of State was not called for because the appropriate authorities had already set action in hand to remedy the difficulties.
However, under this Bill there is a new element of self-regulation and that is the form of the annual parents' meeting under Clause 25. At that meeting the arrangements for the elections would have to be justified to the meeting directly, and if the parents did not like what was being done they would be in a position to put it right. I hope that with those two assurances the noble Lord, Lord Irving, will indeed feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she is aware that it is not really a matter of the number of queries tailing off after the 1980 Act but both the Advisory Centre for Education and the National Association of School Governors and Managers report that there is a continuing high level of queries about

181
the conduct of elections for governing bodies, not necessarily or indeed usually alleging any sort of ill-doing or mismanagement on the part of local authorities but actually seeking genuine guidance. In those circumstances, would she not feel able to say a word or two more of comfort about the willingness of the Secretary of State, in the great wisdom available to him in Elizabeth House, to find ways of helping those who are looking for guidance and not looking for adjudication?
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to respond to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am aware that there have been these complaints both by the Advisory Centre for Education and by the Association of School Governors and Managers. I think this was, of course, because the whole idea of elections was a new one under the 1980 Act.
However, if I may what I should like to do is to take away what the noble Lord has said and consider it in Hansard, and consider the point that he has raised. Clearly it is in everybody's interest to make the elections work as well as possible. This is the intention of the Bill. If indeed it does not seem that the provisions under Clause 14 are enough, I think I should like to consider what the noble Lord has said. I hope that with that assurance he might withdraw his amendment.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, the amendment was indeed a result of some queries and some misunderstandings. We are indebted to the noble Baroness for the undertaking she has given, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 18, line 28, at end insert—
("(c) to decide, for the purposes of an election of parent governors or teacher governors to the governing body, whether the election shall be conducted under the principles of proportional representation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are still on the subject of elections, and particularly methods of election. At the Committee stage I moved an amendment which would have required elections of governors to the governing body to be conducted under the principles of proportional representation, using the single transferable vote system. In her reply the noble Baroness said (and I shall quote her if I may):
"I do not think the Committee will be surprised to hear me suggest that it would not be appropriate to require proportional representation in the election of parent and teacher governors. But I should like to reassure the noble Lord and his noble friends that neither are we requiring the first past the post system."—[Official Report, 25/3/86; col. 1382.]
I was rather impressed by the argument of the noble Baroness. I thought on reflection that in fact she was right, and I therefore decided, at this stage of the Bill, to go down the optional road. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Blake, sitting in his place. He has already piloted one Bill through your Lordships' House which would allow optional proportional representation in local authority elections. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich was here a moment ago: he did a similar thing at an earlier period. So, in this amendment, I have selected the optional road.
If the noble Baroness is going to tell me that this is not necessary because it is already open to governing bodies to conduct their elections in this way, I just want to make one point to her. It seems to me that if the Bill is totally silent on methods of election there is likely to be a presumption in favour of first past the post, which is, after all, the most widely used system in this country. Therefore, it seems fair to me to give the proportional representation option a status on the face of the Bill, and without, of course, requiring it to be used in all circumstances or in all places.
That is the object of this amendment, and I rather hoped that the noble Baroness might look at it sympathetically. As I said, I accept the point she made. I think that it would be wrong to require proportional representation in all cases; but I think it should he abundantly clear to governing bodies that they can adopt this method if they feel so inclined. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for his kind remarks on my response to his earlier amendment on this subject. But in fact I think in a sense he has answered the point of the second amendment which he has put down. I appreciate that the point of his amendment is to draw attention to the possibility of the elections to a governing body being by proportional representation without compelling those who are voting to have a system of proportional representation. Nevertheless, for the reasons that I adduced before it is perfectly possible under the Bill to conduct the elections by proportional representation or by the first past the post system, whichever the parents decide they would prefer to do.
It seems to us that this is in fact the correct way of dealing with this matter. Clause 14(2)(b) quite clearly places on the local education authority or, as appropriate, the governing body the responsibility for making all the necessary arrangements for (here are the key words) and to determine all other matters relating to, parent and teacher governor elections. This of course gives them the opportunity to determine whether or not the elections are by proportional representation or by the first past the post system.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who I think I congratulated before on his activities in promoting PR, should be too shy on this matter. I feel certain that he and his friends can put up these proposals where the decisions are being taken and can argue for them, as they are entitled to under the Bill, and others who wish to have the first past the post system can do that. I really think this amendment is unnecessary, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before making up my mind perhaps I could ask the noble Baroness one thing, with the leave of the House. I take her point that this is written into the Bill, but you have to know your way around the Bill pretty well to find out where you are covered if you want to use the proportional representation system. That is why I suggested that it he written more prominently on the face of the statute.
If the noble Baroness does not want to go down that road, may I ask her whether this is an option which

183
could be mentioned in the post-Act circular to authorities which I understand it is the intention of the Government to issue, giving detailed advice on practical issues? The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, referred to the post-Act circular on 17th April, at col. 828, not, I hasten to say, in this context; but it strikes me as being a perfectly reasonable vehicle in which to point out to governing bodies the choices that are at their disposal. If the noble Baroness can give me an assurance that this will receive mention in such a circular, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that it would be very difficult for me at this stage to commit the Government to something like that in the circular. We have all listened to the point that the noble Lord has made and we are all aware of it. I should have thought that if he wished, as he clearly does, to make sure that local education authorities are aware of this, he would have plenty of colleagues in the local education authority world who would be able to do just that. I should have thought that that would be the way. However, I shall note what he had to say and pass on to my right honourable friend the point that he has made.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the tiny way that she seemed to come towards me. I should like to assure her that I do not want to get PR a bad name, so I am not going to divide the House at this stage. But I shall read the debate and perhaps come to a final decision at the last stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 18, line 34, at end insert ("and shall make provision for a postal vote.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is necessary to move Amendment No. 43 because of the inadequacy of the Government's response at Committee stage. When I moved a comparable amendment at Committee stage I referred to subsection (5) of this clause, which imposes on the authority an obligation
"to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every person who is known to them to be a parent of a registered pupil at the school is … given an opportunity to vote at the election".
I put to the Government the position that if I were a parent and if, for example, I were working the night shift or were disabled and could not attend the meeting I would feel, in the absence of a postal ballot, that the authority had not taken such steps as were reasonably practicable to secure that I had an opportunity to cast my vote as a parent. This point was borne out by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who referred to his experience in Huntingdonshire where parents serving in the RAF had children in local authority schools but could hardly be expected to come to meetings when off duty or when they were stationed somewhere else in order to vote.
I invited the Government at that stage to confirm that the provision that the authority should,
"take such steps as are resaonably practicable"
would include, and would have to include, a postal ballot—not a postal ballot as an alternative to a vote at a meeting but a postal ballot as a supplement to a vote at a meeting. I am sorry to say that the noble Baroness in her reply referred to the expense of a postal ballot as opposed to a ballot box and voting in person. I hope that her right honourable friends and noble friends in the Department of Employment who have been putting forward trade union legislation have taken in that point.
She said that in schools serving tightly-knit communities personal voting could well be a perfectly satisfactory method of conducting elections; whereas I think that I have shown that there are examples of cases where even in tightly-knit communities they would not be satisfactory and, indeed, there are no circumstances where those who are disabled or unable to go to meetings ought to be disqualified from voting for parent governors.
It is in the light of that unsatisfactory reply and the failure of the Government to give the interpretation of subsection (5) of this clause which I believe to be justified by the wording of the subsection and which I believe to be absolutely essential as a protection of the democratic right of parents that I am obliged to move this amendment again.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I ought to explain that I did not move my Amendment No. 42 because I withdrew it really in favour of Lord McIntosh's Amendment No. 43, which on consideration after reading the debate at Committee stage, I think is an improvement. My amendment at that stage was for an obligatory postal ballot but considerations of expense were indicated and, as the noble Lord himself said on that occasion, obviously parents coming together at meetings can clearly vote on the spot in a secret ballot. Therefore it seems that the postal ballot should be there as an alternative for those who could not get to the meeting. I think that the noble Lord has come up with the right answer. I cannot see what the Government have got against it and I very much hope that they will accept it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, once again, I too reread what had been said at Committee stage on these amendments which were moved on that occasion. The reason that this provision has not been written on to the face of the Bill is that the Government wish as far as possible to avoid central prescription and the provisions in subsection (5) in this case are what we think are appropriate.
The fact is that it is perfectly possible in any of these elections for there to be a postal ballot. The point at issue is whether or not this amendment should be written into the Bill and that at every election provision should be made for a postal ballot. Clearly, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, there are very different circumstances. There are schools which serve a rural area with many families living a long way from the school; there are schools in which quite possibly many of the parents will be on shift work or for whom it might be difficult to come to the school for

185
an election or however the particular election may be organised; or the election meetings themselves might be poorly attended.
In fact, this again would be one of the issues which at the annual parents' meeting could be considered if the parents involved thought that the arrangements that had been made were not satisfactory. But if one looks at the provisions of Clause 14(5), which make it clear that the parents must be informed of the vacancy which is required to be filled by the election, must be,
"informed that he is entitled to stand as a candidate, and vote, at the election and … given an opportunity to do so"
this must imply for the person who is handicapped that provision will be made for him to have a postal ballot or some means of voting which does not presumably involve obliging him to come to the school.
I think that the point that has been made has been covered in the provisions in the Bill and I hope, because the Bill makes it plain not only that there must be a secret ballot but that there could be a postal ballot should people wish it, that the noble Lord will accept that we think this amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I find that a most puzzling answer. Why on earth should the Government resist this amendment? The noble Baroness has found it quite impossible to give any coherent answer to that question, save only that she wishes to avoid prescription by central government. Surely one of the objects of the whole exercise we have been discussing in terms of this Bill is to ensure the maximum involvement of parents with the school. In many rural areas it will be difficult, as the noble Baroness has acknowledged and as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on a previous occasion, for parents to come to meetings. Many rural bus services, as we are aware, are being axed. In a situation of this kind it seems wholly reasonable that the Government should make it absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that there is a duty to ensure that people who wish to cast their vote in a postal ballot should be able to do so.
This is not an issue of great principle separating Members in different parts of the House, and I hope that the noble Baroness will say that she will look at this matter between now and Third Reading because, with respect, she has failed to answer why it would be damaging to accept an amendment of this kind, the only purpose of which is to ensure that people have a right to use their votes in postal ballots. With great respect, I do not think she has met the point at all.
Baroness Young: My Lords, by leave of the House, in view of what the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Harris, have said, I will take this back and look at it again. I think there is a very real point about postal ballots for teachers, who are in a rather different position from that of parents. It is an area that needs looking at, but I sense the feeling of the whole House about this and I will look at the matter again between now and Third Reading.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for those last words. I must apologise to her for my unseemly laughter during
186
her earlier remarks, when she said the Government were anxious to avoid central precription. The whole of this Bill—clause after clause, subsection after subsection and line after line—consists of central prescription as to how local authorities and governing bodies should blow their own noses, let alone control their own affairs. But it was valuable to have her recognition that subsection (5) already provides in the case, for example, of handicapped parents that a postal ballot would be necessary in order to secure their rights.
What she has now said in response to my remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, indicates a movement which is most welcome and provides a basis on which I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45.
Page 19, line 4, leave out ("controlled") and insert ("voluntary").
Page 19, line 7, leave out ("controlled") and insert ("voluntary").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may move Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 together. These are essentially technical amendments. We do not intend to make any proposals in the Bill or to necessitate changes to instruments of government for aided and special agreement schools. However, such instruments invariably already include the provisions in Clause 14(6) and (9). It therefore seems sensible to ensure that they should continue to do so, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 19, line 29, at end insert—
("(11A) In subsection (11) above, references to co-opted governors are to governors required to be co-opted by virtue of section 3 of this Act and do not include references to co-opted foundation governors.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a purely clarifying amendment. Some foundation governors are appointed through co-option by other foundation governors and there may of necessity have to be some restriction on the choice of these governors: for example, that those to be co-opted are members of the church concerned with a school. This amendment makes clear that the bar on restriction of choice in co-options does not apply to such foundation governors byt only to those who will be co-opted by virtue of Clause 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 15 [General responsibility for conduct of certain schools]:
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 20, line 7, leave out from first ("provision") to ("by"), in line 8, and insert ("of the articles conferring specific functions on any person other than the governing body, and to the provision made (otherwise than in the articles)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is yet another result of the meeting between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Bishops. Your

187
Lordships may recall that at Committee stage the Government argued that anything not specifically assigned in articles of government or in primary legislation came within the ambit of Clause 15(1) as part of the conduct of the school and was thus the responsibility of the governing body.
It was subsequently pointed out to us that this could perhaps be made a little clearer, as is, we hope, achieved by this amendment. In particular, reference is now made to "specific functions", and this means that any non-specific allocation—perhaps a provision purporting to allocate all unspecified functions to the LEA—could not be reconciled with this clause as amended and thus could not remove from the governing body their responsibility for the conduct of the school. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Duty of local education authority to state policy]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 20, line 36, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
(" (2) The governing body for each county, controlled and maintained special school in an authority shall, in consultation with the head teacher, consider and agree the curriculum policy to be adopted in the school within the lines of any general policy for the secular curriculum determined by the local education authority, leaving the final detailed arrangements and organisation to be the reponsibility of the head teacher and his staff").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is an improved version (because it says "controlled" instead of "voluntary" schools) of an amendment which I moved at Committee stage. It was one to which there was really no adequate response from the Government. I am conscious that the Government have put down a series of amendments and notably, if I am interpreting their wishes correctly, No. 60. These are intended to overcome the difficulties which were found on all sides of your Lordships' Chamber with Clauses 16 and 17. Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage there were very significant queries about a particular provision contained in Clause 17(4) (b) (i), where the responsibility was laid on the head teacher to ensure that the curriculum is compatible with the policy of the authority or, where it is incompatible with that policy, with the policy of the governing bodies.
Those words have now been removed from the Bill in Amendment No. 60; and it is necessary to refer to this in advance of its being moved by the Government, because we are talking fundamentally about the same thing; the control of the curriculum. The wording now proposed is:
"is compatible with the authority's policy (as expressed in their statement) or, to the extent to which it is incompatible, is compatible with that policy as modified by the governing body's statement".
That is a difference in wording, but I really must question whether it is a significant difference in effect. A number of noble Lords commented not only on the obscurity of the preceding provisions but also on the fact that, in management terms, they failed to lay down an acceptable basis for how somebody
188
ultimately had to have the last word. I argued at that time that Clause 17(4)(b)(i) provided that the governing body had the last word, and I believe that is still the case in Amendment No. 60. But if that is the case and if I interpret correctly the Government's intentions we still have what I believe to be a totally unacceptable position.
We cannot, I suggest, have a position where the governing body of a single school in a local education authority service is permitted to have a curriculum policy which is radically at variance and possibly even in conflict with the policy of other schools in the authority's area. One hopes this will not happen on a significant number of occasions. I am convinced that the goodwill of those in the education service will secure that, with proper consultation and proper discussion between the governing bodies and the local education authority, there will emerge a consensus about curriculum policy which will provide for the pupils in the area a coherent range of curriculum possibilities suitable to their needs and to the facilities which the local education authority can make available.
But the whole of this section of the Bill allows for the possibility that, with the best will in the world, or even sometimes with bad will, there may result a conflict which cannot be resolved by agreement, and in those circumstances somebody has to have the last word. The Government are suggesting here, unless I misunderstand them gravely, that it should be the governing body that has the last word, and that the governing body should have the power, in effect, to direct a head teacher to implement a curriculum which is at variance with the stated policy of the local education authority.
In place of that, in this amendment we put forward what seems to be a much more straightforward, logical way of dealing with the issue. It states that there are a number of stages in the determination of curriculum policy, the governing body has the first responsibility, and,
"The governing body … shall, in consultation with the head teacher, consider and agree the curriculum policy to be adopted in the school",
but it does so,
"within the lines of any general policy for the secular curriculum determined by the local education authority".
So that gives a restricted but proper role to the local education authority in considering, as properly elected representatives of the people of the area, the needs of the area as a whole. Then at the end the amendment states:
"the final detailed arrangements and organisation to be the responsibility of the head teacher and his staff"
That is a relatively simple statement of the three roles of the three participants in this decision. It does not involve the convoluted to-ing and fro-ing which is set out even in the proposed amendments, and certainly the complexities which are proposed in the Bill as it reaches this House after the Committee stage.
I suggest to your Lordships that the matter of the determination of the curriculum is one of the basic issues about our educational service. It is one of the issues which has caused most dissatisfaction. There are many noble Lords, including some noble friends of

189
mine, who feel that the determination of the curriculum should be taken away from local authorities altogether and given to central government, in the interests of greater coherence and the achievement of national objectives.
I respect those views, the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and by my noble friends Lord Houghton of Sowerby, Lord Stewart of Fulham and others. I do not go along with them wholly, but I see the force behind the point that they are making, which is that somebody has, in the end, to make decisions about the curriculum and has to make them on the basis of a wider interest than the interest of the school itself.
If the logic is towards a recognition of wider public responsibilities for the curriculum and a dissatisfaction which is felt widely throughout the country about the existing curriculum and the choices available to the pupils in our schools, then surely the least that can be done is to say that the elected representatives in local authorities shall have the ultimate responsibility, when it comes to the point, for the general curriculum policy in our schools.
I suggest to the House that this amendment, apart from being simpler and apart from bringing the ultimate responsibility down where it needs to be, is the right balance which can be achieved at the moment, the only balance which can be achieved at the moment, between individual initiative at the school level and the achievement of the wider objectives which we all have for our educational system.
I appreciate the difficulty of considering this amendment without having heard the Government's arguments on Amendment 60. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to anticipate at any rate the debate on their own amendments, in order that we can have as coherent a debate as possible on this issue. As I say, it is possibly the most important issue facing our schools today. Certainly it outweighs in importance a large number of the provisions of this Bill. If we get it wrong, I do not believe we shall be forgiven. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has I think contrived to suggest that this is a sort of mean, a mid-point between those like myself and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who believe that there should be a bigger role for central government in the curriculum, and those who would prefer that it should be wholly a matter for individual schools. I must say that if I am appealed to in that way I am not prepared to go along with the noble Lord, because my own feeling is that, of all the partners, the local authorities are the least qualified to deal with matters of curriculum.
It seems to me that the record shows that they can be arbitrary, misled by current fashions and indifferent to national needs; and if I have to choose, therefore, between the local authorities and the individual school—its governors, its parents, its teachers, as the governing body now is—I must tell the noble Lord that my preference, having failed to get national control of the curriculum, would be the individual schools.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, I am a little puzzled about this question. I may have misunderstood, but I had the impression that the Bill created a situation in which the local authority indicated its policy relating to the curriculum and the governing body could either agree or disagree, and if they disagreed the head teacher was to be put in the impossible position of choosing between them. I may have misunderstood the Bill, but that is how it seemed to me and that, I think, is putting head teachers in an impossible position.
We are asking them to referee between two bodies, either of which can sack them. I can imagine that a referee at a football match who was clearly in favour of one team and against the other would not be allowed to referee again. I imagine that this would lead to more dismissals of head teachers, and certainly more unhappiness for head teachers, than any other provision.
I am not sure that I agree with the amendment. My own belief is that the authority should indicate its general policy; that the governing body should, by all means, have the right to say whether it disagrees and to indicate what it regards as the right policy; and that the head teacher should decide what he believes is in the best interests of the school.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, quite properly said in introducing this amendment, it is one which goes very much to the centre of the proposals in this Bill which is before your Lordships' House. I am very glad that it presents the Government with an opportunity to try to clarify what are the proposals as regards the curriculum in this Bill, and to relate them to some of the amendments which follow this one and which have, as their purpose, making and writing on to the face of the Bill certain proposals on certain subjects in the school curriculum.
It has been suggested that the distribution of responsibility in the Bill for the secular school curriculum is complicated. We do not believe that there can be a simple solution. We could, for example, give responsibility for the curriculum entirely and solely to the head teacher—and I listened with great care to what my noble friend Lord Beloff said on this matter—but the Government think that this would not be right. The whole purpose of a school is to offer the right curriculum effectively. We cannot leave it to individual professionals to have total control over the purposes of our schools.
6.30 p.m.
Another solution would be to give total responsibility for the curriculum to the governing body. There are those in your Lordships' House who no doubt might think that that, too, was the correct solution. It is true that in aided schools the Bill gives the governors control over the secular curriculum. But the governors of such a school are in a special position. It is their school, they are responsible for its premises, they employ the staff. The governors of county, controlled and maintained special schools are not in that position. In their case it is the local education authority that is responsible for all capital as well as all current expenditure and that employs the staff. It is on its schools that the LEA mainly relies to discharge its

191
duty to secure enough efficient schools in its area. One could well ask how it could discharge that duty unless it had a say in the curriculum of those schools.
The question then arises, which is the centre of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether we should give sole responsibility for the curriculum to the LEA. That, too, would not be right, because it would deny the principle that each school should have a life of its own, with meaningful responsibilities entrusted to both the governing body and the head. They, too, should have some say in the curriculum because, as I have said, the whole purpose of the school is to provide the right curriculum effectively.
It is therefore inevitable, and right, that responsibility for the secular curriculum in county, controlled and maintained special schools should be shared between the local education authority, the governing body and the head. Any sharing of responsibilities can be made to look less than tidy. This point has been made this afternoon. But tidiness is not an overriding principle. We also ought to place responsibility where it belongs.
What the Bill does is to make the headteacher solely responsible for organising the curriculum—that is a professional job. He also has to determine the curriculum which he has to organise. It is in that determination that the LEA and the governors play their part. The head has to determine the curriculum in a way which is compatible with the policy of the LEA or with that policy as modified by the governors. The governors may not have modified it; probably in most cases they will not modify it. But the fact remains that they could modify it. In that case the head does not have to choose between the LEA's policy and the governors' modification. But he may have to choose. That may indeed bring him into conflict with either the LEA or the governors. That is not necessarily a comfortable position.
But what is the alternative? The alternative is either to allow the LEA to override the governors or vice versa. In that situation the head would have to determine the curriculum in accordance with the policy of the LEA, if it could override the governors, or of the governors, if they could override the LEA. I believe we can all think of situations in which it would be unwise to give such power either to the LEA or to the governors.
In most cases the proposed distribution of functions will work smoothly because the three parties will be agreed, or will reach agreement as a result of the duties to consult each other imposed by the Bill. In those cases where they do not reach agreement there will be a tension. Ultimately the LEA, as paymaster and employer, is likely to be in the strongest position to resolve the tension in its favour. That is right, given the LEA's overall responsibility for securing sufficient and efficient schools for its area, and the fact that it is answerable to its electors. But the LEA will not simply be able to set aside the views of the governors or the head on the curriculum to be followed; and it will have no locus, nor will the governors, in how the head organises that curriculum. The Bill is a compromise between several sensible principles. It lacks the tidiness
192
of a central curriculum policy as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, at the Committee stage, but we believe that it reflects the spirit and the realities of English and Welsh school traditions.
Perhaps I can give a clearer picture of how the Bill's curriculum provisions will work if I take one controversial area of teaching—for example, peace studies as a separate subject—and consider what will happen under the Bill if one of the education partners wishes to include the subject in the school curriculum. Let us suppose that a local education authority adopts a policy that a course in peace studies should be taught in all schools. At present the authority would be able to require that policy to be followed in all its schools. The secular instruction offered in all except voluntary aided schools is by virtue of the 1944 Act under the control of the local education authority.
Under the noble Lord's amendment the authority would have a similar power. Schools would be obliged to operate within the lines of the general policy of the authority and an authority could readily claim that "peace studies for all" was a general policy. Only the courts could determine at what level of detail such a policy became less than general. But under the Bill's provisions school governors could decide that their aims for the school required some modification of the authority's policy in this respect, and so omit the teaching of peace studies in applying that policy to their school.
What of the governors? We must remember that under the terms of the Bill the governors will not as at present be mainly appointed by the authority itself and so will be likely to take a more independent line on such issues. They will contain substantial parent representation. They will be parents who under the terms of this Bill will be trained in their duties. They will be held regularly and publicly accountable to the full parent body. We believe that they will be a much more effective counterweight to an extreme local authority.
But it is conceivable that the body of governors might come under the influence of some extreme educational view, and if the governors, against the LEA policy, wished to adopt as an aim the teaching of peace studies to all pupils, what would be the outcome in that case? In county and controlled schools the headteacher would be able to exercise his or her discretion in determining and organising the detailed curriculum of a school to follow the authority's policy on this issue rather than that of the governors, and again peace studies could not be imposed on pupils.
We come finally to the case of a headteacher who wishes for his own reason to include courses on peace studies in the school curriculum. If the authority's and governors' policies are silent on this issue, he may be able to do so for a time, but if the authority adopts and the governors endorse a policy which makes it clear that they do not accept this as a separate subject, the head would be obliged to cease offering it to his pupils and to secure that no other teacher at the school did so, since the head's duties extend to the determination, organisation and delivery of the whole curriculum.
Your Lordships will see therefore that these clauses which have been the subject of considerable criticism already offer a much improved first line of defence

