Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill

HL Deb 26 January 1987 vol 483 cc1182-234

House again in Committee on Clause 2.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 7: Page 1, line 20, at end insert ("or as they may consider relevant").

The noble Lord said: We should like to add the words, or as they may consider relevant", to the clause as it stands. We are of the opinion that if the committee is to make a useful contribution to solving problems—and incidentally if it is to have any self-respect as a committee—it must have the freedom to range outside its immediate terms of reference into territories, one might say, which are adjacent to the problem.

It may well not be possible to solve one problem without considering another. In this connection other amendments are linked with this. We feel that the same principle applies; the wording of the Bill should avoid unnecessary authoritarianism. This is an example, and the committee should be given the freedom to consider matters other than those immediately referred to it by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

If I may, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 11, 12B, 13A, 23 and 24. I understand the intention behind these amendments, which is to broaden the remit of the advisory committee—if not perhaps to turn it into an independent review body as proposed in an earlier amendment, but by the back door. But doing so could prove counter-productive in terms of what the committee can achieve.

The first amendment, No. 7, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, referred, would effectively allow the advisory committee indefinitely to extend its remit over teachers' pay and conditions. For the long-term machinery that eventually emerges it may be desirable that all aspects of teachers' pay and conditions should be examined as necessary. But let us not forget that we have all agreed this evening that the advisory committee is an interim arrangement.

As was agreed by many at Second Reading, the advisory committee's function is to help clear up the mess left by the discredited Burnham machinery. To achieve this the committee needs terms of reference which define the key aspects of teachers' pay and conditions that it will consider. I hope that your Lordships' Committee will agree that there should be no risk of the committee coming under pressure from outside interests in such a way as to delay its report and a resolution of the problems referred to it. The Secretary of State's power to define the committee's remit is intended to help guide it and to enable its work to be appropriately focused.

Amendment No. 23 is consequential, requiring as it does that the committee's report should contain its recommendations on any matters it considers relevant. This again we believe will tend to extend and delay the committee's work in an undesirable fashion, as also would Amendment No. 24.

Turning now to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12B, the noble Lord's amendment recognises that the advisory committee's remit needs to take into account the financial position of local authorities. With that we are certainly in agreement. From 1965 to July 1985, a concordat operated, as has been said, giving the Secretary of State a veto over the global sum and a weighted vote on the Burnham management panel. The provision in the Bill reflects the position before the concordat was unilaterally repudiated by the Labour-controlled local authorities.

Even under the concordat which operated within Burnham the Government's role was wider ranging than the noble Lord's amendment recognises. It allowed the Secretary of State to exercise a veto; not simply to inform the Burnham Committee of financial constraints. The Government believe that for the interim period a more precise power to give directions is needed. The committee will need to operate within a realistic framework of what is affordable and it may well aid realism in its recommendations if it is given some indication of any financial constraints.

Whether or not my right honourable friend gives a direction to the advisory committee about financial constraints to which it is to have regard will depend on the circumstances at the time. The provison in the Bill would allow any direction to be in the form of a general reference to affordability or guidelines about an overall quantum. Merely to give the Secretary of State a duty to inform the committee of financial constraints and a time limit would be inadequate and would make nonsense of his other powers and duties under the Bill.

Amendment No. 13A sets out rather a strange procedure. The purpose of the committee is to examine carefully matters referred to it by the Secretary of State, to consult, to take evidence and then to report. But here it is suggested that the committee should fire off a response as soon as it gets the reference. That seems most inappropriate to say the least. Members opposite need have no fear. The committee will have ample opportunity to make plain its opinion of the matters referred to it or of the directions given to it to the Secretary of State and to the world. It is to report to the Secretary of State, and that report is to be published. The committee will include in that report anything it wants to say about the matters referred to it and any advice relating to those matters, as members may think appropriate. Therefore, the procedure in this amendment is unnecessary and I ask your Lordships' Committee to reject it.

I also ask the Committee to reject Amendments Nos. 7, 11, 12B, 23 and 24 for all the reasons I have given and especially because we want the advisory committee during its short existence to work efficiently and effectively, unencumbered by all the additional duties and requirements which Members opposite seek to introduce in this series of amendments.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I should like to refer specifically to Amendments Nos. 12B and 13A grouped with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, which I entirely support. I think that the noble Baroness has given a rather misleading impression of the purport and impact of those two amendments in our names. The first, in the context of the financial or other constraints, seeks to change the wording from: to which their recommendations are to be subject, to: which they may take into account in their recommendations". There is plenty of provision for the Secretary of State in the end to impose such financial constraints as he thinks fit on the final settlement of teachers' pay and conditions. There is no conflict or disagreement on that. It was provided for in a series of amendments on the national joint council which I moved this afternoon. But it seems churlish, to say the least, to introduce onto the face of the Bill financial or other constraints to which the committee's recommendations are to be subject.

This is only an advisory committee. It is not a departmental committee working under the terms of reference that the noble Baroness seems to think are appropriate. If the advisory committee has any meaning whatsoever and we are not to have what perhaps this should be, a one clause Bill saying that the Secretary of State shall do what he likes—for that is what it comes down to in the end—if it is to have any self-respect, it ought not to be burdened with phrases such as: their recommendations are to be subject". Having been appointed, the advisory committee should do what it thinks fit and the Secretary of State will do what he thinks fit, and that is what the Bill provides.

The noble Baroness seemed to think Amendment No. 13A was curious and that the committee should publish a response as soon as it received any direction. The amendment does not say that. It says: The Committee may after the making of any reference … publish any response which they may wish to make, and any such response shall be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State". Anybody who knows anything about the establishment of advisory committees or other committees of government knows that government manipulate them by manipulating the terms of reference. This manipulation is particularly effective because, by the time the committee comes to report, whether it is months or years later, the restrictions in the terms of reference which distort the activities of the committee—and this is not a habit confined to this Government: all governments do it—are entirely forgotten. The fact that the committee cannot do a sensible job under its terms of reference can only be referred to at the time of the final report of the committee.

What the amendment suggests is that if the Secretary of State—heaven forbid!—is setting unnecessarily restrictive terms of reference for his advisory committee, it should be entitled to say so, not as soon as it receives them but as soon as it is ready to do so. It should be able to say that the terms of reference which the committee has been asked to consider do not seem to enable its members to do the kind of job they think they ought to be doing in order to advise the Secretary of State.

These are modest amendments, but I think they are worthwhile.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

In these amendments, as well as in a number of others, what those of us who have moved amendments are bearing in mind is the public image. I know that many people are concerned about the authoritarian, almost dictatorial, tone of some of the provisions of the Bill. If that could be avoided, the Bill would commend itself much more readily to those it is going to affect.

I was thinking as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was speaking, of the words in Clause 2(3)— The Secretary of State may give directions". This demeans the committee in that it will have directions given to it. It is told what to have regard to and told of other constraints, not merely financial ones. I want to know what other constraints will be involved. It is also said that there are to be constraints to which the committee's recommendations are subject. Again, it is being put into the position of mere underlings or puppets, who do just what the Secretary of State demands and no more.

It is for that reason that we have moved these amendments. In the circumstances however I suppose that we have to accept the position and to be content with the assurance from the Government that these arrangements are going to be temporary. However we would like to reserve the right to come back at Report stage with further amendments to the same effect. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.15 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7A: Page 1, line 20, at end insert, ("or as may be referred to the committee by one or more of the Local Education Authorities").

The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. We are still in the modest amendment business. We are saying that with all the powers which the Secretary of State has over the appointment of the advisory committee—and those powers are absolute, with the very, very minor restriction proposed under Amendment No. 9—it should not only be the Secretary of State who makes references to the advisory committee. It could not conceivably limit the scope of action of the advisory committee if our amendment, which provides for reference to the committee by local education authorities, were agreed to.

Similarly, Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which provide that it should take into account considerations referred to it by the Secretary of State or the associations representing local education authorities or the recognised organisations representing school teachers, and publish an annual report, could not conceivably limit the scope of action of the advisory committee if they were agreed to.

Also, it would not seriously limit the committee's course of action if, in accordance with Amendment No. 13, the various parties should refer matters concerning the remuneration and other conditions of school teachers in England and Wales with equal authority to the references made by the Secretary of State. This imposes no particular duties on the advisory committee. It does not restrict the course, substance or content of debate. What it does is to make sure without any doubt whatever that the committee lives in the real education world. As the Bill stands and as the provisions for the advisory committee stand, it could retreat to the Isle of Man or the island of Sark and carry out its deliberations entirely without reference to the views of those involved in education.

These amendments represent modest attempts to see that attention is paid to those who are responsible for the employment and the conduct of education in our community. I beg to move.

Lord Alexander of Potterhill

I should like to support the amendment for a very simple reason. I have no doubt that this Bill will go through. That seems quite obvious to me. Perhaps the only issue on which there might be some movement is making sure that the temporary nature of the Bill, which so many Members on this side of the Committee have stressed, is quite definitely temporary.

However, there is another important consideration. If the Bill is to go through, it is surely desirable that we should avoid what might be called "aggravation" to the teachers' associations or the local authorities. This seems to me to be an aggravation. It is virtually saying, "You do not matter: I, as the Secretary of State, will decide everything."

This amendment would soften that approach. I do not think it would do any harm to the essential nature of the Bill but it might make it a little more acceptable to those who are now so bitterly opposed to it.

Baroness Hooper

These amendments may indeed be modest and we do want to avoid any aggravation, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has just referred to it. However, I must repeat what has been said on many occasions. The Secretary of State's door is open and he is very happy to receive contacts from the organisations that have been referred to.

In fact Amendment No. 7A would mean that the advisory committee could be required to report on 105 different matters, since each local authority as well as the Secretary of State would be able to refer matters to it for a report. I do not think that either the committee or teachers would thank noble Lords for that.

As many of your Lordships agreed at Second Reading, the advisory committee is an interim arrangement which is needed to replace for an interim period the existing Burnham machinery. For this interim function, the committee needs terms of reference which are not infinitely variable but which will define the key aspects to teachers' pay and conditions that it will consider.

The Secretary of State's power to define the committee's remit should help to guide it in this difficult task and enable it to work with an appropriate focus. For this purpose there must be a single, coherent source of terms of reference for the committee and it is surely right that that source should be the Secretary of State.

On Amendment No. 12, the Opposition again seem most anxious to load work onto the advisory committee. Here they want it to publish an annual report on considerations referred to it or on other matters which it considers relevant. Perhaps that is why they seek to remove the Secretary of State's power to set a time limit for the committee's reports to him on matters which he refers to it. The committee will have so much to do that its reports will be indefinitely delayed if this amendment goes through.

The amendment also seeks to make the committee take account of considerations referred to it by associations of LEAs or by teacher organisations. That seems entirely redundant. Associations of LEAs and teacher organisations already have the right to submit evidence and representations to the committee. In their evidence they will presumably include any considerations which they think the committee should take into account. Under the general principles of administrative law the committee will then be obliged to take them into account so long as they are relevant.

The amendment would also deprive the Secretary of State of the power to give directions to the committee, including directions about financial constraints. But the Government believe, as I said, that for the interim period a power to give directions is needed.

Turning to Amendment No. 13, if this were to be passed the committee could be deluged not only with a multiplicity of references but with conflicting references. In this interim period the advisory committee will need clear guidance about the matters it is to consider. No doubt teacher unions and local authorities will let the Secretary of State know their views, but we believe that it must be for the Secretary of State to decide what matters are considered. When the Secretary of State asks the advisory committee to consider the pay for school teachers, say, for April 1988, it would be absurd if the teacher unions could refer the question of whether there should be a pay increase also for May 1988. I hope that Members of the Committee will feel it necessary to reject these amendments.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

Before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may say one thing to her which has worried me throughout this discussion. She said that the Secretary of State's door is open and he is willing to listen, consider and take advice from all kinds of people. I accept that the present Secretary of State has been doing that since he has been in post. But in the lifetime of this Bill, no matter what it is, as it is at present or as it is proposed at present, there could be one or two Secretaries of State. I have known Secretaries of State whose door has not always been open.

Baroness Hooper

I understand the noble Lord's concern, but in view of the debate which has taken place and the points which have been made from all sides of the Committee, and indeed from outside the House, I think that any Secretary of State must take into account the need to consult and take evidence and have his door open.

Baroness Lockwood

On all sides of the Committee today we have been agreed that it is a good thing that teachers' pay and conditions should be taken together and that they should be negotiated together. The Secretary of State is not the employing body. It is the local education authorities that will be the employing body and will therefore have to enforce the employment contract covering conditions of service as well as pay.

