Lords Sitting of 7 July 1988

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

Broadcasting: Departmental Responsibility
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will confirm that they have no intention during the present Parliament of transferring overall responsibility for broadcasting by radio and television from the Home Office to the Department of Trade and Industry.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister keeps the allocation of functions between Ministers and departments under regular review. No changes affecting responsibility for broadcasting are currently planned.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, which I find somewhat reassuring although I am not sure what "currently" means. Do all government departments appreciate that whether we like it or not—and a good many of us do not—broadcasting, and in particular television, have become part of the life-blood of the nation and almost like air and water? Do the Government understand that tossing ideas around about public service broadcasting which have grave implications, social and political, for the future is not a very encouraging sign, particularly as it gives the impression that the Government treat public service broadcasting as if it were analogous to the manufacture of electronics or the expansion of supermarkets?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in his supplementary question my noble friend draws a distinction between straight commerce and broadcasting. In reply I would say that the Government see scope for greater co-operation and efficiency in broadcasting but also attach importance to its social and cultural dimensons. We seek to create an enabling framework for wider choice but without detriment to programme standards and quality.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, having been Home Secretary without responsibility for broadcasting in the 1960s and having been Home Secretary with responsibility for broadcasting in the 1970s, I perhaps slightly predictably prefer the latter position? Under the first arrangement the Postmaster-General, a relatively junior Minister, was responsible for the technical side leaving the wider responsibility to the Prime Minister of the day who perhaps preferred political considerations. Will the Minister accept that the Home Office is better placed to give attention to
388
standards and to public service than either Downing Street or a more technical or commercial department?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the position at the moment is that the Home Office has lead responsibility for the constitutional, regulatory, financial and international aspects of broadcasting policy. In this respect I do not think I would want to add to the Answer which I gave to my noble friend Lord Buxton.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the Home Office has a long-established and well justified reputation for impartiality and fairness, qualities which it has displayed within its responsibility for broadcasting? Would it not be better to allow it to continue to exercise that responsibility?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is nothing between my noble friend Lord Renton and I in the view which my noble friend and the Government take of the way in which the Home Office discharges its responsibilities. As to the original Answer which I gave to my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa, I do not think I can add to it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House were immensely relieved to hear the answer which he gave the House just now? The idea that broadcasting should become the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry seems bizarre. If at any time the Government contemplate a change of responsibility in this matter, one should have thought that the Department of Education and Science would be better.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I gave only a partial answer when I read out the lead responsibilities of the Home Office. The Department of Trade and Industry is very much involved with spectrum planning and telecommunications. The DTI's radio communications division also acts as technical adviser to the Home Office on broadcasting matters for which the Home Office has responsibility.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, as regards the drastic changes in broadcasting—perhaps rumoured; perhaps actually going to happen—the whole problem arises because the Government are late in presenting their White Paper. If the industry knew what was going to happen to it and a responsible Minister in the Home Office was able to deal with it, I can assure the noble Lord that the position would be very much easier.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is the Government's intention to bring forward a White Paper on broadcasting within the next few months.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people would recognise that in a changing world, and in terms of broadcasting with all the facilities that go with it these days such as new transmissions, no one would expect the present

389
system to remain absolutely sacrosanct? We ought to take into account new developments and the new needs that will have to be met.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has asked that question because the Government want to see greater competition and choice in broadcasting and welcome the prospect of additional programme services. However, such matters as which services should be authorised, when and subject to what kind of regulation need to be considered in the round and in the light of the latest advice on technology. We shall certainly be addressing all these matters in the forthcoming White Paper.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, would it not be better during the time that the new channels are proliferating for the Government to give an assurance that they will keep intact the traditional system of the BBC and ITV until the future is clear?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so, nothing I have said today indicates at all that public service broadcasting in this country will be altered in the sense that there are obligations on the BBC. With the prospect of additional programme services, there are, however, important questions to address about the future content and style of regulation across the ITV sector. Once again these are important matters which we shall address in our forthcoming White Paper.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain what will be the position in future of amateur radio, which is an important sector?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is another question and I wonder whether on that point I might write to the noble Lord.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether, in continuing its overall responsibility for broadcasting, the Home Office will continue the policies developed by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, of keeping programme standards as the first priority?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the easiest way for me to answer that point is to say that the Government cannot second guess the broadcasting authorities in carrying out their responsibilities for programme content.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, when he said that broadcasting in the 1970s under the Home Secretary was better than it was in the 1960s under the Postmaster General? Is he further aware that the Postmaster General did not confine himself to technical matters? For example, I appointed the noble Lord, Lord Hill—and a very good appointment it was too. Would it not therefore be a good idea to recreate the ancient office of Postmaster General to look after this? We might even get a better Post Office service as a spin-off.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that again is a machinery of government question, which is why I am answering these rather difficult questions today. I do not think there is anything I can add to what I originally said to my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will have to be content with that.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, to which he referred on many occasions, can he explain the role of Sir Jeffrey Sterling and Professor Griffiths, who have been holding a series of meetings with senior figures in the television industry? Can he further explain why no representative of the Home Office has been present at those meetings?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe I am right in saying that Sir Jeffrey Sterling is a special adviser at the Department of Trade and Industry. Many people are interested in discussing the wide range of issues currently facing broadcasting. I think it is nothing but helpful to have an open debate on these matters.

European Fighter Aircraft: Employment
3.11 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the consequences for employment in the United Kingdom through participation in the European fighter aircraft programme.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we estimate that the decision to embark on full development of the European fighter aircraft will give direct long-term employment to between 3,000 and 4,000 people in the United Kingdom. In the event of a decision in favour of subsequent production, 20,000 jobs in this country could be involved.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for a reply which must be encouraging. Can he confirm that the European fighter aircraft has export potential, and if so, will this affect the employment figures in an upward direction?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the Tornado is anything to go by, the new European fighter will certainly have a considerable export potential. As regards the number of jobs that that might create, I think it is perhaps fair to say that the production of any export version of the European fighter aircraft is likely to follow the national production. Therefore it follows that the jobs created by the original decision will be sustained rather than that new ones will be generated.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we welcome the information he has given about additional jobs, especially in view of the report published last year by the city analysts,

391
Scrimgeour Vickers, which said that in the next three years there would be 100,000 jobs lost in the defence industry because of cuts in expenditure? The UK share of the cost of this is something like £7,000 million. Can the noble Lord say where the money is in the defence expenditure for this long-term expenditure or what part of the present budget will have to be omitted? Can he also say what provision he has made for costs rising and re-runs?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that I recognise the figure referred to by the noble Lord. What we have agreed to so far is the development phase of this programme. The United Kingdom share will be of the order of £1·7 billion or £1·8 billion. The noble Lord will be reassured to know that there is a ceiling price agreed on the cost of the development programme.

Electricity Privatisation and the Environment
3.13 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to embody the environmental responsibilities currently held by the CEGB under Section 37 of the 1957 Electricity Act in the Government's plans for privatising the electricity supply industry.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government intend to take powers in their legislation to ensure that an amenity obligation, similar to that expressed in Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1957, is placed on the privatised electricity supply industry.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that short Answer. Is he aware that there is real concern among many people lest cost-trimming economies in the new privatised industry work to the detriment of the environment and of environmental matters in all their aspects, not limited only to the effect of burning fossil fuels? Would he agree that Section 37 of the 1957 Act spells out all those environmental aspects clearly and in great detail? Can he therefore assure the House that the new industry, both in its generating and in its distributing functions, will be monitored not only to assess environmental impact but also to judge standards of service to the public? Will the regulatory system also cover those aspects?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can confirm that the Government intend the amenity obligation to apply to all parts of the industry; that is, generation, transmission and distribution, including those persons who generate electricity for their own consumption. The Government intend to provide on the face of the legislation a right to take civil proceedings in the event of a breach of the duty. I should remind the House that the present statutory obligation on amenity, Section 37, is silent on enforcement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that in addition to the general amenity obligation to which he has referred, new installations of the privatised electricity authority—whether in generation or transmission—will be subject to environmental assessment as required by the European directive?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes; I can confirm that.

Drinking Water: Aluminium Content
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking action in relation to the possible connection between aluminium in drinking water and Alzheimer's disease in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government's medical advisers are in touch with workers undertaking research on this subject and will be assessing their reports when they have been written and published. However, current concentrations of aluminium in drinking water are not considered to be a health risk.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Since press reports have nevertheless spread the theory that aluminium in water may be another newly discovered danger to health, can the Government quickly determine for certain the facts in order to inform the public and, if possible, in due course, to reassure them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when we receive the report, of course we shall act upon it. I would only say to those who have been misled by, or who have perhaps misunderstood, the press reports that they should wait until the report is published.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that one has to be absolutely convinced that there is no causal relationship between aluminium in water and Alzheimer's disease? Is he not further aware that in Yorkshire, in Barnsley, Wakefield, Sheffield, Kirklees and Calderdale, there are 800,000 consumers drinking water with an aluminium content which exceeds the European Community limits? Obviously there must be many more in the other nine water authorities. Therefore, may I ask the Minister what Her Majesty's Government and the water authorities are doing to bring down those levels in. line with European Community standards?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think the first point I should make to the noble Lord is that the European standard is there for coloration and not for health reasons. If one puts too much aluminium into water it tends to cloud the water; it is there for aesthetic reasons and not for medical reasons. No

393
national or international scientific body has recommended aluminium standards relating to Alzheimer's disease. Of course our water authorities must comply with European standards, and they will be doing so in the very near future.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, it is the top flight specialists and scientists who have issued this warning. That is why the whole matter is being discussed today. If peradventure, they are correct—bearing in mind that in some instances aluminium is being put deliberately into water so that we may well be deliberately causing harmful effects to many millions of people—can the Minister give the House an assurance that as soon as is humanly possible the report will be issued so that the appropriate action can be taken, just in case we might be very deliberately poisoning people in this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as soon as the report is published and we have seen it in the department, we shall of course consider it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can I ask the Minister whether there could be any risk in using aluminium cooking utensils?
The Earl of Caithness: Not that we are aware of, my Lords. A recent Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food survey into a number of metals concluded that aluminium levels were not a cause for concern.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, why do we have to wait for the research? As I understand it, we are years behind the United States, which already has stringent regulations. They must presumably have been introduced as a result of research.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we too have stringent regulations but they are for aesthetic and not medical reasons, so far as we know. That is why we are waiting for the report before we take matters further.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that people's intake of aluminium comes primarily from food and medicaments and not from water? If it is thought desirable to control that intake the Government should look first at aluminium canning and such things in the medicine field as buffered aspirin, emulsifiers and pickling agents. If we are concerned, it might be wise, even at this time, to have some control to lessen the aluminium being taken in from those major sources.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right. On average, less than 5 per cent. of our aluminium intake comes from water. Most of course comes from food. One takes in more aluminium from the tea leaves in a cup of tea than in one's normal daily intake of water if one does not drink tea.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that we should not be misled by scare stories. Does he feel that his first reply was rather dismissive of the
394
evidence that has already been assembled? Will he take the report seriously when it comes? As has been suggested by his noble friend Lord Buxton, there should be serious consideration of the matter and consultation with the DHSS, bearing in mind that the incidence of Alzheimer's disease is increasing substantially.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that at no stage did I give the House any indication that I do not take the matter seriously. We shall consider the report, as will every water authority which uses aluminium.

Tercentenary of the Revolutions of 1688–89 and of the Bill of Rights and Claim of Right
3.22 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows —
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, welcome this occasion to commemorate and celebrate with Your Majesty and with members of the House of Commons the anniversary of the glorious Revolution of 1688 and the occasion on which the Prince and Princess of Orange were declared Joint Sovereigns of these Islands. By their acceptance of the Declaration of Rights, presented to them on the 13th of February 1689 in the Banqueting House in Whitehall, subsequently enacted by the Bill of Rights; and by their assent to the Claim of Right of Scotland, their late Majesties King William and Queen Mary concluded a solemn compact with their people; thereby were vindicated and asserted the ancient rights and liberties of the dutiful and loyal subjects of Your Majesty's predecessors.
In consequence of this deliverance from arbitrary power and affirmation of the people's rights, this nation has, since 1688, enjoyed security under a constitutional monarchy. The experience of three hundred years has shown that it is the Crown in Parliament which guarantees the liberty of the subject and upholds the rule of law. Our Parliament, consisting of Crown, Lords and Commons, has proved enduring and has provided an example to those nations overseas which have chosen to regulate their affairs in freedom by means of parliamentary government. Since that time, Your Majesty's Royal Predecessors have adhered to the spirit underlying the Coronation Oath taken by his late Majesty King William to govern "according to the statutes in parliament agreed upon, and the laws and customs of the same", and have thereby made it possible for parliamentary and democratic government to evolve within Parliament without interruption and without recourse to violent revolution. For this we give thanks to Almighty God and we pray that we and those who come after us may continue to enjoy for many years the blessing of freedom under the law safeguarded by the protection of the Crown.
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may say a word or two about the arrangements for presenting this

395
Address to her Majesty. It is intended that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as Speaker of the House, should present the Address on Wednesday 20th July at 11 a.m. in Westminster Hall. The Speaker of the House of Commons will present a similar Address on behalf of Members of another place.
Your Lordships' House will meet for prayers at 10 a.m. on 20th July and will then adjourn to Westminster Hall. Peers and their spouses who have applied for tickets will proceed in their own time to Westminster Hall where they should be seated by 10.30 a.m. They may enter Westminster Hall through St. Stephens Hall. The House will wish to know that presiding officers of Upper Houses of Commonwealth Parliaments will accompany the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in procession to Westminster Hall.
Delegations from the United States of America and the Netherlands have also been invited to the ceremony as special guests in view of the close historical connections of those two countries with the revolution and the Bill of Rights. The delegation from the United States of America, designated by Congress, consists of representatives from the William and Mary College, Virginia. The Dutch delegation consists of the presiding officers and clerks of the Dutch Parliament.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty.—[Lord Belstead]
3.24 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, this anniversary of the glorious Revolution is one of the few historical dates which are engraved on the public mind. It is of special importance for us because of its profound parliamentary significance.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for outlining the arrangements for the celebration which we wholeheartedly support. I should like to make three short points. First, I should like to congratulate those who have arranged the exhibition in the Banqueting House. It is a most impressive and edifying display in historic surroundings. I hope that all of us will pay it a visit. Secondly, I should like to thank Mr. David Jones, the Deputy Librarian of the House, for his parliamentary history of the glorious Revolution published in the past few days to coincide with the anniversary. The records of debates in the House 300 years ago are revealing and interesting. Incidentally, I noted that a sitting which lasted until 8 p.m. was regarded as very late, notwithstanding the crisis.
Lastly, on behalf of all of us, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pym, the chairman, and other noble Lords on the Tercentenary Advisory Committee who have worked assiduously and successfully over the past two years to co-ordinate all these arrangements. It gives me great pleasure to support this admirably drafted Motion.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in congratulating all
396
those who have been concerned with the arrangements, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Pym, for the leadership he has given through his chairmanship.
Three hundred years of peace, in England and Wales at least, is a subject for congratulations. We join most heartily in expressing them. We support the humble Address and the steadfast constitutionalism exhibited on a basis of a broadening democracy by 13 successive British sovereigns who have played their part in upholding the rule of law.
It should nonetheless be borne in mind that the settlement of 1689 was essentially a settlement to safeguard the rights of Parliament against a Crown rather than of the individual against either Crown or Parliament. It does not, as the Motion is a little inclined to imply, mean that our constitution is either perfect in safeguarding such rights or manifestly superior to constitutions elsewhere in the world.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, from these Benches we should also like to endorse the sentiments expressed in the humble Address and to offer our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pym, and his colleagues for the excellent arrangements that they have made. As a nation, we owe so much to the events of 1688 and 1689—our constitutional monarchy, our democracy, our religious tolerance and the parliamentary rights safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this land. For all those things, we have every reason to be grateful and to have cause for celebration.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, I should like to associate those who sit on the Cross Benches with everything that has been said by the Leader of the House and the Leaders of the Opposition. It is particularly fitting that this House should play its full part in the tercentenary celebrations in view of the distinguished role of the House of Lords in bringing the events of 1688 and 1689 to such a successful conclusion.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, perhaps I may associate those who sit on these Benches with what has already been said and express our appreciation of the arrangements which have been made and of the exhibition which has been provided.
I wish to make one comment; namely; it is the tradition of this county deriving from the ancient civilisations in the West that we live under the law and yet with our own freedom. I believe it is that combination of living with freedom under the law which was preserved on this occasion. That is something for which we should be extremely thankful. Therefore, it is right to express our gratitude at this time.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may thank those noble Lords who have responded to the Motion, as well as the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate. I should also like to associate myself with the thanks which have been given by your Lordships to my noble friend, Lord Pym, and the other Members of your Lordships' House who were on the Tercentenary Advisory Committee. They

397
were: the noble Lord, Lord Blake, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Elwyn-Jones and Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton and Lord Whaddon, as well as my noble friend Lord Pym.
Once again I beg to move that a humble Address he presented to Her Majesty.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente; and the same was ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Whole House; and the Lords with White Staves were ordered to wait on Her Majesty to know when Her Majesty would be pleased to appoint to be attended with the said Address, and whether Her Majesty would be pleased to permit Presiding Officers of Upper Houses of Commonwealth Parliaments to accompany this House in attending Her Majesty.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Davidson will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to to be made in another place on the Piper Alpha rig. This will be followed by my noble friend, Lord Caithness, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on local government finance.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the proceedings on the Third Reading of the Education Reform Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) Scheme 1988 and the Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) Regulations 1988 will be taken.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to thank the Chief Whip for making that statement. It is the normal custom for your Lordships to rise at around 11 p.m. on a Thursday. I am sure that all noble Lords will use their best edeavours to complete the final stages of the Education Reform Bill by that time.
However, if that does not happen, what does the Government Chief Whip intend to do concerning the remaining stages of the Bill? I ask this in view of the concern expressed to me by various noble Lords on their own behalf and on behalf of members of staff from all sections of the House because of the uncertainty and their not knowing whether the House will sit into the early hours of the morning or whether tomorrow's sitting will be cancelled.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Opposition Chief Whip for making that point, which must be very much in all our minds. I echo his appeal to the House, which I am sure will be listened to, that noble Lords will carry through the Third Reading and the amendments as expeditiously as possible.
I think it would be wrong to make any firm arrangements of any other kind at this moment. We
398
must bear in mind that under the Standing Orders of the House it is noted that:
"The principal purposes of amendments on Third Reading are to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve the drafting and to enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill."
I am sure that given goodwill we can make good progress on this. We must all have very much in mind the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, who has a Motion on the European Communities Committee down for tomorrow. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, is very much exercised about this because it comes very much within her purview. I suggest to the Opposition Chief Whip that the usual channels should keep in touch throughout the day. If our joint hopes appear not likely to be fulfilled, perhaps we may have consultation through the usual channels as to what should be done.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Chief Whip a further question on the same subject. What is the Government's intention as regards the Motion, That the Bill do now pass?
Lord Denham: My Lords, as regards the debate, if amendments are put down to a Bill at Third Reading, the Third Reading is taken formally. Then the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble Lord on the Woolsack will call the various amendments. Any debate that takes place will take place on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. This is an inherent part of the Third Reading stage of the Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I think the question of my noble friend, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was directed at the undoubted fact that there will be a debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. Might it be advisable at this point to say that that debate will take place tomorrow and not today?
Lord Denham: My Lords, if I may say so, I know that the noble Lord has the best interests of the House at heart. Because the Third Reading stage has its very special characteristics, as I read from the Companion to the Standing Orders, to allow for rather more time than may be needed by shifting the Third Reading debate might be a little pessimistic at this stage. It could lead to more being made of the Third Reading than your Lordships have been accustomed to expect.