193
against extremism in the curriculum which I hope my noble friends will applaud and not seek to dismantle. It may well be that they will say that this first line is not enough; and indeed we shall propose later an amendment to the Bill to secure explicitly that political issues are dealt with in a responsible manner. If the checks and balances that I have outlined do not work, if a headteacher convinces his governing body to support an unwise policy, or an authority and its governors join to impose a biased approach to certain topics, then our new clause will bite directly and will ensure that there is an overriding duty to approach all such issues responsibly. But it would be perverse while making that amendment to do away with the carefully constructed clauses on the curriculum which are designed to go such a long way to prevent the kinds of problems that the amendment will tackle.
I have spoken at great length and with considerable difficulty on the subject. I would not have spoken at such length had I not been aware that this is a complicated but important matter, that the total provisions of the Bill must be seen together and that the amendments must be considered against the background of the whole of the Bill. Your Lordships will appreciate that although the provision is complex, it writes on the face of the Bill a series of checks and balances for all those who have a responsibility towards the curriculum, which, after all, is at the centre of the education debate, the centre of the whole of education—the LEA, the school governors and the headteacher, the school governors strengthened by the proportion of parents, and the parents themselves trained for the first time in their responsibilities.
I wanted to set out very fully the Government's reasons because I take absolutely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when originally moving his amendment, concerning the complexity. I wanted to explain the reasons why the Government believe that it is a way of meeting what has proved to he a concern of parents, a way of meeting the problems of the curriculum, and to explain in detail what the Government believe to be right.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I hope also that my noble friends who have been very worried about what the Bill says, and about what is possible, will understand that the arrangements made are there to cope with the curriculum, quite apart from other Government amendments that are to be moved in response to the detailed anxieties that have been expressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was a fascinating reply. Indeed, it was several fascinating replies. In the first instance, I felt that the noble Baroness was speaking in support of my amendment. We entirely agree with everything that she said about shared responsibility between the governing body, the local education authority and the head teacher. Indeed, the amendment specifically sets out in comprehensible terms—and I apologise if they are also tidy—the nature of the shared responsibility between the local education authority, the governing body and the head teacher.
The amendment specifically states that the local education authority will be responsible for the lines of
194
general policy and that the curriculum policy shall be considered and agreed by the governing body and implemented by the head. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, who spent a considerable part of his distinguished career dealing with heads, if anybody thinks that a governing body will easily and lightly formulate a curriculum policy without the very definite input of the head teacher, then he has another think coming. Clearly the consideration and agreement of curriculum policy by a governing body will be instigated, spurred and influenced very deeply by the head teacher and his staff. To that extent, the Government and ourselves are in complete agreement.
We do not share the Government's antipathy to tidiness because we believe that on some occasions tidiness can be related to comprehensibility. We do not feel that in many cases the Government have succeeded in producing forms of words that are comprehensible.
We then come to the second interesting part of the Minister's speech, when she defined what will happen when there is a dispute between the local education authority and the governing body. The noble Baroness stated specifically that the kind of studies she had in mind—peace studies—could not be imposed by a governing body on a head teacher, but that the head teacher would have the ability to resist the policy of an extreme governing body and that the governing body would have the ability to resist an extreme local education authority.
6.45 p.m.
I find it difficult to square the Minister's remarks with the provisions that I have to anticipate (there is no other way) of Amendment No. 60, where the head teacher has the responsibility of ensuring that the curriculum,
"is compatible with the authority's policy (as expressed in their statement) or, to the extent to which it is incompatible, is compatible with that policy as modified by the governing body's statement".
If the governing body makes a statement that there will be peace studies, then what power will the head teacher have to resist that statement? I see the point that the noble Baroness is arguing, but I do not see it in the text of her own amendment or in the Bill as it would result from the Government's proposals. Clearly we will need further debate on that issue, although perhaps not on this amendment but when we reach Amendment No. 60 and the related amendments.
The third fascinating part of the Minister's speech was where she sought to reassure her own Back Benches that the Government's intention in settling the responsibility for curriculum policy was to avoid extremism in the curriculum. I would have thought that that was a very serious departure from the fundamental business of our schools. All the debate we have had about political indoctrination in our schools has been from the premise clearly stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, as well as by others. That is, that while there is some indoctrination—of course there is—it is done by a tiny minority. That has been said by a number of people. There have been plenty of examples of the minority that have been responsible for such indoctrination, but there has been common

195
ground between all of us in our consideration of that matter.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is now telling the House that it is a serious objective of the Government, in laying down how the curriculum should be determined, to deal with indoctrination by a small minority, then I fear that they are going far away from their much more important responsibility for the curriculum as a whole, to which all schools are subjected for a large part of their time. A small number of schools have unacceptable courses, and a small amount of the time in those schools is affected by them. However, that should not be the prime consideration as to the way in which we determine the responsibility for the curriculum.
The whole of the debate that there has been about the relevance of education to the adult world, about the relationship between the Department of Education and the initiatives of the Manpower Services Commission, about the initiatives in schools of the TVEI, about the CPVE, and about all the other developments that are taking place in our schools as we realise the defects of the existing educational system—in respect not only of academic achievement but also of the other requirements of the adult world—are the fundamental curriculum issues with which this House should be concerned. They are all enormously more important than the ravages of a small number of extremist teachers to whom so much attention has been paid. If we allow our curriculum system to be influenced by that consideration rather than by the longer term and more fundamental demands of our changing society, then we shall be at risk of making a seriously wrong decision about the control of the curriculum.
I repeat that I am not satisfied that we have found the right solution. It may be necessary to consider that point more in relation to Amendment No. 60. Certainly it would seem appropriate to withdraw Amendment No. 49 at this stage. On the basis of the arguments that have been put forward, and that the case for the governing bodies to have the last word in the way that is now proposed has been based on inadequate logic and on secondary arguments rather than on the most fundamental arguments that ought to be confronting the House at this time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 20, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of every local education authority, governing body and head teacher to forbid the pursuit of partisan political activities in their primary schools as part of school life, whether in their schools or elsewhere.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it has been agreed through the usual channels that in moving Amendment No. 50 I should speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 61, 62 and 86. Therefore I shall speak primarily to Amendment No. 50 on political activities in primary schools and then I shall refer briefly to the other amendments.
In Amendment No. 50 we are not seeking to prohibit any discussion of politics in primary schools,
196
but there is evidence that primary schools have been used for partisan political purposes; for example, for the distribution of CND badges, for storing food for striking miners, and for staff to demonstrate against local police for attempting to arrange an open day. Surely such activities for children of primary school age—we are talking about children aged between 5 and 11—is totally unacceptable.
This also introduces a more general point, which is that both the professional experience of teachers in primary schools and research have demonstrated that children of primary school age are not sufficiently intellectually mature to appreciate the complexity that lies behind controversial political issues and that any participation in political activities must therefore involve oversimplification and a distortion of those issues. That is something which surely is not educationally desirable.
The only arguments that have been used in earlier discussions against this amendment are that it would prevent Members of Parliament or local councillors from visiting primary schools to talk about political activities or arranging visits such as visits to Parliament. If that is the price to be paid we believe that it is worth it. Pupils of primary schools do not need such activities as part of their education. There is time enough for that when they reach secondary school age. Surely it is far better to keep primary schools as politics-free zones and allow children to pursue their basic education undistracted by political controversy and activity.
As I have said, while moving this amendment I wish very briefly to refer to a general issue concerning not only this amendment but also other related amendments on politicisation in education. I refer particularly to the problem of justiciability. We argue that this particular amendment, Amendment No. 50, does not run into this problem because it deals with questions of fact and not of opinion; so justiciability should not be a stumbling block to Amendment No. 50.
So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 51 and 62, we have given very careful consideration to this matter and we are assured that the wording does not pose insuperable problems. However, the amendment that is proposed by the Government—Amendment No. 86—is, we suggest, much more problematic. For example, the Government's amendment rests on the notion of "responsible" and that seems to us to raise far more problems. For instance, it begs the very question of the meaning of "responsible". I suggest that a Militant Tendency teacher is likely to define the word "responsible" in a very different way from that which I suspect the Government amendment intends.
Conversely, the wording of the other amendments, Amendments Nos. 51 and 62, is less problematic. In Amendment No. 51 the phrase,
"the promotion of partisan political views"
is used. This implies a systematic and sustained bias which is demonstrable. Amendment No. 62 uses the concept of a balanced presentation of views, and a balanced presentation is also something which is capable of assessment. The findings of a recent Gallup poll were that members of the public from all political parties voted two to one in favour of an amendment to

197
this Bill which would prevent political indoctrination in schools. Therefore I sincerely hope that Members of your Lordships' House will also support these amendments.
Of course, we do not claim that the evils they are designed to prevent are occurring in all schools. Of course not. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has said, the majority of teachers are conscientious and would not violate their professional position in this way. But as the recent debate in your Lordships' House on the politicisation of education showed very well, there are many schools, and a growing number of schools, where young people are being exposed to indoctrination which undermines their commitment to our country's traditional values, including commitment to parliamentary democracy and our cultural heritage. Moreover, in many cases the methods used are those of indoctrination, not of education.
As the leader in The Times this morning suggested, to vote for these amendments is to vote for education. I hope very much that your Lordships will feel able to do precisely that. I beg to move.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I think we can all be grateful for some of the amendments to this Bill that the Government have put down, but I fear that they have not suggested anything worthwhile to meet the argument, which was put forward by noble Lords on all sides of the House, that we ought to legislate specifically to prevent our children from being indoctrinated with partisan political views.
It cannot be said too often that the legislation that we are proposing, and in particular Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, is designed as a protection against such indoctrination from either the Left or the Right. Both are equally reprehensible. At the moment it happens that the threat comes mainly from the extreme Left who are trying, by indoctrinating young children, to destroy their belief in the democratic principles on which this country is founded. It is my belief—which I think is a belief shared by a large proportion of the people of this country and a very large proportion of parents—that the threat is real and that something ought to be done about it and done now.
I also believe that any legislation which stands the smallest chance of providing a defence against such subtle and pervasive indoctrination must be both narrow and negative, such as that contained in Amendments No. 50 and 51, because only such legislation, I think, could be justiciable. It is a matter of saying that there are certain clearly defined things which are not allowed. Surely that wording is more justiciable than what is proposed in Amendment No. 86, as tabled by the Government. How difficult it would be to determine what is or is not "reasonably practicable". Partisan political activities, which are forbidden in primary schools by Amendment No. 50, are surely very much easier to detect and pin down.
There seems to be a widespread conviction in this country that there is something rotten in the state of some of our schools in the maintained sector, not only because of partisan political indoctrination but also because of a general sapping of moral standards. I believe that the best cure is to allow market forces to
198
bring their influence to bear. Indeed, this is one of the very worthy purposes of this Bill; that is, to give more influence to those who really mind—parents and the good teachers.
I believe that Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 will greatly strengthen the hands of parents and good teachers. They will give them the confidence to take positive action where they know things are going wrong. These amendments will not put matters right at a stroke but they might—they just might—start the process, which will be long and hard, of restoring some teaching and decent values to those of our schools where those virtues are no longer practised.
I am not sure whether the Government recognise that the threat is real or whether they believe that we are just a bunch of unbalanced scaremongers. I hope that the noble Earl will enlighten us in that respect. If they acknowledge that the threat is real, I am simply amazed that they cannot accept the amendments, which, if there is no threat, cannot possibly do any harm anyway. I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Government do not or will not take the threat at all seriously and that Amendment No. 86, with its woolly conditional subsections, has been put forward not with the intention of doing anything practical to curb evil but as a nice, soothing tranquiliser to keep those who smell danger quiet and biddable.
7 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to visualise a teacher in a class giving a talk or an address on citizenship. I should think that he would say that this country has always depended on the rule of law. He would say that law and order are fundamental in our society and in support of that we should all support the police in doing their duty. That teacher would be responsible if he went that far. He would be equally responsible if he went on to say "But you must remember that violence is always justifiable in a good cause". He may go on to say "The violence that you may have seen on the picket lines is justifiable if it is in a good cause and there was the wrongful suggestion to close the pits".
He could say all that and he could also say that it would be justifiable to resist the police in those circumstances and to do what one could to stop them doing their duty. That would be regarded by a judge as being a responsible lecture. It would no doubt be entirely coloured by the teacher's partisan political views, but it would be responsible, expressing the views of a responsible person to his class.
In answer to that I would say that that lecture would be entirely wrong. The only way to prohibit it would be by an amendment such as that which my noble friend Lady Cox has put down. It would obviously be partisan political propaganda. It is asked whether it can be justiciable. It can be. If a case such as that which I have described is reported to the head teacher by a parent or whoever else it may be, he could be asked, "Did you forbid partisan political lectures?" If he said, "No", he could be taken straight to the court, because the statute said that he was to forbid it. If the head teacher said that he forbade it but the teacher went against that, he could be told, "You get on and do your duty. You discipline that teacher for promoting political views".

199
If that was not satisfactory, the matter could be taken further to the governing body or the local education authority and they could be asked whether they had done their duty. If they had not, we have a long-tried system of law—our judicial review—where by the old mandamus, we can command any public authority and any school governing authority whatever to do its duty, and that duty is well set out in Amendments Nos. 50, 51 and the like. I hope that your Lordships will support those and reject completely Amendment No. 86.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I think that one of the problems that we have to face is a realisation of what is happening. It is easy as we sit here and debate these weighty matters to get out of touch with reality and to fail to realise the difficulty of the situation that is facing teachers and head teachers particularly in, for example, London schools. In rural areas, teachers avoid those subjects like the plague; they are terrified of them. They do not want the children going home and telling their parents that they have been subjected to Marxist talk or to Right-wing propaganda.
However, it is very different in the inner cities—and I am thinking particularly of London—where political involvement is so intense (racism, sexism and other "isms"), that it can no more be shut out of schools than one can shut out the air, even though it may be polluted. It is there and the children are living with it. It is not merely invading primary schools, but even infant schools. A report in The Times Educational Supplement, if it is to be believed, tells stories of how at the infant age children are insulting each other with "Pakis stink" and "Darkies reel home drunk". How does one cope with such a situation? Let us not underestimate it.
I should like to talk for a moment about the difficult question of peace studies and nuclear disarmament. Young children should be protected from having to consider the terrible issues occasioned by the existence of nuclear weapons. When the young reach an age at which they begin to ask questions, that is the age at which those issues must be discussed and teachers have to provide answers. What the teachers say will depend on what they think, and they are unlikely to be able to be objective.
As an ex-teacher, I take the view (which is the traditional professional practice) that if an opinion is expressed on one side, a corresponding one should be expressed on the other side so far as that is possible. If one speaker takes one view on, say, the question of nuclear disarmament and advocates non-nuclear defence, another should explain the policy of NATO. I take that stand because that is the traditional view in the teaching profession. What we are all afraid of is extremist views of the Right or the Left; and the racist and anti-racist issue is a terrible one at the moment.
The idea of balance is the traditional approach, as I say. That is why I have put forward my amendments, Nos. 61 and 62, for your Lordships' consideration.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I find this subject rather harder than the usual issues that arise in the House. Like the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, I was
200
educated at Eton, though I am afraid that I have not risen as high as Provost. When I look round this House, I see many old Etonians, some of them no doubt more recently taught than me.
I do not know whether this issue will interfere with the kind of Etonian culture that was administered to me when I was a boy, or to the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and others of later generations. Certainly there was a strong Conservative ethos and some of the best masters were known to be very active Conservatives. That was the case in my time, and I should be surprised if it were not the case now, though I must say that I have been asked to speak to the political society there as, I believe, was Mr. Ken Livingstone. There is no doubt that the school is broad-minded according to its lights. The great public schools of this country are strong Conservative strongholds. There is nothing against that. One has only to look at their products to see that they do their work extremely well. I do not know where this proposal would land us. Would it interfere with the type of culture that was administered in the old days and which I should think is administered now?
The trouble is that when people think about British traditions they sometimes have rather different ideas. I was sent a document a day or two ago in relation to a later amendment. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that I shall support one of her later amendments. The document comes from the Conservative Family Campaign. For some reason it thought that I would be sympathetic to its ideas. It has not kept pace with my development over the past half century. I think that the document would be considered suitable for schools. It states:
"Socialism enshrines a belief in the state as provider of all things and arbiter of all issues. It is no coincidence that we find the Left so active in all movements which subvert the authority of parents, the responsible behaviour of young people and the natural order of society".
The document is full of ringing declarations. It seems to have some sort of official blessing. It includes this sentence:
"For Conservatives the family also has a profound economic dimension as the essential component of a free market economy".
We had a reference to the free market, which I did not follow, from the noble Lord, Lord Charteris. As I was saying, the document states:
"For Conservatives the family also has a profound economic dimension as the essential component of a free market economy because the savings of families"—
this is in heavy type—
"are the capital of capitalism".
I take it that that is the kind of medicine that is to be administered as being more or less in accordance with British traditions.
We all have different ideas of traditions. People who have Conservative traditions, in which I was brought up, feel that their traditions are what are called nonpartisan or neutral. Anybody who disagrees strongly with them is partisan or non-neutral. I need not go on because the point is obvious.
That should be borne in mind when we hear from Conservatives eloquent denounciations of the subversion that is alleged to be going on. I feel safer in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I do not know what he will say on this issue or on the ones that

201
will follow, but for the moment I am ready to agree with him.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in following the noble Earl, Lord Longford, perhaps I may say on behalf of my noble friends that there are a substantial number of non-Conservative Members of the House who regard this matter as extremely serious, who regard what is happening in a number of schools, particularly in inner London, as alarming, and consider that it is time that Parliament began to take the matter seriously.
I want to give two illustrations of the type of problem which we are facing. I say that in the context of this debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and a following amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee. I illustrated part of the problem in Committee when I referred to a publication called Auschwitz, published by the Inner London Education Authority. I think that this is a perfect illustration of the remarkably passive approach by the Department of Education and Science. That publication related the deaths of 5 million, 6 million, or 7 million Jews to the contents of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the dispute over GCHQ. I regard that comparison as nearly obscene.
I am concerned about the extraordinary attitude of the Department of Education and Science, after the matter had been ventilated first by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and subsequently in the debate on this Bill. I wrote to the Secretary of State. I reveived a reply from him after two months. He told me that he had asked the Inner London Education Authority for its comments. I then put a Question down to the Government and received an Answer from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, saying that the ILEA had not so far bothered to reply to that, presumably, serious communication. That small example of what is happening at public expense in London is an indication of the problems that we are now discussing; it is just one example.
A few moments ago we had a speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He talked about the justiciability of the amendments that we are debating. As a non-lawyer but as one who has had some small dealings with some of these issues, I agree with the point that he made about the first amendment—the forbidding of political activities in primary schools. It seems to me clear that if there were gross impropriety it is the type of issue that could be taken to court.
We are talking about activities of gross impropriety. Let me define what I mean by "gross impropriety" by quoting from the Islington Gazette of 9th May in relation to the conduct of members of the National Union of Teachers at Drayton Park Primary School in Islington. I say at once that I am grateful to the Government for the amendments that they have tabled in response to the amendment that I tabled with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in respect of problems which had arisen between many schools and the police, in particular, in London. We shall obviously discuss those amendments in a few moments. I shall illustrate what is happening in one school in inner London by quoting from that news report of only two weeks ago:
202
"Teachers at an Islington primary school have voted to prevent the police from giving talks to children. The decision by militant members of the National Union of Teachers at Drayton Park Primary School, who accused the police of 'racism', has upset some parents. One father said: 'The teachers have no right to ban the police from schools. Our schools should be open to everyone. That's what education is about. By this ban they are encouraging children to grow up with a negative view of the police'.".
That, of course, is the purpose of the entire operation of those militant teachers. The report continues:
"A spokesman for the NUT said: 'In the present climate teachers are not willing to allow police officers into the classroom. There are a number of reasons for this, including the police attack on the Holloway teenagers, racist attacks, attacks on pickets"'
of course—
"and the way in which the police are charging into people's homes. We want the police to do what they are paid to do—helping old ladies across the road and protecting people from criminals'"
That is an indication of what is happening at one school in inner London. As we know from the previous debate, there are over 20 other schools where that type of behaviour is occurring because the Inner London Teachers' Association is under the influence of the hard, undemocratic Left. It has the deliberate intention of ensuring that it uses the muscle and power that it has to distort the teaching in the schools where it has influence. I welcome very much the fact that we are having this important debate so that Parliament can, for the first time, insist that this sort of impropriety is brought to an end as speedily as possible.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I wish genuinely and warmly to congratulate my noble friend Lady Cox on a remarkable and highly effective campaign that she has waged on this subject of indoctrination. I can perhaps say, and I think that I should, that the department for which I speak was slow to react. The noble Baroness certainly convinced me personally of the dangers. She has also, I believe, convinced the Government as a whole. This is largely due to the energetic and remarkable manner in which she has carried out the campaign.
The House has now had a series of debates about the need to outlaw political bias and indoctrination from the teaching and other activities of maintained schools. The debates began with that instigated by my noble friend Lady Cox on 5th February. They were continued at both Second Reading and Committee stage of this Bill. It is a subject on which a great many of your Lordships—not just on this side of the House, I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who was in fact contradicted by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—have expressed deep concern. I want to make absolutely clear that the Government share that concern and the abhorrence felt by so many of your Lordships at political bias in the school classroom. We agreed at Committee stage that we would look again to see whether something should be done through legislation. The amendment to which I shall shortly be speaking represents our conclusions.
Before that, I want to make a general but I think vitally important point that our earlier discussions have perhaps obscured. The disagreements that have been voiced are not about the problem but about its solution. This is not some competition about who can show the strongest feeling against indoctrination in the

203
schools or who can wax the most eloquent on the need to eradicate it. The competition, if there is one, is about who has a legislative answer, not a theoretical answer, that is most likely to prevent indoctrination without doing damage to other things that are important and valuable. If we enacted legislation which did that kind of damage, we would surely have given another victory to those who wish to indoctrinate our children.
We would be cheating ourselves if we believe that there is a ready legislative formula that will achieve the common objective. The Government continue to doubt whether any formula can wholly achieve it. We believe, however, that we now have a formula that goes as far towards achieving it as any formulae that noble Lords have proposed, that is not technically defective and that does not do unintended damage in other respects.
Before moving on to our own amendment, I can perhaps say a few words about the various amendments that we are also addressing. I start with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Cox, Amendment No. 50. There is a problem of definition here. How are "partisan political activties" to be defined? What criteria can be used in deciding whether particular activities are partisan? These are questions which those on whom the duty is placed, the Secretary of State, to whom complaints will be made, and ultimately the courts will have to decide. The words represent, in our view, a recipe for confusion. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, mentioned, I believe, gross impropriety. Those words are not in the Bill. They are not in this amendment. There is a very serious risk of excluding any form of political education from primary schools.
Given the difficulty that head teachers and their staff will have in defining what is and what is not covered by the amendment, some primary schools may simply drop any activity or teaching associated with politics. As my noble friend Lady Cox said, it might well happen that Members of Parliament, Members of this House and even local councillors would not be able to go into their local primary schools. My noble friend was perfectly honest and admitted that this was the price that we might have to pay.
I would point out that this is honestly too high a price to pay. I enjoy, as I am sure do other noble Lords, coming here in the morning. Sometimes, going through the Lobbies or through the Chamber, we see parties of primary schoolchildren being shown round the House. Your Lordships may feel, as I do sometimes when I am trying to get to the loo, that they are a damned nuisance, these little perishers whom I trip over. On the other hand, when you see their cheerful little faces looking up and listening, often to their local Member of Parliament who is taking them round, you then think that all this might have to stop if what is proposed were agreed—
Noble Lords: No.
The Earl of Swinton: Oh yes, my Lords. Noble Lords may say "No, we do not like that", but it has indeed to be considered. This could well be interpreted as a clandestine means of persuading the children of
204
the virtues of our own political parties. If any form of political education was dropped from the curriculum of primary schools, it would present a serious loss to the education of the pupils. The responsible treatment of political issues in a way suited to the maturity and judgment of the pupils is part of the right of those pupils if they are to be helped to understand the world in which they live. Primary children are not fools. Nor are they incapable of thinking of how the country is governed and the problems of the world in which they live.
One job of the primary school is to help them to do so in a responsible and sensible way. Political issues arise naturally in the classrooms of primary schools as in secondary schools. Children of that age watch the news on television and see parts of the newspapers. They also hear their parents and older brothers and sisters talking. What they heard about the Chernobyl disaster, for instance, could easily have prompted questions next day about the use and dangers of nuclear power. Sports Aid, just like Bob Geldof's Live Aid, leads them to ask about the needs of the third world and the extent to which they are being met by the wealthier nations. The fertile minds of the young will lead them to ask these and many other questions as they try to make sense of the world in which they live.
What happens when questions like these arise in the primary classroom? Is the teacher to say, "I am sorry; I am not allowed to discuss them"? Surely not! The question should be dealt with in a way that suits the children's age, maturity and judgment. Not should we underestimate primary children's ability to reach their own balanced understanding of political issues.
There are also three problems of coverage in my noble friend's amendment. First, I have to say that I cannot understand why she seeks to outlaw the pursuit of partisan political activities in primary schools, which must include what is taught in those schools, but only, so far as secondary schools are concerned, the promotion of partisan political views in what is taught in the schools. I would certainly want to outlaw many forms of partisan political activities from secondary as well as primary schools. We are back with the problem of definition.
There is a second problem of coverage because my noble friend's amendment conflicts with the control of the secular curriculum of voluntary aided and special agreement schools which Clause 18 gives to the governors of those schools, not to the LEA and the head teacher. Does she mean that there should be an exception to the governors' control of the content of the curriculum which enables the LEA to forbid partisan political teaching in the school? I find it hard to believe that this was her intention. Yet, if that is not to be the case, the governors themselves should surely be required to forbid partisan political activities so that voluntary aided and special agreement schools are on all fours with county and voluntary controlled primary schools.
The third problem of coverage arises because my noble friend's amendment refers to "their primary schools". Does she mean that in an 8–12 middle school, which by law is deemed to be a primary school, partisan political activities should be forbidden for 11 and 12 year-olds whereas that prohibition should not