The noble Baroness mentioned the number of areas which could be referred to the advisory committee, but I remind her that the advisory committee is on school teachers' pay and conditions. It is quite possible that the local authorities will have information relating to conditions of pay that would be unkown to the Secretary of State. It is not the same thing to say to local authorities, "The Secretary of State's door is open. You can go and talk to him". They are responsible for enforcing the contract. Therefore they surely should have a right to be able to refer areas which concern them and about which they are worried to the advisory committee.

Baroness Hooper

That is why there is provision in the Bill for the local education authorities and representatives of the teachers to give evidence or to be required to give evidence to the advisory committee as well as to the Secretary of State. I think there are two stages in which these bodies have the opportunity to make their views well known. I believe that those opportunities are adequate within the Bill as it stands.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I would not dream of accusing the noble Baroness herself, but the brief with which she has been supplied seems to me to smack of paranoia. The horrible effects which she anticipates as a result of these amendments—which she herself called modest—could not possibly be taken seriously. For example, if we give powers to one or more local education authority to refer matters to the committee, that does not mean the committee has to make 105 reports because there are 105 education committees.

Committees of any sort—we shall come to the matter of their secretariat on a later amendment—will take very good care that they analyse, rationalise and bring together the evidence submitted and other matters referred to them. They will make reports in such form as they think fit to the Secretary of State without feeling under any obligation to frame their report around any single individual reference by an individual education authority.

The point about this part of Clause 2 is that the only power to refer any matter to the committee is in the hands of the Secretary of State. Therefore, any provision which makes the committee give notice of that matter to education authorities or to teachers' organisations so that they can be consulted is subordinate to the fundamental impropriety—I put it no less strongly than that—of saying that only the Secretary of State can make a reference to a committee of this sort.

An annual report is by no means a delaying tactic. There is no objection whatsoever to the committee acting speedily. What we are saying is that the committee may from time to time have a number of different matters referred to it for consideration. It is in the public interest that everybody should know what view the committee is taking and what consideration it is giving to the various matters which have been referred to it and which it is considering.

Finally, the question of reference to the organisations representing school teachers and to the associations of local authorities having equal authority and the reference made by the Secretary of State is, I think, consequential on what I have already said. It is an attempt to give credibility to the activities of the committee, to give the Secretary of State the kind of support from his own advisory committee which he would be well advised to wish for, and to avoid, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, correctly said, the kind of aggravation which is implicit in the way in which this clause is framed.

However, we are dealing with an advisory committee which we do not want in the circumstances of a Bill which we do not want. It would be inappropriate to pursue the matter and seek to divide the Committee on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7B: Page 1, line 20, at end insert ("after consultation with such organisations representing teachers as may appear to him to be concerned").

The noble Lord said: This is another attempt in more general terms to seek reference to organizations representing teachers. After what has taken place in the last 15 minutes it is sufficient for me to say that the case has been made for organisations representing teachers to be consulted. It is almost impossible for me to conceive of what objection there could be by the Government to such consultation. Consultation rather than negotiation is their chosen way of proceeding.

It is left to the Secretary of State to say what teachers' organisations he thinks should be concerned. Therefore there can be none of the problems which arose when we considered the composition of a national joint council. I end with this question. What consultation do the Government propose to have and what organisations of teachers would the Secretary of State wish to be consulted by the advisory committee? I beg to move.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

I should like to say a word in support of this amendment. Being in close touch with teachers as I am most of the time, I know the state of mind that they are in at the moment. I also know that any such concession as this, knowing that they will be consulted, would be some balm to their hurt feelings. I cannot see that any harm could be done by it. I think that they would be reassured to know that there was at least to be consultation on the decisions of the Secretary of State in this connection.

Baroness Hooper

I can inform the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the objection in this instance is that the amendment would introduce yet another round of consultations. The wording of the Bill is perfectly clear. It is for the Secretary of State to decide what matters are referred to the advisory committee. I am sure that the teacher unions and the local authority associations will not hesitate to make their views known to the Secretary of State about matters that they feel should be referred to the advisory committee. Indeed there is no limitation upon the associations and organisations that may do this.

Therefore the Secretary of State will be making decisions about matters that he will refer to the advisory committee in the knowledge of any views that are expressed by the teacher unions or the local authority associations. I stress that my right honourable friend has emphasised the fact that he is prepared to see individually or collectively any such bodies.

However, we are not persuaded that there is any need for statutory consultations, as I said earlier. The context in which consultation is important is in the period between the receipt of an advisory committee report and decisions by the Secretary of State on what is to be included in the consequent order which will then be laid before Parliament. We feel that this is quite adequate and we hope that this amendment too will be rejected.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Needless to say we are disappointed with that response. We have failed to achieve any concessions whatsoever in the terms of reference of the committee. It is entirely the preserve of the Secretary of State to make any references he wants. He is not even obliged now, if we take in what the noble Baroness said, to pay attention to the views of teachers.

The noble Baroness said that the Secretary of State has indicated that he will listen to teachers. He could hardly have avoided that. The teachers will ensure that he listens to their views. But what we were seeking was slightly more than that he should listen to their views, or that he should hear their views, which I suppose is more accurate, and would actually consult them. The provisions in the Bill are a recipe for confrontation between the teacher unions, the local authorities and the Secretary of State. Everything that we hear from the Government in response to the modest and reasonable amendments which are being put forward to try to improve the situation confirms that point of view.

The teachers, the employing authorities, the parents and everybody concerned with education will take that message away from this evening's debate. It is a tragic situation that we find ourselves in. The Government are inflexible and unable to take account of the reasonable changes which are proposed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7C: Page 1, line 20, at end insert ("after the making of an Order the draft of which has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament").

The noble Lord said: I am not much of a one for team games. I do not know about positions on the cricket field, in American football or wherever it may be, but whatever is behind the wicket keeper, and perhaps behind the longstop, we have failed in everything else. But could the Secretary of State not agree that the reference to the appointment of the advisory committee should be subject to the sovereignty of Parliament, to a final decision by both Houses of Parliament? At the very least that would ensure that the Secretary of State, who presumably can command majorities in both Houses, has to put in writing and explicitly an order giving effect to his wishes. It would presumably mean that there was an opportunity for the legality and propriety of such an order to be examined, if necessary by a joint committee. The amendment does not provide at all for such an order to be amended; and I can see that the Secretary of State would wish to avoid debate on amendments to his order.

But for Parliament to have the ultimate say in a matter of this kind, which affects the lives of so many people, and which in every other way is removed from their responsiblities except through their representatives in Parliament, is not an unreasonable request. I hope that the Government, having rejected everything else, will look with a little more sympathy on this amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord once again, but as things stand both Houses will have every opportunity to consider the Government's decisions as they emerge from the advisory committee arrangements, and the Secretary of State will have to secure the explicit authority of both Houses for any decision which is other than in accordance with the committee's recommendations.

It would, we feel, be both cumbersome and unnecessary to add to these very proper safeguards the further requirements proposed by Amendments Nos. 7C and 12A, which provide that explicit parliamentary authority should be secured both for the initial reference of any matter to the committee and for the terms of that reference. Surely the best course is to give the independent advisory committee the opportunity to consider matters referred to it in a dispassionate way, unclouded by sharp political controversy which could only reduce the prospects of recommendations emerging which could command the support of all those concerned. I therefore ask the Committee to reject these amendments also.

Baroness Seear

I should very much like to support this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for two reasons. The Government are continuously doing things by negative resolution, which reduces the power of Parliament again and again. It is all part of the Tory Party's arbitrary, centralising way of dealing with matters. The noble Baroness said that it is sufficient that the Secretary of State does not vary the recommendations from the committee. Then he can just put them through. We feel that this gives practically no say whatever to anybody, except the Secretary of State and this committee which is to be set up from people of his choosing. This is a totally unsatisfactory way of dealing with matters of this very great importance and it will only reinforce the feeling of the teachers; the bad feeling that the Government have generated by pushing this Bill through.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I apologise to the Committee for not having referred to Amendment No. 12A when I moved Amendment No. 7C. The noble Baroness was quite right to remind the Committee that the orders which we are proposing should be required both after setting up the committee and in consideration of the constitution and procedures of the committee. The two amendments very properly go together and I ought to have introduced them at the same time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is quite right. This is another example of a Conservative Government giving full rein to their centralist tendencies. They have no intention whatsoever of securing even that the advisory committee of the Secretary of State has any independent credibility. There is no intention whatsoever of seeing to it that Parliament has an opportunity to express a view on the composition, the constitution or the terms of reference of the committee. If I were Secretary of State, I should wish Parliament to take such a view.

There is no desperate hurry and there is no terrible delay caused by the affirmative resolution procedure. An order could very well be made, debated and voted upon by both Houses of Parliament. It having been debated and, if necessary, voted upon, I should have thought that the Secretary of State would be immensely strengthened in convincing the country that the advisory committee was truly independent and—I shall gladly give way.

Lord Elton

Can the noble Lord enlighten me? He is making so much of the reference to Parliament and the authority it gives that it is important for us to understand. As I understand it, the Secretary of State is already required to obtain the authority of Parliament, either tacitly if he is going with the committee or explicitly if he is going without it. That is in the Bill as it is drafted. Why is it such a staggering lack of sense and reasonableness on the part of my noble friend if she will not require him to do it twice?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The answer is very simple. It is the other end of the process. The reference to Parliament is only by negative order and affirmative procedure, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, rightly says, when the committee reports. We are talking here about the time when the committee is established and when its composition and terms of reference are being considered.

Lord Elton

I can see no grouped amendment which deletes the second reference to Parliament. Is the whole thing to be debated by both Houses of Parliament twice? Is that not an extraordinary waste of parliamentary time?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

First of all, the two amendments provide that the appointment of the advisory committee, which is contained in Clause 2(1), shall be subject to an order, the draft of which has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament". Under Amendment No. 12A, in Clause 2(2) the constitution and proceedings of the committee are described as also being, after the making of an Order, the draft of which has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament". There is no reason why the two orders should not be taken together, as orders frequently are in this Chamber and in another place. There are times when we have half a dozen social security amendment orders coming up at the same time and being debated concurrently. We should have a single debate and a pair of orders at the time when the advisory committee is established and at a time when its constitution and—

Lord Elton

I think we are at cross-purposes. I am not talking about those two orders but rather the pair of orders referred to as being debated once. I believe that has been done together. We have in the Bill as now drafted the requirement that the Secretary of State shall go to Parliament at the end of the process under Clause 3. The noble Lord does not propose to delete that, so presumably we have a pair of orders and then the individual order after that to be debated again. That seems to me to be an excessive use of parliamentary time.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

But these orders could be many months apart. The constitution and the setting up of the committee takes place at one time; the committee then deliberates and the decision of the committee is communicated to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State then agrees with the committee's decisions, he uses the negative resolution procedure, and if he disagrees he uses the affirmative procedure. These amendments concern what happens when the committee is constituted and not when it reports.

Lord Elton

I am sorry to detain the Committee. Perhaps my noble friend can put me right. I understood that Clause 2(3) referred to directions which the Secretary of State could give on any individual case and that that is the beginning of each process. When there is a reference to the committee, the Secretary of State will give directions as to what the committee can then consider. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is suggesting that there is one sort of direction as soon as the committee is set up and thereafter, no matter how many references there may be to it, there will be no new directions. That is not as I understood it.

Perhaps my noble friend can tell me whether there will be one set of directions or a series of directions. If there is to be a direction each time there is a reference, then my question to the noble Lord remains as it was. There will be directions, an order, a debate on a pair of orders, and then the committee will consider and make its report. The Secretary of State will then have to go back to Parliament for another order and another debate. It seems silly to ask Parliament to debate three orders on two occasions to get one direction agreed.

8.45 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I have no doubt that the Minister will confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is correct in his interpretation of the text of the Bill and that my Amendment No. 12A does require that each time the Secretary of State gives directions to the committee there should be the order procedure. However, if the Secretary of State has any concern whatsoever for the stability and self-respect of the education system in this country surely he is not going to be constantly giving directions to his own advisory committee.

The advisory committee is concerned with the pay and the conditions of teachers. Those are not matters which are reconsidered on changing references or directions every 10 minutes or even every three months or six months. The Secretary of State must establish a settled policy with regard to the way in which he wants to consider the pay and conditions of teachers. He must not go on changing it. There must not be continued references to the advisory committee which change the way in which it goes about its work, which confuse the teachers, which confuse the education authorities and which make it impossible for it to work in a consistent way.

A reference or direction once a year is surely quite enough for an advisory committee of this sort, and the Secretary of State has a responsibility to see to it that his mind is clear before he makes a direction. In those circumstances, I fail to see that this is an impossible burden on Parliament. It is simply considering at not more than annual intervals the directions given to the advisory committee, making observations on them and, if necessary, saying that they are not satisfactory and are not meeting the requirement.