Protection against Cruel Tethering Bill (formerly Horses, Ponies and Donkeys (No. 2) Bill)
3.36 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Piper Alpha Platform Explosion
3.37 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement being made in

399
another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy on the Piper Alpha explosion:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the explosion and fire on the Piper Alpha platform last night.
"At about ten o'clock last night a serious explosion occurred at the platform. The Coastguard service was informed and an emergency control centre was established. All emergency services were immediately alerted. Royal Navy, RAF and Coastguard helicopters and surface vessels in the area, including a NATO detachment, were committed to the search for survivors. Occidental, who are the operators of the platform, activated their emergency centre to control the fire and oil and gas flows.
"The explosion appears to have been so violent that the platform was effectively destroyed. My right honourable friend, the Minister of State, went early this morning to Aberdeen. He has kept me in continuous touch with developments. My latest information is that there were 229 people on the platform at the time of the explosion of whom 65 are known to have survived. There were three people in a small boat involved in the rescue of whom one is known to have survived. Sixteen are known to be dead and 150 at present unaccounted for.
"Her Majesty the Queen has asked me to convey to all those concerned her heartfelt sympathy for the injured and bereaved and her admiration for the gallant efforts of the firefighting, rescue and medical services in preventing even greater loss of life. I am sure the whole House will wish to join in expressing our sympathies and in paying tribute to the efforts of the emergency services.
"Oil and gas production in the hostile environment of the North Sea demands the greatest attention to safety. Safety is the first priority of the Government and of the operators. We apply the highest safety standards to all phases of development; design, construction and operation. We have also established procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency. These are regularly rehearsed.
"The Government are determined to establish urgently the cause of the explosion and the lessons to be learnt. Nearly 30,000 people work in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea. They and their families have the right to expect the fullest possible investigation. The Government will therefore be setting up a full public inquiry as soon as possible".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on these Benches should like to join with him in extending our sympathy to those families who have been bereaved by this tragic accident. We also wish to join with him in a tribute to the emergency services for the work they have done.
400
We extend our sympathy too to Aberdeen. Any city suffers when something of this kind happens: Aberdeen today must be a city full of sorrow. We forget sometimes that offshore exploration and production is a dangerous business. We should never forget. Only in the past week there have been three explosions—a fire on board the Shell-Esso Brent Alpha platform on Tuesday, an explosion in the gas processing area at Sullom Voe at the end of last week and then last night's incident. And of course, eight years ago, the Alexander Keilland capsized in the Ekofisk oilfield and 137 people lost their lives.
We welcome the Government's intention to set up a full public inquiry. There will be questions to be asked; but this is not the time or the occasion to ask them. However, they must be asked because the health and safety of the 30,000 people who work offshore has to be our primary concern and because tragedies such as Piper Alpha are only tolerable if we learn all the lessons and try to ensure that, so far as is humanly possible such tragedies, do not recur.
We owe that to those who have died, and we owe it to those who have been bereaved. To do anything less would be a betrayal of them and we should not countenance it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to join in expressing appreciation for the early deliverance to us of' the Statement on this very serious affair. We too wish to express our sympathy to all those affected and our appreciation of the selfless service rendered by those involved in the rescue operation. Those who toil in the North Sea not only contribute great wealth to this country; they are all the time taking risks. It is a very difficult environment. Theirs is a service we have come to respect and must safeguard in every possible way. That is why we too welcome the fact that the Government are very quickly to set up a full-ranging inquiry into the causes of this tragedy.
If I may, I wish to draw on my experiences in the coal industry where from time to time—not too frequently, I am glad to say—there were disasters. We had to take the same kind of measures as those taken in this case. Obviously, the rescue operation was paramount and immediate and an inquiry always took place. But there was one further action we took. I wonder whether it would be appropriate in this case.
Inquiries, however urgent, take some time. In the meantime experts can appraise all the possible reasons for what occurred and ensure that similar installations immediately put in hand whatever additional measures of safety protection may be necessary. I wish to ask whether that is being done in this case.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall answer the two noble Lords who have spoken from the Front Benches. I am grateful to them for their reception of the Statement. I do not wish to add very much. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, mentioned previous recent incidents. I can assure him that, so far as we know, there is no possible connection between those recent incidents and this disastrous explosion. I should also tell the House that the safety inspectorate at the Department of Energy conducts

401
regular safety inspections of oil platforms. The last inspection on the Piper Alpha took place on 28th June this year and revealed nothing seriously amiss.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I wish to add from these Benches our sympathy for all those concerned, and our congratulations to those who dealt with the emergency. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Before the inquiry we should see whether there is any lesson that can be learnt straight away. Of course, such accidents occur. They sometimes occur because people have become used to the conditions they are working under and have not been as careful as perhaps they should have been. Or it may be that there is something which people had not realised was a possible danger. Both those aspects should be looked at. I hope however that before the inquiry no steps will be taken as panic measures. We want to look at this kind of thing quietly and do our best to ensure that it never recurs.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that perhaps the best answer I can give to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, is that I shall certainly convey their comments to my right honourable friend.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who are involved in the offshore oil industry, though not in the Piper field, will wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy for the relatives and of admiration for the rescue services? Besides the full inquiry which of course is necessary, will the Government consider informing those concerned of any interim precautions which might appear to be advisable in the short-term in order to make sure that everything is done to try to prevent a recurrence?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I shall also ensure that his comments are conveyed to my right honourable friend.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I intervene because, as some Members of your Lordships' House will know, I am a former Lord Provost of Aberdeen. I associate myself, of course, with the remarks which have been made by those who have spoken in the past few minutes. I continue to live in Aberdeen and I know something about the local scene. Therefore, I wish to direct the attention of the Minister to one particular and possible problem—a problem which I hope is not current at the moment and which I hope will not develop. I refer to the fact that there are severe constrictions on the time when Aberdeen airport is permitted to be open. That is perfectly proper under planning procedures, given the location of the airport. I can however assure the Minister that in the quite recent past there have been difficulties at time of emergency because of complicated interworking arrangements between the various sectors who keep the airport open.
I know that the airport was kept open last night, but I want the Minister to give very serious consideration to the fact that it must be kept open for
402
many days to come at irregular and unsocial hours for all the reasons which will flow from this quite dreadful disaster.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I do not think that he would expect me to give him an answer now, but I shall certainly take very serious note of what he said.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, may I on behalf of these Benches express our deep sorrow at this tragic disaster and assure all those who have suffered in any way of our sympathy and our prayers. I wish also to express our very great appreciation of those who responded through the emergency services and our admiration of their great courage and skill.

Education Reform Bill
3.48 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Education Reform Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time (Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 (Duties with respect to the curriculum):
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I. line 18, after ("Curriculum") insert ("and by Chapter III with respect to local financial management and staffing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 106, 107, 109 and 118. These amendments raise a central issue of uncertainty left in the Bill as it is at the moment. They relate to the likely changes in employment law which the Government expect to be made after Royal Assent under the broad powers in Clause 220. Throughout the passage of the Bill your Lordships have heard only the briefest details of how the Government intend to use that power.
The amendments which we propose are designed to introduce a proper process for the use of that power to enable Parliament to be properly informed as to the likely extent of the use of the powers. The amendments have the following effects. First, any order made after Royal Assent to change the provisions of employment law under local financial management would need to be made by affirmative resolution. Secondly, any order made under Clause 220 would need to be made within three months of Royal Assent and would contain the adjustments to employment law known by the Government at the date of Royal Assent to be necessary to correct the Bill. The amendment would not prevent the making

403
of an order under Clause 220 or affect the extent of the power. It would merely impose a process and prevent a wide-ranging power from being held by ministers for an indefinite period.
Noble Lords may recall from earlier debates on employment provisions that concern was expressed about two issues. The first of those was the continuing split between employer and management roles in schools. The governing bodies of schools and further education colleges will be given extensive power to hire, fire and discipline staff. However, they will not be the employer and will not bear responsibility for their decisions. For example, if a person is unfairly dismissed by a school governing body, the local education authority will, according to the Bill, be liable to pay any compensation awarded by an industrial tribunal without having taken any part in the decision to dismiss.
The Bill, in Clause 220, gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to amend employment law when he considers it necessary or expedient as a result of local financial management. That gives him an extraordinary degree of discretion in a very complicated and controversial area of the law. At earlier stages of the Bill we gradually obtained some impression of what the Government intend in that matter. They apparently accept that the Bill creates a problem in giving governing bodies powers in relation to employment without giving them the responsibility for paying for them. The Government propose to correct that anomaly by one or more orders under Clause 220.
The key point is that the Government have failed to acknowledge the known consequences on the face of the Bill. They propose to deal with them by orders which are subject to the negative resolution procedure only. We must assume that the Government, because of their own policies, are unwilling to place on the face of the Bill the major responsibilities which will now be placed on governing bodies. Schools and their budgets could potentially become liable for compensation and other penalties under employment law. Surely the Government owe it to the governing bodies, which are to take the major new role under the Bill, to make clear that they are not receiving power without responsibility—something for nothing—under the legislation.
The Government have acknowledged the case for increased training for governors to enable them to manage budgets and meet their new responsibilities. In that context, nothing has been said of the Government's apparent intention to make governing bodies of even small primary schools as liable as any employer to the penalties and pitfalls of employment legislation. Quite apart from the dangers to employees' individual rights, the potential effect on a governing body which strayed by accident into a case before an industrial tribunal could be very serious. Depending on the precise terms of the order, the governors could be liable to pay compensation from the school's budget. The cost of a punitive award could be disastrous to the level of educational
404
provision in the school in the succeeding financial year.
The Government have issued a draft consultative document which says that orders will be made and that it will be appropriate for a governing body to appear before an industrial tribunal to defend its action if a dismissed member of the staff complains of unfair dismissal. However, it does not state clearly that it is the governing body which will pay or how it will obtain the money to pay. I suggest that the House should attempt to clarify the position, as these amendments do, and restore some form of certainty to governing bodies.
The issue that remains to be resolved is what responsibilities will pass from the local education authorities to the governing bodies. For example, will governing bodies have questions of unfair dismissal of teaching and non-teaching staff to deal with? Will they have questions of redundancy, including the criteria for selection for redundancy, to deal with? Will they have to deal with wrongful dismissals, claims under contract for use of inappropriate procedure and questions arising under the race relations and sex discrimination legislation? Will they have to deal with questions of time off for recognised activities such as acting as a justice of the peace? Will they have to deal with appointment procedures and health and safety at work procedures, taking the employer's role under the legislation? Will they have to deal with the maternity provisions contained in legislation?
Are those areas of activity which governing bodies will take on? If so, the governors will require quite a bit of training. Where will that training come from and where do we see in the Bill that that is what the Government intend? Are the Government telling the people who will become governors that they are taking on those responsibilities? To what extent do the Government propose to make the governors fully liable for the consequences of their decisions? Will they have to pay damages which may be awarded or do they simply have to appear at industrial tribunals, leaving it to the local education authority to pick up the bill?
After orders are made under Clause 220, where do the Government believe that people with contracts of employment in either teaching or non-teaching positions in schools will look for their employer? I suggest that it is contrary to employment law to split the role of employer and to say: "This is the person you must look to for that but somebody else bears the responsibility". That is what appears on the face of the Bill. Our amendments attempt to make the matter clear. They are designed to get the Government to come clean, so to speak, and give the House, by making affirmative procedure necessary, a chance to debate the matter. We are in no sense opposed to the principle of financial delegation. We are merely questioning how the principle will work. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am glad to support the amendments. The case for them has been so well presented by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna,

405
that I propose to make only a few remarks concerning general points about the operation of Clause 220. When the subject of employees' rights was discussed on Report, I said that it was regrettable that the Government had not, by that time, tabled their promised amendment under which they were to ensure that there would be consultation with relevant interests before any order was made to modify employment law during financial delegation.
In Committee it had earlier been made plain that, because of the operation of what is now Clause 220, in the case of unfair dismissal a governing body would have to answer for its actions before an industrial tribunal, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has already reminded us. However, since the Government had proved unwilling to specify in the Bill precisely what were the items of employment legislation that governing bodies would have to implement, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to tell us what rights other than those pertaining to unfair dismissal the Secretary of State had in mind.
In reply, the noble Baroness said, among other things, that the Government intended to use the power given to the Secretary of State so that governors were subject to the provisions of the Equal Pay Act and other provisions of employment legislation. She did not spell out what those other provisions were. Similarly, the Department of Education and Science, in stating its intentions regarding the clause in its consultation paper, has given only examples of the responsibilities which will in practice be exercised by governing bodies under financial delegation.
The government amendment to which I have referred was subsequently tabled but in substance proved to be even less communicative about their thinking. I must therefore ask why the Government are so cagey about this? Are they fearful of disclosing to Parliament the full extent of the new responsibilities that are to be placed on governing bodies? Do they think that to do that would deter prospective governors from coming forward? They must have given a great deal of thought to this subject. I suggest that the House is entitled to know what their intentions are in this regard.
Against that background, the extent to which these amendments seek to limit the Secretary of State's powers seems to me to be the very least that the House should now require. First, in my view it is essential that the modifications in employment law which the Secretary of State seeks to make by order should be specified within the limited period of three months following Royal Assent and confined to those he considers necessary or expedient at the time the Act is passed. That would at least ensure that neither the present Secretary of State nor any of his successors could without further primary legislation for an indefinite period effect more legislative changes of which none of us is now aware.
Secondly, I am convinced it is right that in place of the present proposal that the Secretary of State's powers can be challenged only by negative resolution, the Minister should be obliged to obtain the agreement of both Houses to his proposal. That
406
would ensure that they are adequately debated and have positive parliamentary approval before they are implemented.
In this Bill there are many instances of the executive assuming powers that we on these Benches consider damaging to the democratic process. But the power that the Secretary of State proposes to take in this instance is perhaps the most harmful of all. That is because, in the long run, it could take from employees rights that they have acquired over many years and have been hard won. I therefore urge the House, by means of these amendments, to make sure that that power is constrained.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, this is the infamous clause which gives the Secretary of State powers far beyond anything that he might need to achieve the results on which, on the whole, we are all agreed. We have hunted it through its various name changes—from Clause 186, to 189, to 220—and we are still on the scent.
I am genuinely surprised—and that is not a mere rhetorical phrase—that the Government are still unaware of the effects of such widely drawn powers. Under those powers the Secretary of State can still make any changes he wants in the application of any laws relating to employment under local financial management, provided only that he considers it expedient or necessary and that he consults about them.
Let each Member of the House envisage those powers in the hands of his or her least favourite politician of the opposite party. As the clock ticks metaphorically towards midnight, the Government can still calm our legitimate fears by accepting this restriction on timing and method even if they will not do so in respect of the scope of the powers concerned.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the House will, I know, be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morton, for agreeing to group the amendments in the way that he has. I shall deal with them in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List, 1 hope that that will be in accordance with your Lordships' wishes.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to write a reference to local financial management into Clause I of the Bill. That is the clause that sets out the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers with regard to the curriculum in maintained schools.
Although this amendment is supportive of measures to which we are fully committed, I I think that it is unnecessary. The sentence in Clause 1 to which it would be added lays upon those various parties the duty "to exercise their functions" in such a way that the curriculum in maintained schools conforms to the general requirements laid down later in the clause. The reference to the various parties' "functions" includes everything that Chapter III has to say on local financial management and to spell it out would, I believe, be unnecessary.
The proposed insertion would also be unhelpful because it would confuse the structure of the Bill. Chapter 1, in which the insertion would occur, is concerned with the curriculum. Its opening clauses of