205
apply from as young an age as 9 in a 9–13 middle school which is deemed to be a secondary school? My noble friend Lord Renton may be interested in this. What are not covered by the amendment are all-age maintained special schools. Those are not classified as primary schools and presumably my noble friend Lord Renton, of all people, would join with me in saying that these children least of all should be indoctrinated.
I wish now to turn to Amendment No. 51 in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton. I am bound to say that I do not believe that the amendment would satisfactorily achieve the objective. It has the same problems and defects of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Cox. There is the same problem of definition and a similar danger of unsatisfactorily inhibiting the amount of political education offered to pupils. There is the same problem of voluntary aided and special agreement schools where I would not have supposed that my noble friend would want to restrict the governors' control of the content of the secular curriculum in the way that the amendment implies.
But the amendments that frighten me most are the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, Amendments Nos. 61 and 62. There is again the problem of definition. There is a technical problem because a duty is not imposed on the head teachers of voluntary aided and special agreement schools. However, I think that this is a most important point. There is the real risk that the wording which the noble Lord proposes would give opportunities for the small minority of teachers who want to indoctrinate children and promote partisan views. Since even commonly held political views—such as respect for the law and the value of parliamentary democracy—are political issues for the minority who do not share them, the amendment would enable that minority to claim the right to have their own views stated whenever those values were discussed.
I think that it could well become a Marxist or Militants charter. I am quite sure that neither the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, nor his noble friends, nor indeed my noble friends behind me, would wish to see that.
If I may now turn to our new clause, it is couched in terms which reflect the way in which political issues crop up in schools. They occur much more frequently and in quite a natural way in the course of other lessons—in history or geography, in English or in RE, for example. Children ask questions covering political matters in a great variety of contexts, and a good teacher answers their questions responsibly—to use the language of the new clause.
The Government's amendment will require the LEA, the governors and the head teacher, all of whom will have their responsibilities for the curriculum defined by Clauses 16 to 18 of the Bill, to take such steps as are reasonably practical to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils in primary, secondary and special schools, those issues are dealt with in a responsible manner. This duty will apply not only to what the school teaches in its classrooms, but also to all the extra-curricular activities which are provided organised by or on behalf of the school, in or outside the school premises.
I believe that this amendment goes as far as it is possible to go in meeting the substance of what is
206
sought by the noble Lords who tabled amendments at Committee stage, and who tabled similar amendments for today. Moreover, it has the advantage of laying a positive duty on LEAs, governors and head teachers, rather than the negative one of simply requiring them to forbid certain kinds of teaching and school activity. Many of your Lordships were attracted by this positive route when we debated the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, at Committee stage.
I judge that there are four other grounds on which to commend the Government's amendment to your Lordships and to ask for your support. First, it provides the best solution to the important and considerable problems of definition to which the Government have referred in earlier debates. How is a partisan political activity to be recognised? What does it mean to promote partisan political views? What are to be the criteria for determining whether presentation of political views is impartial and objective?
We can all use phrases and words such as these fairly easily in debate. But, while we all know broadly what meaning we would ourselves attach to them, I suspect that this would not always be the same meaning. I suspect too that many of our definitions would differ in some degree and that we would not all agree about whether they applied to particular activities.
The Government amendment goes as far as possible to avoid the risk by requiring that political issues are dealt with in a responsible manner. In deciding whether a particular matter has been dealt with in such a way, the courts could consider expert evidence as to whether what was done was consistent with how, the teaching profession or LEAs viewed their responsibilities. In other words, it would be the courts and not the Left-wing teachers—as was pointed out—who would be helped to decide whether a political issue was partisan, or whether it had been presented impartially, and who could look at and base their decision on acknowledged good and common practice. We judge that the phrase "in a responsible manner" will be interpreted as far as teachers are concerned as meaning "in a professionally responsible manner". This has two substantial advantages. It means that the duty placed on the head teacher requires him to take all reasonable steps to secure that the representations of political issues by nonteachers—for example, outside speakers—are set in a context which constitutes a professionally responsible presentation. Also the Government amendment covers every aspect of school life where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils. It includes not only what is taught in the classroom, but also such matters as displays of posters around the school and all forms of extra-curricular activities.
My noble friend Lady Cox has sought to require LEAs to forbid the pursuit of partisan political activities as part of the life of their primary schools. One of the problems of definition to which I referred earlier was what was meant by, and how the courts would construe, "partisan political activities". The Government amendment will achieve a similar end with less of a problem of definition, because the pursuit of partisan political activities hardly goes hand in hand with professional responsibility. However, it goes further than my noble friend would have us

207
go—as I believe it must—by applying the same principle to secondary schools.
We accept therefore that legislation is needed. The new clause hits the target so that if evidence of indoctrination is forthcoming the Secretary of State or the courts have the best possible prospect of putting matters right without giving to the enemies of our society the uncovenanted benefit of damaging our judicial system or offering the kind of access to the minds and hearts of our children which a responsible school system should deny them.
I should just comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said on the matter of whether this was defined, and whether it was not justiciable. Amendment No. 50 requires every local education authority, governing body and head teacher to,
"forbid the pursuit of partisan political activities".
But what does that mean? What, for example, happens if those pursuing the activities take no notice—and these are just the kind of people who, if it does not suit them, will not take notice. Is there any further duty to take steps to stop those activities from taking place?
Amendment No. 51 is drafted in similarly unclear terms. It strikes me that these amendments are little more than declaratory in the sense that they could not be enforced through the courts. The Government's amendment, on the other hand, imposes a duty in clear terms on each of the education partners to,
"take such steps as are reasonably practicable"
to secure responsible treatment of political issues in their schools. There can be no doubt that such a duty would be enforceable through the courts and it is in the Government's view a lot more effective than either Amendments Nos. 50 or 51.
I would not take issue with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, on a point of law. But I am told, on legal advice, that on the question whether Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 could be enforced by the application of criminal sanctions, the simple answer is that there is a criminal sanction available to enforce a statutory duty which would be imposed by either of those amendments. It would be equally available to enforce a duty which would be imposed by the Government's new clause.
Lord Denning: My Lords, may I intervene? I was not suggesting any criminal sanctions. I said that it could be enforced in our courts by the civil sanction of an order of mandamus.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I said that I was probably foolish to try to argue with the noble and learned Lord, but we live and learn.
Even so, in all the circumstances I hope that I have convinced your Lordships' House that the Government amendment is the right way to proceed. I am extremely worried by Amendment No. 50. My noble friends behind me gave a great groan of protest when I said that, but if one reads the amendment it applies to both inside and outside primary schools. It would stop parties of school children coming around these Houses among other pretty appalling things. I
208
am very worried about the fact that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, might well give a charter to Marxism and allow people to come in and put the contrary point of view.
In all the circumstances I hope that my noble friend will give our amendment at least a chance and I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Renton: I rise only to say that in spite of the efforts of my noble friend, I am unable to accept this argument. I shall in due course move Amendment No. 51.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these matters have been debated in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions in the last six months with a very considerable and clearly genuine passion.
On each occasion we have felt it necessary,—indeed have wished—to say very clearly from these Benches that we are totally opposed to indoctrination of the Left or the Right—as the noble Lord, Lord Charteris quite rightly said.
The question which faces the House now is, what can we do about it? I have listened with great care to the speech of the noble Earl. I am bound to say to him that there is one respect in which I support the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, rather than him. That is in relation to Amendment No. 62. which is in her name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Ritchie and Lord Annan.
I think that the arguments for Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 can be dismissed fairly rapidly. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has gone into them at some length. From our point of view the fundamental point is that they are negative; they seek to forbid rather than to encourage and permit the good. To seek to forbid the bad in matters of this sort, in matters of opinion, is always a dangerous side towards another form of authoritarianism which we might find as objectionable as the form of authoritarianism which we seek to avoid. Therefore, we on these Benches would certainly oppose Amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
Amendment No. 62 is another matter. It has been amended since the Committee stage. It refers to "a balanced presentation of opposing views". I believe that that phrase is central to our democratic thinking: there is no possibility of discussing political matters in our schools or anywhere else without the expression of opposing views. The noble Earl referred to issues such as nuclear energy. They may not be partisan in themselves, but parties take up positions on matters of nuclear energy and on many other matters, and it is the views which political parties take which very largely contribute to the debate, and therefore debate in that sense becomes partisan.
However, a balanced presentation of opposing views seems to us to represent the reality of the way in which all of us who are in our way partisan about different issues, and who have opposing views about different issues, will be able to contribute to the growth of political ideas among our young people. To that extent I think that the argument which the noble Earl advanced against Amendment No. 62 needs further elucidation if we are to be persuaded that Amendment No. 62 is wrong.

209
The important point about balance is that it is recognised that there is a particular disease of hard Left indoctrination. However, my noble friend Lord Longford made it clear that over the years there has been political indoctrination of the Right as well as of the Left, and he gave a very concrete example. Perhaps I may refer to the current activities of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has expressed the view that there should be better economic understanding in our schools, and in consultation documents has encouraged local education authorities and others to pursue economic understanding in our schools, including such matters as the market mechanism. Some of us may think that the market mechanism is itself an expression of political issues where there might be differences of opinion, but in different parties, about the relevance of the market mechanism under some circumstances.
To that extent the effect of Amendment No. 62 would be to secure that when the Secretary of State's objective of economic awareness on these matters is secured, there shall be an expression of the views of Socialist economists as well. That seems to us to be a very worthwhile objective for the study, and we are delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, support that idea.
It is far too late to go into more detail about this. In summary, we would not support Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. If pressed to a vote, we would support Amendment No. 62. Failing that, we would support the Government amendment, No. 86.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I realise that Members of your Lordships' House want to bring this discussion to a close and probably, I hope, to a vote. I simply want to say that I have listened carefully to what the noble Earl said. He had a very hard task in putting forward highly technical doubts which are expressed by the department, with all the experience of the Department of Education and Science. However, I sometimes think that the experience of the department is partially formed by a desire to guard the Secretary of State against embarrassment and also to ensure that relations with the local authorities are as cosy as the department always hopes them to be. I find some of that thinking in what the noble Earl said.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, was right when she said that political issues should not play a very large part in primary school education. We want the three Rs taught in our primary schools. However, always accepting that there are bound to be occasions when political questions must raise themselves in our primary schools, I should like to draw the noble Earl's attention to that one word which is crucial in this amendment: "partisan". It is no more difficult to define "partisan" in the courts than it is to define "responsible" in the courts. If I understood the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, correctly, he thought that it was probably much easier to define "partisan" than to define "responsible".
Lord Denning: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right.
Lord Annan: My Lords, in that case, greatly reassured by the noble and learned Lord's response, I
210
hope that we shall move this amendment. Therefore I shall not take any further time except to say that I would vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, for two reasons. First, this is now a matter which goes across parties, and I hope that the support of the Alliance Parties can be assumed from that amendment. The second reason for voting for that amendment is that again it puts this balanced presentation as an ideal, which I hope your Lordships' House will accept, and which again does not conic into question when we consider, as anyone who was taught knows, how to make a balanced presentation.
It is very easy to speak from these Benches in the sense that we have no Whip; we have no difficulties of party allegiance. However, I have spoken and put my name to these amendments because I have been assured that there are others on the Cross-Benches who feel, as I do, that this is a matter of principle which ought to be decided this evening.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of these amendments. I know that other noble Lords would have voiced their support but have foreborn to do so because of pressures of time. I must also thank my noble friend the Minister for his kind opening remarks to me personally, but I regret that I have not found his arguments or his criticisms convincing. Nor do I find the Government's alternative amendment convincing. Therefore, I must ask that I may test the opinion of the House.
7.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 117; Not-Contents, 87.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Digby, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Donegall, M.

Annan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Dulverton, L.

Astor, V.

Dundee, E.

Attlee, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bauer, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Beloff, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blake, L.

Gainford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Gisborough, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Glanusk, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Grantchester, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gray, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Chelwood, L.

Gridley, L.

Chorley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Combermere, V.

Harris of High Cross, L

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harvington, L.

Cox, B. [Teller.]

Hastings, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hayter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Croft, L.

Hives, L.

Cromartie, E.

Hood, V.

Cross, V.

Hunter of Newington, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Denning, L.

Ingleby, V.

211

Inglewood, L.

Raglan, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Reigate, L.

Kitchener, E.

Renton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ridley, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rochdale, V.

Loch, L.

Rodney, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

St. Davids, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Salisbury, M.

Malmesbury, E.

Sandford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Shannon, E.

Marley, L.

Sherfield, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Soames, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Stedman, B.

Mersey, V. [Teller.]

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Middleton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monson, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Thurlow, L.

Moyne, L.

Tranmire, L.

Munster, E.

Tryon, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Onslow, E.

Vickers, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vinson, L.

Pender, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Wellington, D.

Winterbottom, L.

Porritt, L.

Wynford, L.

Portland, D.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ardwick, L.

McFadzean, L.

Arran, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Belstead, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Margadale, L.

Blease, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mishcon, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mulley, L.

Caithness, E.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Parry, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Radnor, E.

Davidson, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Denington, B.

Rochester, L.

Elton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Galpern, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strauss, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Swinton, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gregson, L.

Teynham, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Haig, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Holderness, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kagan, L.

Willis, L.

Kimball, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winstanley, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Young, B.

Longford, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 20, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of every local education authority, governing body and head teacher to forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in any of their schools.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, this might be a convenient time to have a little sustenance. Most of mine will be liquid. I suggest that we return to this Bill at 9 o'clock. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Horticultural Produce Bill
7.57 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In presenting this Bill, which has been skilfully piloted through another place with no changes by my honourable friend Sir John Wells, I am faced with a dilemma. I can either spell out the exact meaning of every clause, which would take thirty minutes of your Lordships' time, to the fury of your Lordships and indeed the Whips, or, alternatively, as I hope that your Lordships will agree, it may be better for me to explain the Bill in my customary seven minutes, and if I cut a few corners no doubt your Lordships will cross-examine me and I shall attempt to fill any gaps when summing up.
The purpose of this Bill is contained in Clause 1, which gives authorised officers the power to control the movement of horticultural produce which has been found, on inspection, not to comply with the European Community grading rules. These rules are contained in EC Regulation 10/35 of 1972. Your Lordships may say—indeed I did—that surely horticultural produce was inspected and controlled prior to this Bill. The answer is, yes, under Part III of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964, but the powers given in that Act do not give inspectors the right to control the movement of substandard produce, and have, regrettably, in the past allowed this substandard produce to disappear and then reappear, if I may put it in that way, on the market to the detriment of the trade and of course of the housewife, who will, quite correctly, complain that she is being sold rubbish.
That is the substance of this Bill. In order for it to be effective, Clause 1 gives powers to the inspectors, particularly in subsection (1), to prohibit the movement of produce not up to EC grade. The remaining subsections in Clause 1 describe how, and to whom, the order, or indeed notice, shall be given.
Clause 2 sets out the ways in which the prohibition on movement of substandard produce can be lifted. For instance, the inspector must allow produce to be moved if he is satisfied that no grading offence would be committed. The produce might be taken away and regraded, or indeed it might be reprocessed. For, as your Lordships obviously appreciate, for it to be regraded it is often necessary to move produce away

213
from where it is inspected. However, the inspector must be satisfied that such permission to move substandard produce does not result once again in disappearances. The clause allows the inspector discretion to refuse movement if he is not satisfied. Perhaps I should say that Her Majesty's inspectors, small in number though they are, do an excellent job and are much respected for the way they carry out their work, often in the early hours of the morning.
Clause 3 allows the Minister to change by statutory instrument provisions in Clause 2 in the light of operational experience. But before so doing, under subsection (2) consultation must take place with the interested parties. Clause 4 deals with the offences and the fines for breaking the law; and Clause 5 extends the Bill to certain provisions of the 1964 Act relating to the obstruction of officers carrying out their jobs, and to the fines for obstructing them. Clauses 6 and 7, if I may say so, are technical.
I repeat that this Bill is in the best interests of the trade and producers who wish to ensure the marketing of high standards of produce, and, perhaps of more importance, is for the protection of the housewife (I hope I do not have to call her "the houseperson") who has a right to demand such high standards. I commend this Bill to your Lordships for approval, and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I think we must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, on the brief and very efficient way he has put this Bill forward. I am sure many of your Lordships would like to see it done more often in such a brief and concise way. There is no question about it: this short Bill is a very good one in that it keeps up the standard of graded produce and sees that any bad grades are not used, as the noble Lord said, out of the back door, where they may be not regulated, where nothing is done, and they try to go through the market again.
There has been a little criticism that it may restrict somebody who is producing or wanting to sell low grade stuff and that there may be a market for it. But when one looks at the situation, there are three grades of produce, I think. I forget the number of articles there are, but I think it is about 38. So it seems to me that there is fairly wide scope to market any quality under that system of three different grades.
I do not wish to say any more except that we give the Bill our blessing. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, the inspectors have a difficult job, and they were badly restricted in carrying out that job by the old system where they simply had no powers to hold the stuff while something was done about it if it was not up to standard. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, these inspectors do a very good job of work, but there are complaints that there are not enough of them. With those remarks we give this small and necessary Bill our blessing.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I also am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for presenting this Bill to the House. It is a small but very
214
worthwhile measure; it has received all-party support in another place; and I very much hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading here this evening.
The Government fully support the aims of the Bill, which will make the job of the marketing inspectors (to whom my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, both paid well deserved tributes) all the more effective, for as my noble friend has explained the Bill will make the enforcement of the European Community quality standards for fruit and vegetables more effective; for as my noble friend has explained the Bill will make the enforcement of the European our accession to the Community, are generally agreed to have made an important contribution over the years to improving both the quality and the presentation of British produce.
These improvements are vital if our industry is to thrive in today's marketplace, because we do not have the climatic advantages of many of our competitors and so we must use what measures we have to maintain our competitiveness. The resourcefulness and innovation of our growers is second to none, and I believe the great majority are committed to improving our marketing standards; but their efforts can sometimes be undermined by the action of a relatively few growers and traders who are prepared to evade their responsibilities under the existing law.
In practical terms, the Bill will give the horticultural marketing inspectors and equivalent officers in Scotland the power to put a "Stop" notice on detective produce to prevent it being moved. The "Stop" notices proposed in this Bill would simply enable inspectors to ensure that the defects in the produce were remedied before it was put on sale.
I would only add that those who will be most affected by these proposed powers—the horticultural growers and traders—have recognised the need for such legislation and in consultation have not objected to it. They understand that the Bill would prevent defective produce from being moved around in order to avoid being caught, and they recognise that this will be in the interests of the reputable majority who have to observe the standards. It will also be in the interests of all of us who are consumers of fruit and vegetables.
So, on behalf of the Government, I believe that this Bill gives an opportunity to remove an obstacle to the proper enforcement of the quality standards for fruit and vegetables, and to help prevent offences being committed. I am most grateful to my noble friend for moving it; and I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, back in the House taking part in a debate on a horticultural Bill. My Lords, I support the Second Reading.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for his kind words. I can assure him that Clause 2 meets the point he made, that if there is substandard material about and there is a home for it, possibly through processing by factories or regrading and coming back on the market regraded, these matters are within the power of the inspector under Clause 2.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for bringing to my attention the fact that this Bill went through another place with all-party support. This

215
gives me personally great pleasure, because so often in agriculture it is not a party matter but is always for the best of the industry. I was particularly glad to hear my noble friend mention the resourcefulness and high standard of our growers. I can assure him that they intend to compete with foreign goods, and that they will be successful.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.8 until 9 p.m.]

Education Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Pitt Lord Pitt moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 21, line 4, at end insert—
(" (4) The statement referred to in subsection (1) above should include a declaration of a commitment to the principles of "Education for All", to the development of a pluralist approach to the curriculum and to countering the influence of racism.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. I hope that your Lordships will note that the wording of the amendment is identical with the wording in the Swann Report, because what I am asking the House to do is to insert into this Bill the request that has been made by the Swann Committee that there be a commitment on behalf of local authorities to do the things mentioned in the amendment. It is important that the House should respect the recommendations of the Swann Committee. The Swann Committee sat for over two years and wrote a very long and comprehensive report dealing in great detail with the problems that they saw.
The Swann Committee recognised that society had a dual problem, and it is important to recognise that there is a dual problem: first, eradicating the discriminatory attitudes of the white majority, on the one hand, and, on the other, evolving an education system which ensures that all pupils achieve their full potential. It recognised further that, while the responsibility for the first lies in the short term with the law, the Government, housing authorities, employers, unions, the Commission for Racial Equality and many others, in the long run it is a matter for the schools to bring about the much needed change in attitudes among coming generations. This is crucial.
As for the second problem—that is, evolving an education system which ensures that all pupils achieve their full potential—this is specifically a job for the education system. The report said further that while a start has been made in recent years, there is still a long way to go before schools bring out the full potential of all their pupils, particularly their ethnic minority pupils. That is a fact.
I believe that, in order to do that, certain things need to be done. It requires the development of a meaningful
216
education curriculum which involves and relates to the ethnic minority child and tackles the issue of racism in curriculum practice and curriculum material—that is, in the books you read, the pictures you see and the things that are presented to you. The curriculum resources which give due recognition to ethnic and racial differences should be positively reinforced in all aspects of educational activities. It is of no use pretending that there are no differences. What you have to accept to make this positive is that activities should promote the development of positive images of all the children in the classroom so that children can have their own self image positively reinforced by the recognition of others within their group.
All these things are necessary; and, in addition to that, you need the largest possible number of teachers from ethnic minority groups in order to provide the children from ethnic minority groups with authority figures with whom they can identify. They need that. But teachers from ethnic minority groups should not be confined to schools with a high percentage of ethnic minority pupils. They should also be in the so-called all-white schools and, àpropos of that, I have decided to read to your Lordships, if I may, the section in the report dealing with curriculum content as it relates to the all-white schools. I will read it in its entirety so that your Lordships who may or may not have read it will get the point. The report says:
"Almost without exception the schools visited saw the concept of multicultural education as remote and irrelevant to their own needs and responsibilities, taking the view that such an approach was needed only where there were substantial numbers of ethnic minority pupils. The concept of being part of a multiracial society appeared to have impinged little on the consciousness of the schools, which were in many respects inward looking and concerned primarily with immediate local issues.
Whilst there was a greater awareness of the multiracial dimension in the schools which were close to areas of ethnic minority settlement or where there were ethnic minority pupils, little consideration had been given to the need to amend their work to take account of cultural diversity. Indeed, such needs were often seen as being too controversial and too inflammatory to contemplate.
However, there were indications from several of the schools that teachers would welcome and respond to a positive lead with appropriate definition and guidance from the DES and LEAs about education for life in a multicultural society. It seemed that an emphasis on providing good education rather then concepts like multiracial or multicultural, which had little immediate reality in such areas, would be most likely to have an impact".
This is what the report said, and the Swann Committee decided they would deal with it and the other problem by what they call "the concept of education for all". They said further that this concept of education for all is,
"an attempt simultaneously to change attitudes amongst the White Majority and to develop a pattern of education that enables all pupils to give of their best."
They went on to make certain specific recommendations. They said,
"The essential steps on the argument for our concept of Education for All' are … The fundamental change that is necessary is the recognition that the problem facing the education system is not how to educate children of ethnic minorities, but how to educate all children;
that,
"Britain is a multi-racial and multi-cultural society and all pupils must be enabled to uderstand what this means;

217
that,
"This challenge cannot be left to the separate and independent initiatives of LEAs and schools: only those with experience of substantial numbers of ethnic minority pupils have attempted to tackle it, though the issue affects all schools and all pupils."
They went on further to say that education has to be something more than the reinforcement of the beliefs, values and entity which each child brings to the school. It is necessary to combat racism, to attack inherited myths and stereotypes and the ways in which they are embodied in institutional practices. Multi-cultural understanding has also to permeate all aspects of a school's work. It is not a separate topic that can be welded on to existing practices.
That is very important. Only in this way can schools begin to offer anything approaching the equality of opportunity for all pupils, which must be the aspiration of the education system which it provides. The committee went on—and this is where we come to my amendment—in A Strategy of Change:
"The response of schools, both 'multi-racial' and 'all white', to cultural diversity has to be seen as a central feature of the current debate on the balance and breadth of the school curriculum. The Secretary of State should focus on this issue when considering responses to DES Circular 8/83 and in any further statements that he may make and any agreements that he may seek about the curriculum".
They went on to say what I have got in my amendment: that all LEAs should declare their commitment to the principles of Education for All, to the development of a pluralist approach to the curriculum and to countering the influence of racism.
I take it that this statement which local education authorities are expected to produce under subsection (1) is an appropriate place for this declaration. That is why I move this amendment. I hope the Government will agree with me. I can see no reason at all why they would disagree, they having accepted the Swann Report. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for having called our attention to something which must be in the forefront of any government's consideration of the educational problem; namely, the importance of recognising that one of the clear dangers in our schools is the evidence, which is unfortunately growing, of degrees of racial prejudice which tend to make education more difficult for both those who are the victims of prejudice and those who express it. Nevertheless, I would find myself unable to support this amendment in the way it is phrased, because I find it very hard to see that the Swann Report tackles all the issues which are raised by this serious question.
There seem to me to be in it a certain number of intellectual flaws, of presuppositions, insufficiently examined. I find, for instance, even in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, a confusion between what is a physical and an objective fact which one can observe anywhere—namely, that this is, and will remain, a multi-racial society—and the much more obscure sense in which we must regard it as a multicultural society, because that has quite different connotations in many parts of the world.
If I may be personal—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will not mind me being personal,
218
because he knows that I am friendly towards his basic objective—when he as a practitioner of medicine receives patients in his surgery, the fact that he is, or may be, of a different race from most of them, or some of them, is self-evident. But I doubt whether in the practice of medicine he is in a different cultural world from any of his medical colleagues who may be of a different, white or other, race. In other words, in medicine we are part of a single culture. There is no multiculturalism in medicine, nor indeed in the natural sciences.
So it comes to the question of whether in our curriculum we make allowances, and if so what allowances, for differences in religion—and with this, of course, we have been concerned in this country for a long time; we have our solutions, perhaps imperfect to religious differences—for linguistic differences in people's own families, in their home backgrounds, and how we treat the problems that arise from this.
The fear I have is that if we accent too much the multicultural aspect, if we say it is important that everyone should recognise that Urdu or Sanskrit are as good as Russian or German, and that equal place should be allowed in the curriculum for the languages of the ethnic minorities, we may be satisfying our own moral sense of being even-handed and judicious, but we may be sacrificing the best interests of the children concerned.
It seems to me that if we think of these children growing up into an adult world, demanding and hoping for respect from their fellow citizens, what is most likely to give it to them is the capacity to manage and get along in a highly technical, highly advanced, society. Anything which diminishes their chances of this kind of promotion, through occupations or through the professions—for instance, by diminishing the importance attached to their learning the language of the majority, which is the language in which they will have to work—might be regarded as a handicap and I do not myself believe that the Swann Committee adequately faced that fact.
It can be argued either way. I can see people conscientiously arguing the way the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, did, but I think that this may be a short-sighted view, because we do not wish to develop what has been in other parts of the world a characteristic of multicultural societies; that is to say, what the anthropologists or political scientists call plural societies in which the various groups live to and for themselves. I have in mind much of South-East Asia, Malaysia and many countries where there are sufficient members of a single racial group for them to supply all that society's needs and where, in the words of the anthropologists, they neither inter-marry nor inter-dine with their fellow citizens. I would regard this on the whole as a development to be eschewed, because the political stability of plural societies has been weakened.
Therefore I think it is important certainly to recognise the existence of this problem, to consider the ways in which our education system can help towards eliminating prejudice—this may call for some attention to curriculum—but to remember that the children entrusted to the care of education authorities are children who above all others need the skills and the pathways to advancement which alone are capable