I am afraid that I think the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to my amendments are relatively trivial in relation to the rather signficant matters which are referred to in them. This is a matter in which, were it not for the hour, I should strongly feel obliged to take the opinion of the Committee. I believe that when the record of this debate is studied the Government will be seen to have been totally intransigent. They have made no concessions whatsoever to the feelings of those involved in the education service. It may be that we shall find some better way of expressing our views and ask that the House as a whole expresses an opinion at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I think that in the circumstances it is better for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 1, line 20, at end insert— ("provided that no matter shall be referred to the Committee which is the subject of any agreement reached after negotiation between teachers' employers and organisations representing school teachers").

The noble Lord said: It has been suggested that this amendment should be grouped with Amendment No. 21. However, looking at the content of the two amendments, I think that it is better for this one to be treated by itself.

This is another approach to the question of the advisory committee acting in a responsible way. It was stated by a number of noble Lords on the government side at Second Reading that the existence of an advisory committee did not stop negotiations taking place between employers and teachers. The only thing that it stopped was the obligation upon the Secretary of State to take notice of the negotiations and the power of the negotiations to have any legal effect. It may well be that there will be negotiations taking place between teachers and local authorities, not so much on pay (because that is so clearly in the hands of the Secretary of State) but rather on conditions of service. There may be matters which the teachers' unions and the local authorities wish to discuss and negotiate with each other as regards amendments to conditions of service. Although pay negotiations should not change more frequently than every year, conditions of service are not immutable.

The worst conceivable matter would be if negotiations were taking place in good faith between teachers and employers on such matters and the advisory committee, on the direction of the Secretary of State, were to intervene while the discussions were taking place and the Secretary of State were to have the ability to refer to the committee matters which were the subject of any agreements reached after negotiation with the employers and the organisations representing school teachers.

It is not affording a very great status to those negotiations to say that the work done in the negotiations and the agreement reached in the negotiations should not be duplicated by the advisory committee. That in effect is a possibility unless this amendment is taken into account by the Government. It could be used by a Secretary of State—not of course by this Secretary of State—as a way of intervening quite improperly and unnecessarily in voluntary agreements reached between teachers and their employers. I suggest to the Committee that that would be most undesirable and that this amendment is a way to avoid that possibility. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

This is a quite substantial amendment because it would deprive the Secretary of State of the possibility of referring to the advisory committee any matter which had been agreed between organisations representing teachers and local authorities. It is precisely in that kind of situation that, before making up his mind what he is going to do, the Secretary of State might well wish to have the views of the advisory committee.

I can see no justification whatever for excluding the possibility of his referring to the advisory committee any matter simply because it has been agreed between the teachers and the local authorities. Indeed, there is a point of drafting. The amendment refers to, organisations representing school teachers". Does that mean all organisations, or would the Secretary of State be excluded if one or two organisations—there are at least six organisations, as the noble Lord knows, in the field at the moment—had agreed with the local authorities and others had not? The noble Lord knows that that is a reality. The head teachers and the secondary masters' organisation are very often in disagreement with the organisations representing large numbers of teachers at lower levels. On one reading of this amendment, even an agreement with some of those organisations would exclude reference by the Secretary of State. On the broad issue it must surely be wrong to deprive the Secretary of State of any opportunity of taking advantage of the views of the advisory committee simply because some of these organisations had come to an agreement.

Lord Belstead

I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Indeed for once I would go further than my noble friend and say that I think it is difficult to see how the situations which this amendment apparently envisages could actually arise unless noble Lords opposite are looking to a world in which there would be no role at all for the Secretary of State. Where then would the money come from? What is the meaning which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, attaches to the word "agreement"? Are the noble Lords sponsoring this amendment looking at a situation like that which has arisen recently in the Burnham Committee in which the local authorities and some of the teacher unions have reached a consensus on a course of action which they know my right honourable friend cannot accept? It is precisely because it has not proved possible to reach an agreement which is supported by the local education authorities, all the unions and the Government that the Government have been obliged to bring forward this Bill. I am afraid that this amendment would be a recipe for continued disagreement.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I seem to recall that during the Second Reading debate a number of noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber made it quite clear that for the Government there was nothing in the Bill which prevented the teachers' unions from negotiating to their heart's content, if I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, at col. 399. In this amendment all we seek to do is to assure teachers' organisations which are going to be sufficiently resentful of the Bill as it now stands that that is the position. I do not see why this amendment cannot be supported by the Committee for the sake of assuring teachers who will feel a great deal of resentment about the way in which the Bill has been introduced that there is still an opportunity for negotiations as was assured during the Second Reading debate.

Lord Belstead

Perhaps this is the moment just to say that we have been listening for the past three quarters of an hour to a catalogue of criticism against the Bill and the resentment which it will cause. Let us be absolutely clear about one matter before we go any further this evening. The fact that pay and conditions for teachers have never been negotiated together is extremely unusual. When I made a speech on the first amendment this afternoon I said that an agreement of the Burnham Committee was that in 1981 a working party should be set up to try to get a better structure for teachers' pay.

However it is fair to say that a lot of people had been extremely worried before 1981 that one could not bring pay and conditions together. It really is extraordinary that in the six years since 1981—and, as I said, the concern goes back further than that—and despite the fact that genuine attempts have been made by people in the teachers' unions and among the employers and with the Government, it has not been possible to bring about a proper pay structure for teachers and also to bring that together with pay and conditions, although as we all know we have gone some way down the road with regard to conditions.

It is no good noble Lords opposite chiding the Government that this Bill is in some way going to cause resentment. Something had to be done. We have had two pretty fatuous amendments this afternoon from Members of the Committee opposite. Amendment No. 1 was very heavily defeated and was shown to be heavily defective. Then we had Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. If noble Lords on the Alliance Benches will forgive me for saying so, Amendment No. 4 was so riven with impossibilities that it was almost laughed out of court and was not even put to the Committee. We have a Bill which at least does something. One of the important things it does is that it makes it possible for teachers who quite rightly believe that they ought to have a very generous pay settlement in their pockets, to be paid with the money in their pockets and it would give a chance, in contra-distinction to what has been said about resentment, for everybody to just think for a bit and to try to bring some sensible negotiating arrangements into being in the future. There are two points of view about this Bill. I and many other noble Lords in this Chamber believe that the Bill will serve the teaching profession well.

Baroness Seear

I must intervene to protest against the statement by the Minister that Amendment No. 4 was so absurd that it was laughed out of court and was not even moved. It contained a great many ideas, some of which were difficult for people to take on board as I fully understand. Perhaps when they have read what we said they will understand it better than they understood it when it was put forward this afternoon. It had never been our intention to move it, and we intend to put it down again in greater detail at Report. At that time perhaps the Government Front Bench will understand it.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

Perhaps I may add that during that exposition of the amendment the Committee was very far from laughing. I noticed that noble Lords were extremely attentive and I do not think it would be at all accurate to describe it as having been nearly laughed out of court.

Lord Alexander of Potterhill

As I understand it, there is no question of opposition to teachers' pay and conditions being negotiated together. That has been agreed by the teachers and the local authorities. I entirely agree that the teachers have not accepted it in earlier years, as I know to my cost. I tried 20 years ago to get them to agree. But they have now agreed. Therefore I cannot see that that constitutes a problem.

9 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am sorry that the Minister should have been driven to over-react in that way. The use of the word "fatuous" regarding amendments seriously moved and seriously debated for a number of hours in the Committee is unusual to say the least. I can only assume that the noble Lord has been driven to it by the tunnel vision from which he suffers in relation to the negotiations that have taken place over the past year. Of course it is true that Burnham as such, the official machinery, has not come up with a way to deal with pay and conditions of service at the same time. That is excluded by the legal statutory constitution of Burnham.

What did happen in 1986 was that the reference to ACAS produced not only agreement as to how pay and conditions of service shall be dealt with at the same time but an actual agreement on pay and conditions of service confirmed by a majority on each side in the Burnham Committee on 7th January. If the noble Lord does not recognise those facts he is ignoring a large part of recent history in teachers' pay negotiations.

For the noble Lord to say that because an amendment has been heavily defeated it is therefore defective is illogical. If he reads the record he will find that the accusation of defects against our first group of amendments holds very little water.

I readily acknowledge to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the present amendment is defective. I recognise that he is correct in saying that to refer to "organisations" without saying "the organisations" or "recognised organisations", or something of that nature, means that the scope for excluding matters from reference to the committee is very wide indeed and could be damaging. Certainly, there is no possibility of my proceeding with the amendment as it is at present worded. However, I remind the Committee, coming back to the question of what matters should be referred to the advisory committee, that the whole justification for the Bill is that negotiations cannot succeed. For the advisory committee to intervene when negotiations have succeeded and when agreements have been reached appears to me to be totally at variance with the public statements of the Government, as, indeed, is so much of the present Bill.

If we can table an amendment at a later stage which properly reflects the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I hope that the Government will see the sense behind it and agree that it is undesirable for the advisory committee to duplicate or ride roughshod over proper agreements, properly reached between employers and employees. However, because of the defects, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 1, line 20, at end insert— ("( ) The members of the Committee shall include persons having relevant knowledge of or experience in education.")

The noble Baroness said: This amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 5. Therefore, I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I do not wish to detain the Committee. We dealt with this amendment as a consequential amendment to an earlier amendment. But it is proper to ask the Government what they mean by "persons". Does that mean two persons other than the minimum of five and the maximum of nine who have, relevant knowledge of or experience in education"? The amendment is phrased so broadly that it appears to have no significant effect. Surely, anyone who is appointed to this advisory committee should have, relevant knowledge of or experience in education. It is impossible to envisage how the Secretary of State would wish to appoint anyone else. Instead of saying "shall include persons", the Government should be saying "should consist of persons".

Baroness Hooper

If it helps the noble Lord, I can say that "persons" means more than one person. I think I made it fairly clear in my earlier intervention that we feel that an entirely independent component within the interim advisory committee will be very important for reasons of objectivity and the wider experience that this can offer. Therefore, we do not feel that it is necessary to have the committee consisting exclusively of educationalists. We would welcome other points of view.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The phrase "knowledge of or experience in" does not mean educationalists. I accept that "experience in" means educationalist although it could mean ex-educationalist. "Knowledge of" means the absolute minimum qualification which a person should have to consider the matter.

I do not wish to pursue the matter and I do not invite the noble Baroness to reply but she did not give a satisfactory answer. The wording of the amendment is not satisfactory if there is no distinction between the two.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10: Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("including rights to submit evidence and make representations").

The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of amendments that attempt to give genuinely modest rights to those concerned with education. This amendment goes with Amendments Nos. 20, 70 and 71. It suggests that the constitution and proceedings of the committee shall include, rights to submit evidence and make representations".

Amendment No. 70 proposes a new paragraph under Schedule 1 providing for evidence and representations submitted, by any of the local authority associations or organisations representing school teachers, or any organisation of parents or of churches involved in the provision of education". That collection of people who might give evidence or give representations is repeated in Amendment No. 71.

The amendments do not affect the composition of the committee. They do not affect the terms of reference of the committee. They do not affect the rights in any way of the Secretary of State. They simply seek to ensure in the schedule that the committee shall go about its job in a proper way.

If we had received any assurance from the Government's reaction to previous amendments that they are willing to listen to the rights of those involved in education, vis-à-vis the advisory committee, I would withdraw these amendments without the slightest hesitation. They should not be necessary. It should not be the case that we have to draw the Government's attention to the need for the advisory committee—which the Secretary of State has appointed at his own whim and to which he pays attention at his own whim—at least to receive evidence and to listen to representations from those concerned with education.

How else is the advisory committee to proceed except in the terms we have suggested in the amendments? Are its members, as I suggested earlier, to sit on the Isle of Man or the island of Sark and commune with each other and with nature? If they are to do an effective job they must listen to the people who know about the subject, particularly if the Bill refers only to "persons" rather than "all persons" having knowledge of or experience in education.

If two of the members of the committee have knowledge and experience and the other seven do not, how will they be informed about what is happening in the education world unless they receive evidence and listen to representations from teachers, education authorities, parents and those who are concerned with the voluntary sector of education? I should have thought that this amendment would appeal to anyone who is concerned for the Government's public reputation for seeking to produce, in the word of the Prime Minister quoted from Saint Francis of Assisi when she first arrived at 10 Downing Street—"harmony". This is the minimum requirement for harmony in the advisory committee's proceedings and the minimum requirement for any acceptance of its work by the teaching profession, the local authorities, parents and the schools generally.

I hope that the Government will not feel it necessary to make a blanket condemnation of this series of amendments. I hope that they will be able to give some assurance, even if not on the face of the Bill, that this is the way that the advisory committee will proceed and this is the kind of activity which they expect it to pursue. In order that the Government may have an opportunity to make those points, I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Could the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explain, certainly to me and perhaps to other Members of the Committee, whether the right to make representations or to submit evidence means oral evidence or oral representations or whether the requirement would be satisfied by the submission of written documents? I shall be interested to know that because I think it has some bearing on the amendment's degree of acceptability.