407
course function as a preamble to the entire Bill, since everything else that may be said or done about schools must focus upon the central issues of this chapter, the nature of the curriculum and of its delivery to pupils. But this does not mean that everything that occurs in this legislation should be recited in these opening pages.
Its influence upon areas of the Bill that are not immediately concerned with the curriculum is indirect. That is why the existing explicit reference to the specific questions of religious education and the national curriculum is appropriate at that point; but to make reference forward to provisions for local financial management in schools would not be.
The proposed amendment would clutter the opening of the Bill with matter not necessary at that stage, doing no service to the issue of local financial management, downgrading by implication those issues that are not mentioned there, and obscuring the question of the curriculum, which is the opening chapter's central concern. For these reasons, I hope that that amendment will not be pressed.
Turning now to Amendment No. 27, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the intention behind this point. I must say however that we were in a little degree of difficulty because I think that there is a misprint in the way that the amendment appears on the Marshalled List. Nonetheless, I think that I understand what it means, and I must say that I think that this amendment likewise is unnecessary.
Before any order can be made under Clause 220 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State must consult all those bodies listed in Clause 220. Inserting a reference to that clause in Clause 42(3) will not make that consultation any wider. Therefore I can assure the noble Lord that there are no circumstances in which an order under Clause 220 could give further powers or duties to governors without consultation. I hope that that assurance will be of value to the noble Lord.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 106, 107, 109 and 118, those amendments alter the clause in two key ways. First, Amendment No. 118, the intention of which is reflected in Amendments Nos. 106 and 109, would make orders under the clause subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, a point which has been referred to by every noble Lord who has spoken. Secondly, Amendment No. 106 would provide for the order-making power to elapse after a period of three months after Royal Assent. That idea of a time-limit on the operation of the clause is then supplemented by Amendment No. 107, which would limit the modifications to be made to those modifications which the Secretary of State considered at the time of Royal Assent were necessary.
Turning to Amendment No. 118, we do not accept that there is a need for orders made under Clause 220 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We have explained at length that this clause is a technical provision designed to allow the Secretary of State to modify employment law so that the operation of that law is not in any way hindered or made difficult by the operation of financial delegation. There is no question of this or any other
408
Government being able to use this clause to make drastic changes to employment law in a low-key way without public scrutiny. The amendment that we introduced which requires statutory consultation before an order is made will ensure that the process of making an order is fully public at all times. It will then be open to any Member of either House of Parliament to pray against the order. In our view this is sufficient protection so far as concerns this clause. There is no need to go further and require the approval of orders by resolution of each House.
I turn to Amendment No. 106. I have to say that we cannot accept that there should be a time-limit on the use of the power given by the clause to the Secretary of State. On previous occasions we have made clear that we may need to modify the law in the light of problems which the experience of financial delegation in practice may throw up. Amendment No. 106 would not allow us to do that. If a problem arose a little time after a school had a delegated budget there might be nothing that we could do about it. Indeed, there would be nothing that we could do about it if this amendment were to be agreed. Your Lordships cannot believe that that would be a desirable state of affairs. Amendment No. 107 is therefore unacceptable for the same reason.
We are of course now considering what modifications it may be appropriate to make under the clause after the Act has been passed, but we must retain the power to make further changes if that proves necessary in the light of experience. We cannot possibly foresee every eventuality now. Furthermore, we need to consult carefully before we make any order. The Government had always intended to do that. It is only right that those parties concerned and those who have experience in the areas of the law in question should have an opportunity to comment on any proposals for orders.
We introduced an amendment at Report stage requiring statutory consultation with several parties, including the local authority associations, teachers' associations and representatives of the governors of voluntary schools. That consultation will take a little time. We are unlikely to have reached final decisions by the time that this Bill receives Royal Assent.
At this point I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to two points concerning this clause and the power that it gives to the Secretary of State. First, I draw attention to the word "modifications" in the first line. That is an important word with a precise meaning. It does not mean any change that the Secretary of State cares to make. Repealing a provision or drastically altering its effect for certain employees would not constitute a modification of that provision. A change cannot be described as a modification if it does not preserve the essential purpose of the provision. This is an important constraint on what can be done under this clause.
Secondly, the power is not in any way unprecedented. As we have pointed out on previous occasions, the Labour Government included in the 1978 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act a provision enabing the Secretary of State to modify sections of that Act.

409
To conclude, let me repeat that Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 would severely restrict the Government's ability to modify employment law in ways which may be necessary in the light of experience. I think that we should be irresponsible to accept them. In our view Amendment No. 118 and its consequential amendment, Amendment No. 109, are simply unnecessary. There is no need for the affirmative resolution procedure to apply to orders under this clause and I hope that the House will reject all those amendments.
The noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Rochester, and the noble Earl who also spoke referred to various points. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, expressed concern about employers' responsibilities and the possibility of somebody else taking them on. However, this type of provision is not new. In aided schools, under existing law LEAs are required to appear before an industrial tribunal where they require the governors of a voluntary aided school to dismiss a teacher though the governors are that teacher's employers. Again, this ensures that those who take the decisions are answerable for them.
I think that a similar point was in the mind of the noble Lord. Lord Morton, when he wondered who would pay the compensation if such a case went against the LEA or the school concerned. The answer is that the LEA can charge the cost of dismissals to governors if it has good reason to do so, but it is not obliged to do so if it does not see any good reason. There is therefore a degree of flexibility in that situation which I hope the noble Lord will find helpful. I hope that I have dealt with the concerns in the minds of noble Lords about these matters and that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I think it is impossible to understand the concern felt by the staffs of our schools without realising the apprehensions that have been aroused by this Government's removal of their negotiating machinery. Above all, it is that which worries them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but the Companion says that on Third Reading after the Minister has spoken noble Lords should not intervene. All the speeches ought to come before the Minister rises, and he then replies. Then of course there is the right to reply of the noble Lord who originally spoke. On this occasion, as this is my first intervention this afternoon, perhaps the noble Lord would like just to make his remarks, drawing them swiftly to a conclusion, and we could then stick to that point.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I apologise to the House for my rather intemperate contribution. I think I made the essential point in my first sentence. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his mercy and I thank your Lordships for listening to me.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support that I have received from the
410
noble Lord, Lord Rochester, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest. I must say to the Minister that he has not moved anywhere on this issue which we have already discussed on Second Reading, through Committee stage and at Report stage. Noble Lords have all been telling him that there is a very big problem about this issue but the Government appear to have shut their eyes to it and only reached the stage of issuing a consultative document.
According to the Minister, these powers would constrain the ability of the Government. I wonder whether he is aware of the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 116, tabled in the name of his noble friend Lady Hooper. Do the Government intend to press that amendment later this evening? It gives a fairly wide power to do all sorts of things. However, perhaps that would not be applied in this instance. It may be that he considers that amendment not in point. However, it does not really matter.
In our view, it is essential that drastic changes which may be made in employment law should be made by affirmative order and not by negative resolution. The Government must know the basic framework of the changes they intend to make in employment law for governing bodies to deal with this problem, so they should at least come out and say so. They have had this Bill for some considerable time. They know that they will have to make orders but they cannot tell us what will be in those orders. It is for that reason that I must press the amendment.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 146.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Alport, L.

Glenamara, L.

Amherst, E.

Goodman, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Attlee, E.

Gregson, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grey, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Grimond, L.

Banks, L.

Hampton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bottomley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hayter, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carter, L.

Hughes, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hunt, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hylton, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Jacques, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jay, L.

Diamond, L.

Jeger, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kagan, L.

Ennals, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Falkland, V.

Leatherland, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Listowel. E.

Flowers, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Gallacher, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Lockwood, B.

411

Longford, E.

Rugby, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Russell, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mais, L.

Serota, B.

Mayhew, L.

Shackleton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stallard, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stedman, B.

Molloy, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mulley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Oram, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Parry, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Peston, L.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Willis, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Rea, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Rochester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Halsbury, E.

Ampthill, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Annan, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Arran, E.

Havers, L.

Auckland, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hives, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hood, V.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bessborough, E.

Ilchester, E.

Blatch, B.

Ironside, L.

Blyth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bolton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Borthwick, L.

Keyes, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Killearn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Braye, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Knutsford, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Layton, L.

Caithness, E.

Lindsay, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

London, Bp.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lytton, E.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cathcart, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Margadale, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Marley, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cowley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dundee, E.

Moyne, L.

Eccles, V.

Munster, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elibank, L.

Napier of Magdâla, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norrie, L.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Pender, L.

Goold, L.

Pennock, L.

Grantchester, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Greenway, L.

412

Porritt, L.

Swansea, L.

Pym, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinton, E.

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

Renwick, L.

Teviot, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rodney, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Romney, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trafford, L.

St. Germans, E.

Trefgarne, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Saint Levan, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Windlesham, L.

Savile, L.

Wolfson, L.

Seebohm, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Somers, L.

Young, B.

Strange, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Sudeley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Local Government Finance
4.29 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House I think that it might be convenient. If I now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission I would like to make a Statement, Mr Speaker, about a number of matters which will bring local authority finance in England up-to-date for the introduction of the new system in 1990.
"First, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are issuing, a consultation document today on local authority capital expenditure. The paper has been placed in the Library and is available in the Vote Office: it will be sent to local authorities and their associations today.
"The new system will take effect from 1st April 1990. It will be a control on borrowing and all forms of credit, rather than on expenditure. I believe authorities will welcome this.
"Capital receipts will continue to be another source of finance for capital expenditure. But the debt attributable to past capital expenditure by local authorities in England and Wales now stands at £45 billion. We propose that a proportion of the accumulated and future cash receipts should be set aside for debt redemption or to meet future capital commitments. Local authorities will be free to spend the balance, in whatever year they like.
"Local authorities will also be free to finance additional capital expenditure from revenue contributions, subject only to the discipline of the community charge. I believe that the new system will provide local Government with greater assurance and flexibility in the planning of capital programmes. Secondly, under the new system in the Local Government Finance Bill, revenue support grant is to be paid on a fixed basis, authority by authority. Authorities will have certainty about their grant entitlements. There will

413
be no adjustment to take account of actual spending. The discipline will come from the community charge. My right honourable friend and I have decided to pave the way towards this new system by introducing greater certainty for 1989–90.
"In doing so, we will remove any scope for creative accounting by an authority designed to increase its grant entitlement by reducing its reported total expenditure without changing its true spending. There would otherwise be a number of ways in which authorities could do this for next year, this year and indeed earlier years.
"We therefore propose to bring forward legislation as soon as possible to alter the basis on which grant will be paid in England and Wales. For the current year, and for the previous three years, final supplementary reports have not yet been made. For some of these years it would still he open to local authorities to undertake book-keeping transactions or financial deals unrelated to true spending but which alter the level of reported total expenditure and therefore gain extra grant. We envisage that the Bill will provide that for all years up to 1988–89 grant entitlements should be calculated in general using total expenditure information which was with our departments by midnight last night.
"In a normal year grant payments would be calculated taking account of grant related expenditure assessments, block grant mechanisms, any arrangements for limiting grant changes and authorities' reported expenditure which I announce following consultation in the autumn. Grant payments for 1989–90 will be calculated in the same way except that the legislation will provide that grant payments for individual authorities should be calculated not on authorities' reported total expenditure, but on a figure derived for each authority based on information about their present levels of total expenditure and projected forward. Allowance will be made for changes in function where appropriate. In making the calculations we shall use in general only that information about total expenditure which was with our departments by midnight last night.
"When the RSG report has been approved, and subject to Parliament approving the new legislation, grant will be paid on the new basis. This will provide local authorities with greater certainty about their RSG entitlements for 1989–90 and previous years. It provides a basis for an orderly transition to the new system and for bringing the existing system to a close. Without the new legislation, it would have been necessary to recalculate grant under the present system well into the 1990s. I hope it will now be possible to make the last supplementary reports under the present system during 1989–90—otherwise I should have been asking the House to approve them probably up to 1992 or 1993.
"Thirdly, my proposals for next year's RSG settlement for England: I propose to set the level of provision for current expenditure at £29,140 million. This is 4 ·7 per cent. or £1 ·3 billion more than authorities' budgets for this year, after
414
deducting the cost of polytechnics. which from next April will be the responsibility of central government. This increase is slightly above the anticipated rate of inflation.
"This sum includes £110 million in respect of the current costs next year for preparing for the introduction of the community charge. This is in line with the estimate of these costs made by Price Waterhouse, and is consistent with the figures put forward by the local authority associations.
"Since authorities continue to spend more than they need, I again intend that there should be a margin between the total of grant related expenditure assessments and provision.
"I propose that aggregate exchequer grant should be set at £13,575 million. After allowing for the removal of polytechics, this is £600 million more than the settlement allowed for this year, and is about £1.1 billion more than the grant which will be paid for 1988–89. That represents an increase of about 9 per cent. on the amount of grant that will be paid out. Under my proposals for closing down the system, grant payments to authorities will not be affected by their level of spending in 1989–90.
"I am conscious that some local authorities will be disappointed that no grant increase will be available in recognition of any shortfall in their spending in the current year and last year. I believe, however, that if they look at the total picture they will recognise that the package I am proposing is a fair one. If spending is held steady in real terms this settlement will enable most authorities to hold the increases in rates to less than the rate of inflation.
"I shall be discussing all these proposals with the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on Monday.
"Fourthly, rate limitation. I am today laying before the House a report setting out how general purpose authorities will be selected next year. The selection criteria I am adopting are the same as I adopted last year: first, for authorities not selected in 1988–89, budgets of at least 121/2 per cent. above GRE and showing a growth of at least 6 per cent. since 1987–88; secondly, for authorities that are selected in the current year, budgets of at least 121/2 per cent. above GRE.
"On these criteria seven authorities will he reselected for 1989–90—Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Lewisham, Southwark, Thamesdown and Tower Hamlets. No authority which was not selected last year is being selected this year.
"I am today also setting the expenditure levels for the seven rate-capped authorities at the same level as in 1988–89.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has laid a separate report designating the Inner London Education Authority and he will be setting an expenditure level. This completes the Government's proposals for designating authorities in England."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.38 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl for repeating not just one statement but four statements on four different topics which have been made in another place. The four topics are: capital expenditure; the past revenue support grant, which will require legislation; the statement of the rate support grant for 1989–90; and, finally, a statement on capping. These are major matters to be dealt with in a short statement considered at such short notice, in light of the fact that the Central Consultative Committee on Local Government Finance is meeting only next Monday and that so far only a draft agenda has been issued to the local authorities taking part.
On the capital expenditure statement, the noble Earl said that the Government have issued a consultation document. Can he tell us how long will be given for the response? It is a classic tactic of government in such circumstances to issue consultation documents to local authorities just as they are going into the summer recess and to expect responses before they return. I hope that that is not being done again in this case.
On capital receipts, the statement uses two words which will cause a great deal of anxiety in many local authorities. It says that past capital expenditure debt amounts to £45 billion and proposes that a proportion of the accumulated and future cash receipts should be set aside for redemption. This sounds like a proposal for paying off the national debt and if it were proposed, for example, to pay back that £45 billion over a very short period, the result would be that there would be virtually no capital receipts available for any expenditure purposes and that those authorities particularly Conservative authorities, I suspect, which have been accumulating past receipts in order to fund major ventures—for example, town centre redevelopment and so forth—would find them being taken away from them to pay off past debts. I shall be grateful for the Minister's comments about that matter but I imagine that it will cause some concern to a number of authorities which are not included in the Government's list of spendthrift local authorities. Will the Minister give the proportion, say how rapidly it is intended that the past debt will be paid off and indicate how it can be achieved from accumulated past receipts?
The reference to financing additional capital expenditure from revenue contributions is something of a sick joke, given the fact that every pound of expenditure above the needs assessment will entail a £4 increase in the community charge. That is due to the gearing of the community charge and the fact that it will account for only 25 per cent. of local authority expenditure. I hope the Minister does not think that is a really serious contribution to local authority finance.
The second statement related to the past revenue support grant system. We do not express support for creative accounting. It appears that what is now proposed is restrospective legislation and action going back over three years. In other words, all the time-honoured systems of supplementary reports for setting RSG and for confirming the amount of RSG
416
after the year has been completed are now being scrapped. The Statement indicates that legislation will be brought forward to alter that basis. Can the noble Earl say when that will be and how quickly it is intended that it shall be on the statute book?
The third statement refers to revenue support grant for England for 1989–90. The statement proposes a provision for current expenditure of just over £29 billion. Is it not the case that the argument put forward by the local authority associations is that, in order to continue to fund present policies with no increase in expenditure, there ought to be a provision for £30·17 billion? Therefore we are talking about a shortfall of £1 billion in the amount needed by the authorities to continue present policies.
The statement refers to inflation, but is it not the case that local authority expenditure is particularly affected by the additional cost of the social services which are being laid on local authorities and also the change in the age structure of the population resulting in significant expenditure needs? I could quote many other examples.
We are interested to see that the estimate of £110 million given by Price Waterhouse is now being accepted as the basis for policy. That is not what we have been told within the past week or so. Will the noble Earl now confirm that the figure of £50 million to £70 million given in the financial memorandum to the Local Government Finance Bill which is still before this House, was a gross under-estimate and barely more than half the actual figure? Will the Minister be good enough to tell me what are the current estimates for future years?
The final statement relates to rate capping. I suppose that I ought to express gratitude that the London borough of Haringey is no longer included in the rate capping list. However, I notice that none of the unelected joint boards is included in the rate capping provisions. Can it be right that rate capping—in other words, the imposition of expenditure levels—is considered right for elected authorities but that unelected or partially elected authorities are allowed to spend whatever they wish? That seems to be a total denial of democracy.
In conclusion, it appears to be the case that the Government are preparing to sweeten the pill of the poll tax by making the rating system as unpopular as possible. Cuts of £ 1 billion in what is needed for local authority expenditure, and the principle of retrospection on the calculation of past RSG, indicates a brutal attitude which must be designed to make the rating system unpopular as it reaches its final years.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Earl for repeating the important and complex Statement. He will understand that some of us need more time to study the Statement with care before reaching final conclusions. I do not propose to divide my response to the Statement into four parts, as did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I should like to deal with it as a whole.