219
in the long run of giving them the kind of recognition in society which the skill in medicine of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has given to him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had expected it only to be necessary for me to stand up and support my noble friend with my small experience of living in perhaps one of the most multiracial boroughs in London, having had the pleasure of all my children being at primary and comprehensive schools in that borough where there were significant numbers of pupils from other countries and having felt in my own family and in the friends of my children the pleasure of the immense cultural and intellectual vitality which was given by the mixture of their friends and associates and my own friends and associates. I had thought that my personal testimony on that score would be the most that I could contribute to the support of my noble friend's amendment, which I clearly and openly support.
However, I find myself in a puzzling position in having to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—not that I in any way doubt his friendship to the cause that my noble friend espouses. I am puzzled that he should seek to erect this intellectual barrier to what is proposed in the Swann Report and what has been welcomed in, for example, the response of the Commission for Racial Equality to the Swann Report.
I did not think my noble friend was suggesting—nor do I think Swann was suggesting—that the basic disciplines of our curriculum should be taught in languages other than the English language. I do not think he was even suggesting that a major part of the curriculum should be devoted to the study of other languages; though when you come to it the wealth of literature available in Greek, for example, is at least equivalent to that available in other languages more commonly and traditionally studied in our schools. I should have thought that the interest of the pupils themselves, from wherever they come, whatever their national or racial background, would see to it that the noble Lord's objectives had no difficulty in achievement; that pupils from Greece, Ghana, Tobago or wherever it may be who want to go into medicine, the law or whatever discipline they choose will take adequate and effective steps to see that they are not disadvantaged by the curriculum they are taught.
There is no danger of our becoming a society of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, seems to fear where there is a real disadvantage to pupils under those circumstances. What can and should happen, and what I understood the Swann Report to be saying, is that we should rejoice in and take advantage of the addition to the cultural range available to our schools; that we should rejoice in the fact that we can open our eyes to other cultures and to the way in which people live in other countries, from the examples of those living in our midst who come from those other countries and other cultures. I cannot for the life of me understand why that side of it should cause concern in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, or any other noble Lord.
I may have misread the small part of the heavy Swann Report that I can claim to have studied. I may be misinterpreting that report altogether, though from
220
the speech of my noble friend I think not. Surely the requirement that my noble friend proposes—that there should be a commitment to the principles of that report made objectively by all education authorities, so that as time goes on that statement can be tested against reality, and so that the objective not so much referred to of combating racism in our schools can be achieved—follows from the conclusion of the report.
It falls naturally into the way in which our schools will wish to operate. It could cause no difficulty to the Government, and it happens to be framed in a way that, so far as I can see, gives rise to none of the procedural difficulties that there has been in preceding amendments. I should have thought, and I hope, that my noble friend's amendment will commend itself to the Government on that basis.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, having spoken several times in your Lordships' House about the ethnic minorities in Britain and about their problems, it gives me great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. There are pockets of racialism in this country. I am in touch with a number of people from the ethnic minorities, and one has to bear in mind how extraordinarily sensitive they are. A slight word that might not offend anyone in your Lordships' House may be interpreted as being a deep offence to them. We need something on the statute book to counter that situation.
On the other hand, I must say that in London, for example, ILEA has taken remarkable steps towards promoting integration. There are in our London schools no fewer than 161 different languages spoken. When I raised this matter in a debate that I initiated in your Lordships' House two-and-a-half years ago the figure was 146. It is now 161.
It is so encouraging to see schools with mixed nationalities. I see them because I do a voluntary job in Kensington, and I see schoolchildren streaming into the Natural History Museum and the Science Museum. There may be a group of 30 or 40 children comprised of perhaps 15 or 20 different nationalities. Much has been done, and I hope that the example of London will be imitated elsewhere. Nevertheless, and as I said initially, there are serious points of racialism and of racial discrimintion in this country, and I therefore support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand and sympathise with the feeling behind this amendment, and with those who have supported it. However, it is one of a number of amendments that seek to pursue essentially desirable results through what we see as inappropriate means. The Government's commitment to equal opportunities for all pupils regardless of ethnic background, gender or other factors is clear and unequivocal. However, I am sorry to have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that I doubt very much whether the wording of his amendment is sufficiently precise to be effective.
The arguments against central prescription on curriculum matters have already been rehearsed at some length in relation to other amendments. This Bill is intended to give a sound basis for the development

221
of thinking on the curriculum at a number of levels. Local authorities are obliged to make such policies, governors to establish curricular aims for the school, and head teachers to determine and organise the detailed curriculum and its delivery. We have deliberately not thought to constrain this process, and indeed at an earlier stage your Lordships rejected an amendment which would have obliged local authorities and others to act within central curriculum guidelines. We remain convinced that local policies based on wide consultation at a local level and subject, under the provisions of this Bill, to greatly increased accountability to the community served by the authority and by the individual school offer the best hope of developing the curriculum in the right way.
Of course we must ensure that children are prepared through their education for life in the ethnically diverse society which we find in Britain today. Schools need to consider how the content of the curriculum can best reflect ethnic diversity, how it can be presented without bias or prejudice and how the ethos in schools can promote understanding and respect for different ethnic groups and different cultures, as my noble friend Lord Beloff underlined in his very sincere and interesting contribution.
But legislation cannot guarantee the achievement of this end. It is essentially a matter of changing attitudes and perceptions and of winning hearts and minds. Substantial progress has been made in a number of ways since the publication of the Swann Committee's report Education For All on which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has based his amendment. The Government accepted the Committee's finding that many ethnic minority pupils were achieving below their potential. They are striving to improve the position through three broad lines of policy and I welcome the opportunity to iterate these.
First, we are determined to reduce underachievement wherever it occurs. Our policies for schools are designed to raise the performance of all pupils. As they take effect, ethnic minority pupils will share in the benefit and share in the contribution. Second, we are determined to give ethnic minority pupils the same opportunities as all others to profit from what the schools can offer them. Third, we want the schools to preserve and transmit our national values in a way which accepts Britain's ethnic diversity and promotes tolerance and racial harmony.
We have taken a number of measures in support of these three lines of policy. For example, the need to take account of the ethnic diversity of our society has been written into criteria for the new GCSE examinations and will be incorporated in the objectives for the relevant subject areas of the school curriculum which we are formulating in co-operation with the education service. The Secondary Examinations Council and the School Curriculum Development Committee have agreed to co-operate with each other on multi-ethnic matters. The SCDC has agreed to ensure that all its projects have due regard to ethnic diversity in schools. Furthermore, the role of teachers is vital in this as in all aspects of school life. New criteria for the approval of initial teacher training courses state that all students should be prepared through their studies to teach the full range of pupils that they are likely to encounter in schools with
222
their diversity of ability, behaviour, social background and ethnic and cultural origins. The aim is that students will learn how to respond flexibly to such diversity and to guard against any preconceptions based on the ethnic origin of pupils.
Training for teachers who are already in post is just as important. Local education authorities can make and are making a valuable contribution through their own in-service programmes and through the work of their advisory staff. Nationally, the Government's in-service teacher training grant scheme is to be extended from next September to include teaching in the curriculum in a multi-ethnic society. The new courses will be aimed at heads and senior teachers with curricular responsibilities in primary and secondary schools. We expect over 600 teachers to take part each year. The Government also fully share the noble Lord's concern that there should be more ethnic minority teachers. A consultation document was issued on the subject last summer and the Government will be considering how to proceed in the light of the comments on it.
As those and other measures take effect, so the noble Lord's objective in putting forward the amendment should be achieved. I hope that he will feel that all that amounts to a sufficiently positive lead to counteract a situation which we all deplore but a solution to which will take time and patience to achieve. I hope therefore that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches very much regret that the Government do not see their way to accept the amendment. As the noble I.ord, Lord McIntosh, said, it is extremely difficult to see what harm it could do and it cannot but he advantageous to have this on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness said that the Government have many extremely good ideas and recommendations as to what should be done. But over the past 20 years we have all been anxious to see improvements in race relations. It is difficult to believe that the position is getting better in our schools as a result of this. Something much more definite needs to be done.
Any of us who are at all aware of what is happening know that a great many members of ethnic minorities are failing to take advantage of the opportunities that there are at school. They feel alienated. A positive commitment in the Bill to deal with these matters, as is suggested, ought surely to be good. We greatly regret that the Government cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, although I understand very well the remarks of the noble Baroness, I wish to point out that many of the initiatives to which I referred are of fairly recent date and certainly stem from the Swann Committee report. We feel that it will need time and patience to achieve the desired results.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am very sad. Having been involved in community relations in this country for a long time, I am always saddended by the way that people say, "We have a problem. It will take time to solve. It requires careful action and a certain change of attitude", but the moment that one suggests anything that leads in that direction they say that there is a flaw in it and therefore it cannot be adopted.

223
Of course this one report is not perfect, but it gives us a programme to educate all the children of this country towards accepting that we live in a multiracial society. It is an attempt to break down barriers and thus allow the whole of society to advance together. Listening to the Minister one gained the impression that the Government did not recognise that there were two sides to the problem. There is the problem of dealing with the attitudes and prejudices of the majority of the community and at the same time helping the ethnic minorities to achieve as they should. A great deal is being attempted to tackle the second problem and everyone is ignoring the first, but the first is as important as the second. The virtue of this committee report is that it attempts to tackle both.
I shall tell the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, a story which I hope will illustrate my point. Before I started my practice in Euston I was an assistant in Chiswick to a Dr. Stout from Barbados. One day he came to the surgery and told me a story. He said that he had been visiting a patient in a block of flats and there were two kids playing in the courtyard. One said to the other, "There goes a black man", and the other one said, "Don't be a fool! That's no black man. That's the doctor". I hope that the noble Lord understands the point I am making. Of course the doctor was accepted. It was not a case of accepting black people. He was not a black man; he was the doctor.
We need to educate society into also accepting the bus driver, the bus conductor and the roadsweeper. It is no use saying that we want everyone to become a doctor, as if the education that ethnic minority children are receiving is in some ways flawed and will not enable them to obtain the qualifications to become doctors.
I shall read another paragraph of the Swann Report which will answer the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It says:
"We believe that essential to equality of opportunity to academic success and, more broadly, to participation on equal terms as a full member of society, is a good command of English and that first priority in language learning by all pupils must therefore be given to the learning of English."
I wish that the Government would give the matter the serious attention that it requires. The Government say, and it is perhaps their only valid argument, that they do not want central prescription. I say that the clause provides for a limited central prescription because the Government are asking local authorities to prepare a statement. All that the amendment suggests is that the statement should include a commitment. I admit that that is a limited central prescription. As the Government are demanding a statement from local authorities, I cannot see what is so wrong in asking them to include a point that the Government say they would like included. Therefore I cannot see that I have any choice other than to test the will of the House.
I hope that your Lordships, regardless of which side of the House you sit, will recognise that in voting for the amendment you are inviting local authorities to make a statement committing themselves to educate the children of this country so that we can all live in the type of society in which we should wish to live. I ask the House to indicate its opinion on this amendment.
9.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 52) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 73.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Mayhew, L.

Birk, B.

Mulley, L.

Blease, L.

Parry, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L. [Teller.]

Buckmaster, V.

Combermere, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Serota, B.

Falkland, V.

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Gregson, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hacking, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strauss, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kagan, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Underbill, L.

London, Bp.

White, B.

Longford, E.

Willis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mar, C.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Hooper, B.

Bathurst, E.

Inglewood, L.

Bauer, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Belstead, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moyne, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Pender, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cox, B.

Craigavon, V.

Porritt, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Radnor, E.

Croft, L.

Renton, L.

Cross, V.

Rodney, L.

Davidson, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Denning, L.

St. Davids, V.

Digby, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Donegall, M.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Eden of Winton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Elton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Fortescue, E.

Swinton, E.

Gainford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Tranmire, L.

Grantchester, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Haig, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Harvington, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hives, L.

Wynford, L.

Hood, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.50 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster moved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause:
("Sex education in schools.
Such sex education as is given in schools shall have due regard to moral considerations and the promotion of stable family life.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a difficult and delicate subject to raise but I submit to your Lordships that it is of immense importance. Not long ago your Lordships demonstrated by a substantial majority your determination to stifle harmful political influences in schools. I would submit that it is equally important—indeed, probably more important—to curb harmful moral influences.
The amendment which I have tabled is on the same lines as that which I tabled at the Committee stage. But I have removed from it everything which I felt might be in any way objectionable on the basis of the reply which I received from the noble Baroness the Minister. I think that your Lordships will agree, looking at this amendment, that there is nothing to which anyone can possibly object. I am emphasising the importance of the moral aspect in sex education. This is the fourth time that I have raised this subject and on two occasions I have been told by the Government Front Bench that their guidelines to schools are that sex education should be within a general moral framework. Indeed that instruction is embodied in the White Paper, Better Schools.
As for the promotion of a stable family life, what could be more important than that, with one marriage in three ending in divorce? I have heard that the promotion of stable family relations is to be one of the principal planks in the Conservative Party's electoral policy.
Why is this amendment necessary? It is necessary because, despite these admirable guidelines which the Government have issued, as I tried to indicate when moving my Amendment No. 49B, there is in the country a great deal of sex education which is amoral, if not downright immoral. I want to be quite clear here. It is not taking place in every education authority or in every school. But it is apparent in certain areas.
There are certain themes which appear to be running through much of this education, and particularly in London. These are that homosexual relations are just as acceptable as heterosexual relations; that there is nothing basically wrong with under-age sex provided one takes the appropriate precaution; and that incest can on occasions be regarded as a loving relationship.
At the Committee stage I quoted extensively from leaflets and booklets on the above lines, and from letters from parents complaining about this. I shall not weary your Lordships with all this again. But I must refer to one horrible pamphlet to which reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, when she was speaking on 7th May in the admirable debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. This pamphlet, which was reported in the Sun, had a full front page of two homosexual men naked in bed with the daughter of one of them between them. Can there be anything more repulsive than that? Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that this was in a booklet issued by an
226
authority in north London, a booklet designed for use by six- to eight-year-olds.
The point I want to make here is not that many parents and teachers complained, but that one of the officials responsible for this booklet said quite clearly, according to the report in the Sun, that he saw nothing harmful in it.
Parents are also objecting—and I think rightly—about the detailed studies of contraception and sexually-transmitted diseases which are incorporated in the latest biology syllabus for the GCSE exam. What possible justification can there be for including such subjects in a biology syllabus? I am sure that many children—and I have heard this from parents—find it deeply disturbing to have these delicate matters rammed down their throats with no moral guidance at all.
A point which I think is of great importance is: how widespread are these harmful influences? I have received a number of letters which have supported me, and when I was speaking on 7th May I made allegations about the general moral standards and so on in schools. A teacher who has been associated with London schools for all her teaching life said that I was in no way exaggerating and that in fact I had not presented the full picture. On the other hand, other letters have indicated that the picture I presented was rather out of focus.
It appears to me—and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will support me—that there are many harmful moral influences circulating in our London schools and perhaps in certain other cities. Manchester may be one and, possibly, Birmingham, but probably not Liverpool. However, I think that this problem is confined to the inner cities. In conversation with friends I was told that there is nothing like this in Wales; it appears that there is nothing like this in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where religious education is much more widespread and much more strictly enforced than it is in England. I think that there is a very important point here and I have heard it from various teachers and indeed pupils. It is that in the Church schools there are far fewer teenage problems—teenage abortions, teenage rapings, and so on.
The point I want to make before I conclude—and it is a vital point—is as follows. The noble Baroness the Minister told me, when I moved my Amendment No. 49B at the Committee stage, that the existing arrangements for countering these harmful sexual influences were adequate. I cannot accept that. Only today I received three letters from parents who were all most distraught because they had tried to impress on headteachers and governing bodies the fact that they considered this education harmful and they wished to withdraw their children from it. However, they received no response at all. Indeed, in one letter which I received a headmaster was described as being totally unsympathetic. In another letter a parent governor was described as being extremely hostile. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Baroness, the system of consultation between parents and governors, headteachers and so on, does not appear to be working. Therefore, I feel it extremely important that

227
there should be something on the statute book to enforce what this amendment lays down.
I can see nothing in any way difficult about this amendment. Not long ago the Prime Minister said that there are still dragons to slay, and indeed there are. Is it not possible that one of the most powerful dragons that we have to slay is the dragon that we have been considering in the last series of amendments and in this amendment, too? It is perhaps a two-headed dragon, with a political head and a moral head. Therefore, I would invite the noble Baroness the Minister who is to reply—I know that she is basically sympathetic to my view—to take up her silver sword and make the first cut at this dragon by approving my amendment. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Denning: May I say a word in favour of this amendment? There is nothing more important in our society today than those few words,
"the promotion of stable family life".
In our time the institution of marriage has lost its old supports. Divorce is readily obtainable on paper. It is no stigma at all for there to be a divorce nowadays. Illegitimacy is no longer a stigma. There is no reproach over any illegitimate child. Indeed, all the Victorian supports have gone altogether.
I was president of the National Marriage Guidance Council for many years. As a result of that experience I can see that it is no good attempting reconciliation once a marriage is broken down. The most important thing of all is education of the youngsters for marriage beforehand, so that they know what to look forward to in the future. That is why the proper education of our young people in sex matters, and in the social and moral considerations, should be done most carefully and well in all our schools. I should have thought it would be unnecessary to have a statute about it, but my noble friend Lord Buckmaster has just told us with illustration after illustration how in schools the most improper considerations are being given with no proper emphasis on moral considerations or stable family life.
It may be said—and I can see the argument—"You do not need this in a statute. We can give proper guidance to everybody like that". But if you put it in a statute, you have strong support. Supposing this were passed and you were brought before a court, and my noble friend Lord Buckmaster's illustrations were given, and it was said, "Look what this book is doing which is being produced to the youngsters". I am sure that the court would say, "Well, I can now look at the statute. I can, when there is a statute on the matter, order a mandamus. I can order the governors of that school and the teacher to have due regard to moral considerations and the promotion of stable family life."
There is value in a statute because the courts and the judges can do their best. They cannot punish, or anything of that kind, but they can do their best to support the proper principles laid down in this amendment, and therefore I would support it.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment very strongly.
228
Stability in family life is one of the foundations of the state. Perhaps your Lordships will remember—I was hardly horn then—that during the Bolshevik Revolution you could go into a post office and pay two or three roubles, be married on Monday and go in again on Wednesday, pay another two or three roubles and be divorced. I have made a study of the Soviet Union because it has always interested me. What happened was that the whole country in a few years was overrun with thousands of homeless children and of course the government had to reverse that decision.
I even believe that one of the reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire (though it took a long time) was the collapse of family life. I have often wondered whether schools are the right places for people to explain to children about sex. It always used to be the families who did that. I would not know about that, but it is the schools that apparently do it now.
I should like to support the amendment of the noble Viscount very strongly because today the young people marry and are divorced in three or four years and it is disastrous: it is very bad for a civilised state.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, when I first read the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, of course it gained my wholehearted support for what it said. I must confess that I then had certain reservations raised in my mind. I found myself asking the question: is statutory legislation really the right place for what at first sight appear to be statements of general principle? Should not legislation be confined to more precise indications of what can or cannot be done?
But then I put all these purist scruples behind me and I said, "No, the need is so great in this country at the moment that a statement of this kind is absolutely necessary." But more than that, when I looked at it carefully it was not simply a general statement of principle or a moral exhortation; it is actually a requirement that sex education should be given in a particular context. That, I believe, is a very right and proper thing to be included in statutory legislation and I was very glad indeed to hear the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in what he said about the appropriateness of the statute for this kind of provision.
I say it is urgently necessary for one main reason. It is, I believe, quite essential, whatever one's particular creed, that there should be a positive affirmation of the truth that the sexual element in human life must not be treated simply as a physical matter. That, I believe, is quite untrue to human nature. It does not accord with the way we are, what we are as people, as human beings. It must be exercised in relation to and by our whole personality, and taking account of the personalities of others. Therefore it cannot be treated simply as part of biological instruction or as a way in which one can obtain the greatest pleasure for oneself.
For that reason, it must be set in a moral context. For that reason, I believe that it must also be in a context which promotes stable family life. Again, that accords with what we are as human beings. It is no accident that the human young need longer to mature, grow up and be supported than any other young living creature. For that stable family life is essential. I believe that for those two reasons it is right for us to

229
consider this amendment which links sex education to these vital considerations.
I appreciate what the noble Baroness the Minister has said against prescription. But this would not be simply a statement of a general principle; nor an unnecessarily detailed prescription. It would be a statement by the Government that sex education should be given in this context. It would make the context clear. I hope that we shall have the courage to affirm this absolutely vital truth not only for our society in general terms but for the people of this country, because I believe that for sex education to be given in this way is the best possible way in which children can be helped to grow and live as full human beings.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I think that tonight's vote on political issues being taught in schools has shown that there is concern by many parents about what is being taught. I believe that there are more parents worried about some of the permissive literature dealing with sex education which is going around some schools than there are about political issues. Is it not time that central government brought out some acceptable literature with moral balance rather than leave it to individual local education authorities? This wish is now coming from all sides of the House on different issues. Are we not striving for better standards of teaching throughout the country? In Britain today one in three families experiences divorce, as has been said by the noble Viscount. Is it not important that the unfortunate children of broken families should realise that a happy married life is something that they themselves could aim for when the time comes for them to have their own families? I support the amendment.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, very briefly, I support this amendment on two grounds—those of moral education and health education. On moral education, there is widespread concern about the recent developments in the teaching of sex education, particularly under the rubric of so called anti-sexism. Too often this is used to attack the concepts of traditional family life and of heterosexuality. The recent edition of Teaching London Kids, which is written by teachers in London schools, specifically advocates the promotion of gay issues in the school curriculum. One teacher claims that she tries to use her opportunities as a teacher to undo the damage caused by the conditioning process which makes children regard heterosexuality as the real world. Similar attempts to undermine traditional family life have been quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster; in particular, that extremely damaging book, Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin, which describes in detail how a little girl lives with her father and his male homosexual lover over a weekend. That kind of material produced by teachers for teachers and used and recommended by teachers is deeply offensive to many parents.
If, very briefly, I turn from that to health matters I cannot imagine how on earth in this age of AIDS we can be contemplating promoting gay issues in the curriculum. I think that beggars all description.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment very strongly. I am glad to think that there is one voice raised from the Back-Benches of the Labour Party. We are strongly represented on the Front Bench and on the ex-ministerial Benches, and I was going to say that I can speak for 100 per cent. of the Back-Benchers here; but I see that I speak now for only 50 per cent. of them.
At any rate I am glad that one voice should be raised because although I support the idea and tradition of family life, I would be horrified if it began to be associated with the Conservative Party from the standpoint of the document that I quoted earlier. This document, which I read out this afternoon, seems to treat family life as a sort of Conservative monopoly, as though there were the only people who were never divorced or who had never got into trouble in other ways. Of course, that is not so. They are at least as fallible as anybody else. From that point of view I am glad that it is possible to speak as a Christian Socialist from these Benches.
I cannot really add anything to what has been said; it has been said so well. Here we are; there has been this sex education. It has been a tremendous development in the lifetime of the older Members present. I had never heard of it before. Something of the kind may have existed in a sort of underground way, but in the last 50 years sex education has become a fashionable industry. What are we to suppose will be the effect of all this sex education? It cannot be neutral, it cannot be nothing; it must have either a good or a bad influence. If it is taught in the way that was denounced by the Lord Bishop of London, on the basis that it is purely a factual matter, treating people as machines or animals, obviously it will do a great deal of harm. No one can doubt that sexual morals in this country have deteriorated in recent years. I cannot put all that down to sex education; but let the Minister give some sort of ringing declaration in favour of genuine sex education, including a moral element. I beg the noble Baroness to accept this amendment.
Baroness Hooper: This amendment concerns an issue about which many people have strong and deeply held feelings, as has been evidenced by the contributions. I believe that many who have supported the amendment are in favour of the intention behind it, as indeed are the Government.
What we have been trying to show is that the whole point of the present Bill before your Lordships is to seek to ensure that the curricular policies of individual schools will be more flexible and more responsive. The new governing bodies with substantial parent representation and accountable to the full parent body should play a major role in ensuring that schools adopt a sensitive and commonsense approach to controversial issues such as sex education. Nevertheless, in view of the feeling expressed in the House this evening I shall undertake to take back this particular issue and reconsider it before the next stage of the Bill.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for that constructive remark and I greatly look forward to seeing the