I am bound to add that the second reference that the noble Lord has made to the Isle of Sark and the Isle of Man seems to suggest that he has been taking seriously Mr. Hattersley's proposal to increase taxation.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The noble Lord's first question deserves a reply, though I do not think that his second observation deserves a comment. The answer is that unless the amendments were to say specifically "oral representations", that is not what is meant. Representations in writing would fulfil the requirements of the amendments. The advisory committee would be well advised, just as the committees of this place are well advised, to read the written submissions made to it; to consider whether there are any points on which it would wish to seek any oral evidence and which it would wish to discuss with those who have something to say to them; and to consider also the status of those putting forward representations. It may then wish to invite oral evidence. That, I believe, in the traditions of this place would improve the quality of the committee's debate. We do not require that that should be provided for on the face of the Bill.

Lord Belstead

If I may go some way towards what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said at the end of his remarks about making clear what the advisory committee would do in the context of these amendments, the amendments are unnecessary because the advisory committee will do what the proposers want in taking evidence from associations of local education authorities and organisations representing school teachers. A government amendment to Clause 2(4) will be moved to ensure that interests representing voluntary schools, as we promised, are also consulted by the committee. The committee will be required specifically to give all those bodies a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence and make representations with respect to the issues arising from matters referred to the committee by the Secretary of State, and having invited evidence and representations in that way it will be bound to have regard to any relevant evidence and representations submitted.

It is true that the Bill does not require the committee to invite evidence and representations from parents' organisations though there is no doubt that the committee, in considering a particular matter, will be able to take into account evidence submitted by any parents' organisations or individual parents and any representations they may feel they would like to make to the committee.

I must point out in this connection that the committee's function under the Bill is to examine and report on specific matters referred to it by my right honourable friend. It will have its hands full concentrating on that task. Clause 2(5) provides expressly that the committee's report is to contain not only its recommendations but, such other advice relating to that matter that it thinks fit. That will give the committee ample scope to include ideas that it thinks important in the representations it has received on the matters referred to it.

I know that that does not go as far as the noble Lord would wish me to go, but I hope that it at least gives the Committee some idea of how the Government feel the committee provided for in the Bill will work, and to that extent goes some way towards what the noble Lord asked me to say in reply.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am pleased to hear a rather different tone in the reply of the noble Lord from that which has prevailed in preceding amendments. What he has said deserves close study. I would have wished the noble Lord to say that the Secretary of State would, in the terms of reference which he alone has the right to give to the Advisory Committee, indicate that they ought to be listening to evidence and representations from teachers, employers, voluntary schools and parents. Before the next stage of the Bill the noble Lord might like to consider whether he would be willing to indicate that that is what the Secretary of State would do. It would be enormously helpful and might simplify the proceedings later on.

However, in the meantime, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, it is better if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.15 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi)

Before calling Amendment No. 11, I have to inform Members of the Committee that if Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 12A or 12B.

[Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 12A, 12B, 13, and 13A not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 14: Page 2, line 4, leave out from ("shall") to ("a") in line 10 and insert ("give notice of the matter and of any relevant direction—

1. (a) to such associations of local education authorities as appear to them to be concerned and to any local education authority with whom consultation appears to them to be desirable,
2. (b) to such bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools as appear to them to be concerned, and
3. (c) to such organisations representing school teachers as appear to them to be concerned,

and shall afford them").

The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 14 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 15 to 19.

This amendment is the first of a series which give effect to the commitment which I gave at Second Reading that the position of governors of voluntary schools should be reflected on the face of the Bill. This amendment provides that the advisory committee shall also give notice of matters referred to them to bodies representing the interests of the governors of voluntary schools, and shall afford them a reasonable opportunity for submitting evidence and representations.

The governors of voluntary-aided schools employ 20 per cent. of school teachers. Moreover, they have a general responsibility for the succesful running of voluntary schools. Those schools are a very important part of our education service. I am therefore happy to bring forward this amendment and I hope that the Committee will welcome it. I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 14 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 15 to 20.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Having referred to the matter in dealing with the previous amendment we considered, I can on this occasion invite the Government to go a little further with regard to parents' organisations. I appreciate that the parents' organisations have no formal concern with teachers' pay and conditions, as do the employers, the teachers' unions, and indeed the voluntary schools. However, the whole thrust of the Government's thinking over the past couple of years has surely been to involve parents more strongly in the governance of our schools. In particular, with the passage of the 1986 Act, parents have a position as of right in governing bodies and will be concerned with the way in which conditions of service pan out in practice.

If the Government are serious in giving increased authority to the parents in the running of individual schools, then they must accept that organisations of parents—self-help, mutual-help organisations of parents to ensure that parents exercise those rights and powers under the new legislation—will spring up if they have not sprung up already. Reference has been made by my noble friend Lord Glenamara and others to the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations. This is not the only parents' association in the country. There are a number of others who have a very substantial membership which have been going for a number of years. The Confederation for the Advancement of State Education is an obvious example which comes to mind. These parents' organisations played an active role in the deliberations of the Chamber on the Education Bill in 1986. They have established their positions as representing very considerable numbers of parents—those parents who now have an increased role in the running of our schools.

It would be a not ungenerous act on the part of the Government now in making these provisions for teachers, employers and voluntary schools, to include the parents in the provision. It would perhaps improve their image among a large number of their own supporters as well as the supporters of Opposition parties if they were to do this. If they reject such pleas outright then such a rejection will be conveyed to the organisations of parents which are by no means party political organisations, and by no means organisations of parents opposed to this Government or wishing to take any party political stance. The Government would help themselves very greatly if they were to indicate, even if not in an amendment now, an understanding and acceptance of the point which is being made in these amendments.

Lord Kilmarnock

I was rather alarmed to hear the Deputy Chairman say that if this amendment were agreed to, Amendment No. 16—which according to my understanding has been grouped with this amendment—would not be able to be called. I say that because parents are not mentioned in Lord Belstead's Amendment No. 14.

I should like once again to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that so far parents have received very cavalier treatment during the course of our debates in Committee. Members of the Committee will recall that when the last Education Bill—which is now an Act—was before the House, parents were "top of the tops" and the Government were doing everything conceivable to increase their role on governing bodies. However, now, when we come to this Bill, we find that they do not get a mention or a look-in anywhere.

It seems strange that there is no provision anywhere in the Bill for any input of the voice of the guardians of the principal consumers of education. It is also worth reflecting that as a result of the last Education Act the role of parents on governing bodies will be considerably increased and they will also be responsible for implementing provisions under this Bill. Reference has already been made this evening by the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara and Lord McIntosh, and also by myself, to the Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations. That covers something over 4 million people, but no doubt there are also other associations. It would not seem to me to be going beyond the bounds of what is reasonable or rational to allow them to make some input and some suggestions which the Secretary of State does not have to accept. It is quite possible that parents throughout the country might decide, for example, that they preferred not to have an additional penny off income tax, but to have additional money invested in education and in the payment of teachers. The Secretary of State may not agree with that view, but it is certainly one which parents should be allowed to put forward.

It seems to me to be rather extraordinary that no provision has been made for them to make an input either—as was rejected earlier—as regards their being consulted on the appointment of the committee or (as is the case at this stage) as regards their associations being consulted at all on matters which are referred to the advisory committee or which the advisory committee decides it can investigate. I find that very odd indeed. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, or the noble Baroness, will say something at this stage of the Committee proceedings to reassure parents that their views will be considered. The Government have promoted the involvement of parents in education; but they have produced a Bill in which there is no single mention of them whatever. Therefore, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness—if it is the noble Baroness who winds up the debate—would say a word about the role of parents as proposed in the Government's Bill.

Lord Parry

Does not the wording also suggest that in addition to having the Secretary of State with direct and total authority, we shall have a committee which at each point, as regards the noble Lord's amendment, seems to be given a quite cavalier approach to those with whom it will have consultations. It is only when it appears to the committee that people have a direct involvement, that they will be consulted.

Baroness Hooper

Of course, we believe that parents have an important role to play in the education of their children and we have already referred to this point in dealing with a previous amendment. There may be no statutory requirement to consult parents, but there is nothing to prevent organisations representing parents from presenting their views to my right honourable friend who will, I feel sure, be glad to hear those views and will take them into consideration. As a result of last year's Education Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already referred, governors of schools and the parent body now more generally have a right to be involved in determining the culture of the school and what is being taught to the children. Such involvement must benefit the children. However, when it comes to pay and conditions of service of a particular group of workers, in this case teachers, that must surely be the province of those directly affected—the employers and the employees, and the Government, who provide approximately half the money and have a general responsibility for ensuring an effective education service.

We have included governors of voluntary schools in the statutory consultations because in their case they employ 20 per cent. of school teachers and are directly responsible for their conditions of service. We believe that the amendment we are proposing affords them a reasonable opportunity of submitting evidence and we believed that we were responding to a definite need in introducing this amendment to deal with the position of voluntary schools.

Baroness Seear

It is very odd that the noble Baroness should say that parents have no interest in the conditions of service. Conditions of service, as I understand them, cover such things as the teachers' obligation to stand in and take a class if somebody else is ill. When that does not happen the children are sent home. Such a situation is of very direct interest to the parents. I regard the contents of the conditions of service as something to which they would very much like to have an input.

I should like to add that to say that parents can speak if they wish, and the Secretary of State or the committee will graciously listen to them, is a quite different matter from saying that they have a right so to do, and have that right on the face of the Bill.

Lord Parry

It is especially so when that is attached to the question that I asked, which has not been answered, inadvertently, about the fact that the committee itself can decide whether or not the people have an interest, as in each of the three paragraphs of the Minister's own amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The noble Baroness says that there is something special about the interests of the local education authorities and the teachers and governors of voluntary schools in the pay and conditions of teachers. All I can say is that you could have fooled us because the whole import of this Bill is to take away any real influence on the pay and conditions of teachers from the employers and the teachers themselves.

The objection to the inclusion of parents really does not wash. The Governments' amendment is phrased in the weakest possible way. It is: (a) to such associations of local education authorities as appear to them to be concerned and to any local education authority with whom consultation appears to them to be desirable. "Desirable" means that they can exclude any education authority they wish to exclude. They can decide that an association of education authorities was not concerned if they choose to do so.

The amendment continues: (b) to such bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools as appear to them to be concerned. Again, that gives a great deal of power to the advisory committee to pick and choose if they so wish. I am not saying that they will, but the provisions of this amendment are very weak.

The next paragraph reads: (c) to such organisations representing school teachers as appear to them to be concerned. One could imagine an advisory committee set up by a government of a different political persuasion from that of noble Lords opposite which said that an organisation cannot claim to represent school teachers unless, for example, it is a member of the TUC. I imagine that noble Lords opposite would find that situation deeply objectionable but it is permissible and it is possible for a Secretary of State of another political persuasion to appoint an advisory committee which would secure that.

When we return to the face of the Bill there is no real right of submitting evidence and representations. There is "a reasonable opportunity", a phrase which is put in presumably to weaken the power of these organisations. With such a feeble gesture towards the teachers, the local authorities and the governors of voluntary schools, is it totally beyond the wit of the Government to make another small feeble gesture towards the parents? I find it difficult to believe that they are so bent on unpopularity as to wish to insist on this matter.

Baroness Hooper

Perhaps I should reply briefly to the points that have recently been made. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I believe that I was not guilty of saying that parents have no direct interest in these matters. Of course we hope that they, as responsible parents, take an interest. But it is not within their province to be involved as a statutory right in the pay and conditions considerations of the advisory committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Parry, felt that the committee was going perhaps not to be graciously pleased to admit evidence from every organisation. I can only say that we intend to create an independent advisory committee composed of responsible people. We believe that it will be prepared to take into consideration the views of groups such as those referred to in the Bill and in this amendment.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, felt unable to welcome the concession provided by this amendment to introduce the people responsible for the running of voluntary schools into the process. It seems to me that Members opposite have rather taken the opportunity to thump the drum yet again on a point they have made. In view of his concern over the wishes of parents being reflected in the Bill, I ask the noble Lord whether parents were brought into his Amendment No. 1, or indeed were referred to in Amendment No. 2 in the earlier discussions. I said at the outset that we believe that parents have an important role. In the process of this short-lived advisory committee, we expect them to follow its proceedings and to take an interest in them, and I believe that the views of parents will be welcomed.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Kilmarnock

With due respect to the noble Baroness, parents were brought into an earlier amendment, which was not accepted, concerning the choice and the recommended people to belong to the advisory committee. When she says that it is not within the province of parents to have anything to do with pay and conditions, I agree that the Secretary of State does not have to accept their recommendations, but there seems to be no good or just reason why they should not make them known. If such a provision is not written on to the face of the statute, how are they to make them known? Will they just write in and get an acknowledgment slip, a printed thing, saying, "Your communication has been received and noted"? Is that the plan?