417
In general, we welcome the simplification of local government capital finance. However, we should not welcome simplification if it proved to be at the expense of just and proper distribution. We believe that the authorities now most in need will continue to be short of the funds they will need for necessary and urgent purposes. However, there are parts of the Statement which we warmly welcome. For instance, we shall be delighted to see the end of some examples of creative accounting. They will leave heavy burdens to be borne by some citizens in some inner city areas for many years to come.
I am a little unclear about the extent to which local authorities will be able to use funds from the sale of council houses for the repair of empty and dilapidated properties. I note that the Statement makes no mention of additional allocations to those authorities which cannot spend their capital receipts from the sale of council houses because they have not sold many such houses. They are the inner city authorities whose housing need is greatest.
Despite the opinion of Price Waterhouse we on these Benches, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are by no means convinced that the extra sum provided to cover the cost of preparing for the community charge will be adequate. We note that many of the figures are based on a forecast of future inflation which could prove to be inaccurate. Can the noble Earl say whether provision has been made for appropriate adjustments to be made if that later proves to be necessary?
I should like to ask the noble Earl one specific question. What is the proportion of capital receipts that the Government will require local authorities to set aside for debt redemption or to meet future capital commitments? That matter is referred to in paragraph 4 of the Statement, and perhaps the noble Earl can reply to that specific question.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for what both noble Lords have said. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for welcoming some parts of the Statement. As regards consultation, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there will be a period of three months for the responses and that the deadline is 7th October.
I turn to deal with the important point raised by both noble Lords about debt repayment and I should like to put the matter into perspective. At the moment the local authority debt is £45 billion. Servicing the debt costs £6 billion per year; that is £170 for every adult in the country. Taking that into account, we envisage local authorities setting aside 75 per cent. of their housing receipts and 50 per cent. of their non-housing receipts for debt redemption. Under these proposals, local authorities will still be able to spend nearly £4 billion from capital receipts in 1990–91.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the question of the introduction of legislation on the new capital system. I can go no further than the Statement, which indicates that it will be introduced as soon as possible. The noble Lord also commented on the claimed £1 billion shortfall in the level of expenditure required by local authorities. My right
418
honourable friend does not accept that authorities need to spend £30 billion. The present policies need not continue and authorities need to tailor their spending to what ratepayers can reasonably be expected to be able to afford.
Finally, on rate capping the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, gave what I may call a cautious welcome to the fact that there is now a reduction of 10 in the number of authorities being rate capped. I can confirm to him that Haringey is not among those to be rate capped next year and I believe that that shows that Government policies are working.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I believe it will be readily agreed that this Statement does not lend itself to off-the-cuff comment. However, I should like to ask the Minister whether he could follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the period of consultation. Can he say how long this will be and with whom it will be? Will it be sufficient to avoid our recent experience of retrospective legislation to amend retrospective legislation which will involve more retrospective legislation. I should like him to say a little bit more about consultation.
The Minister gave an assurance that local authorities would have greater flexibility and greater assurance in planning their capital programmes. I believe it would help everybody, especially those in local government, if he could say that all that means greater freedom for authorities to spend their own money.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the consultation period, I repeat to my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham that the consultation period with the local authorities and others who are interested in this subject will be three months with a deadline of 7th October.
I believe that it is right that I should mention the potential damage that could be caused if the action which we propose is not taken. The possibility exists that authorities could, through creative accounting devices, claim hundreds of millions of pounds in additional grant from the Exchequer without reducing their underlying level of expenditure. We have seen evidence and proposals are being worked out to enable authorities to reduce their reported total expenditure to claim this grant through such methods as factoring and interest rate swaps. Once a few authorities adopt those proposals there is danger that a herd instinct will develop and that others will follow. Indeed, some treasurers may regard themselves as being under a duty to ratepayers to seek to maximise the benefits to be gained by such devices by all legitimate means. I hope that puts in context what we are seeking to do.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am extremely unhappy about the official use by the Government of the words "creative accounting". That seems to cast quite unnecessary reflections on a perfectly normal process and, secondly, on what seems to be an inevitable warning to us that they are about to introduce retrospective legislation.

419
It is not a question of whether a person chooses to describe the truth in figures in a particular way. It is a question of fact and of law as to whether he is entitled so to do. I cannot understand the continual reference by the noble Earl to authorities fiddling—I suppose that is what he is saying—their accounts in order to obtain an advantage which is not available to them under the law. If it is available to them under the law then he is not entitled by retrospective legislative action to prevent them making that claim. That is what appears to be the case by reference to the one year already passed. He is not entitled to do so.
I hope that the noble Earl will give me a more careful reply than he has given so far to the questions which have been raised on retrospective legislation and the rights of local authorities to claim their due under the law.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said. I hope that with his experience of his former position in Government he will also be aware that the possibility exists, as I have just said, for claims of hundreds of millions of pounds to be undertaken if we do not take the action that we have been able to do for future reports.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hesitate to come back. There were two points where the noble Earl in his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, positively went against what the Statement says. He says that the Statement gives greater flexibility to local authorities but at two points the Statement says the reverse.
First, on capital expenditure, he is now proposing that accumulated cash receipts from capital disposals from the past shall be required to be used to repay the past capital expenditure debt. That means that those who have prudently been building up their cash receipts for major projects will no longer be able to spend them on those projects.
Secondly, as regards the RSG, those authorities who have had a short-fall in expenditure in the past in order to have greater expenditure in another year will no longer have a grant increase as a result. Is it not a fact that in both these cases—both capital and revenue—local authorities are being given less flexibility and chance to exercise sound financial management?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Perhaps I could just repeat part of the Statement so it is clear:
"We propose that a proportion of the accumulated and future cash receipts should be set aside for debt redemption or to meet future capital commitments. Local authorities will be free to spend the balance, in whatever year they like.
Local authorities will also be free to finance additional capital expenditure from revenue contributions, subject only to the discipline of the community charge. I believe that the new system will provide local government with greater assurance and flexibility in the planning of capital programmes".

Education Reform Bill
4.58 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 3 [Foundation subjects and key stages]: [Amendment No. 2 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("specified in an order of the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment leaves out in the specification of foundation subjects, in particular of a modern foreign language, the words:
"specified in an order of the Secretary of State".
In the Bill the Secretary of State has to choose and specify which modern languages may be taught as foundation subjects. The point of the amendment is to leave that out so that local education authorities can teach any modern foreign language that they consider appropriate.
There are two issues here. The first is the range of choices of modern foreign languages and the other is the question of what could be called in a sense "community languages," in that one has to deal with people who speak a modern foreign language at their home and, in a sense, English is a modern foreign language for them.
On Report, the noble Baroness said:
"it would be wrong for me to prejudge which languages might be taught as the modern foreign language foundation subject before we have undertaken consultation and sought advice from the proposed National Curriculum Council. In the meantime, no modern foreign languages are ruled out".—[Official Report, 21/6/88; col. 741.]
She added:
"The list of foreign languages which will be issued in the order will, I believe, be susceptible to regional variations and it will be a very comprehensive list".—[Official Report, 21/6/88; col. 742.]
On the question of regional variations, when the noble Baroness comes to answer perhaps she will explain why it may be appropriate, for example, to teach French in Bradford but not in Essex or wherever it may be, and what is meant by regional variations to allow one language to be taught in one region and not in another. It is a matter which I find difficult to comprehend but it is perhaps a fairly minor matter.
The main problem is that however comprehensive the list may be, if the Government are willing to include community languages then the range is enormous. The Swann Report entitled Education for All of March 1985 discovered that in Bradford some 14,000 children spoke at home between them some 64 languages other than English, and in Haringey roughly 7,500 pupils spoke between them a total of 87 languages other than English. Therefore, the question obviously becomes one of what is conveniently suitable for the school or for the local education authority.
It seems to us on this side of the House that there is no need for specification by the Secretary of State because no school would be teaching a modern foreign language if it did not have the teachers, the course and probably the examination syllabus to

421
tackle that language. Therefore, it is unnecessarily restrictive that there should be this specification of what the Secretary of State may consider to be the appropriate foreign languages to be taught. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I express my support for this amendment, partly because it would remove one element of prescription by the Secretary of State, and we have so many. It would remove one prescription which seems to me quite unnecessary and undesirable for the reasons already outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
I believe that in the inner London area the number of community languages spoken is around 170. Is the Secretary of State really going to specify all those languages? Is it not going to be possible for any given language to be taught unless he has specified it? The problem could be easily solved simply by leaving out the words suggested in the amendment. I support the amendment.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I too support this amendment. I agree with what was said earlier by my noble friend Lord Baldwin that the Secretary of State is giving himself too much power in directing what shall be taught and what shall not be taught.
This is a matter for the headmaster who is on the spot. He knows what languages are desirable and what are not for particular pupils—not the Secretary of State who is sitting in his office in Whitehall. The man on the spot should decide. It is entirely inappropriate for such decisions to be within the power of the Secretary of State.
Incidentally, I express the hope that the vast majority of the young who are learning foreign languages will first learn to speak their own language properly.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this clause seems to be part of what I have described on other occasions as the notion of a planned economy of learning, a control over local initiative. It is an excessive discouragement to local initiative. As the Bill stands, if I understand it correctly, if the Secretary of State should fail to specify a specific language, he has in effect killed that language.
I make no imputation against the Secretary of State. I do not think he has any wish to go round killing languages, but there are many languages which he may on occasion not get round to specifying. I take an example which happens to be within my recent memory. I have a pupil who is by birth half Finnish and who has a great desire to maintain her own language. It is possible that, with the best will in the world, the Secretary of State might happen to forget to specify the Finnish language. She would then be doing something illegal and that seems to be altogether unnecessary.
These points have been made by others as well as myself. I should like to quote from a document that I believe other noble Lords have also received. I shall be interested to see how long it is before any noble Lord recognises the source from which I am quoting.
422
The document states:
"In sharp contrast to the Tory emphasis on freedom, choice and decentralisation in these parts of the Bill, the clauses on what is to be taught follow an almost socialist line and give power to the DES undreamed of until now. In particular we would find it intolerably prescriptive for boys between 14 and 16 who would have less opportunity to study the foreign languages and the sciences which the Government rightly wishes to encourage. I hope that by the time you read these words, the Bill will have been amended to allow some sensible flexibility".
Those are the words of the headmaster of Eton, writing the foreword to the annual newsletter of the Old Etonian Association. It is not often that I have the pleasure of sporting my old school tie in support of my party loyalty, but today I do.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, there is a point on this amendment which has not yet been mentioned. There are a number of children who speak a language other than English at home and learn English as a second language. The time when it is easiest for them to learn English is when their own language development is taking place, when they are young in junior school. I understand from those who teach languages to young children that English is best taught at the same time as they are being taught the basics and proper grammar of their own language so that the two languages develop together.
If the Secretary of State does not specify all the languages that small children learn at home, and speak at home, a number of them will be hampered in their learning of English. Consequently, it will be more difficult for them as they go up the school and in life generally thereafter. Therefore, I believe that this amendment has a lot to be said for it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I understand the desire for choice and diversity. The Government too believe that there should be a variety of modern foreign languages on offer to secondary pupils both for their own benefit and to improve the country's range of language expertise. We have made our intentions clear in the policy statement on modern languages in the school curriculum which we published earlier this year. That is also why we have not specified one or two particular languages as the modern foreign language foundation subject in the Bill itself.
This amendment would go too far. Schools would be able to offer any language, however obscure, in fulfilment of this part of the national curriculum, regardless of whether it would be useful to pupils in their adult life or formed a good basis for further language learning. I believe we would be doing children a disservice if, having required them to study a modern foreign language for the first five years of their secondary schooling, we did not build in certain safeguards about which languages they should study. I also feel sure that secondary schools themselves would welcome a firm indication of which languages they should teach as a first foreign language to pupils. They will still of course be free to decide which of the languages specified in the order they teach as a first language and also which languages they offer as second foreign languages in the sixth form or at an earlier stage.

423
That said, I stress that no final decision has been taken on which languages should be specified in the order. There are clearly educational advantages in requiring children to have the experience and discipline of learning a language which is neither the national language nor their mother tongue and which will be of value to them in adult life and employment. But this is a framework Bill and the detail is a matter for further consideration. I repeat that no modern foreign languages have yet been ruled out.
The first requirement will be that a modern foreign language should be taught "for a reasonable time" before any attainment targets or programmes of study are specified. My right honourable friend has no wish to make it difficult for schools to meet that requirement, and he is likely to take a fairly liberal view of what languages should qualify so as to reflect existing practice in schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, specifically asked what I meant by regional variations. Existing practice must be one of them. It could be the supply of teachers in a particular language. Indeed, it may be the effect of the predominance of certain community languages. However, the intention is to allow local education authorities to decide which foreign languages should be taught in their schools and they then have to make sure that they have the appropriately qualified teachers. We want diversification of the first foreign language, not every school teaching French.
I have listened carefully to your Lordships' arguments about which languages should be included and we shall give them full consideration before coming forward with our further proposals. As I said, we also intend to undertake consultations and seek advice from the National Curriculum Council on this matter. Should your Lordships think that the list of languages is unduly restrictive or that the wrong languages are being specified when the order is made under Clause 3(2)(6), your Lordships will be able to pray against the order under the negative resolution procedure. I hope that with this reassurance noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, did the noble Baroness say that if this amendment was carried languages would be taught almost willy-nilly and that head teachers would introduce languages that did not matter or did not have to be taught? I do not think that it was intended, but I took it to be an insult to head teachers to suggest that they would teach languages whether or not they were relevant.
I find that proposition difficult to accept. I live and operate in the London area. I know the difficulties experienced by head teachers in deciding which languages to teach out of the scores of languages that exist in the Greater London area. I should have thought that the noble Baroness would welcome this amendment. It would introduce the flexibility that is absolutely essential if heads are going to meet modern conditions in the inner city areas.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that is why we feel that this is an important
424
topic that requires further consideration and consultation.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, that would seem to be the perfect reason why there would be no need for specification. You must trust somebody somewhere. The idea that the Secretary of State might inadvertently omit something from his schedule that he would otherwise specify seems to me to be terrible.
I am surprised to hear the Minister put forward the idea that one should teach a language that is foreign both to the language spoken at home and to the language spoken in the school. That puts a much heavier burden on those who at home speak a language which is different from the language they are taught at school than on those who only speak English. I am sure that it was not intentional, but that is the effect of what the noble Baroness said. If there are those who naturally speak Chinese or Greek at home and there are sufficient numbers of people in the area to teach that language at school as the foreign language, why should that not be done? Why should they have to learn a different language?
I should have thought that parents, in the kind of exotic situation suggested by the Minister of teaching a language that was going to be of no use, would be able to operate under Clause 21 of this Bill very easily. I cannot see schools in Bradford teaching Eskimo languages. In the circumstances, and not wishing to delay the progress of the Bill, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 4 [Duty to establish the National Curriculum by order]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 42. after ("subjects") insert ("other than art, music and physical education").
The noble Lord, said: My Lords, with permission I will speak to Amendment No. 4 and also Amendment No. 5. I put forward this amendment in the hope of a sympathetic response from the Government because it follows on from what Ministers have already said.
Essentially this amendment concerns the degree and detail of prescription of attainment targets and programmes of study. The amendment as it stands differentiates between core subjects where there will be very detailed prescription of programmes and attainment targets. We approve of that because that is the spirit of the view that we put forward—that we ought to have concentrated on the core subjects in the first place.
The second level refers to what should always be referred to as the other foundation subjects, except for three. There, one has a medium level of detailed programmes and attainment targets. I assume that one of the purposes of the medium level is to emphasise the point that within that area in particular cross-curricular study will be possible and highly desirable. The noble Baroness has certainly said something to that effect. Level three applies