231
amendment which will doubtless appear at the Third Reading of the Bill. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [County, controlled and maintained special schools]:
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 21, line 12, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54 and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 55 and 56. These are the first of a number of amendments to Clause 17, because concern was expressed in the Committee that its provisions were unclear and that local authorities would he unable to exercise their general co-ordinating role if school governors could disregard their LEAs' general policies.
We have already explained why it would not be appropriate to give local authorities ultimate power to control the curriculum, but we are concerned that the role of school governors should be seen not as establishing their own curricular policies but as forming their own aims for the schools in the light of the authority's policy and only then considering if these aims require some modification—and I stress that word—of the authority's policy. This does not mean complete freedom for the governors. An authority's curriculum policy cannot be changed out of all recognition by modification. Governors might be able to take a different view on a number of topics and so extend or amend the policy offered, but they cannot demolish that policy and erect one of their own.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 is to change the order of presentation of two of the three matters which the governors are obliged to consider in determining their curricular statement. They must first consider the local authority's curriculum policy, but our amendment provides that the governors shall then consider the aims of the secular curriculum for the school and, lastly, how far, if at all, the aims they have established would require the authority's curriculum policy to be modified in relation to the school.
This makes it clearer than the present wording that we do not intend governing bodies to consider in the abstract the full range of an authority's curriculum policies and reach their own conclusion. What is intended is that governing bodies should establish, against the background of the authority's published policy, a set of curricular aims for their school. Only where these specific aims cannot be readily reconciled with the authority's policy need governors take a view as to whether that policy should be modified in relation to their own school.
Amendment No. 56 requires that the governors' curricular statement should cover their conclusions as to the aims of the secular curriculum and any changes they propose to the authority's policy as it relates to their school. This, again, is a point of clarification. The present draft refers only to the statement of aims. I
232
hope that these amendments will help to make the clause more readily understood. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to .
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 21, line 15, at end insert ("and
(cc) how (if at all) the authority's policy should in their opinion be modified in relation to the school;
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 21, line 17, leave out from ("conclusions") to end of line 18.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 57, I have to point out that there is a printing error. In the second line of paragraph (ii) the word "which" should be inserted after the word "and".
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 21, line 22, at end insert—
("and to have regard—

(i) to any representations which are made to them, with regard to any of those matters, by any persons connected with the community served by the school; and

(ii) to any such representations which are made to them by the chief officer of police and which are connected with his responsibilities;

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we had a full debate in Committee on the importance of fostering a good relationship between local police forces and schools. This was another area in which, while we had much sympathy with the motive behind the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, we could not agree to its specific provisions. I am conscious, too, that even now there are other amendments tabled which seek to deal with this point.
I should like first to set the concerns expressed in the earlier debate in a wider context. If schools are to become the responsive local institutions which we all wish them to be, and to which end we are making the fundamental changes in school government in this Bill, then they must be receptive to representations from the community they serve. We are building this receptiveness into the structure of governing bodies by increasing the number of parent members, and adding a category of co-opted members who will be able to reflect other local interests. The public availability of annual reports from school governors, and their debate in the annual parents' meeting, are similarly intended to increase the opportunity for dialogue between the school and the community it serves. However, we have been convinced by the arguments which have been put to us that we should do more.
The present amendment, together with Amendment No. 60, which places a similar duty on head teachers, and Amendment No. 78, which requires the governors' annual reports on schools to mention links with the police, and to which we shall come later on, ensure that interested groups and ndividuals in the area served by the school will be able to make representations to the school governors and the head teacher about the discharge of their curriculum responsibilities, and require school governors to

233
have regard to any relevant representations made to them about the secular curriculum from the local community and from the police.
I do not intend to suggest that governors and head teachers at present systematically ignore representations from the local community; indeed, I am sure that in most cases they welcome them and are happy to discuss points of concern. But the formalisation of this right to be heard, and the recognition in statute that the local community has a right to express its views on what it wants from its schools, is, I think, a valuable step forward.
As regards the police, in the light of the views expressed by noble Lords at Committee stage the Government propose that there should be a specific requirement for the governing body and the head teacher, when carrying out their duties with respect to the curriculum, to have regard to any representations made by the police on matters connected with their responsibilities. Such matters will include crime prevention, road safety and the very important topic of drug abuse. This is a significant step. It represents the first time that the police have been specifically mentioned in any education legislation.
What we have not done is to propose a statutory right of access by police into the classroom or a statutory duty on schools to comply with police views on the curriculum. It is the Government's clear view that the responsibility for what is taught in schools, how it is taught and by whom, must rest with the head teacher. These are matters which require professional teaching expertise; it would be quite inappropriate for this responsibility to be transferred to the police—nor would the police themselves want it.
In the vast majority of schools there is in any case no problem. The willing co-operation with the police which exists at present will continue and develop. I understand that there may be concern that in the tiny minority of schools where this is not so the present amendments do not go far enough—because, for example, it is felt that the school might brush aside the representations of the police without taking any notice of them. I think any such concern is misplaced, for two reasons. First, a statutory duty to "have regard" to representations—a well-established formula in legislation—is a serious matter, which can if necessary be enforced in the courts. It will simply not be open to school authorities just to go through the motions of receiving representations with no intention of properly considering them. Secondly, if a school were determined to be thoroughly irresponsible, a statutory right of access to the classroom would not solve the problem, because the staff at such a school could no doubt find ways of ensuring that the visits were not a success. The police want to be welcomed into schools and a statutory right of access will not achieve this.
It seems to me that the views of the police themselves in this matter are extremely important. The Home Office has consulted closely with the police service about the original amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and about possible alternatives, including the amendments we are now considering. The House will therefore wish to give due weight to the fact that the official spokesman on this
234
subject for the Association of Chief Police Officers and senior officers in the metropolitan police—who are perhaps most conscious of the problems—favour a provision in the terms we now propose. They welcome the fact that the amendment gives statutory recognition to the important police contribution to the educational process while at the same time leaving individual forces free to make such commitments as they consider appropriate in the light of local circumstances.
The report recently published by the Association of Chief Police Officers and Society of Education Officers on Liaison between Police and Schools will help to improve that input, in co-operation with the teaching profession. The Government's amendments to the Bill will provide a framework for progress in the direction of greater co-operation, but to go further, as some noble Lords have suggested, would cut across these present efforts. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps 1 may first say that I welcome these amendments. As I have already made clear, I think that this represents a substantial improvement of the Bill. It is right to say, as the noble Baroness said a few moments ago, that this is the first time there has been any explicit statutory position for the police in any education legislation. I welcome that, but having said that I welcome it I am bound to say that 10 years ago I should have regarded it as quite inconceivable that we needed to have a debate on this issue in the first place. We have needed it because of the well publicised cases in London and elsewhere where a militant minority of teachers have tried to make the position of the police totally impossible.
As the noble Baroness has indicated, we have all found it very difficult to get this matter right. I accept, of course, what she says about the difficulties involved in the statutory right of entry. That was indeed the form of words I put down on the last occasion, but the reason for my doing so was to ensure that a debate took place at all on the issue. I found on that occasion that the Government's position was entirely unpersuasive, and I think that was the view of the overwhelming majority of Members in all parts of the House.
Since then, the Government have had discussions with the police service, as I have, to try to secure some middle ground that would be effective, and that would not in any way raise substantial difficulties either for the police service or for those involved in education. By and large we have got that right.
This also should be said. First, there is no difficulty in most areas of the country. In the shire counties and elsewhere, there is no problem. The example I gave on the last occasion, from the Thames Valley, indicated the very cordial relationships that exist between the police service and most education authorities, most branches of the National Union of Teachers, and the other teachers' organisations.
However, in London, as we know, the situation in 20 or more schools is very different. What I very much

235
hope will happen is that parents who are deeply disturbed about what has been going on will, as a result of this group of amendments, for the first time have the opportunity of raising these issues at annual meetings of parents. That is the great advantage of this series of amendments. For the first time, parents will have the opportunity of raising these matters, given that they will be doing so in a statutory context.
The second advantage, as the noble Baroness mentioned a few moments ago, is that if there is particularly outrageous behaviour in some schools, then, again for the first time, it will be possible to have that issue heard in court. Again I agree with the noble Baroness, and on those grounds the amendments represent a substantial improvement in the legislation.
It may well be that we shall eventually find that we have to go further still in the future—I would not rule that out at all. I hope very much that we shall not have to do so; I should much prefer to leave, matters as they are. I repeat that in the overwhelming majority of cases throughout the country, there is no significant problem. Relations are cordial, and there is a trusting relationship between the police, headmasters and teachers. In other areas that is not so, and I hope that the amendments will have the effect of ending some of the acute difficulties that have arisen.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I should like to praise the Government for having accepted this amendment. We raised this matter at Committee stage and, over the three months that we have been negotiating with the Government, it is nice that they have been able to find some solution.
Although I personally—not being a lawyer—prefer the rather succinct Amendment No. 65 that was down, I will accept a point about which I was previously uncertain. I am assured by the lawyers that the words "to have regard" have the full force of law behind them. To non-lawyers, the words "to have regard" seem to be an excuse for someone saying, "Yes, we had regard to that matter but we totally rejected it and did what we were going to do anyway". However, having received an assurance from the Front Bench that those words have the full force of law, I should like thoroughly to support the amendment. I hope that we shall be able to pass on to other and more important matters ahead.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 21, line 23, leave out ("local education").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 21, line 33, leave out ("determining") and insert ("discharging his duties in relation to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a further minor amendment of clarification to Clause 17. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 21, line 35, leave out from ("consider") to ("and") in line 4 on page 22 and insert—
("the statement of the local education authority under section 16 of this Act and that of the governing body under this section;
(b) to have regard—

(i) to any representations which are made to him, with regard to the determination or organisation of the secular curriculum, by any persons connected with the community served by the school; and

(ii) to any such representations which are made to him by the chief officer of police and which are connected with that officer's responsibilities; and

c) to ensure that that curriculum—
(i) is compatible with the authority's policy (as expressed in their statement) or, to the extent to which it is incompatible, is compatible with that policy as modified by the governing body's statement").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a more substantive amendment that I beg to move. When we were discussing Amendment No. 49 the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said in his closing remarks, I think, that he was looking forward to hearing what the Government might have to say on this particular amendment, and he also drew attention to the point (with which I entirely agree) that of course the curriculum in schools is not only central to the education system but central to this Bill, and many of the matters that we have discussed are not the central subjects of the curriculum, which of course this and other amendments address.
This amendment covers at least two issues relating to the duties of head teachers in respect of the curriculum. Most of the amendment reflects earlier changes to the Bill on which we have already had considerable debate, and I shall not rehearse our previous arguments but focus on the new issues. I should like to divide the amendment into three parts, reflecting the proposed division of Clause 17(4) into three paragraphs.
First of all, there is paragraph (a), which requires the head teacher, in exercising his responsibilities for the curriculum, to consider not the authority's and governors' policies but their statements in respect of the curriculum. As I said in moving earlier amendments, we do not wish to suggest that authorities and governors may offer two alternative policies. All that the governors can do is to modify the authority's policy if it cannot be reconciled with their aims for the school.
Secondly, we come to a new paragraph (b) of Clause 17(4). It focuses this time on the head teacher who must have regard to representations from local groups and individuals, including the police, in carrying out his responsibilities for determining and organising the curriculum. Thirdly, there is paragraph (c) of Clause 17(4), which replaces the old paragraph (b) which was much criticised at an earlier stage of our deliberations, in our discussions in Committee. This paragraph is at the heart of a complex system of checks and balances which characterise the Bill's provisions regarding control over the curriculum.
I think that we are all agreed that authorities, governors and head teachers each have a role to play in curriculum matters, but it is much more difficult to say who should control that curriculum. Is it acceptable to give any one of these partners the final

237
say in all circumstances over what our children should be taught?
The Government have fully considered this question and have concluded that it is not possible to give that final say to one group or individual. Let us consider first the authority and the governors. A local authority could wish to impose on its schools curriculum policies—in respect of peace studies, for example—which some school governors find at variance with their legitimate aims for their school. Equally, governors could, despite the safeguards built into the Bill, take an eccentric view of the curriculum, which could, for example, make the transition of their pupils to other schools in due course very difficult. We should not want either group in such extreme cases to have the final say.
Clauses 16 and 17 inevitably appear complicated when they have to be drafted in legislative terms in order to cover all the eventualities. First, the LEA has its policy. Second, the governors decide what the aims of the curriculum should be for their school and the extent to which, if it all, the LEA's policy should be modified for their school. Third, the responsibility of the head teacher is not to formulate his own policy but to determine, organise and deliver the school's curriculum either in accordance with the LEA's policy or with that policy as modified by the governors. That is his choice under the provisions of this clause. Noble Lords may think that it is unfair to leave such a choice to the head teacher, but he or she has traditionally had considerable scope to determine, organise and secure the delivery of the curriculum, and the clause does no more than recognise this fact.
Why not then give the head teacher in all circumstances the final say? The Bill reflects the Government's view that local authorities and, for the first time in most cases, school governors should have a very clear role to play in establishing curricular policies and aims. In the large majority of cases there will be no incompatibility between the overall policy of the authority and the governors' aims, and in such cases we feel that head teachers should be obliged to reflect both that policy and those aims in the curriculum offered to pupils. The head teacher will of course be given professional freedom to determine the detailed organisation and delivery of the curriculum, and this is expressly provided for in the Bill. But it would not, I think, be right to allow him to establish his own policies in areas where the local authority and governors have reached their own, compatible conclusions.
Perhaps I may now explain how we have changed the provisions of what was Clause 17(4)(b) and is now Clause 17(4)(c) in order to reflect the points that I made earlier. This paragraph no longer refers to two separate policies for the curriculum. We must, for clarity, retain the word "incompatible" to describe how the authority's and governors' statements may differ. But we use the phrase,
"to the extent that it is incompatible",
to give the sense that we are not talking about two statements which are so different that it is impossible to recognise one as a modification of the other. I hope that this sense is conveyed throughout this clause.
We discussed this on an earlier amendment. I tried to set out fully the Government's position. I recognise
238
that this is a clause about which your Lordships have been concerned. It is one which we promised to look at once again, and we bring forward these amendments to clarify the position. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness White): My Lords, I should point out that there is a printing error in paragraph (b)(ii) of the amendment. The word "which" should be inserted after the word "and". I should also point out that should this amendment be agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 61
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker The Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 62, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wonder whether I may raise a point of procedure before the noble Lord moves his amendment and ask the Leader of the House whether he will consider the terms of Standing Order 36, which are paraphrased in the Companion to the Standing Orders, which says:
"Amendments proposed during the course of Committee or any other stage must not be inconsistent with a decision already taken at that stage".
The House will recall that Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 were agreed to and they forbade the pursuit of partisan political activities in the first case in primary schools and in the second case in any of the schools subject to the local authority. Amendment No. 62 presupposes that there is treatment of political issues in the schools. But the House has already at this stage decided to forbid the pursuit of partisan political activities.
If we are to stand strictly by Standing Order 36 and the Companion to the Standing Orders, an amendment which modifies that should not be allowed to be moved at the same stage of the Bill. I say that without prejudice to the substance of the amendment, with which I have great sympathy. Indeed, I voted for Amendment No. 50 in the realisation that it was itself defective and that the Government would be taking the whole thing back and considering it. I do not honestly think that it makes much difference, except as a point of form, whether we accept this amendment.
I have seen the most appalling muddles; I have seen a Bill with a hole in it, where an amendment has been moved into a Bill and then taken out at the same stage of the Bill. I am happy to say that that was not in this House. But by the same token we do not want to put inconsistent amendments into a Bill at the same stage, and I therefore ask whether the Leader of the House can give guidance as to whether the amendment should be moved.
10.45 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, tells us that we may be committing some error of which we have all probably been utterly innocent in our belief that we were doing what is best, it is my duty as Leader of your Lordships' House to seek to take account of an important view.

239
I should like to emphasise that when the discussions on Amendment Nos. 50 and 51 took place it was clear from the vote on Amendment No. 50 and what was said during that debate that there was a strong feeling in the House, stronger indeed than the feelings about Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made clear, that Amendments No. 62 had widespread support throughout your Lordships' House. I am not quite sure who its opponents were, but there were some, and I am not absolutely certain whether I was not going to be one of them; but that possibility did not occur.
We were prepared immediately to accept, as I thought right and proper and the will of the House, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. However, if there is a possibility of conflict, may I suggest that the right course for me to take is to look into the matter personally with the department to ensure that we have it right and to come back to your Lordships after consultations with all those involved, including the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, before Third Reading.
I hope that your Lordships' House will think that I am doing what is best to try to balance, on the one hand, what is clearly the will of the House with the need, on the other hand, to ensure that the legislation which we pass through your Lordships' House and which is of particular importance does not contravene some point which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, thinks that it might. I hope that I am making myself clear and doing something which is in the best interests of the House.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 22, line 7, at end insert—
("and
(c) to ensure that in the treatment of political issues in his school, pupils should be given a balanced presentation of opposing views.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment—
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I thought that what I was suggesting—I hope I was right—was that the amendment should not be moved at this stage on my personal undertaking that I should look into the matter and seek to meet the will of the House and, at the same time, not offend any rule that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, thinks that we might infringe. I must make it absolutely clear that I give an undertaking that I shall be personally responsible to the House to ensure that I shall seek to get this matter right in all the circumstances and express the will of the House on the one hand and not offend the rules on the other.
I hope that the House will trust me until the next stage, and if the House does not like what comes at the next stage, I shall then fully explain the position.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, takes whatever action he thinks fit, I hasten to say I should be the last to question in any way the experience of either the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, or the noble Viscount. If the
240
noble Lord were still the Clerk of the Parliaments, I am sure we should be treating his advice even more formally and with the respect that it deserves, but I should point out to him that the amendments which have been carried refer to partisan political activities and not to political activities in the more general terms in which they are referred to in Amendment No. 62.
Apart from the possibility of a disagreement about the meaning of the words and about whether there would be a conflict, I feel that it would be unfortunate if we were to use a Standing Order to come back to a matter and reintroduce the possibility of conflict at a later stage—which would not be in conflict with Standing Order No. 36, as I understand it—instead of expressing the view of the House, as it stands, on Report. With the deepest respect to both noble Lords, I should have thought that it was entirely appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, to continue to move the amendment.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, if that is the wish of the noble Lord and of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, I could not possibly stand in their way. I could not advise my noble friends on the Government Front Bench to resist in any way an amendment which I understood it to be the will of the House to pass.
On the other hand, I have been further advised—this is, I believe, important in the light of the unrivalled experience of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton—that the argument that the noble Lord has put forward is certainly very arguable. If it is arguable, it is my duty to tell your Lordships that this is so. If, therefore, it is arguably wrong, I do not believe that we should put it in the Bill. Your Lordships have it absolutely in your own hands to do so if you so wish. I wonder, however, whether it would not be better to rely upon my guarantee that I will come back at the next stage of the Bill to try to sort this out rather than put it in the Bill and then at a later stage have to say that it was wrong. If I was to go back on my guarantee to your Lordships' House, it would be a serious matter indeed, but I do not believe that your Lordships think that this is likely to happen.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, all of us who know the noble Viscount are aware that if he gives his word he will of course honour it. The noble Viscount has made perfectly clear the position arising from the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. It seems to me that we should accept what the noble Viscount has said. We know that he is a man of his word. We shall come back to the matter on Third Reading. It would be a profound mistake, given the generous words that he has used, not to accept what he has offered.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships for having misunderstood what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said. We are more than prepared to accept his guarantee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Information for parents.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring the governing body of every county, voluntary and maintained special school to make available to parents of registered pupils at the school, in such form and manner and at such times as may be prescribed, such information as to the educational provision made for pupils by the school as may be prescribed.
(2) The regulations may in particular prescribe (as information to be so made available) information as to any syllabus to be followed by any such pupils.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I must thank my noble friends Lord Orr-Ewing and Lady Cox and the noble Lord, Lord Charteris. Their initiative in pressing at an earlier stage for some addition to the Bill to assist parents wishing to obtain more information about their children's education, an initiative which I welcomed in principle in Committee, lies behind the new clause which I now commend to your Lordships.
I said in Committee that the Government would be prepared to consider the use of their current powers to make regulations in this respect. However, we have been persuaded by the arguments advanced in Committee that it would be better to impose a new duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the information to be made available to parents by the school governors. That is the effect of the new clause. The duty is put on the governing body, which has responsibility for the conduct of the school. The governors would be required to make the arrangements within the school which will ensure that if Mrs. Smith wants to know what her daughter Linda will be studying in the year ahead, she can easily obtain that information.
It is possible to argue that a duty imposed by regulations is not as effective as one imposed by statute. That is a sound argument if the Secretary of State is free to make or not to make the regulations. But the argument has no force if he bears a duty, as here, to make regulations for the purpose specified in the Act. A duty imposed on the governors by or under a regulation has the force of law in the same way as a duty imposed by an Act. It is subject to enforcement by the Secretary of State or the courts in exactly the same way.
It is also possible to argue that a right given to parents by regulations is not as visible to them as a right given in the Act. The Government will meet that point by another amendment to the Bill. I shall be moving in due course an amendment to Clause 24 of this Bill to require governing bodies to include in their annual report, which goes to all parents, a statement of the information to which parents have a right. This will ensure that parents who might not otherwise realise it become aware that they can have access to this information if they want it. Since the governors' report is considered at the parents' annual meeting, parents will have a regular opportunity to consider how the requirements have been met and to make representations if they are dissatisfied.
The principle which underlies the amendment is likely to command general assent within the education service and in the country at large. Since it is right that parents, who are educators just as the schools are, should be constructively involved in the work of the schools, it is also right that they should know what the
242
schools are teaching their children and thus have the essential basis for a meaningful discussion with the school about their child's education and about his or her progress.
What the school is teaching should not remain a professional mystery. Most schools do give some effect to these principles and provide information to parents on demand. But not all do as much of this as one could wish; the arrangements are not systematic; and above all the information does not reach the parent as of right.
If we are going to give the parents a new right to information we need to make sure that it is a useful right in practice and that the information to which they are entitled is actually that which is helpful to particular parents concerned with what their sons and daughters are actually being asked to do at school. The right to information has to be expressed in terms which ensure that it fits all the situations which arise; it has to fit the primary school as well as the secondary school, where teaching is organised very differently; and it has to fit differences in practice between particular primary and particular secondary schools. Regulations are the only legal vehicle which will ensure the necessary detail and flexibility. Regulations are the means of making effective the general duty to provide information which the new clause in effect imposes on governing bodies.
Let me explain the kind of situation which we want to achieve through the regulations which will have to be made by virtue of the new clause. What we have in mind is that parents might be able to request from the class or subject teacher each year—or perhaps even each term—a brief statement of the educational programme to be followed by their child. Such a programme might include a description of the educational aims and objectives for the period, together with some indication of the topics to be covered and the teaching approaches to be adopted.
It is clear that much of the information that parents ought to have can be contained in the syllabus to be followed by their child. The new clause says in effect that the regulations will enable the parents to know about that syllabus where this is appropriate. The concept of a syllabus is not a precise one. It could have a fairly restricted meaning: for example, simply a list of the items of knowledge to be covered. It might not tell the parent what kind of things the child would be doing, how far the work would be practical, for example, or would involve visits outside the school, or which approaches the teacher intended to use. So it is better to make the information requirement extend beyond syllabuses, as the new clause does. I may add here, in discussing syllabuses, that it is in my view a mistake to consider legislating in terms of the syllabuses for the school. We need to think in terms of what is, in effect, the syllabus for each pupil—that is the level of information of value to parents.
Getting the wording of the regulations right to achieve our purpose will not be easy. We want to base the new duty on good practice, and we do not want to create something which looks nice on paper but is bureaucratic, expensive in teacher time and still does not give the individual parent what he or she needs and ought to have. We want something which puts the minimum extra burden on teachers and schools with