The Government were going so hard on parent power in the last Education Bill, but, as I say, the parents seem to have got sucked out of the window. It is possible that parents associations may want to say to the Government in a run up to a general election, "We don't want an additional penny off income tax. We want more money spent on teachers' pay". It is a view that the Government may not accept, but it is one that ought to reach the Government, and there is no provision in the Bill for that.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

Surely in this context we must remember that councillors are elected by the people of the area, which includes the parents, to do the job of employing teachers on their behalf. Governors are elected by the parents to do the job of governing the school. We should put ourselves in the position of a teacher. Would it be right to have just any odd parents' organisation consulted as to what your conditions of service should be? We all know that that team includes many things. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the cover for absent teachers is of great interest to parents, as is everything that goes on in the school. There are some aspects of the whole subject on which it is inappropriate to consult parents' organisations as such. You would get some very awkward situations for teachers. This is carrying a bit of political gamesmanship, quite honestly, a bit far.

Lord Kilmarnock

I should not have said this was mere political gamesmanship. I should be very surprised indeed if parents were not concerned. I think they will be extremely concerned. I am suggesting that a body of 4 or 5 million people should be able to put a view—no more, no less.

Lord Parry

I shall return just once more to the question to which the noble Baroness has addressed herself and has answered to a degree. The debate which is taking place will continue for some time. However immediate the changes that will take place—assuming that the Bill is carried—the whole issue of education may become central to the escalating noises and voices in an approach to a general election. How can we be assured—this is a genuine concern—that a committee so set up, given its wide-ranging right to choose among options about whom to interview, might not be affected by the political noises of the day? How can we be certain that the criteria of independence can be valid in selection processes?

Baroness Hooper

All I can say to that is that the process envisaged is that once the committee's recommendations are passed to the Secretary of State, the report will be published and Parliament itself will have an opportunity to scrutinise the provisions of the order. It seems to me that that gives ample opportunity for any matter in the order that has been considered by the advisory committee to be fully and widely debated.

On Question amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 15 to 20 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 2, line 11, at end insert— ("(c) afford the teachers' employers and organisations representing school teachers a reasonable opportunity to negotiate an agreement on the matter referred to the Committee, and where any such negotiated agreement has been reached between the employers and teachers' organisations before the date of any report to the Secretary of State under subsection (5) below, no such report shall be made").

The noble Lord said: I did not speak to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 8 because I thought that although it referred to the negotiations, it referred to them in a slightly different way. The reference here is to the opportunity which could under this amendment be afforded to the teachers' employers and organisations representing school teachers to negotiate an agreement on matters referred to the committee. This is not a restriction on what matters should be referred to the committee, but it is an opportunity for the Government to say whether they really want an advisory committee and the abolition of negotiations for their own sake, or do they want it because they claim that negotiations have broken down. If their reason for getting rid of negotiations is because negotiations have broken down, there can be no objection to Amendment No. 21. If, on the other hand—as appears to be the case from a number of the other answers given this afternoon—the Government are just as determined regardless to go ahead with the Bill, despite any progress that might be made towards negotiations, I have no doubt that they will reject the amendment.

As it stands, the amendment gives the committee—which has been established in all the ways the Government wish and all the ways that the Secretary of State controls—the duty to afford the teachers' employers and organisations representing school teachers an opportunity to negotiate an agreement made on a matter referred to the committee. In other words, it retains an alternative to the consideration of the committee which would seem to us to be—and always has seemed to us to be—a second best to proper negotiations.

I invite the Government on a further occasion to stand up for negotiating rights, to give an opportunity for negotiation as opposed to consultation and diktat by the Secretary of State and to give sympathetic consideration to this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

This is substantially the same point that the Committee discussed a little time ago on Amendment No. 8. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, accepted—and most of us accept—that it is a good thing if teachers' organisations and local authority organisations negotiate. Indeed, he read out the part of the amendment which relates to that aspect. But he did not read out—and I make no complaint of this—the crucial words at the end: when no such report shall be made". In other words, the advisory committee is to be cut out whenever there is an agreement between the teachers and their employers. That would very seriously alter the shape of the Bill.

It is more than possible—recent experience certainly suggests it—that local authorities, particularly a good many of them under their present control, and the teachers' organisations will come to a happy agreement involving substantial increases in public expenditure. In those circumstances, if this amendment is accepted that is simply dumped at the door, or on the floor, of the Secretary of State without his having the advantage of having had the matter looked into by the advisory committee.

It is precisely in that sort of situation that the views of the advisory committee will be of the very greatest value not only to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State but also, I would suggest, to both Houses of Parliament when, as may well be the case, both Houses have to consider the matter.

It would be very damaging to the whole structure of the Bill, and also it would be really rather contrary to common sense, to cut out the advisory committee in precisely the situation in which its views would be of the greatest value. I am all for—in the words used earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden—negotiation between the employers and teachers. It can do nothing but good; but it must not be treated as being necessarily final. That is surely the lesson we have learnt from the events of the past year or so; and to deprive the Secretary of State, in dealing with that situation, of the advantage of the advice of the advisory committee would take away a great deal of the value of this Bill. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.

Lord Belstead

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked whether it was the Government's case that the negotiating process had broken down. I would not put it quite like that but, as recent history has shown, the negotiating process has certainly not been working. I would also add that that is why matters need to be referred to the advisory committee, and that is the reason for the Bill.

However, the point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, if I may say so, did not recognise at all is that there really can be no reason for thinking that the difficulties over negotiations have just in some way disappeared unless the negotiating process is somehow to have the authority to write blank cheques without reference to the Secretary of State—and to do that, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter so shrewdly pointed out, in a process which would cut out any chance for the advisory committee to make a report at all.

However, that said, perhaps I may remind the Committee that the Government are certainly not going to close their doors to the teachers' unions or the local authority employers just because the committee has been established. Once a reference has been made there will surely be an advantage in the committee being able to make their independent recommendation, reflecting full consultation with all the interests concerned, as the Bill requires.

But, as I said on an earlier amendment, once the committee has reported, there is the assurance that my right honourable friend will talk, individually or collectively, with any of the bodies he is statutorily required to consult. That is a very significant commitment, and it brings the employers and teachers into dialogue with my right honourable friend in a way which the present Burnham machinery certainly has not done.

Therefore, for the main reason advanced by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I oppose this amendment; but I also oppose it because I must say that it would be an invitation for blank cheques to be written without reference to the Secretary of State. That is another reason why we are in the position today of having to introduce the Bill.

9.45 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

That reply shows an astonishing lack of understanding not only of the amendment—for which the noble Lord can be forgiven—but also of the Government's own Bill. So far as concerns the amendment, it is the intention to give a further opportunity for negotiations to replace the work of the advisory committee. It must be common ground that the negotiations are better than an advisory committee. We may make our own judgment about whether it is necessary now to establish an advisory committee on the grounds that the negotiations have broken down. But when this interim Bill comes to an end there will have to be negotiations again because they are better, because negotiations are the only ones that recognise the interests involved and because negotiations are the only form of settlement which will be accepted and recognised by the employers and teachers.

What this amendment does is to reinstate the possibility of negotiations even at the late stage when the advisory committee has been established, when the 1987 settlement has already been made unilaterally by the Secretary of State at the stage where the Secretary of State has established, constituted and directed the advisory committee—a last chance, if you like, for negotiations to succeed.

But if either of the noble Lords, Lord Belstead or Lord Boyd-Carpenter, thinks that this gives a blank cheque to negotiators to override the wishes of the Secretary of State, then all I can say is that they have not read Clause 3 of the Bill. The advisory committee as proposed in the Bill is subject to the view of the Secretary of State. Its recommendations cannot be given effect except by order laid by the Secretary of State. If he likes the recommendations of the advisory committee he can give effect to them by negative instrument. If he does not like them, he can make modifications and do so by an affirmative instrument. However, nothing in this amendment takes away the power of the Secretary of State to have the ultimate decision. Nothing in this amendment gives a blank cheque to the negotiating body. You must not look at an amendment to Clause 2 except in the context of the overriding safeguards for the Secretary of State which are contained in Clause 3.

I am sorry that the Government should react in that way. We still have to find some way of giving an opportunity for negotiations to take place and indeed to continue when the interim provisions of the Bill are at an end. We shall continue to search for a solution to this problem which will not go away. However, in the meantime I think it better if we seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 22: Page 2, line 12, after ("State") insert ("shall be published and").

The noble Lord said: We seem finally to have arrived at the area of the Bill where we are all in substantial agreement. I could not find in the debates in another place any pledge to bring forward an amendment of this sort, although I think there were some assurances. I think we must take it that it is due to the disquiet expressed in your Lordships' House at Second Reading that we have the noble Lord, Lord Belstead's Amendment No. 25 which I understand has been grouped with my Amendment No. 22 and Amendment No. 26 of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.

I think we must take it that the disquiet expressed in your Lordships' House on the question of publication of the reports of the committee has had some effect. These reports will obviously be of considerable importance for the general public to be able to form a view as to whether the committee is proceeding along the correct lines. It will be too late to get any input from the parents whom we have just been talking about but at least the method of decision of the committee will be open to public scrutiny. I think this is of considerable importance.

Perhaps the only question which remains is whether I am speaking to Amendment No. 22 which simply says that the reports shall be published. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has a slightly different formula and the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Irving of Dartford have a third formula. I think on balance I am able to concede that I slightly prefer that containing the word "immediately", which means that reasonable expedition must be made to publish the reports.

Obviously, we have to accept that we are in the hands of the Government here. I rather hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, might conceivably prefer Amendment No. 26 to his own Amendment No. 25, or to my Amendment No. 22. But I am not particularly concerned about that. It is the principle that matters. The Government seem to have agreed to it. I beg to move my own version of the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am quite satisfied with the Government's version.

Baroness Hooper

I will rush in. I am very relieved to hear that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is happy with the Government's version and since the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has suggested that he is, too, I think I need speak no further. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that he will in due course support Amendment No. 25.

Lord Kilmarnock

After that short debate, I am perfectly happy to withdraw my amendment and to accept the Government's Amendment No. 25.

Lord Elton

From the Back-Benches, may I say that a concession from the Opposition Front Bench brings almost as much pleasure to us as a concession from the Government Front Bench does to them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 25: Page 2, line 14, at end insert— ("( ) The Secretary of State shall, upon receiving a report from the Committee, arrange for it to be published.")

The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Power of Secretary of State to make provision by order]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 28: Page 2, line 16, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 36. The principal amendment, Amendment No. 36, refers to the possibility of modifications to the recommendations of the advisory committee being, accepted by associations and organisations representing the majority of local education authorities and of school teachers". Looking at this amendment, I realise that I am guilty of a certain amount of elegant variation in the description of the local authority associations and of the teachers' organisations and I apologise to the Committee. There is no fell intent in this. There is no particular significance in the words "the majority of" or the phrase "associations and organisations representing". It seems to me on reflection that the simpler wording used in previous amendments is preferable, and I am sorry that I have trapped myself into departing from it.

The point of this amendment is nonetheless serious, although the wording may be defective in that minor respect. The point here is that the provisions of Clause 3 allow the Secretary of State to make any modification that he wants or to make, such other provision with respect to that matter as he thinks fit". This is complete carte blanche for the Secretary of State to take any action when the advisory committee has reported, regardless of whether the advisory committee has considered the matter, regardless of whether the committee has rejected it and regardless, indeed, of whether the matter has been referred to the advisory committee in the first place. If ever there were justification for the claim that the advisory committee is the Secretary of State's poodle, that justification lies in the phrases that we seek to delete from the Bill.

There could not be a wider form of words or a wider power for the Secretary of State to do as he thinks fit, regardless of the opinions and conclusions of the advisory committee which he has set up, than is contained in the words: making such other provision with respect to that matter as he thinks fit".

The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred in particular to the necessity for the advisory committee to give advice to the Secretary of State, rather than being debarred from giving advice if negotiations are taking place. I understand his point, although I do not agree with it. How does he feel about the powers of the advisory committee when he finds that the Secretary of State has every power he likes to ignore, go beyond or reject the views of the advisory committee?

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

Does the noble Lord wish me to answer that question? I can do so at some length, if necessary.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I should be delighted for the noble Lord to answer—I did not say at some length!