425
specifically as it stands to music, art and physical education, where, for perfectly obvious reasons, it is impossible to write such detailed programmes.
The amendment seems to correspond precisely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said when she distinguished those subjects and reassured your Lordships that that degree of difference in detail and degree of prescription would he possible within the Bill. It is our view that Ministers are being extremely sensible in taking that point of view and in responding to the wishes of noble Lords who have spoken on these matters. However, it is our view that this is precisely the kind of matter that ought to appear on the face of the Bill because it is not something which should be left to chance or subsequent arbitrary decision. It should be in the Bill at this point in time.
I should like to make another point on a related theme. The Bill refers to music and art, but I take it from comments that Ministers have made that it would be right to interpret music and art in a very broad sense to include "the arts". In other words, there is no intention that related arts of a dramatic kind would be left out. That is not central to the amendment but I use this opportunity to ask for some reassurance on that point.
What is being said here is very much within the spirit of the Bill. It is certainly within the spirit of the debates that have taken place and I believe that it is within the spirit of what the noble Baroness has herself said. I simply press the Government to say that this is an amendment which they ought to accept. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like to support the last point very strongly. There is great confusion in the arts world as to what the Government mean by art. I hope that they mean the arts, which include, drama, dance, crafts and architecture. I should like to know what they mean by the arts. If they do not know, they ought to.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that with regard to the core subjects, the three Rs and science, a high degree of prescription is appropriate. It may be that in a few years' time if we have this, there will be less general semi-literacy in the country, which is one of the problems worrying the Government. With regard to the other foundation subjects, I am still worried about the compatibility between what is said here and what was said in 1986. I laboured this point at an earlier stage of the Bill. I will not take longer than I have to now. At the earlier stage it could have been four o'clock in the morning, but I cannot remember.
The 1986 Act says that it is the duty of every local education authority to determine and keep under review their policy in relation to the secular curriculum. It is also their duty to consider the range of the secular curriculum and the balance between its different components. It is then the duty of the governing body to consider the policy of the local education authority, to decide what their aims are and how that policy should be modified for the particular school for which they are responsible.
426
Finally, it is the duty of the head teacher of every school to see that the curriculum authority is implemented. I cannot see how all of that is compatible with the Secretary of State's national curriculum.
I asked the Minister to write to me on this point and she was kind enough to do so. Indeed she made some valid points. She said that the local education authorities would remain responsible for those subjects which were outside the national curriculum and for sixth-form work. But I still do not see how they can determine a curriculum policy in which the attainment targets and programmes of study have already been specified by the Secretary of State. It does not seem to me to be compatible.
I have had no representations from local education authorities on this subject. I have done all the thinking myself, but I feel sure that they must he thinking on these lines. If we had an amendment such as the present one which described more clearly how far the specification of the Secretary of State went and how in the other foundation subjects it was less specific and merely referred to guidelines with art, music and PE, it would be much clearer and would be closer to being compatible with existing legislation. Otherwise it seems to me that local authorities will be in a terrible muddle as to what will be expected and required of them by the law.
I should like to add more generally that it is kind to the teachers. We are in all this dependent on our teachers. If you say to a teacher, "You will do this. You will not do that, and you will aim at such and such", you will gradually remove from him all creative and inventive incentive. The joy of teaching, if you are a teacher, is to be able to be creative and inventive. If you remove all that by telling him exactly what he has to teach by being too prescriptive, you take the pleasure out of it and we shall not have any good teachers, because the creative ones are the good teachers.
We have just been talking about languages. If the Secretary of State is going to produce an immense list of all the languages that may be taught, how is he to prescribe programmes of study and attainment targets for each one of 30, 40, 50, 170 languages? It does not seem to make sense. This amendment, or something close to it, would make things much clearer and would give our teachers, on whom we are totally dependent, a much happier future.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to say a few words with regard to music alone, and I am speaking only about individual teaching of music. It is very difficult indeed for anybody who is not a musician to assess the progress of any particular pupil. In fact it is difficult for anybody except the pupil's teacher himself or herself.
We have the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music grading examinations which are practically universally used not only throughout the country but abroad as well. They have always proved to be completely satisfactory. I cannot see why they should not still be adhered to and used. I cannot think that any interference with that method of grading would do any good whatsoever.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, these amendments are a recipe for a three-tier national curriculum. They seek to set out in statute what we have repeatedly said is intended to happen; that attainment targets and programmes of study for the core subjects will be set out more fully than those for other foundation subjects, and that in the case of music, art and PE what is provided will amount to very broad guidelines. But these distinctions do not transfer happily into statute.
As I understand it, the amendment would, for example, allow the Secretary of State to prescribe detailed programmes of study for maths, science and English, so where is the flexibility that has been asked for there? What we intend for all subjects is a framework within which there will be considerable freedom for teachers to develop their own syllabuses, and I would hesitate to describe the programmes of study as "detailed" in any subject without that important qualification. And yet those who have argued equally strongly for the maximum professional freedom for teachers are happy to write these words onto the face of the Bill. I believe this proves at the very least that "detailed" does not have a generally accepted meaning in this context, and the same is true of the other words used—one man's "outline" is no doubt another man's "guideline".
Secondly, we feel that these amendments are unnecessary. We have set up statutory processes of consultation so that what is proposed in respect of each core and other foundation subject will be debated fully and openly. It is at that stage that the degree of detail of any attainment target or programme of study can be considered very carefully in the light of the views of those concerned, and this will allow us to make sure that what is prescribed is appropriate in each case. There is no danger of the present legal framework not allowing adequate flexibility—subject to the consultation process—because the Secretary of State can make orders which contain such attainment targets and other provisions "as he considers appropriate", and this will cover almost the full range of that which the proposers of this amendment envisage.
But the flexibility built into the Bill is not quite as great as that in the amendment, and this is in fact my third reason for rejecting it. The amendment envisages that, at whatever degree of generality, what is prescribed for music, art and PE should not be binding on schools. Now we are prepared to accept that for many reasons—the wide variations in pupils' aptitudes, the availability of certain specialist resources, the preservation of existing centres of excellence and the importance of regional and cultural factors—it would be right to give maximum freedom in these three subjects. But we do not want to cut them off from the other foundation subjects as a third tier of subjects, relegated to the status of a footnote in the national curriculum. Art, music and PE are part of our plans for the national curriculum, and we want that to be clearly seen in the Bill.
Since so much concern has been expressed on these subjects I shall go further and say that music and art are named as foundation subjects because we intend that, at the primary stages and in the early stages of secondary school, pupils should be enabled to build
428
on any artistic or musical talent and at the least have a better appreciation of these subjects. However, in the later secondary years, while some pupils may be taking GCSE in one or more of the expressive arts subjects, we intend that the majority will follow a broadly-based arts course that will embrace all the arts subjects including of course dance. For these reasons, which I believe are compelling, I trust that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I particularly liked the thought that one man's outline is another man's guideline. If you added "Discuss" it would make an admirable examination question, but since we are anxious to proceed I shall not work on it tonight. I am disappointed. I believe that there will come a day not long hence when the department and whoever is the Secretary of State will wish that they had written these precise amendments into the Bill, but that is by the way.
May I say, in order not to be misunderstood, that although I believe in great freedom and flexibility I do not believe in great freedom and flexibility when it comes to the core. One of the reasons why I was enthusiastic about a "well-defined and compulsory core" is that I want the attainment targets set very definitely, and I want the attainment targets attained. I hope that there is no moving back on the Government's side from that view at least on the core, because that is certainly my view. Having got that on the record, I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line I, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7. These amendments follow upon discussions arising from confusion among many noble Lords about a number of matters to do with the use of available time. Our concern is that the demands of the national curriculum will crowd out other desirable educational activities. The wording of the Bill and all that we have heard, in addition to the fact that the Government cannot quite agree on what share of the school day, week or year will be taken up by the national curriculum, give us cause for a modicum of worry, if not alarm.
If one looks at the way the programmes of study will be set out, there seems to be no mechanism for guaranteeing that they will be co-ordinated in terms of the use of time. Almost everybody who has experience of teaching—certainly at the higher level where I and my colleagues have experience—wants a share of the available time. When one adds up all those shares the total always comes to more than 100 per cent. Our real worry is that this will happen in respect of the programmes of study, especially if they are unco-ordinated.
The related worry in respect of use of time concerns teacher freedom. If we are moving away from the

429
core, one asks how much freedom is left. I have made the point that the core must be regarded as primary, but it should not to a degree that leaves no room for anything else. We are looking for some clarification of exactly what is supposed to happen. I am fairly certain from statements made by the noble Baroness that the Government are aware of the problem. What concerns me is whether the Government have any ideas on the solution.
Finally, I am bound to return to the compatibility of the curriculum with GCSE and TVEI. I am not persuaded that the national curriculum and the other parts fit together easily as the Government say they do. As one ends up with a certificate in the case of GCSE, I am convinced that it will crowd out everything else unless something
I have made a number of disparate points. I make no apology. On a day like this one has to bring as many points into a single amendment as one can. However, one is looking for some reassurance and clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, there is a recurrent fear that the national curriculum will absorb all the time in the timetable; and for a particular reason. Governing bodies, head teachers, teachers, parents and children will all say and think that the only thing that matters is the national curriculum and that they cannot be bothered with anything else. I know what children are like. The children themselves say this, especially when they get into their teens. One must bear in mind that a school's reputation, a head teacher's reputation, a teacher's reputation, and so on, are all related to the results of these assessments, which will take the children up to the age of 14.
After that they will be preoccupied entirely with public examinations—the GCSE, TVEI and so on—and in this respect the position is rather reversed. The national curriculum subjects will threaten to interfere with the subjects which children are taking for GCSE. As I said on a previous occasion, a scientifically minded boy who is taking maths, chemistry, biology, physics, CDT, English language and English literature does not have the time or energy left to give his thoughts to history or geography or to pay lip service to music or art whatever that may mean at this stage—or PE. It does not make sense. One hopes that the amendment will do something to resolve this difficulty through the intervention, if necessary, of the Secretary of State.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, these amendments look very much like an attempt to give the Secretary of State more central control over the school timetable—a power we have never wanted and which, in response to Opposition pressure in another place, we have expressly ruled out in Clause 4 of the Bill. I am amazed that after hearing so much about the need to give teachers a free hand, to trust their professional judgment and to allow head teachers to use their powers to organise the curriculum, one now
430
hears in effect that teachers will not use the flexibility built into our orders in a sensible way.
Some signal about the minimum amount of time the Secretary of State would expect pupils in general to spend on particular national curriculum subjects is important. It will influence what is said to the subject working groups and will be reflected in the attainment targets and programmes of study which are proposed for each subject on which there will be full consultation. The overall intention that in years four and five of secondary school, in respect of which I realise considerable anxiety has been expressed, the national curriculum may take up only 70 per cent. of the curriculum if schools so choose, is already well understood. There will be many legitimate reasons for national curriculum subjects occupying individual pupils for different amounts of time. If the pupil has particular problems with English, or perhaps wishes to specialise in science, his timetable will have to reflect that. The proportion of time overall to be taken up with these subjects will be a matter for the head teacher and the governors who will bear in mind the need to offer the choices that pupils and parents value, including those offered within the TVEI programme, as well as the need for worthwhile study in the core and other foundation subjects.
We have not been silent on the topic of time allocations. We recognise the need to ensure that the national curriculum is deliverable with the flexibility we want within the time available. But we shall not seek to put any formal limit on teachers' and schools' discretion in this area. That promise has been widely welcomed by teachers. They were reassured when it was written into the Bill. I believe that teachers would not thank your Lordships for weakening the position, and I hope that the amendments will readily be withdrawn.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. There is a slight difference of view as to what the teachers believe in this matter; but I shall not pursue that. My point was not that teachers would willy-nilly create problems or be the source of difficulty. I say that outside pressures will be the cause of problems and difficulties and that teachers will feel obliged to respond to them, particularly along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie.
I am willing to accept that there are two views on this matter. I am also willing to accept that the Bill is highly experimental in what it proposes. We shall all survive to see the outcome. I am confident of the outcome I predict because that has been the outcome of similar pressures in our schools in the past. As a classic example, I merely refer to the effect of A-levels on narrowing the curriculum. The noble Baroness and even I are young enough to wait to see what the outcome will be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Collective worship]:
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 40. at end insert ("or of different faiths").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is a curtain-raiser for a large group of amendments the heartland being those to which the right reverend Prelate has lent his name and which he will be moving in due course. For that reason, in order to maximise his freedom of manoeuvre, I shall not make a long speech. It may be a convenient moment now to add that I shall not be moving Amendment No. 14 on advice that it would be controversial, time consuming and not really appropriate for Third Reading. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I very much appreciate the invitation from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and I am glad to be able to accept. I shall, if I may, first present my case and then speak specifically to the amendment tabled in the noble Earl's name. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 to 13, 18, 19, 20 and 21. I fear that I shall take a little time but I think that what I have to say falls within the categories of what is proper for Third Reading, as we were reminded by the noble Lord the Chief Whip earlier today.
The first amendment I propose will provide for the omission of Clause 6(3). That clause is, I admit, an over-simple formulation of what we intended to achieve and on which the original consultations were based. The purpose of that formulation was to legitimise good practice in school worship, while at the same time excluding over-easy options which do not solve the problems but, in fact, ignore them.
The latest amendments seek to set out in terms which have legal force and meaning the main elements of that earlier formulation. I should like here to acknowledge the great help that I have received from the Secretary of State, the Minister, the officials of the department and the parliamentary draftsman, because these amendments are very much a product of combined thinking.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that this is not the whole package; it is but part of the package. I shall not rehearse the other parts because it would be quite improper to do so on Third Reading. I simply remind the House of the parts we have already accepted and ask noble Lords to remember that what I now propose is in the context of those earlier amendments.
The spirit behind the whole package of the amendments is well summed up in a phrase from Amendment No. 15 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which reads:
"to ensure that religious education, Christian or otherwise, shall promote respect, understanding and tolerance for those who adhere to other faiths".
I am glad to be able to say that I understand that the substance of what the amendment says will be included in a circular to be issued by the department. I hope that the Minister will confirm that when she speaks to this amendment.
The intention behind the new amendments is the avoidance of damaging divisions within a school and
432
its surrounding community. Differences of worship within a community need not divide a community; but they can do so, if, on the one hand, they are over-emphasised or, on the other other hand, suppressed or ignored. Sometimes the maintenance of harmony within a multi-faith school will be best achieved by expression of the differences that exist through provision for different forms of worship. There will also be occasions where common expression of common concerns and interests should be sought.
However, the decision as to which approach is right in any given situation is a decision which must be taken at a level close to the situation itself. That is why legislation must provide an appropriately broad framework of principles with a mechanism for flexible local application of those principles. Clause 6(3) was intended to set the framework and Clause 10(2)(a) the local mechanism. Both elements are retained in the new amendments but in ways which I am assured are now sufficiently precise in legal terms to be effective, which the earlier versions were not.
Our original agreed formulation in Clause 6(3)(a) required that in the main collective worship should reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief. Packed into the phrase "in the main" were three quite separate meanings. First, it meant that the norm in the country as a whole would be of this character and the great majority of schools would be bound by that requirement. Secondly, it meant that in the provision in any given school the norm would be of this character and most acts of collective worship would be bound by the requirement. Thirdly, it meant that the normal individual act of worship would itself, in the main, reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief. Those three meanings are kept separate in a new clause which is to follow Clause 6. Subsections (1) and (2) establish the required norm for all three meanings. They also establish, which was not previously clear, that an act of worship may be wholly Christian. That required norm applies to all county schools unless it is formally waived under the arrangements set out in subsection (6).
In all schools which are bound by the overall requirement, the flexibility in the overall pattern of provision of worship implied by "in the main" is allowed for in subsections (3) and (4)(a); namely, that on some occasions an act which is not broadly Christian would be permissible. Some flexibility in the content of individual acts of worship is allowed for in subsections (4)(b) and (4)(c).
Subsection (5) indicates the criteria which will govern the extent of the departure, if any, from the norm, the whole process being under the general guidance of the local standing advisory council, as indicated in Clause 10(1) of the Bill. But as well as this general guidance which the standing advisory council will be giving regarding normal situations, it will have a quite specific role in relation to any exceptional waiving of the mainly Christian requirement affecting a whole school or a distinctive part of one. That role is fully set out in our new clause to follow Clause 10 and it includes in subsection (9) the part played by parents in the process.