243
the maximum benefit to the parent and, as a result of both these things, to the child. We shall need the help of local authorities and teachers to get the details right. We shall need to consult them about the regulations. They are entitled to be consulted on the practical aspects, which are bound to affect them, of giving effect to a principle to which I am sure they subscribe as much as the Government and this House. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: A manuscript amendment to subsection (2) of the new clause has been submitted in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Does the noble Lord, Lord Renton, wish to move the amendment?
11 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 63, a manuscript amendment:
("In subsection (2): leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the manuscript amendment which I must apologise for having tabled only an hour ago, with my noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield. However, perhaps we may be forgiven in view of the exacting nature of our legislative duties on this Bill for spotting only at this late stage that subsection (2) of this proposed new clause does not go far enough. Having heard what my noble friend Lord Swinton has had to say about it I suggest to my noble friend and to your Lordships that the intentions of the Government would be more faithfully fulfilled if, instead of the word "may" in subsection (2), we had the word "shall".
I say that for two reasons which flow from the speech which my noble friend has just made. The first reason is that he says that this new clause will impose a duty on the Secretary of State. The first subsection does impose a duty to make regulations, but when it comes to subsection (2), far from being a duty, it is a mere optional power. In addition, it is an optional power which relates to perhaps the most important matter which the regulations should contain—namely, information for parents as to the syllabus to be followed. Therefore, I would very much hope that on reflection my noble friend will agree that, in order to make this new duty a reality, we should have there the word "shall" instead of the word "may".
Having said that, may I hope to reinforce my argument somewhat by referring to Amendment No. 66, which is in the same terms as that which was tabled by the same noble Lords and by my noble friend Lady Cox at the Committee stage. It refers to the duty of the governing body of every school:
"to prepare up to date written statements of the school's syllabuses and to make copies available to parents on demand."
That seemed to us to be a very reasonable suggestion which the Government could easily have adopted. Indeed, it might have been a much simpler way of performing the task to which my noble friend has referred than the one contained in his new clause. However, let us use the new clause and make the best of it. We shall be making the best of it if we insert "shall" instead of "may". I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as Amendment No. 63A is a manuscript amendment to Amendment No. 63, I should read it out to your Lordships. The amendment is:
"In subsection (2): leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'."
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, we had not understood the use of the word "may" here as implying the uncertainty to which my noble friend has referred. However, in the light of the views expressed by my noble friend we shall consider the point again and come back to it on Third Reading. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment in the light of that assurance.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of that undertaking I happily ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if that little local difficulty has been got out of the way, perhaps it would be appropriate for us to say that this may be one of the occasions when the Government have got the balance right between matters on the face of the Bill, matters to be prescribed in regulation and matters not even to be prescribed in guidance. Clearly, the whole complexity of regulations about the publication of information could be very great. It could be as complicated as Part II of the Bill, and I do not think that noble Lords would wish to get themselves involved in complex drafting of that sort, particularly at this stage in the passage of the Bill.
It is a welcome move towards greater information. It is important that parents should have as much information as is practicably possible to enable them to make decisions about the choices which their children will have to take in the schools. In relation to the amendment to the amendment, I am bound to say that if the regulations were to provide for the circulation of this information to all parents and if it were then to be required that they shall always contain information on all syllabuses followed by all pupils, we would be destroying another 50 forests a year. I do not think that that would be in the best interests of the parents, the schools or the budgets of the local education authorities. I have no doubt that this is one of the matters which the noble Earl will take into consideration when he considers the amendment to the amendment. Meanwhile the amendment, as it stands, has our support on these Benches.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilion Baroness Masham of Ilion moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Health education.
The articles of government for every school provide for the teaching of courses of health education.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 64 I should like to say that I was most grateful to all the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who supported my amendment on health education at the Committee stage of this Bill. In case there are some noble Lords now in the Chamber who were absent at Committee stage, I should like to explain briefly what the amendment means.
I consider that in this country for years we have not done enough to try to prevent ill-health and accidents. Health care has become very expensive, and no one should know better than the Government Ministers how much health care costs and how many demands there are on the service. We have ever-increasing demands because of the growing elderly population. Only this morning I listened to a programme on the increasing number of people who are living to be over 100 years of age.
We also live in a complicated society with increasing violence in the home and on the streets, and with drug abuse growing to alarming proportions. Medical research has come up with the finding that tobacco smoking kills millions of people from cancer which could be prevented. New findings also show that cervical cancer, which is a growing problem among young women around 20 to 30, can also be promoted by smoking. Alcohol abuse can also damage the health by causing cirrhosis of the liver, and the unattractive behaviour of the growing numbers of alcoholics can cause break-up of the family. My previous amendment included basic anatomy, first aid and basic nursing skills, responsible sex education and child care, diet and hygiene, accident prevention and teaching on the dangers of drug, tobacco and alcohol abuse. Since that time there has been the radiation disaster in Russia. I think that children should also be taught the basics of what to do in a radiation emergency, such as with the dangers from contaminated milk, and how to treat the skin.
I feel strongly that there is a need at different stages and at different ages throughout the education system for children to be given the chance of the basic needs of health care so that they grow up appreciating the marvels of their own bodies, and hopefully learning to respect them and others so that they do not abuse them. In many families throughout the country we sadly have a cycle of deprivation which is passed on from one generation to another. I feel that education is the only hope of breaking this cycle.
We sometimes underestimate children. Only yesterday I read of two children aged four and six, one with a wrist fractured in three places, who with their parents were involved in a car crash. Both parents were unconscious, and the children climbed out of a broken car window to get help. Children should learn how to stop bleeding, and how to put someone in the recovery position. They can save lives, and sometimes it may be their own. They should be taught the dangers to avoid. At least then if they are dying of cancer or drugs they can say, "It was my own fault. I should have listened."
The Government are doing a good job in promoting education on drug abuse. They have brought out a teaching pack and have organised a publicity campaign. I believe they can bring out more health education manuals approved by the Secretary of State on the different subjects I have mentioned. There are bodies such as the British Red Cross Society, the St. John Ambulance Service, the British Heart Foundation and many other organisations which would be only too pleased to help. Parents also could benefit from what their children learn. There would be many useful spin-offs to help many people. Health education is a real, live subject, and as the young grow up good health practice is somehing which should grow with them. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure we all listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, when she moved a somewhat similar amendment at the Committee stage. We have listened with great care once again when she has moved a rather shorter version of it on Report.
There will be few in your Lordhips' House who would not accept the valuable role which health education in schools can play. At this late hour I shall not rehearse all the arguments about this subject; they have been, I think, gone over before. But I hope that I can meet the noble Baroness's point. The Government intend to bring forward an amendment to the Education (School Information) Regulations 1981 to cover the point that she has raised. Those regulations, made under the Education Act 1980. require the publication of a range of information relating to individual schools, including information as to the manner and context in which education as respects sexual matters is given. We intend to amend the regulations so that they refer more broadly to health education, including sex education. Such an amendment will make clear the importance of a school's policies with regard to health education and will also ensure that parents are fully informed about those policies. The provisions of the present Bill will take this further and ensure that parents are able to influence those policies where necessary.
I hope very much that with this assurance the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Porritt: My Lords, before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, if she does, I should like to put a few points on this suggestion, because I think it is really something quite new. I am not sure that all that has been said so far really puts across what we are aiming at. It seems to me that this is a completely new concept, if we accept it. The Bill gives us a golden opportunity as a government, rather than perhaps as local authorities, to do something new, something constructive, and to improve the education system which I rather imagine most people here will feel has not had great success in the past few years.
This particular amendment, I think, exposes and would fill a gap in the present statutory syllabus. The amendment deserves, I believe, much greater priority than perhaps the simple and brief proposal the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has made appears to give it. The subject of health education is of vital importance to all children and should be a continuing process from the ages of 5 to 6 to the ages of 16 to 17. It received very valuable mention by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in that excellent debate on disability prevention that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, initiated last week. I know that it also received certain attention from the Health Education Council. Their efforts, largely of an audio-visual nature and with a presentation that is a bit sporadic, to say the least of it, should be an adjuvant to a progressive graded course of teaching to all children in all schools, starting at the very impressionable age of about 6. Surely, there could be no more worthy objective in education than to teach the young the incalculable value of their bodies and their minds. Without this knowledge, these invaluable assets are all too easily squandered by the multiple temptations of

247
modern life and, similarly, as a result, the ability to gain advantage from other subjects in the curriculum is correspondingly reduced. It is the old cliché again of mens sana in corpore sano. Health education encompasses the teaching of elementary anatomy, physiology, biology and psychology but in the early stages these terms would not be applied as such or used as such.
Young children react naturally to interest in the make-up of things, to mysteries, to adventure, to the analogies of animal life and, particularly today, to machines. Just think of the toys that one sees today that children get and use! All of these approaches could be suitably used in providing essential information about the human body, how it works and how it is made. Again, may I say that the appeal of sport and games and recreational activities plays a very large part in a child's life. To stress the invaluable importance of a healthy, undamaged body and mind would be a very obvious approach.
To care for and to protect this marvellous machine which we call the human body, whether it is one's own or somebody else's—and this brings in the question of the prevention of violence—would become a natural way of life so as to allow an enjoyable participation in normal activities without unnecessary risks. Hence, secondly and most importantly, it would inculcate moral behaviour patterns that could vitally affect the child's life and also the community in which he or she lives. One appreciates that such teaching would make considerable demands on a teacher's intelligence, ingenuity and dedication. But I believe, and I am sure, that there are many excellent teachers who would be attracted to and challenged by a scheme of progressive health education; or we could easily train them to cope with such a humane and basic concept.
I apologise for speaking a little longer than I usually speak, but I feel that this is an opportunity which the Government should snatch. It is a big concept. If we start at the beginning and go on working with children, we shall avoid a great many of the things that now appear necessary. Sex education, for one thing, would take its ordinary, natural part in such a scheme as this. It would need no separate consideration whatsoever. Many matters would fit into a course like this where it is carefully worked out. I sincerely hope, despite the late hour, that your Lordships will give this, as I call it, most worthy amendment the consideration and approval that I think it thoroughly deserves.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Porritt. I should like to say how grateful I am to him. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has asked me to say how strongly she supports this amendment. Since the Committee stage, I have had two meetings with the Minister, Mr. Bob Dunn, and I am happy that a little progress is being made. It is a start but I can assure your Lordships that we who are keen on health education will not let this matter rest. I thank the noble Baroness for what she has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 66A not moved.]
Clause 19 [Terms, sessions and holidays]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 23, line 26, at end insert—
("; provided that the governing body shall consult the local education and take account of its views when determining the dates and times at which the school sessions, terms and holidays are to begin and end.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, unlike the high-flown amendments of great importance that we have had, is a very simple and practical one which I hope the Government may feel they can listen to. There is in fact an error in the amendment. It should read, in its second line,
"provided that the governing body shall consult the local education authority and".
I do not quite know how the mistake came about: there seem to have been one or two other errors.
Local authorities are responsible for providing school meals and transport for pupils at aided and special agreement schools, as at other maintained schools. Extra costs could be incurred if the dates and school hours varied widely and avoidably. Thus, this amendment seeks to make it the responsibility of the governing bodies of aided and special agreement schools that they should consult the LEA before determining their local arrangements for the times at which school sessions, terms and holidays begin and end. If that is not done, it could add greatly to the expense of the local authority, if it was out of the pattern of that for the ordinary maintained schools.
It seems a small point, and one is really only calling for consultation. I do hope the Government might be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, may I very briefly express entire agreement with the noble Lord's amendment, which would bring a degree of reason to sessions, terms and holidays, which could well escape if the Bill as drafted were to proceed without amendment? It is in the interests of the local authorities and it does no injury at all to the autonomy in important matters of the aided and special agreement schools.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, before dealing with the proposed amendment, I should first make it clear to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that the provisions in Clause 19 are not new. They are essentially a re-enactment of Section 23(3) of the 1944 Act, which would otherwise have been left in limbo as a result of the fresh provision made in this Bill for the secular curriculum.
I am glad my noble friend's amendment does not seek to disturb this small but significant part of the 1944 Act's settlement, which underpins our valuable dual system of county and voluntary schools. Indeed, the thrust of the amendment is entirely reasonable. He wishes to ensure that any views of the local education authority are taken into account by the governing body when they are setting the dates and times of sessions, terms and holidays. However, I have to say that it is not necessary to write anything on to the face of the Bill for this to happen. There is absolutely nothing to stop a local education authority making representations about the times and dates of sessions

249
and terms to the governing bodies of the aided and special agreement schools. Of course, it cannot—nor does this amendment seek to let it—instruct a governing body what to do. But it can ask them to bear certain aspects in mind, perhaps energy-saving possibilities, when choosing when winter terms begin and end, or the views of local transport companies when deciding on the times of the school sessions.
It is a basic principle of our legal system that such reasonable representations have to be considered by those making the decision, and the local education authority will, of course, be represented on the governing body of the school. They do not have to agree with the representations, but they cannot simply ignore them. Indeed, I would suggest that leaving the initiative to the local education authority to make representations, rather than requiring the governing body to take the first step by consulting it, is probably the more effective way of proceeding.
As I have indicated, the Government could not quarrel with the essence of the amendment, but I have shown that it effectively would add nothing to the present position. If there is, however, any doubt about local education authorities' general powers in such matters, the Government would certainly be ready to consider reminding them of this in the post-Act circular of guidance. Against this background I would invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: That is extremely disappointing, for two reasons. First, my noble friend says that she thinks this whole thing is very reasonable and that there is no very good reason why it should not be there; and, secondly—and much more importantly—she reminded us that this provision came out of the 1944 Act. So local authorities have been having to deal with this situation for the last 40 years or so.
I put down this amendment because it was represented to me by my county council, who have consulted the Association of County Councils, and they do not propose amendments just out of their heads, particularly if they are doing it against a background of something that has been in force for 40 years. They must have had some sort of experience which caused them to think that it would be a good thing to have this in the primary legislation, instead of just in circulars from the Department of Education and Science. This view must have come from some practical experience.
If this was a new bit of the Bill and one could, therefore, say that it had come straight out of the air, that would be fair enough. But the fact that it is based on experience makes me think that the balance of my noble friend's argument is the wrong way, and that this is something which ought to go on the face of the Bill. As she said, it would not make any difference to it and, as she also said, it would be acceptable on the face of the Bill. She just did not want it there because it had not been there in 1944. But life moves on, Lord Butler is dead; so can we not have another think? I reserve the right to come back at Third Reading if the Government do not pull themselves together and do something at Third Reading themselves, So, very reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Discipline]:
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 25, leave out lines 29 to 31.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, may I also speak to Amendments Nos. 69, 70, 71 and 72? Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 70 are clarifying amendments which relate to county, controlled and maintained special schools. As drafted, paragraph (c) of subsection (5) would allow an authority to turn an indefinite exclusion into a permanent one; that is, the authority could, in effect, expel a pupil when that was not the wish of either the head or the governing body, which is certainly not the Government's intention. Paragraph (c) would also allow an authority to turn a permanent exclusion into an indefinite one, or to allow an indefinite exclusion to remain indefinite, thereby undermining the whole purpose of subsection (5), which is to ensure that pupils are not excluded for unnecessarily long periods of time without action being taken to resolve matters. The Government amendments would require the authority to confirm a permanent exclusion or else to bring it to an end, and to bring any indefinite exclusion to an end, either immediately or within the period specified in the authority's direction. There will be related, but different, arrangements for aided and special agreements schools which I will explain in a moment.
This is how the amended provisions for county, controlled and maintained special schools might work. Let us say that a pupil has made his presence intolerable by constantly disrupting lessons; the head teacher does not want to go as far as expelling the pupil, but on the other hand he sees no point in excluding him for a week or two, after which the pupil may come back and behave as badly as ever. What the head teacher wants is time to reflect, to consult the pupil's parents and to seek their co-operation—and perhaps most of all he wants to avoid further disruption of normal school life while a solution is sought. On the other hand, it may be a case of a pupil with a Mohican hairstyle which will take who knows how long to grow enough to be cut in an acceptable style. Here the head teacher may order him to stay away until he looks presentable again. In either case, the head teacher may see no alternative but to exclude the pupil indefinitely until conditions attached to his return are met.
If the governing body does not intend to direct the head teacher to reinstate the pupil, the local education authority will be obliged to consider the position. It may not always be practicable to take a decision straightaway, but the real point is that the authority will now be fully informed of the exclusion and the reasons for it and must in due course decide when it is to end. Meanwhile, formal responsibility for providing education will remain with the authority.
In the case of a permanent exclusion the authority of course has the option of confirming the exclusion, and if it does do so it must see that education is provided for the pupil somewhere else. But whether the exclusion is permanent or indefinite, there is a duty on the authority to consult the governing body, and with the more difficult pupils that consultation might well include the head teacher, the parents and, if appropriate,

251
professional advisers. That is a point on which we will advise authorities in the post-Act circular.
Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 are also clarifying amendments, and are concerned with the local education authority's duty in relation to indefinite exclusions of pupils from aided and special agreement schools. The amendments will have the same effect in respect of indefinite exclusions as those for county, controlled and maintained special schools which we have just discussed. The local education authority will be under a duty to consult the governing body and, if the governing body does not intend to have the pupil reinstated, the authority will have to direct the head teacher to reinstate him immediately or within a specified period.
These amendments do not cover cases of permanent exclusion from aided and special agreement schools because we do not wish to distort the present position, which is that in such schools the governing body, not the local education authority, has the last word as to whether pupils should be expelled. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these are exceedingly complex matters and I am not satisfied that I yet understand all the details of the amendments that the noble Earl has moved, although I am very much predisposed to agree with them and to support them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, wrote to me on 29th April and a copy of her letter was placed in the Library. She made a statement about this matter which accorded very much with my views. I should be very grateful if the Minister could indicate to me whether the understanding that I have of her intentions accords with the position as it will be in the Bill as amended by these amendments. The noble Baroness wrote to me that:
"the crucial consideration has to be the authority's ultimate responsibility for securing the education of pupils in its area. A school's continuing exclusion of a pupil, however justified it considers this to be, would impose an obligation on the authority to find a solution: depending on the circumstances, this could be a transfer to another school, re-instatement, or the provision of home or other tuition. We are clear that a decision on the appropriate solution has generally to be taken with the wider perspective of the local education authority".
That accords very well with what I understand to be the position and what I would wish to be the position as the result of the Bill. Does the Bill as amended in the way proposed secure that this is the location of responsibility; that the most important consideration is the local authority's ultimate responsibility for securing the education of pupils in its area?
There was a lot of discussion at Committee stage about Poundswick and about who ultimately had to win out in a situation of conflict. My understanding from the letter of the noble Baroness is that in circumstances where there has to be conflict—and nobody wants it—it would be the local education authority which would make the ultimate decision. Is that the case? If the noble Earl is, with the leave of the House, permitted to reply, will he say whether that will be the case after these amendments have been inserted into the Bill?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 69 to 72:
Page 25, line 33, leave out ("or indefinite")
Page 25, line 37, leave out from ("pupil") to end of line 3 on page 26 and insert ("but the authority consider that he should be reinstated—

(i) to direct that he be reinstated immediately; or

(ii) to direct that he be reinstated within such period as may be specified in the direction;

(d) for it to be the duty of the local education authority, where they have been informed of the indefinite exclusion of a pupil from the school, to consult the governing body and, where the governing body do not intend to direct the head teacher to reinstate the pupil—

(i) to direct that he be reinstated immediately; or

(ii) to direct that he be reinstated within such period as may be specified in the direction;

(e) for it to be the duty of the head teacher to comply with any direction given in exercise of the duty imposed on the local education authority by virtue of paragraph (c) or (d) above; and
(f) for it to be the duty of the governing body and the local education authority to inform each other of any direction, of a kind mentioned in this subsection, given by them.")
Page 26, line 17, leave out paragraph (b).
Page 26, line 27, at end insert—
("(e) for it to be the duty of the local education authority, where they have been informed of the indefinite exclusion of a pupil from the school, to consult the governing body and, where the governing body do not intend to direct the head teacher to reinstate the pupil—

(i) to direct that he be reinstated immediately; or

(ii) to direct that he be reinstated within such period as may be specified in the direction;

(f) for it to be the duty of the head teacher to comply with any direction given in exercise of the duty imposed on the local education authority by virtue of paragraph (e) above; and
(g) for it to be the duty of the governing body and the local education authority to inform each other of any direction, of a kind mentioned in this subsection, given by them.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals concerning exclusion from school on disciplinary grounds.

.—(1) Every local education authority shall make arrangements for enabling the parent of a registered pupil at any county, controlled or maintained special school for which they are responsible to appeal against exclusion from the school on disciplinary grounds.

(2) The governors of every aided or special agreement school shall make arrangements for enabling the parent of a registered pupil at the school to appeal against exclusion from the school on disciplinary gounds.

(3) Joint arrangements may be made under subsection (2) above by the governors of two or more aided or special agreement schools.

(4) Any appeal by virtue of this section shall be to an appeal committee constituted in accordance with paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1980.

(5) Part II of that Schedule shall have effect in relation to the procedure on any such appeal but with the following modification—paragraph 7 (matters to be taken into account by appeal committee) shall have effect as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted "any representations made by the appellant".

(6) An appeal committee hearing an appeal by virtue of this section may either

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

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

253

(7) The decision of an appeal committee on any such appeal shall be binding on the head teacher.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I may not be pressing this amendment this evening but might bring it back on Third Reading. I am in some difficulty because I do not know what is the Government's view, so the House will bear with me very briefly. This is an amendment that I moved but did not press at Committee stage. It concerns the parental right to an appeal concerning exclusions. I do not want to repeat the arguments I made in Committee, and anyway it is objectionable to quote oneself. However, I will paraphrase briefly what I said on that occasion.
Clause 21 as drafted merely allows parents, in the case of voluntary, controlled or maintained schools, the right to appeal against the exclusion of a child where the articles of government provide for an appeals procedure. Because there is no requirement for the articles to incorporate any such procedure, it seemed to me, as I said, in Committee, that it was extraordinary that so fundamental a matter should be left purely to local whim.
In reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, stated that:
"We do not believe, however, that there is any single system appropriate to all authorities".—[Official Report, 17/4/86; col. 828.]
The noble Baroness suggested that different authorities would no doubt adopt uniform systems for the schools in their areas. That might be acceptable, although I do not like it because I am not convinced that different rights in different authorities in matters affecting the right to education are desirable.
I find it especially unacceptable that there could be no parental appeal procedure at all, which is what Clause 21 as drafted would permit. It simply states that where the articles of government specify an appeals procedure, the decision should be binding on the head teacher—but it does not require governing bodies to have any such mechanism in the first place.
In her final remarks on the same day, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, stated that:
"The Government, while agreeing that there should be an appeals procedure, concluded that it should not be mandatory".—[Official Report, 17/4/86; col. 830.]
That is a contradiction in terms. If there should be an appeals procedure then it cannot be merely permissive, as in Clause 21. The noble Baroness went on to add:
"Bearing in mind the points that have been made, I will take it away and consider it carefully".
Whatever the result of the noble Baroness's deliberations—and here she is—which I am sure were careful, she has not given us the benefit of them in the form of an amendment, as I had hoped. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that we need the proposed new clause in the Bill if natural justice is to be satisfied. I shall certainly have to return to this matter unless the noble Baroness or the noble Earl (I am not sure who is to reply) can tell me that the Government are prepared to take it on board. In effect, I am simply moving the amendment in order to discover where the Government now stand. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government agreed at Committee stage to consider this matter further,
254
and I believe that I can be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, because we certainly take his point about the importance of natural justice. At the same time, we must take account of the view held in some quarters that formal arrangements for appeals introduce an adversarial element into an area where achieving a better understanding between schools and parents is in fact of the first importance.
We have therefore proposed to our partners in education that the Bill should require a school, when notifying parents of a child's exclusion, to inform them that they may make representations to the LEA or, in the case of an aided or special agreement school, to the governing body. The LEA or governing body would then be under an obligation to consider the matter without delay.
Such an arrangement would still leave the LEA free to establish parental appeals machinery should it so wish. This would be one way of building on what we described in Committee as the framework provided by the Bill, and it could well be that in an area which adopted this course there would be parents who, while hesitant about becoming involved in the formality of an appeal, would welcome this alternative opportunity to make their views known to the LEA. We await the comments of our partners with interest.
I have also listened very carefully to what the noble Lord has said this evening. I can say to him that I shall give a firm undertaking that the Government will introduce an amendment on this matter in another place. In the meantime, we should like to reflect further on the exact form such an amendment would take. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I detect that she seems to be giving me half a loaf. Obviously I shall want to look carefully at what she has said. It certainly was not my intention to press this amendment at this time of night, and she has fulfilled exactly what I hoped the Government would do, which was to let me know where they stood on the matter.
Very probably when I have read the record of this debate I think I shall not feel that it is necessary to come back at Third Reading, in view of the undertaking of the noble Baroness that an amendment will be introduced in another place. But obviously I reserve the right to think the matter over carefully and possibly probe the Government again a little further at the next stage. In the meantime I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 74:
Insert the following new clause:
("Appeals about exclusion from school.

.—(1) Every local education authority shall make arrangements for enabling the head teacher of a county, controlled or maintained special school for which they are responsible to appeal against the refusal of the governors or the local education authority to confirm an exclusion on disciplinary grounds.

(2) The governors of every aided or special agreement school shall make arrangements for enabling the head teacher of the

255
school to appeal against a refusal to confirm an exclusion by the governors or the local education authority on disciplinary grounds.

(3) Joint arrangements may be made under subsection (2) above by the governors of two or more aided or special agreement schools.

(4) Any appeal by virtue of this section shall be to an appeal committee constituted in accordance with Part I of Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1980.

(5) Part II of that Schedule shall have effect in relation to the procedure on any such appeal but with the following modification—paragraph 7 (matters to be taken into account by appeal committee) shall have effect as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted "any representations made by the appellant".

(6) An appeal committee hearing an appeal by virtue of this section may either—

(a) confirm the order for reinstatement made by the local education authority or the governing body, or

(b) direct the local education authority or the governing body that reinstatement is not appropriate.