The alternative which is proposed in the amendment does allow for the possibility that there could be modifications which have achieved consensus. That is what the amendment is designed to say. Consensus can be achieved between the teachers and the employing organisations. Is it not a reasonable proposition to say to the committee and to the Government, "If we can achieve consensus here, such consensus should be taken into account by the Secretary of State in the final decision which he makes and which he recommends to Parliament"? I do not think that that is a great deal to ask. The Government ought to give that matter serious consideration. Even if they cannot accept it in its present form, I believe they ought to indicate that they have the desire for consensus, which is the root of this amendment, and that they would like to consider some way of giving effect to it, perhaps in an amendment at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Elton

Does the noble Lord intend to give the associations and organisations mentioned in his amendment a veto on the Secretary of State? That is what he appears to be doing. The wording, with any modification accepted by associations and organizations", means that the Secretary of State cannot publish a direction with any modification not accepted. That seems to me to indicate that he would then be locked into the recommendation of the committee, even if it was not consistent with overriding government economic parameters. I should like to know if that is what the noble Lord intends.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I think it would be helpful if I replied to that straight away. The amendment does not take away responsibility from the Secretary of State. It makes it his responsibility, by altering "may" to "shall", to make provision by statutory instrument giving effect to the recommendations of the committee. If there is no modification proposed by agreement between the teachers and the employers, the Secretary of State has the same responsibility to give effect to the recommendations of the committee.

Lord Elton

Indeed, and therefore this amendment is actually fundamentally putting the Secretary of State entirely at the behest of the committee, the majority of the local authorities and the teachers. This seems to put us back into the financial impasse in which we have already found ourselves.

Lord Belstead

While the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is thinking about that, perhaps I may say that I believe my noble friend Lord Elton is right. I am not absolutely certain whether he is totally right. However, there is no question that the effect of this amendment means that the recommendations of the advisory committee would have to be implemented by the Secretary of State.

I am not absolutely certain whether the effect of the wording which the noble Lord opposite has chosen means also that any modification accepted by the local authorities and the teachers would have to be put into effect in the order laid by the Secretary of State. However, that is what my noble friend Lord Elton believes, and I join with him in asking the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether that is the case. If it is the case, this is a complete veto, as my noble friend said. For reasons which I do not think I need deploy, that would be totally unacceptable. We should be into blank cheque country once again. I am sorry to sound intransigent, but if that is the case this would be wholly unacceptable.

Let me add one more point. What Members of the Committee are not taking on board—and I realise that it is in the context of a Bill which they oppose; nonetheless I ask them to take it on board—is the assurance I have given on behalf of my right honourable friend that, once the advisory committee report has been received by the Secretary of State, there will be consultation of a kind that has not been possible in the past under the Burnham machinery.

To that extent my right honourable friend has given an assurance that he will be available for direct discussions with those whom he is statutorily required to consult; and this can be done either collectively or individually. It will be a form of direct dialogue which has simply not been possible under the previous Burnham machinery. Whether or not one likes the Bill that is a step forward.

In putting the amendment to us, the noble Lord asked us to recognise what he was trying to get at. I ask Members opposite also to recognise that by giving an assurance of that kind we on this side of the Committee are trying to take steps forward towards the day that new permanent arrangements will once again be in place when this interim Bill finally comes to an end.

10 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

We on this side of the Committee have never been in blank cheque country, wherever that may be and we do not intend to be now. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has raised a valid point, about which the Government are unsure, as to whether the provision means what he thinks.

It was not our intention that the Secretary of State should be forced to implement any modification that might be agreed between the teachers and the employers. Our intention was to restrict modification to the modifications which were agreed by the teachers and the employers rather than to give the Secretary of State the blank cheque to make any modification he wants or indeed go outside the recommendations or considerations of his own advisory committee.

However, since there appears to be a doubt about the import of the amendment, I think it would be better if I took it away and looked at it again in the light of the comments that have been made. I do that having listened very carefully to the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has given. It is an important assurance and deserves serious consideration by all concerned with the matter on this side of the Committee.

If we find that there is something valid here which we believe should be included on the face of the Bill, we shall probably come back to your Lordships at Report stage and seek to have that assurance made as secure in statute; not that we doubt in any way the words of the noble Lord or his right honourable friend. But we are concerned with the continuity of policy and with the continuity of good intent. In the light of the comments that have been made about the possible implications of this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 29: Page 2, line 17, leave out ("such") and insert ("the")

The noble Lord said: With this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 44 to 47, 49 and 50. This series of amendments seeks to codify to some extent the choice of bodies which the advisory committee may consult. The possibility of consultation arises on a number of occasions in the course of this clause. I apologise for the fact that they all have to be spelled out in this laborious way. It seems to us that we have been too willing—and perhaps even too willing in the amendment to Clause 2 which has just been carried by the Government—to accept the Secretary of State's judgment as to which organisations should be consulted. There is after all a reasonably well-established history of acceptable organisations.

We have had a certain amount of debate about fringe organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked whether, if he formed an organisation of teachers, he would have the right to be consulted. My answer, which I made from a sedentary position and so I am sure he did not hear it was, "Why not?". If he formed an organisation of teachers which could establish some credentials for itself, even if only in its own eyes, why should he not say what he thinks to the advisory committee and why should not that committee pay attention to what he says?

Lord Elton

If I did not hear the noble Lord it is possible he did not hear me. I was thinking of forming an association for parents. However, my point is that if all noble Lords formed separate organisations the task of consultation would become impossible.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Consultation can have a number of different meanings, which is why we prefer "negotiation" to "consultation". However, even a wide variety of parent organisations does not seem to us to be all that unacceptable. Consultation does not have any great statutory significance. It means that you acknowledge what people write to you and you say that you will take it into account. I have known that happen from the Government Front Bench on more than one occasion during the passage of legislation in this place.

Therefore, the amendments, although they are voluminous, make a very simple point. They say that the Secretary of State should not be the sole determinant of what bodies are concerned. In particular, the amendments say that parents and organisations of churches involved in the provision of education ought to be consulted.

At this late hour I shall not detail the significance of each individual amendment, one by one. The point is clear. I am afraid it has overlapped discussions which have taken place on earlier amendments. I think it will be much simpler if I invite the Government to give the amendments sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for moving this amendment and speaking to the large group of amendments which go with it.

The first change proposed is that, the associations of local education authorities", should be consulted rather than "such" associations. The wording in the Bill is in a standard form taken from local government legislation. It does not mean that the Secretary of State has a free hand on whom he consults. His decisions must be reasonable. If, for example, he were to decide that the Association of County Councils was not concerned with teachers' pay and conditions that would be an unreasonable decision which could be successfully challenged through judicial review.

The second change proposed is that organisations of parents and churches must be consulted. As regards the churches, I am happy to say that we accept the point. This is covered by government amendments. As regards parents, that is a matter which we have debated exhaustively this evening and we do not need to go round that course again.

The third change proposed is that individual LEAs must be consulted when it appears to the Secretary of State that the matter is relevant to them rather than when it appears to him to be desirable. I should say that the wording in the Bill here is again in a standard form taken from local government legislation. The wording in these amendments would in effect mean that all 105 LEAs in England and Wales would have to be consulted separately since the matter in question always will be relevant to them as employers of teachers. However, ordinarily LEAs are represented through their associations and that provides an adequate and sensible means of consultation.

The purpose of the wording in the Bill is to require my right honourable friend to consult individual LEAs in particular cases when that might be desirable. For example, that may arise on a proposition concerned particularly with the pay or conditions of employment of teachers in inner city schools.

The fourth change proposed is that, the organisations representing school teachers should be consulted rather than "such" organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned. This is very much the same point as with the Association of Local Education Authorities.

However, there is an important addition which I should mention. I know that the teachers' unions have been looking at this matter. The wording in the Bill is in standard form. My right honourable friend must exercise his discretion reasonably. It would not be reasonable for him to decide that any of the six teacher unions now represented on the Burnham primary and secondary committees was not concerned with a matter of teachers' pay and conditions. Such a decision would be most unlikely to stand up if challenged through the courts.

I am aware that the Professional Association of Teachers has expressed concern that it does not have a right to be consulted under the Bill. In the Government's view that concern is mistaken. It would not be a reasonable exercise of discretion for my right honourable friend to exclude the PAT from this consultation.

In essence, I am saying that the consultation procedures laid down in the Bill are in standard form. I believe that they are fully adequate. I am glad that these amendments have been moved because it gives me the opportunity to give what I am afraid has been a rather detailed reply. I hope that the Committee will feel that the reply was reasonable.

Lord Monkswell

I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply. It gives me an opportunity to raise one of the concerns which I had hoped to raise later tonight but which his reply forces me to mention now; that is, the merit payments that have been suggested by the Secretary of State in the press. I am concerned at the implication that a scheme for merit payments may apply within a particular school rather than on the basis of a national scheme independently assessed. The Minister's reply implied that it would not be reasonable for the Secretary of State to consult individual local authorities about changes that he may put forward. That raises the problem of assessment schemes which may relate to individual schools as opposed to nationally. That will have important implications down to the local education authority level.

If the Secretary of State is not required to consult those local authorities, then the full implications of a scheme that he may propose will not be apparent to him. I beg the Government to take cognisance of that fact and consider the implications of the actions that they appear to be planning.

Lord Belstead

If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I should have thought that the point he has raised should come under Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 when we talk about an order making different provisions for different cases. I should like to look at what the noble Lord has said to see whether I can pick it up when we reach those amendments. I must confess that I had not expected the noble Lord to raise the subject of merit payments on this amendment. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for not replying to his point now. As I said, I should have thought it should have come in on Amendment No. 40.

Lord Monkswell

If I may clarify the point for the Minister, the response he gave to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was that it was not reasonable for the Government to consider consulting individual local education authorities and that it would be acceptable for him to consult local authority associations. If the Government are considering schemes that will apply to individual schools, the local education authority, as opposed to the local authority associations, will be directly concerned. That is why I raise the point now. I recognise that it may require study and consideration. I should welcome that response.

Lord Belstead

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I did not make myself clear to him. When I replied to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the reference to individual local education authorities I said that ordinarily local education authorities are represented through their associations. We believe that that provides an adequate and sensible means of consultation.

The purpose of the wording in the Bill is to require my right honourable friend to consult individual local education authorities in particular cases when that might be desirable. I then gave the example of a case where one has pay or conditions of employment for teachers in inner city schools. There is therefore an option here either for consultations through associations or individually where that is necessary.

I have been reminded by the advice that I have that on the question of appraisal of performance of teachers—as I am sure the noble Lord will know—six pilot surveys are being established and funding has been announced by my right honourable friend. We hope that they will be the touchstone to decide on what further action ought to be taken on teacher appraisal.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy in expounding my amendments which I passed over in defence of my voice and in recognition of the hour of the evening. However, he explained them cogently and clearly. I thought that he put a rather good case for them. I am sorry that the conclusion to which he came was not in accordance with the arguments that he put forward.

In particular, as I have already said, we shall have to return to this question of the consultation with parents for which no provision is made. I shall read with care the remarks which the noble Lord made about the standard form of local government legislation. I must say, in view of the Government's experience in, and their problems with the legality of, their local government legislation, that I do not give too much weight to assurances by parliamentary draftsmen about the adequacy of local government legislation. But that is perhaps a wider issue than that with which we are concerned tonight.

With the provisos that I have already stated—that we shall certainly want to come back to parents' rights—I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 33: Page 2, line 19, after ("desirable") insert— ("( ) such bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools as appear to him to be concerned,").

The noble Baroness said: We have already discussed, in relation to Amendment No. 14, the principle that the governors of voluntary schools should be put on equal terms with local authorities and teacher unions in the Bill in relation to the advisory committee. This amendment extends that principle to the consultation by the Secretary of State after receiving a report of the advisory committee. I therefore beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Dare I tempt a thunderbolt from above—in the absence of any bishop—by saying that of course the governors of voluntary schools are the employers of teachers in voluntary schools? They do not actually pay them; it is the local authorities who pay them. But we do not oppose the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 not moved.]

Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 37: Page 2, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert ("provided that any modifications have first been referred back to the Advisory Committee for further consultation prior to the placing of any order.").

The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment, as I think is fairly self-evident, is to remove from Clause 3(1) the last two lines, which enable the Secretary of State to make provision by order made by statutory instrument, giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee, with or without modification". The amendment removes the subsequent two lines: or making such other provision with respect to that matter as he thinks fit".

We consider it rather inappropriate, if not improper, that if the Secretary of State has provided himself with this advisory committee there should not be some dialogue between him and it. It would seem to be a basic courtesy to his committee that, in the event of his disagreeing with it or making some provision which he thinks fit but which the committee did not put forward, he should at least refer such provision to the committee. The Bill as written seems to give an excessive—an immediate—override without any second stage consultation between the Secretary of State and the committee. If the Secretary of State is to furnish himself with a committee and he is satisfied as to its composition—and the rest of us are satisfied as to its composition—then it seems that he ought to make better use of it as a sounding-board. If there is to be no dialogue between him and the committee, and it simply puts forward its recommendations which he simply accepts or rejects, I submit that the committee would not be fulfilling the function for which he set it up.