433
It is important to emphasise that it is open to a standing advisory council to decide on the waiving of the mainly Christian requirement not only in terms of a whole school, but also in terms of a relatively small part of the school or a relatively large part. For example, to illustrate the latter case, if a county school with, say, 90 per cent. Moslem pupils and 10 per cent. Christian pupils applied to the standing advisory council under the new clause, it would be open to the council to grant the application in terms of that 90 per cent. only, leaving the provision for the 10 per cent. of Christian pupils still under the requirements of subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause following Clause 6 as well as of Clause 6 itself. I hope I have made that clear and that I have not confused your Lordships by the references to clauses. However, I think that the substance of what I have said is clear.
What I have described so far refers to what is to be written on the face of the Bill. There will also be the possibility of informal arrangements made within a school to accommodate the wishes of those parents who feel it necessary to withdraw their children from the collective worship of the school. I am referring to the kind of situation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, in an earlier debate. He asked whether those arrangements would still be possible under our amendments. I can assure him again that they will be possible in an informal way. There is nothing in either the original amendments, or the new ones,to prevent such arrangements being made.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what we have been trying to achieve. There was general agreement in Committee that the provisions were inadequate both from the Christian standpoint and that of other faiths now represented in our nation. It was accepted that whatever amendments were made they would need to have the goodwill, if not the support, of all who are concerned in our education system; namely, governing bodies, local authorities, teachers, parents, the Churches and representatives of other faiths. To that end, I undertook to have consultations with all involved, and that was done. As a result, I put forward my amendments on Report. While it was then accepted that they went a long way towards providing a satisfactory solution, time had not been on our side and, as I have said, those amendments needed clarification and further amendment to ensure that they would be legally effective. Working out the present amendments, I have had to bear in mind the need, on the one hand, to achieve that end, and, on the other, not to agree to amend the provisions in such a way that I should be breaking faith with those whom I have consulted, thus losing their confidence.
Throughout the process of wrestling with the amendments we have tried to uphold five main principles. We have sought to provide a framework for worship which, first, maintains the tradition of worship as part of the process of education, giving proper place to the Christian religion; secondly, maintains the contribution of the collective act of worship to the establishment of values within the school community; yet, thirdly, does not impose inappropriate forms of worship on certain groups of pupils; fourthly, does not break the school up into
434
communities based on the various faiths of the parents, especially in that it makes some groups feel that they are not really part of the community being educated in the school; and, lastly, is realisable and workable in practical terms of school accommodation and organisation.
Those five principles underlay our original consultations. Even though the words of these latest amendments may seem a long way from the original. simple formulation of Clause 6(3)(a), I can assure everyone concerned that the same five principles are still the foundation on which they have been built. In our judgment, they provide for those principles now to be implemented.
I hope that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will appreciate from what I have said that I cannot accept his amendment. It would alter the basic position in all our schools, and I could not agree to it without further consultations for which, as he will appreciate, there is not time. I hope therefore that he will accept that this is a good and workable package which secures the aims which we originally set out to achieve and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I shall not speak for more than three minutes because the last thing that your Lordships want is another long debate on religion in schools. All I wish to do is to say thank you to all who have worked so hard to achieve the results which seemed impossible as recently as a few weeks ago and to clarify the position, as I see it now. In saying thank you, I must first and foremost thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and congratulate him on his immense efforts in negotiating so many complex issues with so many people representing such diverse interests to achieve a situation which I believe should satisfy Christians and those of other faiths. I also wish to thank the many other people inside and outside your Lordships' House who have worked so hard. I shall not say "tirelessly" because I suspect that many are exhausted. They are too numerous to name in the compass of three minutes, but they too deserve congratulations on all that has been achieved.
What has been achieved is historic. There is now explicit recognition on the face of the Bill of the expectations that religious education and worship should, in the main, be Christian, thus enshrining Christianity as the main spiritual tradition of this country and providing young people with opportunities to learn about Christianity and to experience Christian worship, opportunities which have too often been denied to many of them in recent years. There is also enshrined a respect for the other major faiths and opportunites for those of other faith communities to teach and to worship according to those faiths if parents request that and teachers find it feasible. That provision for other faiths is also historic and is warmly to be welcomed.
The provisions contained in the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate may not seem to be crystal clear on the face of Bill. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give an assurance that there will be a circular from the DES which will make clear to parents and teachers the rights and

435
opportunities, as they have been explained to us by the right reverend Prelate this afternoon.
As I conclude, perhaps I may say that my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft wishes to be associated with all that I have just said. We believe that the amendments with which we are associated are not now necessary. We also hope that the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate, and the associated amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister, will receive the support of your Lordships because they provide a framework within which Christians, and those of other faiths who are concerned about religion in schools, will be able to develop education and worship according to the integrity of their faith.
However, the making of the law is only the beginning. It can provide the opportunities. It will then be up to teachers, parents and the relevant authorities to ensure that the law is interpreted and applied in ways which will give our young people the spiritual education which is our heritage and their birthright. If that can be ensured, the Bill will prove historic indeed, not just in its provisions but in its effects, in matters which those of all faiths see as of ultimate importance.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, we from this Front Bench support the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate and congratulate him on achieving what I would regard as an almost impossible task of realising, in the main, a consensus. On this issue of course we would not apply any Whip. Members of the party to which I belong will be free to vote in any way that they wish. However, the Front Bench retains one or two worries about the provision of collective worship and religious education as set out in the Bill. The first is fairly straightforward. Why have the Government changed their attitude during the Bill's progress through Parliament? In another place the Government's attitude, as I understand it, was that the 1944 Act needed no amendment. Perhaps we may have some indication of why there was that change.
My second point is that we doubt whether the facilities are available, especially the trained teachers of religious education, to make this provision in any way a reality. Without having effective training facilities and properly trained teachers of religious education. We can pass as many laws as we like, but they will not happen.
The third point is that we hope that these provisions will do nothing to damage the furtherance of a collective community spirit in any school. The collective act of gathering all pupils together is most important to create and foster a spirit of tolerance and community, recognising the values of people of different colours and faiths. It would be unfortunate if the effect of the amendments was in any way to separate off people of different religions into different camps, so to speak. Speaking as one who was brought up in a city in the West of Scotland, I can perhaps say that I know something of the dangers that can arise from that type of competition.
436
I wish to end by quoting from an excellent—in the sense that I totally agree with it—letter from Sir Hermann Bondi which appeared in The Times on the 4th of this month in which he said:
"Democracy involves respect for minorities no less than rule by majority. Could it be made explicitly clear, in the Bill or at least in DES guidance, that the teaching given in Christianity must be such that it in no way brands non-Christians as inferior, misguided or followers of untruths, for otherwise it creates undesirable tensions and conflicts in the minority chiildren and, even worse, intolerance in the majority children".
6 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I have always regarded a government who are prepared to change their mind as a result of discussion in Parliament as a model to be followed by all parties. On this occasion an effort which started as a Christian denominational effort has finished up as an inter-faith effort to secure the individuality and respect of all religions. I hope it is recognised in the minority faiths that for the first time there is a statutory route to the provision within our schools, not by withdrawal, for religious worship in their faith and that that will add to the cohesion not only of the school community but of the community of which the school is part and in which it operates.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that it places a great obligation on the Churches and on all the faiths. They now have the responsibility in the SACRE to develop the agreed syllabuses and the provisions for worship. They will be responsible for that to their flocks. It is also the responsibility of the Churches to encourage young people to come forward and teach in the schools and of the training colleges to train those teachers to do it. I am delighted with these amendments, to the extent that I put my name upon them. It is not therefore necessary for me to speak further.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I too support the amendment before us. What has been done in the amendment as it is now is to clarify much of the misunderstanding that has arisen while we have been debating this subject. My own denomination and the Free Churches to which I belong welcome and support the amendment. Since it was printed I have had consultations with the leaders in our Church and they support it completely.
We are indebted, as I am sure are the majority of the Members of this House, to the work of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London in getting the amendment drawn up as it is. I wish to congratulate those who have supported him and I hope that the House—and I say this most sincerely—passes the amendment unanimously.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, since my name is down on Amendment No. 9, perhaps I may pay a tribute very briefly to my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Elton. They have played a very important part in the development of these matters behind the scenes and have greatly assisted the right reverend Prelate in his arduous duties. It is right that your Lordships should know that that is the position. I wish to be associated with everything they have said.

437
Furthermore, it is now common ground between the Government, those who support Amendment No. 8, and Amendment No. 9 in my name and those who support the amendment of the right reverend Prelate that there should be a collective act of worship available in faiths other than the Christian faith in appropriate circumstances, with flexible local application. This is a novel and vastly important social provision which now appears on the face of the statute. It is a substantial, welcome and essential departure from the Bill as originally drafted and from the Bill as it stands unamended before your Lordships' House at Third Reading today.
I find the drafting of the amendments difficult to assimilate. My hope is that, when the department tries to make some intelligible representation for practical guidance, it will not look so much to the drafting as to the plain, simple words which the right reverend Prelate used today. Then it can look at the drafting and produce what could be helpful and authoritative guidance. It is totally right that the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education should make all appropriate determinations in this regard.
In the hope that my noble friend the Minister—and of course it is a matter for her—can give the assurance that some intelligible guidance can be produced, it would not be my intention to move Amendment No. 9. I merely wish to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his good offices in the introduction of this new dimension of collective worship, relevant to a multi-faith society.
On Amendment No. 15, to which the right reverend Prelate was good enough to refer, I reserve my position, as I intend to move it briefly for opinions and to afford a moment for discussion in your Lordships' House. It would be wrong to pre-empt it, and I reserve my position.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the attention he has given to a point I raised in earlier debates on this matter. I am very glad to see that the formulae put before us now will make it possible for the arrangements, which I described in order to meet the problems of schools with students of different faiths, to be lawful. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to that end.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I wish to support these amendments on collective worship in county schools in the name of the right reverend Prelate and myself as well as of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
It is of the greatest importance that those students who are of Christian background should be introduced in school to Christian worship. But at the same time it is vital that there should be a sensitivity and consideration for the position of non-Christian religious groups. The amendments are an amplification of the earlier amendment and are in my view a surer way to achieve the two objectives I have mentioned. I welcome the way in which the Christian character of the worship is spelt out more distinctly. I welcome also the provision for certain schools to be relieved of the obligation of holding Christian
438
worship. This meets the position of a limited number of schools where the pupils are predominantly non-Christian in background.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have spoken so often in this House over the years in favour of Christianity that I think it would be churlish not to pay a tribute today to those—pre-eminently of course the right reverend Prelate—who have managed to persuade this House to include Christianity in the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on this historic occasion at least. To use a phrase employed by Sir Winston Churchill during the war, may I, across the havoc of war, pay tribute to her labours? I think that without her frankly this result would not have been achieved.
This is a completely non-party matter. I believe that in years to come it will be the best thing this Government have done and one of the best things any government have done in this century. I do not mean the Bill itself, I regard it as a bad Bill, but it has a redeeming feature.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the example of other noble Lords and speak very briefly at this final stage of the debate. I support what my noble friend Lord Elton has said in response to the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench who asks why the Government have changed their mind on the issue. It is because they have listened to the argument in this House—yes, certainly this House. It is here that we get argument in our parliamentary system that is audible and intelligible.
Perhaps I might add a footnote to what the noble Lord has said. The great John Henry Newman once wrote, "To be human is to change and to be perfect is to have changed often". I am not encouraging the noble Baroness to change her mind again on this issue, but it is a matter for praise and encouragement rather than reproach when a government listen and alter their view.
The amendments are to a certain extent obscure. I must say that to the right reverend Prelate. They are obscure unless one is, as he is, an expert in exegesis. My noble friend Lady Cox expressed the hope that a DES circular would make everything crystal clear. Speaking as a former education Minister, I can say that it will be the first time in history that has happened. However, my noble friend is an eminent example of the Christian virtue of hope. Let us hope that hope once again triumphs over experience in this regard.
Finally, I wish to tell my noble friend that she is the heroine of this particular area. It is thanks to her unremitting efforts that these changes have been made. It is a tremendous encouragement to everybody that a single individual by dedication, devotion and persistence can bring about a major change by acting as a rallying point for others to express their views.
The task of my noble friend is only now beginning. I ask her to place herself at the head of a movement to find the teachers to take the opportunities that are provided by this Bill. That was the failure of the 1944 Act. As my noble friend Lord Eccles will know, the

439
teachers were not forthcoming. If my noble friend can secure a supply of teachers of religious education, trained and worthy of their task, that will be her greatest achievement to date.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on a considerable achievement. I also wish to take up a point about teachers made by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, and my noble friend on the Front Bench. When I was Secretary of State I paid great attention to this matter and I held two weekend seminars at St. George's House, Windsor. The predecessor of the right reverend Prelate attended for the whole weekend, as did Archbishop Beck, a number of eminent Free Church leaders and a great many teachers. We tried to hammer out some principles for the teaching of religion in schools.
Subsequently I talked to probably thousands of teachers throughout the country and in Scotland too. I was shocked—indeed, horrified—to discover that the majority of teachers were opposed to the teaching of religion in schools. I found whole schools where not a single teacher was prepared to teach religion. They objected to the assumptions which have to be made. One cannot teach religion unless one makes assumptions. One must assume that God is, that Christ was divine. One must assume the resurrection, the immaculate conception and other matters. I discovered that those assumptions were unacceptable to a vast number of teachers.
It is one thing to work out a formula. I, like the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London will provide us with an exegesis on his formula so that we can really understand it. It is one thing to work out the formula, but it will be another thing to ensure that it has any effect on the lives of our children. That cannot happen unless we have teachers who are willing, able and prepared to teach this subject.
The Bill, through the two councils funding the universities and the polytechnics, provides for contracts between the funding councils and the polytechnics and the universities to supply courses. I suggest that the Government should, immediately the Bill becomes law, discuss with the two funding councils putting out some fairly hefty contracts for the training of large numbers of teachers of religion. Unless they do that, there is no hope whatever that the marvellous, praiseworthy, considerable and historic efforts of the right reverend Prelate to work out this formula will have any effect whatever.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I wish to say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, which is simply that it was precisely because of the importance of the teachers that we took particular care in our consultations to consult them. It is with their goodwill that these amendments will go forward. I do not minimise the difficulties of which the noble Lord has spoken, but they certainly have the goodwill of the teaching profession.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, as a representative of the other faiths that have been mentioned so often and indeed of a people who have been called the great non-conformists of history may I, for my part, say that when I originally read the proposed new amendments in cold print, I was greatly perplexed, confused and in part considerably worried. But, having now listened to the exegesis of the right reverend Prelate, and particularly also the interpretations given by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others, I feel immensely relieved and indeed encouraged.
Perhaps I feel some justification for the Jewish commitment to the oral law being more important than the written law. What I had feared was that the phrase in Amendment No. 13 calling for collective acts of worship which,
"shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character"
would mean that they are neither Christian nor representative of any other faith. That particular phrase sounded to me like expecting children to observe the fifth commandment by honouring people who were wholly or mainly father and mother, but not entirely so.
Therefore I want, now that I have heard what the intention of the new reading is, to join in the tributes paid to the enormous skill, ingenuity and persistence of the right reverend Prelate, as well as that of others who have contributed to this truly historic new Bill, as now amended. I wish to express the hope that not only by upgrading religion in the country as such and in the raising of our children, but also in particular through Amendment No. 15 by promoting respect and tolerance of other faiths as part of our national commitment, we may succeed together in restoring the fatherhood of God of all of us, through whom alone we can establish the brotherhood of man.
I hope it will become clear to other nations that have rejected this that only through that way can we win mutual understanding, mutual respect and a reverence for the traditions and for the heritage that we have in common but which make us distinct from one another. I congratulate all noble Lords.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I wish to add from these Benches our pleasure and delight that these long debates have resulted in a decision which is worthy of your Lordships' House. I cannot praise it more highly than by saying that. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord on the Woolsack will call my Amendment No. 17 when he comes to it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think there must be unanimity on one point at least; that is, that we have all tried very hard in our different ways to get this right. Our thanks are due especially in this respect to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. But I am most grateful to all your Lordships who have contributed to the debates in our House and who have worked behind the scenes.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that I should have thought it was very clear from the discussions that we have had why the Government agreed to support the right reverend

441
Prelate in seeking a solution to meet the clearly expressed concerns from many sides of the House and indeed from outside the House. I should make it clear at the outset that the Government are recommending that your Lordships support the amendments which have been put down in my name as well as the package of amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate and my noble friends the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Elton. In speaking to the amendments referred to by the right reverend Prelate—Amendments Nos. 8 to 21 and 46 to 50—I shall also speak to Amendment No. 124.
The Government's position in considering all the amendments tabled about collective worship has been conditioned by two major considerations additional to our general wish to support noble Lords in ensuring that pupils are exposed to worship in accordance with Christian traditions and beliefs. First, we wish as far as possible to ensure that the act of collective worship provided for in statute is indeed collective. It is because such an act of worship can perform an important function in binding together members of a school and helping to develop their sense of community that we in this country make collective worship in schools a statutory requirement, although other equally Christian countries do not do so. This educational value of worship must be clearly distinguished from confessional acts of worship which are properly pursued by practising Christians and members of other faiths. Maintaining the collective emphasis and minimising withdrawal of pupils from the act of worship is a proper concern of those responsible for education.
Secondly, we have to ensure that what is required in legislation is practicable for schools to do. It was that consideration which led us to initiate consultations last year concerning the timing and organisation of collective worship in schools in order that we might include in the Bill the provision which is now part of Clause 6.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 12 would put into statute provisions for separate alternative acts of worship to be organised for those of different faiths, albeit in an apparently discretionary way. Let me make the position clear. The law requires collective worship. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from such worship. Where enough pupils are withdrawn and their parents want them to have alternative worship on the school premises, it is open to the governing body and head teacher to organise alternative worship, voluntarily and on a good will basis. This is the sort of case described by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
We think that that is a sensible position. The head can judge whether he or she has the resources to organise such provision and whether to do so would in any way upset relations and sensibilities within the school. Nothing in the Bill prevents such voluntary arrangements or makes them less likely to happen. I am happy to give noble Lords an assurance that the Government will issue a circular which will give specific guidance encouraging schools to make alternative provision for pupils who are withdrawn.
The amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate have resulted from his consulations, as he has
442
explained. They will cater for situations where a high rate of withdrawal is inevitable—for example, in schools where most pupils are from non-Christian backgrounds—and where it will be right and proper that alternative provision for worship should be made. But his amendments do not encourage pressures for separate acts of worship according to faith and they put the SACRE in the position of deciding whether a school should be exempt from the normal requirement to provide broadly Christian worship so that they must instead provide alternative forms of worship for one or more faiths.
That is a sensible and controlled way of approaching the issue of separate collective worship for pupils of different faiths, and one which will ensure that all the circumstances, including parents' views, are taken into account. I believe that the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate fully meet the points made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. They have the added advantage of reflecting the consultations carried out by the right reverend Prelate before Report stage, and they fulfil the intention of the amendments he tabled previously as a result of those consultations.
Turning to the amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others, we believe that head teachers and governors should take account of the views of parents on those matters. I have previously commended the arrangements proposed by the right reverend Prelate for doing precisely that. However, we believe that a ballot of parents is quite the wrong machinery for ensuring that. I therefore hope that in due course those amendments will be withdrawn.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said that he will not be moving Amendment No. 14, and I shall therefore not speak to it. Amendment No. 15, tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and others, is one with which I, like the right reverend Prelate, have sympathy. As I have mentioned, the Government intend to issue a circular in due course on all the religious education and collective worship provisions of the Bill. We believe that that will offer a more appropriate means of exhorting school governors and others involved in religious education and collective worship to promote the objectives of the amendment. I promise my noble friends that it is our intention to include a passage in the circular along those lines. I therefore hope that in due course, although my noble friend did not speak precisely to that amendment, he will feel able to withdraw it.
Perhaps I may also comment briefly on the amendment standing in my name to Schedule 1 of the Bill. It is a response to a point made at Report stage by my noble friend Lord Renton. He rightly pointed out that county schools should not be prohibited from giving religious education about catechisms and formularies of different denominations. The Government readily accept the good sense in that point. The amendment seeks to correct what was previously in the Bill. I urge the House to support the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will also support the amendments to Clauses 82 and 85 which amend provisions relating to worship in grant-maintained schools to take account of the package of amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate.