(7) The decision of an appeal committee on any such appeal shall be binding on the local education authority, the governing body and the head teacher.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, though I listened, as I thought carefully, to what the noble Earl said about Amendments Nos. 69 to 72, I am still not quite clear whether the situation that has arisen at Poundswick School is really covered by this. I do not need to go through the whole of that distressing story for your Lordships, who must be very well aware of it, but perhaps I may remind you that it began last June and it is still going on. The object of the present amendment is to make an attempt to resolve such a situation, if it should ever arise again, by an appeal committee.
As your Lordships know, the situation is that the teachers who were insulted by the obscene graffiti written by the five boys concerned refused to teach them, and one of the groups of teachers—the NAS-UWT—is still refusing to teach them. Members of the NUT and the AMMA have gone back to work, but the members of the other union are refusing to teach the boys, who have thus missed a great deal of schooling. It is not just the boys who were guilty; the other pupils in their classes have also missed a great deal of schooling in their fifth year, when they were facing O-levels.
As I say, this situation has arisen because the local education authority ordered the reinstatement of the pupils in a manner in which the staff were not prepared to accept it. The amendment is an attempt to resolve such a situation should it ever arise again, and I should be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say about it. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, here again we appreciate the view that has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, and I hope that we may be able to be helpful to him. Wherever the final decision on exclusions lies, there is bound to be occasional scope for conflict among head teachers, governing bodies and the LEAs about the reinstatement of excluded pupils. Leaving the last word with governors, as some would like, would not in our view provide an effective alternative, and indeed we must bear in mind
256
throughout that it is the LEA and not the schools which has the ultimate responsibility for the education of pupils in its area. As the LEA is the employer of teachers, except in aided schools, there is something slightly incongruous about providing for head teachers to appeal against LEA decisions.
We need to have regard to the relationship between governing bodies and the head teacher. This must depend not only on a formal assignment of functions, as the Bill will provide, but also on a mutual respect and understanding. A right of appeal against the governing body could weaken the position of governors in disciplinary matters, contrary to the aims of the Bill.
I referred in response to the last amendment to proposals which we have made to our partners in education, including the teacher associations. One proposal is for the Bill to provide that before seeking to reinstate a pupil excluded form a county, controlled or maintained special school a LEA should first consult the governing body. Such a requirement is already built into subsection (5)(c) for pupils excluded permanently or indefinitely, but it does not at present extend to pupils who have been excluded for a fixed period. Similar arrangements have been proposed for aided and special agreement schools but without undermining their right to exclude pupils permanently.
We hope that these proposals will go some way to meet the concern of the noble Lord which lies behind the amendment. However, the Government will consider the matter further in the light of the responses that we get from our partners and the arguments that have been put in the House today. I think that we should all like to study again what he said. I can confirm that the Government's conclusions will he reflected in an amendment that will be introduced in another place. I hope that that assurance will meet the noble Lord's concerns and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to think again and perhaps explain this to us again. She said that there was something incongruous about the headmaster having a right of appeal against the decision of the LEA because the LEA was the employer. After all, in all industrial disputes where there is an appeal to a third party it is the employee against the employer taking the dispute to a third party. That is the nature of an appeals procedure. What is so different about a headmaster against a local authority and an employee in the ordinary sense appealing against a disciplinary decision and taking it to an industrial tribunal?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point that the noble Baroness makes about an industrial tribunal and about the way that industrial matters would be dealt with. In the education world it would be seen as a more unusual procedure. We are concerned to try to find a way to resolve a point that she and her noble friend have identified—namely, the right of head teachers to appeal in such circumstances. The noble Lord asked an important question about Poundswick. In this, that case is not answered. That is one of the matters that we are considering further.

257
As I said, I should like to take away the amendment and what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said and consider these matters further in consultation, as I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate, quite properly, with our partners in the education service to see whether we can bring forward an amendment to meet what we all recognise as a real concern.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her helpful words. The position of a head teacher is difficult, and only he knows when the time has come that he can no longer contain pupils within his school. I made that point when we were discussing the matter in Committee.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am sure that we can leave the matter in her hands and that she will take it away and return with something that will resolve our concern. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Finance]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 28, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("to"), in line 13.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Government are proposing this amendment because it was apparent in our discussion of Clause 23 in Committee that the words we now wish to remove were a source of potential confusion. The words were intended to be helpful in explaining the purpose of the duty laid upon all LEAs by paragraph (b) of the clause. They were not in any way intended to limit the freedom which LEAs would have under our proposals to put in the hands of the governing body of a school responsibility for as great a proportion of funds allocated to that school as they wished and as circumstances suggested. But this is how they have been seen and we have felt that to remove them would avoid the risk of misunderstanding.
The clause without these words remains unambiguous both as to a LEA's freedom to go beyond the minimum requirement for financial delegation which will be placed on all LEAs and our intention to place some financial responsibility with the governing body. It continues to safeguard the position of the LEA which wishes to make continuous progress into an area of policy which is still relatively novel in our schools. In due course, guidance on the implementation of our proposals will serve to make assurance doubly sure. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is only right that I should express our appreciation to the Government and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who took the trouble to write to me twice about the matter. There was, indeed, confusion. I do not think that it was confusion in the minds of the Opposition but in the wording of the Bill as orginally drafted.
The noble Earl is correct: to remove that paragraph also removes the confusion which gave rise to debate
258
in Committee. None of this resolves the real difficulties which will occur as local education authorities try to implement the procedures for devolution of financial responsibility to governing bodies. It is therefore welcome to hear that the Government will issue guidelines for them.
I am sure that we will all have received representations from those in Cambridgeshire who have had experience of those matters. It is clear that even where there are experimental periods there is no easy resolution of the problems, but we hope that the guidelines will be helpful in encouraging local authorities to experiment responsibly with the powers which are being granted under the clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Governors' annual report to parents]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 29, line 40, leave out ("and")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 78. Amendment No. 77 is merely a minor drafting point. The amendments may be seen as a logical development from amendments that we have already debated and agreed upon to develop or strengthen a school's links with the community, including the police. They require two additional elements to be included in the governors' annual report over and above the range of information already required under Clause 24.
We have been over much of this ground already, and I hope that your Lordships are now content to make these valuable but consequential amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to make one fairly minor point. I welcome this amendment as I did the previous ones. The only assurance I should like is that the whole issue will be monitored by Her Majesty's inspectors. I hope that will be done because it would reassure many were we to receive that guarantee.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that monitoring will take place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 30, line 4, at end insert—

("(j) to describe what steps have been taken by the governing body to develop or strengthen the school's links with the community (including links with the police); and

(k) to draw attention to the information made available by the governing body in accordance with the regulations made under section (Information for parents) of this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Reports by governing body and head teachers]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 32, line 31, at end insert—
("(2) The articles of government for every aided school shall provide—

259

(a) for the local education authority to notify the governing body of any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above which is imposed by them on the head teacher; and

(b) for the head teacher to furnish the governing body with a copy of any report which he makes in complying with the requirement.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we indicated at Committee stage that we would see whether we could produce an amendment that, while recognising that there needed to be a free flow of information between the head teacher of an aided school and the LEA which maintains it, would also safeguard the employee/employer relationship between the head teacher of an aided school and the governing body. We believe that this amendment does what is required. It ensures that the governing body of an aided school is always aware of transactions between the LEA and head teacher under this clause, and thereby enables the governing body to intervene if it thinks fit.
If an LEA attempted to obtain information on a matter that was not the head teacher's responsibility, he could rightly refuse to supply it. If the LEA subsequently attempted to use information legitimately obtained from the head teacher to trespass on a province of the governors, they could take appropriate action, including if necessary complaining to the Secretary of State who, if the complaint was well founded, could issue a corrective direction to the LEA.
We believe that this amendment provides a useful safeguard for aided school governing bodies while at the same time allowing information to flow freely. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 32, line 31, at end insert—
(" (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, any such reports shall be available for inspection at all reasonable times and free of charge at the school.
(3) There may be excluded from the copies of reports made available in pursuance of subsection (2) above any information relating to—

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

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

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

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should perhaps move this amendment more than formally, if only to give the Government an opportunity to confirm what I believe to be the case—that the provisions for regulations on information about schools which have already been agreed under a preceding amendment would make possible the kinds of reports and the kinds of exclusions that are proposed in this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this amendment is similar to one moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, during the Committee stage. When withdrawing it, he indicated that he was less than happy with the Government's reply, which he suggested implied a roundabout way of getting at
260
information. My arguments on this occasion are very much on the same lines. I cannot give an assurance at this point that the matter will be dealt with in the post-Act circular but I am sure that it will be considered.
Before inviting the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, I may offer him one crumb of consolation. His amendment implies an availability of documentation beyond those most closely connected with the school—the staff, parents and pupils. The regulations will consider providing for copies of signed minutes and governing body agendas to be available at the school for inspection by ratepayers of the authority, as well as staff, parents and pupils. This goes some way, I believe, to meeting the noble Lord's request.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that. I had thought that there was a connection between this and the preceding amendment. I am happy to have it confirmed that the Government's general move in the direction of better information about schools and the operation of governing bodies includes those matters. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Appointment and dismissal of staff introductory]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 34, line 7, leave out ("and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the Committee stage the Government promised the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely that we would bring forward our own amendment to make abundantly clear that the important provisions of the 1944 Act concerning the appointment and dismissal of reserved teachers in controlled and special agreement schools were not affected by this Bill, and would continue unchanged. These amendments honour that undertaking. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12 midnight
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 34, line 10, at end insert ("; and
(g) this section is subject to the provisions of sections 27 and 28 of the 1944 Act (which relate to religious education).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Appointment of head teacher]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 36, line 7, leave out from ("them") to ("and") in line 8 and insert ("for the senior elected representatives of the authority present to exercise a casting vote.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I had any doubt about the necessity for a revision of the procedures for the appointment of head teachers these doubts would have been dispelled by a speech made by the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, to the Industrial Society yesterday. I have the benefit of the press release which arrived this morning. He said:

261
"The Bill strikes a fine balance between the LEA and the governing body. So important is the head to the life of the school and to the education provided in the school that neither party should in our view be able to impose its will on the other in the process of selecting a candidate for appointment".
If we take that literally that is a recipe—in the case of disagreement—for no appointment at all, for complete inaction. Even if we do not take it literally it points to the defect in the Government's thinking where, in the case of a disagreement which cannot be resolved at the time, the only solution that the Government have is a most damaging readvertisement of the post and a repetition of the entire procedure. At Committee stage we moved a comparable amendment to say that in the case of a deadlock of votes there should be a casting vote to be held by the senior representative—it should be the singular "representative", not "representatives"—of the authority present. My view that this is the right way to avoid damaging and unnecessary deadlock is confirmed by the speech of the Minister of State.
If the Government continue to resist this modest suggestion of how to resolve unnecessary deadlock I fear that it may be necessary for us to consider the matter again and to propose that the appointment of head teachers should be a matter for regulation rather than spelt out on the face of the Bill. This seems to be one of the cases where we have excessive precision leading to unnecessary delay. I hope very much that the Government will think again about the nature of the provision they are making and the necessity of having it in this way on the face of the Bill where local arrangements could very well be agreed which would be preferable and speedier.
There is nothing worse for a school than to have an unnecessarily long interregnum between the departure of one head teacher and the appointment of a new head teacher. As Mr. Patten says in the remainder of his speech, the quality of leadership provided by the head teacher to the school is fundamental to the success of the school, and the absence of a head teacher for a prolonged period is damaging to the whole ethos and success of the school. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, this amendment is substantially the same as the one put forward by the noble Lord at the Committee stage. I appreciate the point that he is making. I can understand the desire to prevent a stalemate in the appointment of a head teacher. But, as the noble Lord himself said at the Committee stage:
"It is all a matter of balance. There is no perfect solution in these matters. We would rather cut short the procedure at a certain price to the equality between the governing body and the local education authority. The Government tend to take the other view of where the balance of preference lies".
That is the difference between us. As indicated in the quotation that he gave from the speech of my honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, we continue to believe that the post of head teacher is of such vital importance to the general welfare of the school that it cannot be equitable for the authority to have its way. The governing body must be fully involved in the making of that particular appointment. If it takes time, then so be it. In the meantime there will not be a gap or an interregnum; the acting head will be in charge.
262
I could comment on the detail of the noble Lord's amendment, but I do not think that at this late hour this is what the House would wish. I know the sincerity of the view which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but there is a difference of opinion between us. However, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the reasons that I have just given and which have been given by my honourable friend in his speech yesterday—that the Government believe that it would not be right for the local education authority to have a power of settlement in this way and that the governing bodies, because of the role that they play in this Bill, must be fully involved in the making of such an important appointment as the head teacher. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very disappointed. After reading the Minister of State's speech I am hardly surprised, but it makes me think that we have not found the right solution and that the whole complicated procedure set out in Clauses 30 and 31 will not work as the Government think. The only consideration that we can continue to give to this matter must be to see whether it should not be dealt with by regulation rather than on the face of the Bill. We shall give consideration to that alternative before the Third Reading. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendments Nos. 84 and 85:
Page 36, line 39, at end insert—
(" (2) In this section "head teacher" does not include an acting head teacher.")
Clause 33, page 40, line 18, at end insert—
("(4) In subsection (1) above "head teacher" does not include an acting head teacher.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments No. 84 and 85 en bloc and at the same time speak also to Amendment No. 96. These are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Appraisal of performance of teachers]:
Lord Irving of Dartford Lord Irving of Dartford moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 43, line 4, leave out ("requirements as may be prescribed") and insert ("arrangements as they may determine")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill proposes that the appraisal which is to be established under the conditions of this clause should be,
"in accordance with such requirements as may be prescribed".
and obviously this is to be done by the Secretary of State.
Teachers have felt that this was one more example of the lack of trust in teachers which appears to them to have characterised the Secretary of State's attitude for some long time and they have felt threatened. They believe that if there had been any prospect of the Secretary of State being able to negotiate appraisal freely, Clause 37 would never have been included in the Bill. We have been saying for some time that appraisal can be achieved only with the co-operation

263
of teachers. Until last week that clearly was not likely. However, the interim settlement has changed all that and what is needed is a new look at Clause 37.
In any case it is not suggested that the content of the appraisal should itself be determined by the Secretary of State. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said at the Committee stage, appraisal is a matter fundamentally between the teachers themselves, collectively and individually, and their employers, the local authorities, and therefore the impetus which persuaded the Secretary of State to include Clause 37 is no longer relevant. Indeed, the most vital thing at this moment is for the Secretary of State to restore the morale in our schools. As Mr. Harry Judge, the director of the Department of Educational Studies at Oxford has said, morale is lower in our schools than at any time he could remember and arguably for 100 years.
In the new beginning made possible by the interim settlement the Secretary of State has the opportunity to make a gesture which could help to improve dramatically the atmosphere in our schools between himself and teachers. If he wants to improve the atmosphere and secure the co-operation, without which he cannot achieve his objective, there are few ways more likely to bring this about.
In any case after the turmoil of the last months what the Secretary of State needs to do is to allow the professionalism of teachers to emerge and take control of the situation. He has claimed that Clause 37 was needed to provide a national framework, but this can emerge from the discussions that are taking place or are about to take place.
The National Union of Teachers has made it very clear that it is in favour of appraisal for professional development. We hope that the Secretary of State can rise to the situation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, we have already made it abundantly clear that the Government's preference is for appraisal to be introduced voluntarily on the basis of agreement between the teachers' unions, the local authorities, and the Government. I think I made that clear to the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, on the Statement on which he crossed swords with me the other day. 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 should have their performance appraised in a broadly consistent way. I am surprised that the noble Lord should take exception to this.
When I drew the analogy of appraisal with probation in the discussion of this clause in Committee, it was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the analogy was not valid. This is an important point to which I must now return. The noble Lord set the case of probation apart on the grounds that it was "providing teachers for the school system as a whole". But a teacher's mobility is not set in stone with his first post. Teachers can move around different LEAs and many do so—often teachers whose abilities justify promotion but who cannot obtain it within their own LEAs because there are no vacancies.
264
The Government believe it essential that there should be a sufficient consistency between the schemes of different LEAs to allow this desirable movement of teachers to be based on a firm foundation of common appraisal criteria.
The Government want no more than regulations which guarantee this bottom line of consistency between schemes without stifling local initiative. What we are working towards in the ACAS talks is making appraisal the common currency of decisions on the professional career development of teachers and the management needs of LEAs. All six teacher unions are working with management to make the talks bear fruit. This clause is designed to underpin that desirable agreement, not to hobble it in any way.
My Lords, this amendment would sweep away the aim of guaranteeing this bottom line of consistency between the ways in which different teachers are appraised. Instead of a common national currency there would be a confusion of local coinages. I would ask the noble Lord, in the light of those reassurances, to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I am sorry that my efforts last week and again today have not persuaded the noble Earl that this amendment has merit. We have suffered the longest and most agonising period of upheaval that our schools have ever experienced. Parents and teachers desperately want a period of peace. This will not happen without a conscious effort, and we believe that there is one way, one gesture, that could help that process.
We feel also that what the noble Earl sees as an essential need to underpin this in legislation is not really relevant. There must be many agreements in the educational world which are not underpinned by legislation. If the talks succeed, that ought to provide the national framework and the Secretary of State ought to be satisfied. But at this late hour I do not wish to divide the House. We may wish to return to this at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Grants for teachers training]:
12.15 a.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford Lord Irving of Dartford moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 44, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) education welfare officers and social workers in education;
( ) education support staff including particularly technicians in educational establishments, nursery nurses, administrative and secretarial staff.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment to Clause 38 of the Education Bill seeks to provide training opportunities for other professional and administrative staff than those currently specified. Certain groups of staff such as technicians, nursery nurses and librarians, education welfare officers and social workers in education, work closely with teachers in developing the curriculum, structuring activities and providing resources for use in the classroom. Other groups such as administrative staff have considerable responsibilities in relation to the smooth running of the school.
There are about 20,000 nursery nurses employed in nursery, primary and special schools. The majority of these hold the Nursery Nurses Examinations Board certificate.
The NNEB has recently launched a new qualification for experienced nursery nurses, the Certificate in Post Qualifying Studies, but opportunities for nursery nurses to undertake post-entry are extremely limited. This is despite the fact that studies undertaken on behalf of the Department of Education and Science show that nursery nurses usually work as a team with teaching staff, and the work of nursery nurses is broadly similar to that of nursery teachers.
Approximately 13,000 technicians are employed in laboratories and workshops in schools. A recent study conducted by the joint secretaries to the National Joint Council for Local Authorities Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services staff in local authorities in England and Wales demonstrated the involvement of technicians in development and delivery of the curriculum. Technicians were involved in adapting, modifying and constructing equipment and in devising experiments. The study also showed that many technicians undertook evening classes at their own expense to keep up to date with the rapidly changing technology now available. This is clearly unsatisfactory, and proper training could be of considerable benefit to individual technicians and the schools.
School libraries are seriously underfunded and understaffed. Changes in teaching methods and the development of the school library as a learning resource centre have resulted in an enhanced role for the library and library staff, and they should be able to receive training to assist them.
Administrative staff: there are well over 30,000 administrative secretarial and clerical staff in schools. The trend to devolving more and more managerial responsibility to schools has resulted in new duties and responsibilities for administrative staff, whose contribution could be enhanced with proper training.
The same applies to education and welfare officers and social workers in education. There are, my Lords, currently only limited opportunities for support staff in schools to receive post-entry training and many authorities provide no training at all.
The introduction of new technology in classroom and school offices could be much more effective if staff were properly trained. The introduction of curriculum changes and particularly the GCSE examination is another area where the contribution of support staff could be improved by proper training. Initiatives by local authorities such as financial devolution could also be introduced more smoothly with good training. My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can fully understand the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, has moved this amendment. But I am sure that he will appreciate that Clause 38 of this Bill is designed to promote the professional development of teachers and so improve the quality of teaching in our schools, as set out in the White Paper Better Schools. This clause, and the new in-service training grant,
266
which, as he will know, is a specific grant which will be introduced next April, are key elements in the Government's policies for improving teaching. They will encourage local education authorities to make arrangements for more systematic in-service training for their teachers.
The present unsatisfactory arrangements for the "pooling"—that is, sharing between all local education authorities of some training costs of teachers and certain other staff are an obstacle to this. As discussed in paragraph 173 of Better Schools, these arrangements have serious defects. They do not encourage well-focused and well-considered local authority programmes for the training of teachers.
The replacement of these pooling arrangements by the new grant is therefore an important feature of the Government's policies for schools. The defects of the present pooling arrangements apply equally to closely" related staff also listed in Clause 38(1). The Government have therefore decided to include in the new arrangements all those who are covered by the present pooling arrangements. This is why the draft clause includes certain other groups besides teachers.
Turning now to the detail of the noble Lord's amendment, the Government recognise the importance of appropriate training by local education authorities for all their employees in the education service, and indeed we recognise the valuable contribution made to that service by those specified in the noble Lord's amendment. I can say to him that my right honourable friend will be consulting shortly about the most appropriate form of training for education welfare officers.
Consequently, while I recognise the intention behind this amendment, which I think is a good intention, the Government consider that it is essential to our policies that we do not lose the present focus in this clause on the professional development of teachers, nor diffuse the impact that the available centrally supported expenditure will have to this end. I hope very much that the noble Lord will recognise that we will be considering these points in consultation shortly.
It is right that while we are concerned in thi,, Bill quite specifically with teachers, we should leave that position as it is with the specific grant for the new in-service training grant which will, we hope, enable the better training and development of teachers in our schools. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her help in respect of at least some of the categories of staff that I have mentioned. She mentioned education welfare officers. Does the undertaking and understanding that she has given cover all the classes that I mentioned in my amendment, or is it limited to only a small number?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my understanding is that the consultations will only cover education welfare officers. Although we recognise the point that the noble Lord has made as to the other groups of people, my understanding is that they are not covered and that it is only the education welfare officers.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, may I ask that the noble Baroness gives consideration to the other classes as well? In the meantime, I would wish to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
Support for training of governors.

(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall have power, in order to support the effective training of governors by local education authorities and governing bodies of aided and special agreement schools—

(a) to commission research into, and development and dissemination of learning materials on, the duties, responsibilities and functions of governing bodies; and

(b) to make such payments and grants to appropriate persons and bodies as are necessary to secure such commissions.

(2) In this section "appropriate persons and bodies" includes universities and establishments of further education, voluntary bodies and other persons deemed by the Secretary of State to have specialist knowledge of or interest in the good government of schools and colleges.

(3) An institution shall not be debarred from being commissioned under subsection (1) above by reason of its being maintained or assisted by a local education authority or authorities.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a constructive and helpful debate at Committee stage on Amendments 86E and 92, which referred to the necessary support for the training of governors since in Clause 43 the Government lay down that training should be available for governors who wish it. The purpose of this amendment, which is different from those moved at Committee stage—it is in a sense an extension of them and an extension of the thinking behind our Committee stage amendments, which were received with something less than antagonism by the Government—is entirely to be helpful.
The number of governors who are going to be apopointed to these new governing bodies, particularly in the early period of implementation of the Act, is going to be vey large indeed. They are going to be spread, by definition, all over the country and the task which is placed on local authorities of providing training for them is going to be quite substantial. Indeed, this seems to us to be one example—a very good example—of where distance-learning techniques would be entirely appropriate for part of the training of governors under the new system.
If that is to be done, it would have to be done through research and development of materials, and if that were achieved, and if it were done well, the result would be a very significant saving in the training costs for local authorities in later years as they come to deal with the training of new governors appointed to the schools. To commission research and development in dissemination-of-learning materials (which is what the amendment asks for) seems to us to be a rational way of saving money for local authorities in providing effective training from an early stage of the implementation of the Act. We hope that this idea will commend itself to the Government.
I may say that if the Department of Education and Science does not undertake this kind of training there are probably people in the Manpower Services Commision and the Open Tech unit of Manpower Services Commission who would take up the
268
challenge. I hope that the amour propre of the Department of Education and Science would lead them to think kindly of this amendment as a way of keeping what is, after all, an important part of the education service within the purview of the department itself. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I fully agree with all that the noble Lord has said about the importance of training for school governors in order that they may be as effective as possible. I hope the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that the Government accept the intention of his amendment, which is to empower the Secretary of State to grant-aid the development and dissemination of governor training materials. However, we believe that the necessary powers are already in place under existing legislation. For example, as regards research generally, the Secretary of State has appropriate powers under Section 100 of the 1944 Act and the grant regulations of 1983 made thereunder. It was those powers that were used, for example, to assist the development of the Open University's course for governor training under the 1980 Act, as well as some other related research. Maybe that goes some way towards meeting the noble Lord's point about distance learning.
Those powers do not extend, however, to grant-aiding local education authorities and the institutions they maintain. To fill that gap, the Education (Grants and Awards) Act 1984 was put on the statute book. That Act allows for the making of regulations under which education support grants are paid. It is with the support of such grant that high-quality pilot schemes are under way in 10 local education authorities in this and the next financial year. The results of those projects will be widely available in time for the new general training duty in respect of governors under Clause 43.
As I hope I have shown, the grant-aiding powers proposed in the noble Lord's amendment are already in place and are being used, as they will continue to be used as necessary. The Government would see it as both unnecessary and undesirable to make specal mention of school government as a particular use of those powers out of the whole range of potential uses. I therefore trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, which indeed covers a very large part of the intention of the amendment. It is useful to have confirmation that the powers already exist.
If I may clear up one very minor possible source of confusion, it is not the intention of the amendment to secure grants for research or development to local authorities themselves, but simply not to debar research establishments because they are also grant-aided by local authorities; in other words, not to exclude the public sector of higher education. However, on the assurances given that the powers already exist, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 91:
After Clause 43 insert the following new clause:
("First aid skills in schools.
. Every Local Education Authority shall secure that, where no qualified medical or nursing personnel are available in a school then 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: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this amendment because the arguments for the provison of adequate cover of first aid have been made at earlier stages of this Bill and have received widespread support from all parts of your Lordships' House.
My noble friend the Minister argued at Committee stage that this amendment was not necessary; but I must say I am afraid that on consideration, having looked very carefully at the points which she made, her arguments have not been found convincing. I have, for example, consulted with experts in this field and I would point very briefly to three examples of the deficiencies in the Government's position, as it was presented at Committee stage. First, it was argued that present legislation provides adequate cover for children. However, as I say, having consulted with experts, the view is that the present legislation does not provide adequate cover for all children. Of course the Health and Safety Executive can enter schools and can comment on the provisions they find there; but that is not the same as a requirement that there should be a minimum standard of people available on the site who are adequately trained for first aid cover for emergencies.
My noble friend the Minister also said that the modest standard that would be required for the provision of first aid cover that was indicated in the wording of the amendment might lead to an actual reduction in standards for areas where people are already trained and on location. However, that argument does not really hold, I believe, because although some local authorities are very good and require very high standards in the provision of cover—Devon is an extremely good example—other authorities have no specification and no requirements whatever. Therefore the provision is extremely patchy and I think it is preferable to have a standard, adequate, minimum requirement rather than this very erratic provision that pertains at the moment, which may leave children very vulnerable.
12.30 a.m.
Finally, my noble friend the Minister, by way of example, referred to the fact that first aid kits are always available and are standardised in their requirements. However, the kits that are available by law are those which are meant to be provided for adults at a place of work. They are not designed particularly for children, or for the contingencies of school life and the particular hazards which might accompany school life. Therefore, the provision as it now stands is not adequate. It does not cover children for the risks to which they might be exposed at school. I think it is very unsatisfactory and very disturbing that we should have in this country a situation where children may be in danger from the kind of accidents and incidents which have been outlined in earlier discussions, where people may not be available to provide adequate first aid cover and, therefore, where children may well be
270
vulnerable to exacerbation of injury or even to death from inadequate provision. I really feel that this is something that we must take very seriously and I know that that concern is very widely shared. Therefore, I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilon: My Lords, I do not think it would be practical to provide in legislation for at least one person per school to be trained in first aid. That member of staff might be ill or leave. That is insufficient. Would it not be much more practical to provide first aid training for all teachers as part of their teacher training? They would then be trained to teach children first aid when it became part of the curriculum. My wish is that everyone is trained in first aid—teachers and children. We would then have a much more useful and responsible society.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I have arrived just in ti me to support the noble Baroness opposite on this amendment. I feel that it is the least we can do. I am sure that she has already pointed out the really important need to have someone to cope with emergencies, in order to avoid possible tragedies. But there are also quite practical reasons for having a trained person on the premises. For one thing, it saves doctor time, both in hospitals and in general practice, and it also saves teacher time. It saves teacher time because if there is no trained person on the premises, a teacher may have to take a pupil to hospital or to a doctor's surgery, instead of being able to cope with the problem on the premises.
An emergency also causes alarm for parents, because children patients may have to be taken home, or parents may have to be called from work when there is nothing very much wrong with the child and he or she is just too ill to stay at school. If there was somebody trained to look after them, it would be possible to cope until the end of school.
In addition to the words in the amendment there should be in some Act—and I am not sure whether there are any words in existing Education Acts—words requiring schools to provide a place where people who are not feeling very well can lie down. There are a lot of schools where pupils who are feeling ill have to sit up and grin and bear it until the end of school. It should be written in somewhere that there should be provision for them at least to lie horizontally. I have no hesitation in supporting the noble Baroness's amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will feel that there is cross-party support for this and that this will make her more likely rather than less likely to agree to it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I, too, went back to re-read the report of the debate that we had in Committee on the similar amendment that my noble friend Lady Cox moved on that occasion. This evening she has raised three points which she felt were unsatisfactory in the answer that I gave. I, too, have considered the legislative position and I hope that I shall be able to reassure her on the three points that she has made.
First, if I may make a general point which I hope will be of reassurance to everyone who has spoken, the department has no record of any case of complaint