This is a modest amendment upon which the Government might well look favourably as regards perhaps improving the efficacy of the body which they themselves propose to set up, and also as regards giving it a little more access to the thoughts of the Secretary of State and his ultimate decisions. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

The amendment would require any modifications to the advisory committee recommendations to be referred back again to them for further consultation before an order is made. Although I understand the thrust of Lord Kilmarnock's case, I should say in reply that the arrangements in the Bill have two important stages. The first stage involves the advisory committee with its independent chairman addressing issues referred to it by the Secretary of State and then, in the light of evidence and representations submitted to the committee, making a report. The second stage, which is equally important, involves consultations between the Secretary of State and those directly affected; namely, the local authority associations, teacher unions and bodies representing voluntary school interests. It is on that second stage that I gave an assurance about consultation which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said he thought was valuable.

I judge that if, on top of that, a statutory requirement to bring the advisory committee in again at the second stage were to be made, it would be detracting from the direct dialogue which we all believe to be important in the second stage of the consultations. It is for that reason that I feel that I cannot accept the amendment.

Lord Kilmarnock

I am not terrifically impressed by that argument. It seems that if the Secretary of State is to set up a committee and then immediately emasculate it, we could almost do without it altogether. However, I shall certainly not press the amendment at this stage of the evening. I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord has said and reconsider my position at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 38: Page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) Any order made to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee under section 3(1) shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")

The noble Lord said: I consider this amendment to be rather more important than the one that I have just moved. Clause 3(2), as drafted, is a two-pronged approach to the parliamentary procedure on the orders which will be made under this section. The first part of subsection (2) provides for the negative procedure where the Secretary of State has not made any material modification to the reommendations of the committee. The second part of subsection (2) provides that if the Secretary of State has overridden his committee, or disagreed with his committee in some way, he has to come forward to Parliament through the affirmative procedure. My amendment would substitute for that two-pronged approach the single approach that the Secretary of State must in all cases come forward through the affirmative procedure to Parliament when he introduces an order, whether or not it is based on agreement or disagreement with his committee.

If Members of the Committee are wondering why I and my noble friends should think this is necessary, the position is—and it is quite clear to the Government, and we may as well draw our lines clearly here—that we are not satisfied. Nothing that the Government have said so far has satisfied us about the objective nature of the committee. No amendments that have been moved so far to make the committee more objective have yet had any success. Therefore, so far as we are concerned we are still left with a committee which—to use one of the derogatory terms which is used on a number of occasions—is still in the "poodle" category.

We are not satisfied, simply because the Secretary of State does not disagree with his committee that he should not bring it for consultation, or bring it forward for both Houses of Parliament to approve what he suggests. We do not think that the committee as constituted is necessarily going to give him the objective advice which we in Parliament would like it to give him.

On those grounds, we want the Secretary of State to bring all orders under this section through the affirmative procedure of both Houses of Parliament. That is the scope and the intent of the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

Where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, is when the noble Lord says that he looks with suspicion on the objectiveness of the advisory committee. I am sure the advisory committee will be objective in its attitude, The point where I disagree with the noble Lord is that the advisory committee will be independent. I emphasise the importance of this, and I stick by it. Yes, the advisory committee will be appointed by my right honourable friend, but there are such bodies as the University Grants Committee, the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and the Council for National Academic Awards, all of which I think I am right in saying are appointed by the Secretary of State. Such bodies are entirely independent in what they say and do.

My understanding is that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils can often give advice which may not be entirely welcome to government and government find it difficutlt to go along with such advice. But it is independent advice.

The University Grants Committee are doing an enormously important and difficult job. Becasue this Committee has been appointed by my right honourable friend, it does not mean to say that it is not doing that job objectively and independently, because it is.

I emphasise that point because when the recommendations of the committee come to my right honourable friend, it may be that the committee has not always been in the position to take into account every aspect of changing circumstances in our society. The Government in discharging their responsibilities may feel the need in some cases—and we hope that the Bill will be with us for only a reasonably short time because it is an interim Bill—to make some changes to the advisory committee report. It is at that moment that the affirmative resolution procedure is mandatory under the Bill and if there is no change made to the report of the advisory committee then it is negative.

I really do think that that is a sensible balance. It promises that your Lordships' House as well as another place will not be obliged to spend time on matters where there may be little controversy, while ensuring specific parliamentary approval is secured on every occasion when the Government want to alter any aspect of the committee's advice. It is for those reasons, I would ask your Lordships not to agree to this amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Baroness Seear

The noble Lord's mind is completely closed to the points that we are trying to make, it seems. He has told us repeatedly that this committee is independent. We accept that in one sense it is independent. But what he has refused to allow is that people appointed to it should be drawn from different points of view. If the Secretary of State appoints people all of whom think along the same lines that he and the Conservative Front Bench think, their independent opinion will be precisely the opinion that he wishes to get. It is this that we have been trying to say repeatedly to the noble Lord all the evening. But if he finds our comments fatuous, perhaps it is fatuous to go on repeating them.

It is because of this that we ask that there should be this guarantee that Parliament can at least look at what he is going to do when his independent-minded friends have told him what he wishes to hear.

Lord Belstead

I do not think I can help the noble Baroness much further with this.

Baroness Seear

The noble Lord has not helped me at all.

Lord Belstead

I have gone out of my way to give three examples—none of which the noble Baroness has been interested in—of important committees which are appointed by my right honourable friend but which do difficult and sometimes controversial tasks without evidence of political bias. That is a matter to which the noble Baroness has not addressed herself. There is an alternative which neither the noble Baroness nor I have mentioned and that is that there can be mandation. That is a subject we discussed earlier today.

The Government have made their view clear that it would not be right to appoint nominees or representatives of groups with a direct interest in the committee's recommendations, and one is therefore left with a committee that is appointed by the Secretary of State. I think there is good reason—and I have given evidence why I think there is good reason—that with such a committee there will not be the results that the noble Baroness fears but there will genuinely be an independent-minded committee.

Baroness Seear

I fear that the noble Lord does not give us evidence; he gives us assertions.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

If I may add a further word to that, the Minister referred to other committees that are directly appointed by the Secretary of State. Indeed they may work reasonably satisfactorily. The difference here is that we have a very inflammatory' situation. The teachers of the country have been under great stress—I am not suggesting that others have not also been under great stress—for a long time past and they are extremely dismayed and anxious about this Bill. When they hear of a committee that is to be directly appointed by the Secretary of State they are highly suspicious of it. The circumstances of those other committees to which the noble Lord referred, which are now settled and accepted, do not arouse the same reaction and emotion that this is likely to.

Lord Kilmarnock

I think my noble friend has put his finger on the main point. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to the UGC and to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils which he says work perfectly well. But we must remember that here we are dealing with a much more politically sensitive and, in his words, inflammatory situation than is likely to arise from the recommendations of either of those bodies. We are dealing with 400,000 teachers and literally millions of school children. Although the noble Lord said that there may not be controversy within the committee, there may certainly be controversy in the country.

If what the noble Lord has said is true about the objectivity of the committee that the Secretary of State will appoint, why should the Government fear the affirmative procedure? That is what I fail to understand. No time would be wasted if both Houses of Parliament were satisfied that the orders were sensible and in the interests of the country. It is only if there is worry on those points that debate would clearly arise.

What is being produced in the Bill is a departure. It is an entirely untried procedure for dealing with these matters. It would be an abrogation of the responsibility of Parliament not to have the affirmative procedure for all orders which come in under this interim Bill. The noble Lord said that it is an interim Bill. It may not last more than three years, but it may go on for longer. It certainly is a new departure. When we have new departures of this sort in our statute it is reasonable that Parliament should require fully to satisfy itself by the affirmative procedure on all orders initially introduced under this new system.

I am extremely unconvinced by what the noble Lord has said. Clearly at this time of night I am not going to press the amendment, but this is something for which I shall hope to gain a little consensus around the House at a later stage in the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 39: Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: This is purely a probing amendment, but it is one which nevertheless I believe the Government could accept without any loss to themselves. Clause 3(3) provides: An order may, instead of containing the provision to be made, refer to provisions set out in a document published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and direct that those provisions shall have effect or, as the case may be, be amended in accordance with the order".

I raised this matter on Second Reading and my purpose in doing so was to adumbrate an amendment in Committee. It is mainly to uphold the principle that the material contained in subordinate legislation should, if at all possible and as a matter of course, be found in one place, preferably in the orders themselves.

I also asked for a precedent and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, kindly replied giving me a precedent in the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 which is being replaced by this Bill. He also said that it had proved convenient for the bulky regulations relating to teachers' pay to be found in one document printed by the Stationery Office, and that that standard document could also be updated from time to time when further regulations were made and reprinted. I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which I totally accept. I should still like him to affirm the principle that all the provisions made by orders should normally be found in one place, although that place may not always be in the order itself.

Since Second Reading I have discovered an example of regulations doing just the same sort of thing as Clause 3(3) does but without benefit of a clause in the parent Act equivalent to Clause 3(3) in this Bill. I consider this to be quite an amusing discovery. The regulations have an acutely horrible name: the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions (No. 2) Regulations 1985 (No. 1835).

This provides that the maximum amount of benefit for boarders in ordinary board and lodging accommodation should be the amount shown, according to the relevent area, in a publication published by the Stationery Office in 1985, and entitled, equally repulsively, Supplementary Benefit, Maximum Amounts, Initial Periods and Board and Lodging Areas. The regulations were challenged in the High Court on vires but were upheld.

It seems to me that if the High Court validated those regulations which had been made without benefit of a clause such as Clause 3(3) in this Bill, then it follows that Clause 3(3) of this Bill is unnecessary and can be safely removed. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I rise not only to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, but also because I have a sneaking wish to see the burgundy book on teachers' pay and conditions available in the Printed Paper Office of this Chamber. I do not know whether anybody has seen it and knows how lengthy it is; but it would be a valuable addition to noble Lords' reading matter.

Baroness Hooper

I recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, in this matter and his desire to avoid any superfluous references in legislation. Nevertheless, if he were to press this amendment—I acknowledge he has said that it is only a probing amendment—I very much doubt that it would be welcomed by the teaching profession or perhaps even by noble Lords in the future.

As my noble friend Lord Belstead said at Second Reading, the power to set out provisions in a published document, which is then referred to in an order, is not new; it is in fact taken from the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, which has provided the basis for the present arrangements. Over the years reference to a separate document has proved to be convenient. Provisions relating to teachers' pay are bulky and include a number of provisions which are not normally subject to annual alteration in the same way as pay scales. For example, the present Burnham document contains lengthy and complex provisions on incremental credit for qualifications and experience. It would not necessarily be a service to Parliament or to teachers for any order on teachers' pay and conditions to have to list those provisions if they were unchanged.

It will therefore continue to be convenient to have a standard document—a successor to the current Burnham document—which can be updated from time to time through an order. When amendments have accumulated, a new edition of the document can be produced, as is the current practice. The purpose of Clause 3(3) is to allow this to be continued. I appreciate that the noble Lord pointed out that this could happen without reference to it in the Bill; but because we are following a settled procedure and taking this from the 1965 Act, we feel it is important to leave Clause 3(3) as it stands.

Lord Monkswell

I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for two reasons. The first is that while researching the background to the present Bill, I had difficulty in finding what the current arrangements for teachers' pay and conditions were. I am sure that if they were contained in an order before noble Lords, it would be much easier.

Secondly, I noted from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that he referred to the High Court as being the body that had deliberated and passed judgment on the efficacy or otherwise of the arrangements he mentioned. Perhaps we might bear in mind that the High Court is a subordinate court to this court of the House of Lords. It would be interesting to think with hindsight what the reaction of the highest court in the land might have been if the matter had been brought before it. So for those reasons I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I do not want to detain the Committee at this late hour, but it seems to be a very unattractive procedure that is followed in this case, and one apt to give rise to difficulty. I cannot for the life of me see why it should not be possible for details of the teachers' salary scales and arrangements, if they are complex and massive, to be attached as a schedule to the order. We are playing a little superficially with the serious process of legislation if subordinate legislation does not contain the substance of what it is trying to do and this is embodied in some other document distinct altogether from a legislative document, simply published by the Stationery Office.

There is also a practial problem which arises from what my noble friend on the Front Bench said. As I understood her, my noble friend said that the document would be published by the Stationery Office and orders made from time to time introducing variants in teachers' pay. From time to time the document would be brought up to date. If I have understood her aright, that means there will be a period, after a particular change has been made, when there is no complete document containing the provisions in respect of teachers' pay approved by Parliament. This seems to be a very unfortunate procedure and the fact that it was adopted in 1965, while it may appeal to Lord McIntosh of Haringey, does not seem to me to make it at all a respectable precedent.

10.45 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

I am in some difficulty now because I understood the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, to be saying that it would be possible to have a separate document referred to in an order giving details without actually providing for it on the face of the Bill. So whether or not we provide for it in the Bill, I believe that we could end up having a separate document.