443
In conclusion, I hope that noble Lords will take full account of the assurances which I have given concerning the guidance to be given to schools on making arrangements for pupils who will be withdrawn from statutory collective worship and on the need for religious education to engender mutual tolerance and understanding between faiths and denominations. I undertake to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that we shall use our best endeavours to make those matters as fully intelligible as possible.
I thank my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley for his kind remarks. I also take note of what he said and what was said by other noble Lords about implementation and the supply of teachers. However, it is now a question of saying, "Let's get on with it". I therefore strongly urge the House to accept the excellent package put forward by the right reverend Prelate, the consequential government amendments and the amendments which meet the case made by my noble friend Lord Renton.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask a question about Amendment No. 16, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Blackstone. As regards the question of a parents' ballot, all the Minister has said is that she believes it would be wrong. Surely the House is entitled to a fuller explanation. Much of the philosophy of the Government is based on ballots, both in this measure and in the five employment and trade union Acts which, if I may use the term, are riddled with the need for balloting. Why should it be wrong in this case? Perhaps the Minister will enlarge on why she believes it to be wrong.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that in this case the legitimate concerns of parents, head teachers and governors of a school will be met by allowing for full consultation of parents to take place. The machinery which would be involved in conducting a ballot is not necessary in this instance.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in rising to wind up our debate on Amendment No. 8, I should like to add my congratulations to those of the rest of the House to the right reverend Prelate for delivering the package which he promised us on Second Reading in a form which has received acclaim from every speaker. That being so, it would be quite wrong of me not to respond to the request to withdraw my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 13:
444
After Clause 6 insert the following new clause:
("Special provisions as to collective worship in county schools.
.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, in the case of a county school the collective worship required in the school by section 6 of this Act shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, collective worship is of a broadly Christian character if it reflects the broad traditions of Christian belief without being distinctive of any particular Christian denomination.
(3) Every act of collective worship required by section 6 of this Act in the case of a county school need not comply with subsection (1) above provided that, taking any school terms as a whole, most such acts which take place in the school do comply with that subsection.
(4) Subject to subsections (1) and (3) above—

(a) the extent to which (if at all) any acts of collective worship required by section 6 of this Act which do not comply with subsection (1) above take place in a county school;

(b) the extent to which any act of collective worship in a county school which complies with subsection (1) above reflects the broad traditions of Christian belief: and

(c) the ways in which those traditions are reflected in any such act of collective worship;

shall be such as may be appropriate having regard to any relevant considerations relating to the pupils concerned which fall to be taken into account in accordance with subsection (5) below.
(5) Those considerations are—

(a) any circumstances relating to the family backgrounds of the pupils concerned which are relevant for determining the character of the collective worship which is appropriate in their case; and

(b) their ages and aptitudes.

(6) Where under section (Determination by advisory councils of the cases in which the requirement for Christian collective worship is not to apply) of this Act a standing advisory council on religious education determine that it is not appropriate for subsection (1) above to apply in the case of any county school, or in the case of any class or description of pupils at such a school, then, so long as that determination has effect—

(a) that subsection shall not apply in relation to that school or (as the case may be) in relation to those pupils; and

(b) the collective worship required by section 6 of this act in the case of that school or those pupils shall not be distinctive of any particular Christian or other religious denomination (hut this shall not be taken as preventing that worship from being distinctive of any particular faith).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Religious education required in the basic curriculum: further provisions]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 38, at end insert—
("(4) The Governors of a maintained school shall use their best endeavours to seek to ensure that religious education, Christian or otherwise, shall promote respect, understanding and tolerance for those who adhere to other faiths and a spirit of social unity within the realm subject to the rule of law.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have already indicated, this amendment is concerned with religious education and the promotion of tolerance. I referred to this on Report (at cols. 711 and 712 of Hansard for 21st June) and expressly reserved my position on Third Reading suggesting that it was worthy of discussion and consideration by your Lordships, and no more. Since then it has apparently received the express approbation of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi whom I did not consult on the matter. It also has the express approbation of the

445
right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London who informed me that such was his view. It also apparently has the sympathy of the Government.
The question is this. Apparently it has become common ground that this draft is acceptable. The only question is the means of implementation. Of course it is a matter for your Lordships to consider. There has been no discussion of any kind. This is not an amendment—and I stress the point—which the right reverend Prelate has to take back for further discussion. I think that the right reverend Prelate nods in my direction. This involves no further discussion. The issue is very simple. Is the principle of the promotion of tolerance to be the subject of one of those ministerial circulars to which my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley, having some experience of them, has referred, or is it to be on the face of the Bill as the amendment proposes? That is the question.
First, let us approach the issue swiftly and totally objectively. What is the objection to having this principle stated on the face of the Bill? Secondly, is it not of crucial consequence that in our multi-faith society this principle should be recognised in primary legislation on the face of the statute book and not, I was about to say, in some scruffy ministerial circular? The status of the two is wholly different.
Thirdly, the Bill as drafted on religious education originally, and indeed as it would stand today before amendment, would not require this amendment. The reason why this amendment is necessary is because of the historic advance made with the amendments brought in by the right reverend Prelate. This amendment is the statutory cement which binds the new concept of collective worship with religious education. This is why I am detaining your Lordships to ask: do we put this in a scruffy ministerial circular or do we have it on the face of the statute?
I am a lawyer and I see and prefer things on the face of statutes. I urge the consideration of your Lordships as to whether a concept of this importance, a novel principle relevant to our social needs, should not be on the face of the statute.
Unless any of your Lordships may think that this is unnecessary as a principle, the lessons of history have taught us never to dare to assume that religious education given in any faith, even the Christian faith, would be designed of necessity to promote tolerance of those who adhere to other faiths. I ask your Lordships and detain your Lordships only for the purpose of discussion. Of course I am entirely in the hands of your Lordships on this novel and important matter. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, as I have already indicated I entirely agree with the sentiments of this amendment. I said so in my speech earlier. I think that it is merely a matter for the House to decide whether or not it wishes the assurances to be enough and for the matter to be included in a circular or whether it wishes to see it enshrined in the Bill itself. I do not think that I would wish to say more than that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, but I should like to warn your Lordships
446
about something. Procedurally I shall not be able to do so after the noble Baroness has sat down after replying to the debate.
From my own ministerial experience I fully expect her, for good reasons, to wish to place this requirement on circular rather than in statute. I am not a lawyer and I do not know whether questions like using best endeavour are justiciable when one is dealing with a board of governors. I shall not go into all that because no doubt my noble friend has thought it through.
I would say this to your Lordships. If the noble Baroness is not able to accept this amendment it would be very unfortunate indeed if it were to go to a Division and be lost. It would be very unfortunate indeed if it were to go to a Division and be won. If it were to go to a Division and be won it would override the—I presume, because we have not heard them—perfectly good reasons of my noble friend the Minister; if it were to go to a Division and be lost it would send the wholly misleading message, particularly to the minority faiths, that tolerance had been voted against by a Christian majority in the House of Lords.
I take the opportunity to congratulate my noble friend on the considerable flexibility and patience he has shown in dealing with other matters in this respect, outside the Chamber as well as in it. I ask him not to make this a set-piece event because either way it would be greatly damaging to the achievement we have just accomplished.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I too am not a lawyer, and at times I thank God that I am not a lawyer. I thank God that probably the only thing that I can offer this House is a great deal of common sense. I have been involved in education, and not the law, for the past 25 years. I realise that what we have done in education is to use a lot of common sense on many matters that are not in statute. Therefore I appeal to the House and I appeal to the noble Lord not to pursue this amendment because it will definitely be misunderstood by many people.
Even though I support the intention of the amendment I believe that we have achieved what we want with the earlier amendment. Therefore I think that this amendment is quite unnecessary. My plea is: leave it to the good sense of the governors of schools. They will recognise what Parliament really wants and what is best for their schools.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, since I touched on this amendment in my earlier remarks I shall be brief. I explained then why the government felt that it was preferable to deal with the expression of the sentiments, with which we all agree, in the circular which we propose should be issued.
In terms of a commitment on the face of the Bill, we can turn to Clause 1 where it is stated that there is a duty upon not only the governing body or head teacher of every school but also on every local education authority and indeed the Secretary of State to ensure that the national curriculum is delivered in a way that,
"promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society".

447
I believe that that, to some extent, covers the need expressed by my noble friend for having a statement of the intention on the face of the Bill. I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me the opportunity to bring this matter before the House for discussion. Having had that opportunity and the advantage of having heard what has been said, and even having a vestige of common sense and, I hope, a little common humanity, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Duties with respect to certain requirements]:
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 13, after ("secure") insert ("so far as is reasonably practicable").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is not closely related to the matters that we have been debating for some time. It is purely an administrative and possibly a legal point. The clause to which this amendment refers states that it will be the duty of the head teacher to secure that all pupils in attendance at a school take part in a daily collective act of worship.
Reference has been made by certain noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara and Lord St. John of Fawsley, to the possible difficulty of finding teachers and members of staff who are capable of performing that duty. The Minister made reference to the head teacher being able to organise a minority group of children in the school who would be able to worship in another faith and perhaps pursue education in another faith. In practice head teachers may find themselves in difficulty trying to obtain the teachers. The few words of my amendment:
"so far as is reasonably practicable",
seem to me to be a harmless safety net for the teacher should he be approached by irate parents who say that he is failing to make provision for something for which it is not really in his power to make provision.
I do not think that those words will do any harm. In fact they will help the head teacher in the event of a complaint. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this amendment was part of the group that we discussed earlier, although my noble friend intimated that he would move his amendment separately.
Responding to the particular point raised, perhaps I may say that the amendment would require head teachers to secure the specified objects so far as is reasonably practicable. In law one cannot require someone to do something that is not reasonably practicable. One cannot legally demand the impossible. On any reading of the Bill that should be assumed. The amendment is therefore redundant and
448
I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it. I hope that the grouping will stand in relation to the other amendments.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having explained the point. I am relieved to hear that the law cannot command the impossible. I have been told that before but I am glad to hear it from her lips. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Standing advisory councils on religious education]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 are taken together.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 20:
Page 7, line 37, at end insert ("; and
(b) to carry out the functions conferred by section (Determination by advisory councils of the cases in which the requirement for Christian collective worship is not to apply) of this Act on councils constituted under this section.").
Page 7, line 38, leave out second ("section") and insert ("sections (Determination by advisory councils of the cases in which the requirement for Christian collective worship is not to apply) and").
Page 7, leave out lines 43 and 44.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
(" Determination by advisory councils of the cases in which the requirement for Christian collective worship is not to apply.
.— (1) it shall he the duty of the council, on an application made by the head teacher of any county school after consultation with the governing body, to consider whether it is appropriate for the requirement for Christian collective worship to apply in the ease of that school, or in the case of any class or description of pupils at that school.
References in this section to the requirement for Christian collective worship are references to the requirement imposed by section (Special provisions as to collective worship in county schools)(1) of this Act.
(2) In determining whether it is appropriate for that requirement to apply in the case of any such school or in the case of any class or description of pupils at such a school, the council shall have regard to any circumstances relating to the family backgrounds of the pupils at the school or of the pupils of the particular class or description in question which are relevant for determining the character of the collective worship appropriate in their case.
(3) The council shall give any head teacher who has made an application to them under this section written notification of their decision on the application.
(4) Where the council determine on any application under this section that it is not appropriate for the requirement for Christian collective worship to apply in the case of the school or any class or description of pupils at the school concerned, that determination shall take effect for the purposes of section (Special provisions as to collective worship in county schools) of this Act on such date as may be specified in the notification of their decision under subsection (3) above.
(5) Any determination of the council under this section by virtue of which the requirement for Christian collective worship does not for the time being apply in the case of any school or any class or description of pupils at any school shall he reviewed by the council—

(a) at any time on an application made by the head teacher of the school after consultation with the governing body; and

449

(b) in any event not later than the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which the determination first took effect or (where it has since been reviewed under this subsection) with the effective date of the decision on the last such review.

(6) On any review under subsection (5)(b) above the council shall afford the head teacher an opportunity of making representations with respect to the determination under review; and the head teacher shall consult the governing body before making any such representations.
(7) On any review under subsection (5) above the council may confirm (with or without variation) or revoke the determination under review (without prejudice, in a case where they revoke the determination, to any further determination under this section); and they shall give the head teacher of the school written notification of their decision specifying the effective date of that decision for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) above.
(8) Any determination of the council which is required to be reviewed under subsection (5)(b) above shall cease to have effect, if not confirmed on such a review, at the end of the period there mentioned.
(9) The governing body of any county school, on being consulted by the head teacher under this section, may if they think fit take such steps as they consider appropriate for consulting all persons appearing to them to be parents of registered pupils at the school.
(10) Any application made to the council under this section shall be made in such manner and form as the council may require.").
The right reverend Prelate said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 12 [Establishment of Councils]:
Lady Kinloss:Lady Kinloss: moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 10, line 49, after ("require") insert—
("( ) to appoint a specialist advisory sub-committee on special educational needs, and at least one member of the sub-committee shall be a member of the Council which appointed it, regard shall be had to the desirability of that person being a person with a disability.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, in moving this amendment on the issue of special needs, I should like to point out that at Report Stage the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said:
"The Bill will apply the national curriculum to all pupils, including those with special educational needs. The National Curriculum Council will have a specific remit to consider the requirements of those pupils".— [Official Report, 22/6/88; col. 870.]
She also said at Report stage that where necessary the councils:
"will be able to co-opt specialist members, appoint specialist advisory sub-committees and consult specialist interests".
This amendment does only this; it ensures that a subcommittee will be set up on special educational needs. That is what the Government have been saying continually that they will do and I cannot see any objection to having it enshrined in legislation. We have no doubt of the Government's good intentions in the area of special needs; indeed, they have responded sensitively in other areas. However, it is a small but significant step to include this amendment in the legislation.
'The noble Baroness also said:
"I expect that he [the Secretary of State] will see to it that appropriate expertise is included among council appointments in order to reinforce the links that the councils establish at professional level and through their committee structures".
What better way is there to ensure that appropriate expertise is consulted and that committee structures
450
function effectively than to make sure that one member of the sub-committee is on the main council that appointed it? How can a sub-committee function effectively if there is not a member of that subcommittee on the main council?
I feel that the time has come for the Government to write into legislation what they have committed themselves to verbally at previous stages of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, from these Benches I am pleased to support the amendment to which I have added my name. There have been numerous attempts at various stages of this Bill in both Houses to ensure that the problems and requirements of special educational need are fully taken into account in the work of the various councils that are mentioned in Clause 12. At Report stage the Government rejected the idea of a national advisory committee on special educational needs. However, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, pointed out, the Government have accepted that the National Curriculum Council and the other councils will have a special remit to consider the requirements of pupils with special educational needs. In order to ensure that that special remit is properly attended to this amendment builds on a suggestion made by the Secretary of State, Mr. Kenneth Baker, when (as reported in Hansard at col. 210) he said on 22nd March that the Government might want to set up a sub-committee to deal with special educational needs. The same day he said:
"Clearly we would want to take the advice of those who are expert in dealing with special needs".— [Official Report, Commons, 22/3'88; col. 234.]
I think that we have the support of the Secretary of State for this amendment. I hope that when the Minister replies she will not say that to allow this sub-committee will open the door for others. That is the classic, bureaucratic case for inaction. To put the matter quite simply, there is a special case under special educational need.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said before and as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, has reminded us, there is no reason why the NCC, SEAC or the Curriculum Council for Wales should not establish a special needs sub-committee if they think it necessary to do so. That is why Schedule 2 to the Bill provides for any of the councils to set up committees for any purpose and to appoint to those committees anyone they think fit and suitable.
This power and the fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has clearly stated his intention to ensure that the councils include members knowledgeable about special education needs should, I feel, provide reassurance, if indeed reassurance were needed, that the councils will have the necessary expertise available either directly or by co-option to committees. We believe that the councils must be allowed flexibility to organise themselves as they consider best and the amendment denies that to them.
I also recognise that an individual with a disability of one kind or another will have a particular knowledge of the needs of people who also have his or her disability, but I do not necessarily accept

451
therefore that they are the only people, or indeed the most appropriate people, to serve on those committees. In our view, the important matter is to secure that the councils include a wide range of expertise on education, the curriculum, assessment and testing, the world of work and so forth. However, as I have said, we are confident that within that range of expertise will be knowledge of special needs in education. I trust therefore that the noble Lady will withdraw her amendment.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness does not feel able to accept this amendment. I have tried hard to persuade her all the way through this Bill. I should like to see whether the House will agree with me on it.
6.50 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly. [Teller.]