271
over the treatment of a pupil or student after an accident on school or college premises. That should act as a reassurance in regard to the general state of the provision in our schools.
I turn to the three particular points that my noble friend raised. My noble friend said that the present legislation does not provide an adequate cover. There is a general requirement for local authorities to make adequate provision for first aid in their schools. There is, as I said before, a general common law requirement. There is also the Health and Safety Act 1974, which imposes an obligation both on employers and on employees to have proper regard to the health and safety of others at work. Indeed, LEAs have a common law responsibility, in loco parentis, to look after the children in their care.
The Health and Safety First Aid Regulations 1981 and approved code of practice are framed to allow employers considerable scope in deciding how to tailor first aid provisions to the particular circumstances of their establishments. General advice on the criteria to be used by employers in deciding the appropriate level of provision for their employees is given in the approved code. The most important questions to be considered relate to the number and type of first aid personnel to be employed and whether a first aid room should be provided. The main criteria which apply to these questions are on the number and location of staff, the nature of the hazards to which they are exposed and the accessibility of NHS emergency facilities. These principles should apply equally to facilities provided for pupils, students and other non-employees.
In primary and secondary schools which may be regarded as establishments with relatively low hazards the approved code suggests that a first aider would be required only where there are 150 or more employees, and a first aid room where there are 400 or more. Consequently, most schools will not need a first aid room for employees, although many have medical rooms or rest rooms, and few will need qualified first aiders. However, this does not prevent trained first aiders being appointed in primary and secondary schools where this is considered appropriate.
Where the number of employees is below 150 employers may consider the total number of people on the site in assessing first aid needs. Where no first aiders are provided the regulations require appointed persons to be available to look after first aid equipment and to take charge of a situation if an accident occurs. No training is specified for appointed people although the Health and Safety Executive recommends the value of instruction in emergency first aid, resuscitation, control of bleeding and treatment of unconsciousness for such people. Such instruction is especially valuable where the appointed persons are responsible for children. Schools have to have a medical room under the 1981 school premises regulations. I hope, therefore, that this clears up the legal point. Perhaps I may confirm that in the case of special schools specific requirements are laid down by regulations. Requirements already exist for the kind of facilities which are now being proposed in special schools.
272
My noble friend's second point was that we were lowering standards in some places because we had not set a specific minimum requirement. As I am sure she will be aware, a minimum requirement can quite easily become a maximum requirement. In some schools we can do better than the suggestion that has been made. Although I accept that this means an uneven level of provision, it seems better to allow schools which already maintain a higher level of training to try to continue that level and for the others to try harder.
Finally, my noble friend asked about the provision of first aid kits in schools. This is a matter on which, if she will agree, I should like to write to her because it is a detailed provision. I shall be happy to write to her on that matter.
The Department of Education issues guidance from time to time on first aid provision and will review it so as to ensure as far as possible that schools are provided with the appropriate staff and facilities under the existing regulations and guidance. This ought to be the kind of assurance that my noble friend seeks from the Government, and I hope very much that, with that assurance and with the explanation, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am most grateful to those who have supported this amendment at previous stages of the Bill and now. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for being here so late in order to speak to and support the amendment.
In response to my noble friend the Minister, I have taken careful note of the points that she has raised. One of the reasons why perhaps there have been no complaints is that given by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. It is a point that has been made to me by many people. In many cases when mishaps occur at school and there are accidents and injuries pupils are taken to accident and emergency departments or to a GP's surgery. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, that is not an ideal way of coping with such situations in human terms—because both the pupils and their parents grow worried when children have to be taken to hospital accident and emergency departments—and it is an expensive use of both teacher and medical resources. The argument about no complaints is not therefore entirely convincing.
The suggestion that schools are low hazard areas is one that I find slightly surprising. If accidents do not occur there regularly, it is not necessarily because the children are not in a vulnerable situation. When pupils are working in domestic science kitchens or in science laboratories where they have access to strong chemicals, and are playing hard body contact games, they are in a very vulnerable situation. Anybody who knows about the hurly-burly of school life would not regard schools as low hazard situations.
I accept my noble friend's point concerning the special schools. On the other hand your Lordships will be aware that a growing number of pupils with special needs are being integrated into our ordinary schools. They may therefore be particularly vulnerable. I believe that there ought to be a provision to ensure that care for such pupils, who are particularly vulnerable, is at an adequate level.

273
I come, finally, to my noble friend's point that we should not necessarily go for a minimum standard because that might preclude the maximum. That argument does not convince me because it seems to me that nothing will prevent people who are committed to excellence from attaining that excellence. The fact that there is a minimum standard does not necessarily inhibit people from working towards a higher standard. I would like to feel that the professional responsibilities and sense of commitment of teachers and of others responsible for the wellbeing of children would enable them to strive for maximum coverage rather than stay at the minimum level just because a minimum was required.
I still have serious reservations about the defence, as it were, put by my noble friend the Minister. However, I shall consult experts in the field, in particular those representing organisations such as St. John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, who feel very real concern about the issues underpinning the amendment. I should like also to consider my noble friend's suggestion concerning the guidelines and to look further into that aspect. In the meantime, and at this late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness Serota Baroness Serota moved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
(" Application of Part III of Local Government Act 1974 to governing bodies.
. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 of the Local Government Act 1974 shall cease to have effect and any reference to an authority to which Part III of the Local Government Act 1974 applies shall also include a reference to governing bodies established in accordance with Part III of this Act.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 92 with the object of inserting a new clause into the Bill after Clause 45 in order to enable the local ombudsman service in England and Wales, which was established under Part III of the Local Government Act 1974, to investigate complaints of injustice about internal school matters arising from maladministration by local education authorities.
Such complaints are at present outside the jurisdiction of the local ombudsmen because of Schedule 5 (5) to the 1974 Act, although the local ombudsmen can and do deal with the actions of local authorities on all other matters relating to the education service, including, for example, the choice of school, school transport, requests for boarding education, maintenance allowances, awards to students, the youth service, adult education, and several other matters of that kind.
I listened very carefully to the debate which was initiated by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey at the very beginning of the Committee stage of this Bill on 25th March when he argued the case for a specialist children's ombudsman in every authority. Though there was some general support for the need to provide some form of independent complaints machinery for the investigation of complaints dealing with internal school matters, the concept of providing a completely new service for this purpose was criticised on a number of grounds.
For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, pointed out that such a proposal should not relate solely to schools, and she also suggested that young people of the ages of 16, 17 and 18 would find the suggested,title of "Children's Ombudsman" somewhat insulting. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, opposed the proposal mainly on the grounds of the sheer cost of setting up some 103 children's ombudsmen in the offices of every local authority, if such a statutory duty were to be laid on all local education authorities.
Looking carefully at col. 1290 of Hansard, of that day, he appeared to be under the misapprehension that parents have a general right to go to the local ombudsman on all education matters, but, as 1 have already explained, that is not so. He also indicated that the proposal for a children's ombudsman as envisaged might also need to provide services for children in care which are at present covered by the Social Services Department. There was also a discussion on that day of the ILEA's proposed pilot scheme for the London education service, which I see as a very welcome initiative for setting up a comprehensive local complaints procedure.
All the experience in these last 12 years since the local ombudsman system was established confirms the need for all authorities to have clear and well publicised arrangements for dealing speedily and effectively with complaints at the local level. I very much hope, too, that the proposals in the Bill for revising the role and function of school governors will also assist the very steady general trend over recent years for local authorities to improve their own procedures. But in the last resort I would submit to the house that there is no substitute for a fully independent and impartial ombusdman system which is quite separate from the local authorities themselves to deal with those complaints that cannot be satisfactorily settled at local level.
This amendment would enable the local ombudsman to receive and, where appropriate, investigate complaints relating to internal school and college matters as they now do in any matters relating to an internal local authority establishment such as a children's home or a home for elderly people.
My belief in the need for change is based on three statutory reviews of the 1974 Act, on my own nine years' working experience as Chairman of the Commission for Local Administration and local ombudsman for Greater London and the South-East, and also on the long held view of the Commission that complaints about all administrative actions of local authorities should be investigated unless there is some overwhelming reason for excluding them. In this case I believe the exclusion to be illogical, and therefore I beg leave to move the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am trebly grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment in the way that she has—firstly, because in order to move the amendment she has sat patiently through so many hours of debate when I know that she is not in the best of health; secondly, because of the extremely eloquent and lucid way in which she has moved the amendment; and thirdly, because of her kindness in not referring to the mess—frankly—that

275
we made of this issue at Committee stage. There were a number of defects in the amendment that we proposed, not least—as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy—that for pupils of 16 or over the idea of a "Children's Ombudsman" was not appropriate.
My noble friend has the, in this House, unique experience of nine years' service as a commissioner for local administration, and she referred to the three internal reviews, in all of which the English commission reiterated its view that those matters should be within the remit of the local authority ombudsman. It is nonsense that a complaint about an allocation to a school can be investigated but a complaint about an allocation to a form cannot. It is nonsense that a complaint about the management of a children's home can be investigated but a complaint about a school attended by the same children cannot.
The objections that have been raised to the extension of the responsibilities of the local authority ombudsman have been made by the representative bodies, and the Government have consistently taken the view that to extend the remit in that way would be unnecessarily expensive and add enormously to the responsibilities of the local authority ombudsman. There may be many thousands of children in schools, but there are also many, many thousands of council houses. Nobody has ever suggested that the powers of the local authority ombudsman should not extend to the public housing service.
The Bill proposes many more safeguards for parents to obtain access to the government of schools and to have a means of redress for any complaints that they may have through the procedures of the governing bodies. That is the Government's intention in the Bill, which we applaud. But one of the effects will be that the number of potential complaints to a local authority ombudsman will be reduced. That is not to say that they will ever be removed entirely. The local authority ombudsman forms a backstop, if one likes, for the normal processes of judgment and complaint to which parents and pupils have access. Now we surely have the opportunity without significant additional expense to rationalise the powers of the local authority ombudsman, to provide a final safeguard to parents and pupils and once and for all to put the law straight on this matter after a period of 12 years. I hope that the Government will find it possible to support my noble friend's amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, first I should like to agree with the noble Lord about one thing, and that is the splendid example of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, who told me at lunchtime that she was not feeling well, yet she has sat here throughout the debate. It is a splendid effort. We heard on the last amendment about first-aid in schools, but she survived all this without needing first-aid!
This amendment would bring within the scope of local commissioners of administration—the local ombudsmen—those matters relating to educational establishments ruled out by paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974. These matters are the local education authority's functions in respect of the secular curriculum and, inside schools and
276
establishments of further education, the giving of any instruction and matters of conduct, curriculum, internal organisation, management or discipline.
These provisions were not lightly put in the 1974 Act. They reflect four main considerations. The first is the relevance of the concept of "sustaining injustice through maladministration"—the raison d'etre of the local ombudsmen—in what, for shorthand, could be referred to as "internal school matters". In this context, it is interesting to note that the Inner London Education Authority's proposal for a children's ombudsman (which I think may have prompted the Committee stage amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh) does not seek to import such a criterion: as I understand it, it is simply an enhanced complaints procedure.
That brings me to my second point, which concerns the relevance of the local ombudsman's necessarily detailed and time-consuming method of investigation to matters which, by their nature, tend to involve complex and delicate matters of judgment, often arising on only an ephemeral basis.
Arising from these two, my third point relates to the existence of alternative means of dealing with concerns and grievances. There are various such means both locally through the general right to make representations as well as provision for specific appeals and also nationally, by complaint to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is important here to consider not only means of dealing with complaints in particular cases but also means of preventing them arising in the first place. I agree with the noble Baroness that, here, considerable weight can be placed on the arrangements for school government particularly as it is to be developed under this Bill.
We shall have governing bodies made much more accountable to the community served by the school in terms of both membership and the new duty to hold an annual meeting of parents. These reinvigorated governing bodies will be intimately involved in the matters addressed by this amendment. As well as providing a forum for considering representations on such matters, they will doubtless ensure that the initial determination of the matters is most sensitively done.
Finally,—I cannot avoid this—there is the issue of resources. There are currently three local commissioners for England and I understand that they are supported by 26 investigators. They currently manage about 200 formal investigations a year—about one in 10 of the cases brought to their attention and within their scope.
This amendment contemplates adding to the matters in scope a wide variety of complex and sensitive issues. In England alone there are 27,500 maintained schools. I was fascinated when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that there may be a few thousand school children, in fact there are 7.5 million. That is a great deal more than a few thousand. There are 400,000 teachers and several hundred maintained colleges, with over a million students. As well as seeming, for the reasons I have indicated, an inappropriate and unnecessary extension of the local ombudsman's remit, it is clear that this amendment could create quite unnacceptable burdens for the local ombudsmen as well as the schools and colleges.

277
In bringing my remarks to a close, I have to say that this is not a new suggestion. I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that the commissioners themselves have suggested an extension to their jurisdiction of this sort under the formal reviews of their remit built into the 1974 Act. The Government have, of course, given this serious consideration but, for the reasons I have indicated, have rejected the suggestion, most recently in the formal response of last September.
Finally and most importantly, I must mention that the committee of inquiry into the conduct of local government business, chaired by Mr. David Widdicombe QC, was, inter alia, asked to consider the public right to challenge a local authority's actions. The committee reported to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 9th May. The report, which has yet to be published, will doubtless touch on the matter we are discussing.
I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that the Government will be looking at this issue openly at that time. Against that background, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, I must first thank the noble Earl for his concern for my welfare. I only hope that the high temperatures on the first floor compared with the low temperatures in the Chamber will not have affected it adversely. I must also thank him for his reply to my amendment, although I know that he will understand when I say how deeply disappointed I am to hear the same old arguments that have been dragged out for the past 12 years whenever this subject has been tackled.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey kindly answered in advance some of the arguments. He anticipated that we should be hearing the usual arguments against the extension of the local ombudsman's jurisdiction. The noble Earl made a number of points. At this time of day I shall not attempt to refute them all. I should like to refer to two points. They relate, first, to resources and, secondly, to the local ombudsman's ability to distinguish between the professional judgments that are made in internal matters in the education service and administrative acts.
With regard to resources, I shall say only that we all hope, with this development of the powers of governing bodies, as embodied in the Bill, that we shall surely see not a great increase in the number of complaints going to the local ombudsman but a decrease, as we hope that they will be dealt with more effectively locally.
The resources argument really does not hold water, particularly in view of the point made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey relating to complaints on other aspects of local authority services which affect as many, if not more, members of the public than does the education service. I was particularly disappointed to hear reference to the inability of the local ombudsman to distinguish between professional judgments, in this case of teachers, and administrative acts of local authorities when, for 12 years, they have been doing this daily in relation to the professional judgments of other local authority professional staff such as lawyers, planners and social
278
workers, to name but a few, and apparently quite successfully.
I take heart, though, from the last words of the noble Earl relating to the forthcoming publication of the Widdicombe Report. I am sure that that report will deal with this subject among others in depth and in detail. It may provide the opportunity for the House to return to this question. But this is not the occasion to test the feeling of the House on what I regard as a very important principle. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Minimum age for governors of establishments of further education]:
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
1 a.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 94.
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: My Lords, this amendment relates to the extreme difficulty that parents are experiencing in obtaining necessary information on proposed closures or amalgamations of their schools, in particular from their own local education authorities. I spoke to the same amendment in Committee. In fact, we had a substantial debate. I shall not repeat all the arguments at this time of night, but I wish to probe the Government on their current position.
Where proposals for closure, amalgamation or rationalisation are put up by a local authority to the Secretary of State, the parents in many cases do not have access to the arguments advanced or to the proposals made by their own authority to the Secretary of State. Nor is the Secretary of State obliged to publish what he receives from a local authority. We are therefore in a situation where the county will not publish the documents it has sent to the Secretary of State. He will not publish the questions that he has asked the authority and the authority will not publish the answers. Each will say that there can be no publication without the permission of the other. As a result, parents have no guarantee that their objections will he included in any submission, and their voice may he completely mute.
At Committee stage the noble Baroness. Lady Young, in a reasoned reply, confirmed what I had suspected—that the Local Government (Access to Information) Act does not cover what we seek here. It makes council minutes available but not the correspondence or background papers behind them which are essential for parents in presenting their cases. Sometimes, considerable expenses are incurred by parental associations in going to judicial review on matters of this sort. Obviously, their chances are much decreased if they do not have access to full information.
The noble Baroness, in her reply at Committee stage, reiterated the Government's position as it then was and said:
"The existing legal requirement 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".
(Official Report, 1/5/86; col. 489.)
That is not the impression of large numbers of parents up and down the country who feel themselves crushed or caught between the upper and the nether millstones of the Secretary of State and the local authority. There are certainly strong feelings on the issue. We were not satisfied with the reply from the noble Baroness, although we understand that she was trying to answer our concerns at Committee stage.
My purpose in raising the matter again this evening (I had thought of not moving the amendment at this stage and bringing it back at Third Reading) was that I thought it would be wise to see whether the Government—in view of the very strong feeling that exists among parents' associations up and down the country—have thought that they might reconsider this matter. I must tell them that if the Government's position remains the same I shall certainly be bringing the matter back at Third Reading. I am glad to see that we get a nice piece of prime time in the early part of the afternoon for the Third Reading of the Bill. On that occasion I shall be able to make a "big bang" of the issue. Before I do that I should like to hear where the Government stand at the moment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must to some extent reiterate what was explained when your Lordships considered this matter at Committee stage: that it would be superfluous to impose a duty on local education authorities to give reasons for their proposals under Sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980. Recent High Court decisions have established that parents have a legitimate expectation that they will be consulted on such proposals and this is enforceable to the same extent as a statutory requirement to consult. Therefore the position is covered at common law. The Secretary of State has at all times made clear the importance he attaches to proper consultation: where consultation has been inadequate, the Secretary of State will not approve the proposals. There is thus no need for a statutory provision for local education authorities to provide reasons for their proposals: they must already do so.
So far as the disclosure of information is concerned, on the previous occasion in Committee I understand that we somewhat understated the extent of the obligation already imposed on authorities by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act. I can give further reassurance to the noble Lord on this. As he stated, my noble friend Lady Young said then that council minutes were covered by the Act, and must be disclosed. I now understand that the obligation to disclose extends to any report considered by a council or its education committee and even to background papers on which the report, or an important part of it, was based, and which have been relied on to any material extent by those who prepared the report. This
280
is a far-reaching provision which should surely meet the noble Lords' concern.
In the light of all this, I trust that the noble Lord will conclude that the existing legal obligations on local education authorities do provide a sufficient safeguard and that this will enable him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall certainly withdraw the amendment but not with any undertaking that I shall not come back. I find it very surprising that the noble Baroness should use the word "superfluous" when the experience of parents has been extremely adverse in these matters over a long period of time. I found that an odd adjective to use.
It is quite true that they may have recourse in common law. They can go to judicial review and that kind of thing. But all this is very expensive indeed. I am obviously interested in what the noble Baroness has said about their revised interpretation of the scope of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act. I shall obviously want to look at that Act and at what the noble Baroness has said. If it is the case that any report from the local education committee considered by a council is fully available, as she suggests, that rather changes the situation. We shall want to go into the matter to see whether that is the case. Obviously the best situation is that local authorities adopt a full and frank attitude to their electors over these matters. Unfortunately not all of them do so.
However, I shall certainly read very carefully what the noble Baroness has said. I do not undertake not to come back on this, because if we are not fully satisfied we shall certainly be back at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 95:
Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Freedom of speech.
. 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 Baroness said: My Lords, I shall not repeat the arguments which I made previously at the Committee stage. However, perhaps I may point out that at that stage my noble friend the Minister offered reassurances that the Government take very seriously the issues of freedom of speech, and reference was made to the guidelines that have recently been circulated by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of Universities and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics.
However, serious incidents have occurred even since that stage of the Bill. For example, there is the case of the two Oxford colleges which have not found themselves able to give platforms to a Conservative MP; while at Bristol University only very mild penalties have been imposed on those who have disrupted officially scheduled lectures at the university because the lecturer happens to write for a Murdoch paper, and also it is claimed that the campaign against his lectures will continue.
Therefore, this amendment is timely indeed. The need for it has certainly not decreased in any way; it has been shown to have increased. Moreover, it is not incompatible with those guidelines of the CVCP and the CDP. Indeed, it would strengthen their hand in attempting to ensure freedom of speech in our colleges and universities, a freedom which lies at the heart of a free society. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I do not think that there is anyone in the Chamber tonight or in the House if it were fuller who would disagree with the absolute requirement of freedom of speech, particularly on a university campus. Therefore, obviously all right-minded people will be in sympathy with the intention of the amendment. The only reason I rise is to query whether, in fact, it is really cast in exactly the right form. I refer particularly to the phrase:
"including if necessary requesting the help of the police".
The police have a great many problems on their hands already, and in any violent incident they obviously would be called in. However, the even more important consideration is that to write that particular phrase into the amendment and, if it were accepted, into the Bill would, I should have thought, be welcomed by extreme activist groups as a basis for provoking incidents which would bring them additional publicity.
I am not disagreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in what she is trying to achieve, with which I think we all agree, but I am slightly querying the means that she is using, and that particular phrase. The intention is widely accepted by the National Union of Students and by all parts of the political spectrum; but I slightly question whether she has the formula quite right.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that at this late stage I can satisfy both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. As I have previously said, the Government have much sympathy with the views underlying this clause. I affirm again the vital need to uphold everywhere freedom of speech within the law, and especially in our institutions of higher education.
We have carefully considered the arguments put forward at Committee stage by my noble friend and have decided in the circumstances that it would be appropriate to make provision in this legislation to meet the concerns she expressed. We therefore undertake to introduce our own amendment at Third Reading. This will go wider than freedom of speech for visiting speakers and will relate to every aspect of higher education.
Your Lordships will no doubt be aware also of the open letter sent by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the President of the National Union of Students. The Government hope that this exhortation, backed up by an addition to this Bill in an appropriate form, will secure freedom of speech in our institutions of higher education.
In the light of the Government's firm undertaking I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Baroness responds, perhaps I may reinforce
282
what the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said about the lack of a necessary connection between introducing police and achieving freedom of speech. I was a graduate student at the Ohio State University for a year. It was conspicuous to me, coming from a British university, that there were campus police armed at all times constantly patrolling the campus.
It was only a few short years after that that the most outrageous breach of freedom of speech happened at Kent State University, also in the Ohio State University system. The combination of campus police and the National Guard actually shot and killed a number of students who were demonstrating their belief in their political opinions and exercising the right of freedom of speech. The argument is not all on one side. It happens to be in the interests of students to have freedom of speech as well as visiting lecturers. It is not just a matter of Left and Right, and it is not a solution to have a strong police presence.
Baroness Cox: It only remains for me to express my appreciation to my noble friend the Minister for his offer to come back at Third Reading with an amendment which hopefully will meet the needs and spirit underpinning this amendment. I welcome that. In the light of that it is not necessary for me to try to respond to the constructive queries from the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord McIntosh. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Interpretation]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 96
Page 53, line 9, leave out from ("where") to ("includes"). in line 10, and insert ("provision to the contrary is made").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 84. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past one o'clock.