It seems to me that it would be more sensible for everybody to know exactly where the detail was to be found instead of having, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell said, to look everywhere for it. So I would have thought it would be preferable to keep it on the face of the Bill. However, in view of some of the comments that have been raised, although we looked at it again after Second Reading, I am prepared to take it back at this stage and see if there is any point in continuing with it.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I am most grateful to my noble friend for saying that. I think it is a bad way to legislate and perhaps in particular she and her right honourable friend will consider the alternative of simply scheduling the detailed document to the order.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I am most grateful to all those who have spoken on this small amendment which I moved in a slightly light-hearted fashion. However, it does contain a grain of seriousness. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for his contribution. One is very unhappy that the law contained in a statute for subordinate legislation should be embodied elsewhere. This is a most unsatisfactory position and although it has been done before and has been upheld by the High Court, nevertheless it makes it an unsatisfactory situation both for Parliament and the public. That is the first point.

The second point is that I think, and the noble Baroness agreed with me, that the words in this clause are strictly otiose. I think the noble Baroness said they are merely convenient. I would ask whether it is right that an Act of Parliament should be used as a public convenience. I say "No". I am very grateful therefore that the noble Baroness has undertaken to reconsider the matter. With that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 40: Page 2, line 35, at end insert— ("( ) An order may make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different areas.")

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 and 42. This amendment enables provision to be made for different cases, including different areas, as regards conditions of employment other than remuneration, as well as for remuneration. I promised it at Second Reading, when I said that an amendment would make it clear that an order covering conditions of employment would be able to make different provision for different cases. This would allow orders to accommodate such variations as may be needed to meet, for example, the particular position of the voluntary sector, which we have already discussed in reference to other amendments.

Different provision for voluntary schools is in fact only one case in which different provision may be needed. A difference in conditions of employment could be needed as between ordinary schools and special schools. It is even more likely that a difference will be needed as between teachers in schools and those teachers who do not work in schools, such as peripatetic teachers or those who teach children at home. For example, they are unlikely to attend staff meetings or to take administrative responsibilities in a school. This amendment will allow such distinctions to be made.

The amendment subsumes the power at Clause 3(4)(a) to make different provisions as regards remuneration. That power will be needed in order to pay higher salaries to teachers in special schools than in ordinary schools; for the social priority allowance for schools in difficult areas; and for the London allowance, which has been paid for many years. As my noble friend said in winding-up at Second Reading, the Government have no radical proposals for regional or other pay differentiation, though that is an issue which might in due course be considered by the advisory committee.

If for no other reason, let me say that if this amendment is accepted by the Committee it means that I shall be in the happy position of accepting Amendment No. 41 which has been put down by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My amendment is No. 42.

Baroness Hooper

I am referring to the amendment to Clause 3, page 2, line 37, leave out paragraph (a), which I have down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In fact there are two amendments. There is one in the name of my noble friend Lord Belstead and one in the name of the noble Lord.

However, so far as Amendment No. 42 is concerned, I am afraid that I must return to disagreeing with the noble Lord when he seeks to insert a provision for a system of remuneration to be applied consistently throughout England and Wales. Teachers in London have received additional payments for many years. The unions consistently ask for those payments to be increased, and this amendment would require remuneration to be consistently applied throughout England and Wales. That would rule out differential remuneration in the London area. I find that an extraordinary suggestion and I cannot imagine that it would be welcomed. I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment in due course. I trust also that the Committee will feel able to support Amendment No. 40.

Baroness Turner of Camden

I am a little confused by what the noble Baroness has said in relation to Amendments Nos. 40 and 42. In my reading of it, Amendment No. 42 is quite different from Amendment No. 40 and it is Amendment No. 40 about which we have considerable reservations. We have been opposed to any provision that would have the effect of making different arrangements for pay between different areas for people doing exactly the same sort of work. This is one of the reasons why Amendment No. 42 has been put down. It states that we would not provide for other than a system of remuneration to be consistently applied throughout England and Wales.

What I understand the noble Baroness to be saying is something quite different. Indeed in the Second Reading debate a number of us made the point that what the Bill appeared to be doing was to turn the clock back to a situation in which there were very many different and separate pay scales in operation—a situation which led to a great many local disputes and a good deal of disruption throughout the education service. Indeed it was as a result of the disruption that then took place over a long period of time that we eventually had a system which was brought into operation and which came to be known as the Burnham Committee. I do not want to go into that, but we have very great reservations about a situation in which people can have different rates of pay in different areas of the country for doing exactly the same sort of work.

There is provision not only in this public service but in other public services for things like London weighting allowances, which is a different situation from that proposed here. For that reason we are not happy about Amendment No. 40, and we commend to your Lordships Amendment No. 42 in the name of my noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Irving of Dartford.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon)

I must apologise to the Committee because I did not put the Question that Amendment No. 40 be agreed to. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has already spoken to the amendment. The noble Baroness spoke to Amendment No. 42, which has not been reached.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I believe that there is an error in the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 41 was originally down in my name, and I had intended to have it struck off on Friday. If the Committee takes the amendment as not moved in my name, perhaps it will facilitate matters.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 41: Page 2, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Government Amendment No. 41.

Lord Monkswell

I feel that we have inadvertently skipped over something which I feel is very important. If it was a mistake on my part in not joining the debate at the right time, I apologise unreservedly to the Committee. When the noble Baroness rose to address the Committee on this subject, she mentioned Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42. She said that she was speaking to them all. I make a very inmportant distinction between Amendment No. 40 and Amendment No. 42. Amendment No. 40 would seek to allow the Secretary of State—I agree that this has been overtaken by events but if I can make this point—

Lord Henderson of Brompton

If the noble Lord will allow me, would it not be better to allow the question on Amendment No. 41 to be put and when Amendment No. 42 is then called he will have the right to speak on that?

Baroness Hooper

Perhaps I can clarify the position with regard to Amendment No. 41. This amendment is necessary in view of Amendment No. 40, since the particular subsection was subsumed by that amendment. Therefore, the government amendment replaced the original amendment which was put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That has led to the confusion, but perhaps we may proceed in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, which will solve the problem.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am not disputing that this is the right way to proceed, but I think it is now necessary to put down a marker. My Amendment No. 42 falls if Amendment No. 41 is carried, because the wording is imperfect. I say in Amendment No. 42, leave out paragraph (a)", and it will already have been defeated. The marker I want to put down is for a later stage. I wish to say that the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Turner are valid. They are too lengthy to be taken at this time of night. The arguments put by my noble friend Lord Monkswell deserve more consideration than they could possibly receive at this time of night, and I wish to put down a marker that I shall return to this matter at Report stage.

Lord Monkswell

We have had a bit of procedural difficulty but I hope I can now make the contributions which I intended to make before.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I think that we are still on Amendment No. 41. Has it been disposed of? I think not.

11 p.m.

Lord Monkswell

While I address my remarks to Amendment No. 41 I hope the Committee will understand if I make some remarks about Amendment No. 40, which overtook events, and Amendment No. 42.

Two questions pertain to these three amendments. The first relates to the wish of the Government to seek apparently to vary on a local basis the conditions of employment other than remuneration. That area has never before been the subject of debate. Unfortunately this is a late hour at which to introduce this point and I take note of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh that we shall return to this aspect of the Bill.

We must start from the point of view that we are seeking to resolve an industrial dispute. To seek to do that by varying some terms and conditions of employment that have never before been called into question by either the employers or the employees seems very dangerous. That is the reason I raise the matter. It has already been touched upon by a previous speaker.

I now turn to the real substance of the argument, which is the variation of remuneration between different areas and in different cases. I had some difficulty, as I expressed earlier, in finding out what were the criteria for different pay. I had a look at the Houghton Report which dates from 1974 and found a range of different criteria for determining teachers' pay. Perhaps I may quickly give a resume of them.

The first is initial qualification: whether the teacher has a certificate in teacher training, or is a graduate or an honours graduate. The second is special qualifications which may be recognised by the local education authority. The third is pupil count which varies and is weighted by age. Another factor is the geographical area. Another is the type of school; and here the category of special schools comes into account. Another is responsibility in terms of scales up to the position of deputy headmaster; and the other responsibility category is for deputy headmasters and headmasters. The last is the number of years in service. I hope the Committee will understand if that list is not complete as I had limited time to do the research and difficulty in finding the sources.

I think the Committee will agree that all those categories are subject or could be subject to independent assessment. In regard to geographical area, London weighting and so on, it is conceivable that it could be adjudged capable of independent assessment. The number of pupils in a school is capable of independent assessment. The fact that none of these categories is referred to the inspectors of schools for an independent adjudication is an accident of history more than anything else; but on the basis of these criteria there is no argument about whether or not they are independent.

I return to my earlier remarks about the assessment of teachers' ability. That is a subject which particularly concerns me. It is an area in which the Government's proposals as laid out in the Bill and the attitude—if I may put it that way—or the aspirations of the Secretary of State as they have appeared in the media would suggest that the Government are looking at some mechanism for assessment of teachers to reward the good teachers and (dare I say it?) penalise the bad teachers.

My fear is that such a system of assessment and merit reward will not be based on independent assessment. I speak as someone who has some experience of industrial relations in industry. I must advise the Committee that I have sat on both sides of the camp, and my experience is that that system of reward—if one can broadly state it as merit awards—is divisive. I am genuinely concerned about the effect that such a system will have on our education system.

In school, teachers have to operate individually in classrooms. teaching 25, 35 or 40 children. They are in the front line and they need to be supported and encouraged in that job. When they go into the staff room they need to be able to relax and feel that they are in the company of colleagues who are equally in the front line; colleagues with whom they can identify and respond to as colleagues whose salaries are paid on a basis of merit, of independent assessment and of objective criteria.

If a colleague has higher qualifications or has increased responsibilities they can accept that that colleague will be paid differently. If their colleague has served more years in education they can accept that he or she will be paid more. However, if they feel that a classroom colleague is paid an extra amount of money not because of any objective criterion of assessment but because the colleague has, for some reason which may be unknown to them, found favour in the eyes of the headmaster or the board of governors, that factor will create divisions, resentment and antagonism within the staff room.

The staff room is where teachers gather together after a hard period at the front line. They feel safe and relaxed with their colleagues. But if they feel that their colleagues in the staff room are subject to preferential advancement or some factor to which they cannot aspire, that will create divisions and dissensions. I feel that that will not be conducive to the improvement of education in this country.

I have listed a number of criteria which I took from the Houghton Report. I shall mention some other criteria which the Government may usefully take on board and which would also be capable of independent assessment. We can look at some of the criteria proposed by Houghton and some of the problems that Houghton had to face. One of the problems was that the size of schools was increasing. In some respects there had to be incentives for teachers to adjust to that change. One of the criteria for determining salary scales was school size. A number of what are generally termed scale posts were available at larger schools. There was the possibility of career progression, if one can put it like that, and for the enhancement of salaries for teachers in larger schools.

Ten years ago we considered that a long-term requirement. If we look at the education system now we can see that adjusting to change is no longer a major criterion. There are other criteria at which I hope the Government will look seriously, one of which is special needs.

We are changing from a system whereby children with special needs are educated in special schools to one whereby they are being incorporated within mainstream schools. That involves changing the attitudes and abilities of mainstream teachers. That may be one of the criteria that the Government could use to vary salaries to encourage teachers in normal schools to go on SENIOS (special educational needs in ordinary schools) courses.

At a time when this country is deeply involved in the EC and needs to trade with the rest of the world, and when we have seen the decline of empire, it may be (I am sure of this and hope the Government will take it on board) that we need to place special long-term emphasis on the teaching of foreign languages in schools. There may be occasion to introduce extra pay for those teachers who have an ability in foreign languages.

I do not believe that it would be conducive to improving the country's education system to determine pay by short-term shortages. Here I mention mathematics teachers, physics teachers and so forth. CDT teachers were mentioned earlier. I do not think that the use of pay differentials to improve the short-term availability of specialist teachers is necessarily advantageous.

The hour is late. I apologise unreservedly to the Committee for carrying on for so long, but I believe that this area of the Bill is important. I notice that my noble friend Lord McIntosh said that we should probably return to this subject at some later stage of the Bill. I hope that my contribution at that stage will not be so long. I commend my remarks to the Government.

Lord Parry

Perhaps I may quickly say that I too would wish to return to the subject that is implicit: the general provision for the country rather than for specific areas.

Baroness Hooper

In view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh; has said that we shall return to this at a later stage at his instigation, and indeed under threats of duress from the noble Lord the Chief Whip, I think it is preferable that at this stage I do not respond in detail to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]

Lord Denham

I think it has been generally agreed that we have now reached the stage that we can usefully adjourn until tomorrow. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eleven o'clock.