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lytton, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Combermere, V.

McNair, L.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mayhew, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morton of Shuna,L.

Diamond, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Flowers, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Glenamara, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Headfort, M.

Thurlow, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ingleby, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Borthwick, L.

Arran, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Auckland, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Beloff, L.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Bessborough, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Boardman, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

452

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Morris, L.

Cox, B.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L. [TellerL.]

Munster, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Nelson, E.

Eccles, V.

Newall, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elibank, L.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Ferrers, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Goold, L.

Perth, E.

Grantchester, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rees, L.

Hesketh, L.

Renton, L.

Hives, L.

Romney. E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Germans, E.

Hood, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stockton, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Swansea, L.

Knutsford, V.

Swinfen. L.

Layton, L.

Swinton, E.

London, Bp.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trafford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mansfield, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marley, L.

Wolfson, L.

Marsh, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the ne disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 15 [Exceptions by regulations]:
6.58. p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 12, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations shall provide that where provisions of the National Curriculum are deemed not to apply, or are deemed to apply with modification, then the headteacher shall inform in writing the parent of the pupil of the decision and of that parent's rights under section 21.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It is to ensure that where a child is either to be excluded from the national curriculum or is to have the curriculum modified as a result of Clause 15, the parents have the right to be informed in writing of the decision.
At Report the Government rejected amendments that would have given the parents the right to be consulted on the rather extraordinary grounds that such consultation would prevent head teachers acting quickly and flexibly. I am not sure how long it takes to write a letter. This amendment accepts that the head teacher must be able to act quickly and flexibly but also must inform the parents in writing of decisions concerning their child and the national curriculum. Not all parents are articulate and well-informed. Not all head teachers are sufficiently concerned about the role of parents. Even the parents who are articulate are not always kept fully informed of decisions affecting their child.
This amendment merely ensures that parents will be informed in writing of decisions affecting their

453
child's education. It is a right which exists under Clause 16 for children with special educational needs and under Clause 17 for temporary exceptions for individual pupils. We fail to understand why this right should not also apply to children affected by Clause 15. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord stongly on this amendment. I regret very much that the children without statements do not have leave to appeal to the governing body on disapplication or modification of the national curriculum. I feel at the very least that they should be informed of what is going on and of their right to complain under Clause 21.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to support all that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, has said. Will parents be informed when they can make a complaint or will they be expected to know? The amendment is intended to ensure that it will be made clear and that they will know the complaints procedure.
Lord Peston: My Lords, briefly from these Benches I entirely agree with the views expressed by noble Lords and I am very sorry that the earlier amendment was not accepted. I should find it astonishing if the Government do not accept this amendment. It seems to me that the least a head teacher could do would be to inform the parents in writing both of the decision and of parental rights. One would hope that the head teacher would go further and see parents in all such cases. I hope strongly that this is an amendment that the Government will be able to accept.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret that I shall have to speak against this amendment. I much regret that after what has been said, but I hope your Lordships will permit me to say at this stage that it is our intention later today to accept a further amendment, Amendment No. 132, which will require parents of pupils whose statements of special need are amended to be told of their rights to appeal against that attention. But that is looking ahead.
We are now considering something rather different. The reasons we cannot accept it are twofold. First, the amendment is defective is using the word "deemed". Modification or disapplication of the national curriculum provisions under Clause 15 would be actual, not deemed. For that reason alone I could not accept the amendment.
But, more importantly, the amendment is unnecessary. I accept that all parents will need information about how the national curriculum is being applied in the case of their child, and if the national curriculum is modified or disapplied the parents' need for information will be all the greater. But we already have power to make regulations under Clause 20 dealing with this point— and are required by the Bill to consult on the scope and content of the regulations. I am sure this is the right way to proceed.
Similarly, all parents need to be informed of their right of complaint under Clause 21, and what duties
454
and responsibilities it covers. We shall use Clause 20 and Clause 21 as necessary to ensure that this is done in an appropriate way.
I can give your Lordships an assurance that we shall meet the parents' concerns and objectives by using the existing provisions of the Bill. On that basis I hope that noble Lords will be content not to press the amendment further.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I just add one thing. I have noticed, going round several— am I not allowed to come in?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, but my noble friend has now replied. I believe that the procedures on Third Reading are that there should not be interventions after the Minister has replied.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, they are being enforced also.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's answer and also that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was not able to intervene in the debate, because I understand that she wanted to. I believe that the consultations referred to under Clause 20 are with organisations, not with parents. I am not sure how that meets the requirements of the amendment. I suppose I have to accept the Minister's assurance that parents' rights will be protected. We have some doubts about this, but because of the speed of the debate and the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships may consider that this is a suitable moment at which to break for dinner. I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture Improvement (Variation) Scheme 1988
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 16th June be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with your permission, it would be convenient to consider this instrument together with the Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) Regulations 1988, which are closely related. The instruments make some modest and rather technical changes to our farm capital grants arrangements as they relate to the horticulture and pig sectors. Modest and technical though they may be, however, I know that the glasshouse arrangements in particular will be of considerable benefit to our growers.
I should like to say a few brief words about glasshouses. Glasshouse growers suffered particularly severely as a result of the great storm in October last year. We considered as a matter of urgency what we could do to assist the industry to get through the very difficult time following the storm. My right honourable friend the Minister was able to announce last November that growers who already held an improvement plan would get an extension of six months on the deadline for submission of claims (30th November this year) if they were unable to complete their investment plans on time because of shortage of labour and materials following the storm.
This arrangement, however, is only helpful to growers who already had an approved plan at the time of the storm. That left the case of those who needed to replace damaged facilities or who had been planning to start an investment programme this year. To help them, my right honourable friend the Minister was also able to announce last November that he would be extending for a further year from the end of November 1988 higher rates of grant for heated glasshouses. These will be at 45 per cent. for work carried out under an improvement plan and 35 per cent. for non-plan work with grants for heating systems at 20 per cent. The investment ceiling for this work has, however, had to be reduced to £ 74,000 in line with current EC rules. What the instruments before us today do is to give statutory affect to the substance of my right honourable friend's announcement. Extending advantageous rates of grant for a further year will make an important contribution to alleviating the difficulties faced by glasshouse growers both as a direct and indirect consequence of the storm.
Growers will now become eligible to start submitting applications for grant at the new rates on improvement plans from 1st September. From the same date we shall no longer be accepting applications at the current rates. This will allow for an orderly transition to the new arrangements. However, I should make clear that growers working under the current arrangements who are unable to complete their investments as quickly as expected and get their claims in by the end of November will still be able to qualify for the new grant of 45 per cent. on claims submitted after then, provided, of course, that their investment does not exceed £ 74,000 in value.
Unless your Lordships wish me to continue in depth, it only remains for me to explain to the House that these two instruments apply to Great Britain only. Parallel but separate measures will be taken by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I commend the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) Scheme 1988 to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Scheme laid before the House on 16th June be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee]. (Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for introducing the orders and regulations. I fully understand the requirement to comply with the
456
EC regulations. Regarding the pigs, I have just one small question. The number of pig places referred to in the variation scheme presumably applies to places for fattening pigs. I believe that that is implicit, but I should be grateful if the noble Baroness will confirm that.
As the House will know, pig keepers are having a very bad time at the moment with pig prices and the effect of the drought in America on the prices of feed-corn and proteins. In comparison with their present problems, this amendment is a pin prick.
I understand that the grant rate quoted for glasshouses of 45 per cent. is the most favourable that can be expected under Community guidelines. However, there are some constraints on the application of this scheme. A holding which has already benefited from the present IF scheme will be restricted to the new expenditure ceiling. The one-year extension is not a great deal of time for the planning and the work which must go into providing a new structure. I understand that there are still difficulties in respect of supplying materials and labour after the October hurricane.
To deal with a more general point, and with 1992 only four years away, I should like to point out that anything which affects the competitive position of British horticulture is to be deplored. We have already experienced growers in other member states— for example, Holland— who appear to benefit in possibly unfair ways from subsidies on fuel and so forth. I would welcome the Minister's assurance that our growers will not be put at any competitive disadvantage as a result of these regulations. With those reservations, I have pleasure in supporting the regulations from these Benches.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to answer the noble Lord's queries. The answer to his first question in relation to pig places is that it applies to fattening pigs. As regards difficulties of replacement, the noble Lord may be interested to know that I have received an invitation to visit the glasshouse region around Chichester. I was most encouraged to read that the growers would like me to to see how well things are progressing, except in respect of some of the smaller growers. However, I shall inform myself of the situation when I see what is happening.
With regard to the European connection, I believe that the noble Lord knows as well as I that in the courts the Dutch fuel subsidy was found to be illegal. If the noble Lord has any concrete information about unfair subsidies I should be extremely grateful if he would pass it on to me or to my Ministry.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I believe that the NFU has produced a dossier on unfair practices. I am surprised that the Ministry has not seen it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) Regulations 1988
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th June be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.13 to 7.45 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 23 [Interpretation of Chapter I]:
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 19, line 12, at end insert ("and "foundation subjects" includes "core subjects" ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a tidying amendment arising from the debates which we have had in the course of the Bill about the exact definition of these two terms "core" and "foundation". Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of where the words are introduced in the Bill. We find "core and other foundation subjects" mentioned in Clause 2(2), Clause 3(2) and Clause 4(1). In Clause 4(2) we first come across the words "foundation subjects" on their own. It was in relation to that that most of the confusion arose at an earlier stage.
Clause 23 could dispel the confusion because it deals with interpretation but all it says is:
"'Core subjects', 'foundation subjects' and 'key stages' have the meanings given by Section 3 of this Act".
My contention is that that is inadequate as it stands because Clause 3 as drafted does not give a clear meaning to foundation subjects.
I accept the inference that "foundation" embraces "core". However, I do not feel that that is quite enough in the circumstances. After all, we spent nearly 20 minutes arguing the ins and outs of the matter in Committee, and as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, pointed out on Report, that being so the interpretation cannot be self-evident.
This is all rather reminiscent of the philosophy don who was going through a student's essay late at night, and against one argument he wrote, "This is obvious". He thought for a while and said, "No, it is not" and scratched it out again. He went to bed but could not sleep for thinking of it and eventually at dawn he got up and said to himself, "Of course it is obvious", and wrote it in again. I have a sneaking feeling that if one asked the average intelligent educationist even now to name the proposed core subjects and then the foundation subjects, he or she
458
would probably give a list of seven and not ten subjects for the latter.
Recognising those uncertainties, on 5th May the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said:
"I shall take it away and hope to come back with a clearer definition at Report stage".[Official Report, 5/6/88: col. 738].
Unfortunately that has not happened. I would concede that what we are discussing here might be thought to be a quibble were it not for the fact that it is concerned with a major feature of a major Bill. I do not believe that one should have to infer definitions in such an important context. The six words which we are proposing are designed to put the question beyond doubt. I hope that they will be accepted, and I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene immediately to say that although, as I have said before, we believe the definition is quite clear as it stands, in view of the noble Earl's persuasiveness and persistence I am willing to concede the point and to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Admissions to county and voluntary schools]:
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 19, line 29, after ("is") insert ("more than ten").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it seems almost churlish to say this after the response of the noble Baroness to the last amendment, but this issue of open enrolment has seen the Government at their most inflexible. It has been raised in various guises in the course of the Bill and one can understand, even if one profoundly disagrees with, the view that the Secretary of State should take most of the decision-making powers out of local hands in the matter of filling schools or that the 20 per cent. margin below the 1979 standard number granted by this Government in 1980 should now be taken away or that no temporary respite should be allowed in certain specified circumstances. All these have been debated and the Government have shown an unwillingness to compromise which is verging on the pathological in pursuit of the purity of the standard number.
It is less easy to understand why the Government should object to the minimalist approach of Amendment No. 25 involving, as it does, a built-in leeway of not 10 per cent. but just 10 pupils. It is not much to ask that there should be this small degree of flexibility in accommodation, if needed, without having to go through the log jam of Clause 26 with its paperwork, procedures and probable months' long delay. That is the big problem here.
The arguments for a measure of flexibility have been well rehearsed but little appreciated by those who have never had to grapple with the task of reconciling many conflicting interests on the ground. What about existing community use, a parents' room, a too-sudden influx of new pupils, short-term building maintenance, a fire or some other event

459
which none of us has foreseen? What about special needs pupils? It is good to know that under the draft guidance on the admission of pupils which the Minister told the House about at Report stage, the formula which the Secretary of State will use in assessing the capacity of schools will give those pupils three to four times as much space as other pupils; but how, under the cumbersome procedures of Clause 26, can the admission number be reduced in time for the wheelchair girl who needs a place this September? With no built-in flexibility it will not be possible. She will be turned away.
There are then the possibly greater space needs of the national curriculum and some GCSE subjects. Official formulae may allow for this, but again can they allow for it fast enough in an ever-changing school situation? I doubt it. Incidentally, will the formulae themselves be adaptable as the curriculum develops?
The Government are not averse to allowing themselves flexibility, not to say carte blanche, for the unforeseen as in the employment provisions in Clause 220. Why should local people not have the same small amount proposed under this amendment?
I shall not repeat the arguments in favour of a local authority being able to manage its system of schools because I sense there is an unbridgeable gulf of perception here. I should like to deal shortly with one of the counter-arguments that is sometimes advanced. It is said that LEAs are motivated in restricting intakes by administrative tidiness at best and by all sorts of unmentionable motives at worst. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who unfortunately is not in her place, is a proponent of that argument. That probably has something to do with where she lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, appears to believe that too.
I could not possibly say that no authority ever departs from the high standard of objectively assessing the public good. However. I can say that the motive of most professionals— and their pleasure, too, whether they are violinists, soldiers or education officers advising their elected members— is to exercise to the full their professional judgment and expertise. It is not administrative convenience that leads an educationist to propose restrictions which will land him or her with more work and more personal hassle and debate; it is the professional understanding that if there is absolutely no tempering of market forces more parents and children will be disappointed in the long run.
If the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, who also is not in his place, still feels like calling that arrogance, as I believe he did in Committee, I fancy that very few conscientious officials will escape his censure. Administrative convenience, I can assure the House, it is not. As Sir Peter Newsam once remarked when he was education officer of ILEA, the administratively convenient thing to do in those circumstances is to go home at five o'clock and curl up with a good book on curriculum development.
The hunt for an even greater degree of parental satisfaction— which is what underlies the Government's obsession with the standard number, the whole standard number
460
and nothing but the standard number— is a wild goose chase. I commend this amendment as offering some slight flexibility to cope with the unforeseen as well as the eminently foreseen. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I support the amendment. On this occasion the Government seem to be rigidly set on a procedure which would require, if they were dealing with space requirements, an excessively bureaucratic process. This small element of flexibility would allow something to be done because there is no information in the national curriculum on the space that may be required— I hope I have the Minister's attention; it is much easier if only one person is speaking at a time.
There are the problems of children with special needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said that pupils with special educational needs require four times the space entitlement of ordinary children. The minor flexibility in this amendment would permit that to happen and allow the changes that inevitably will happen with the differences in space required by the national curriculum. It would also permit the possibility of temporary changes in school accommodation to be dealt with. It would appear that on this, as on so many other matters, the Government are being rigid in what they require from local authorities while determining that they should have absolute flexibility on everything they want to do.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this proposal was discussed earlier but we still cannot accept the amendment because it runs counter to the basic principle of the Government's open enrolment policy. We have taken as the yardstick for judging physical capacity the standard number of a school, since this is closely related to physical capacity and all schools have one. It is important that parents should know that the admissions limit represents the actual number of pupils that a school can take.
The Bill already contains provisions for adjusting standard numbers where it is agreed that these no longer reflect true capacity and for allowing a local decision to raise the admissions limit above a low standard number without reference to the Secretary of State, so the necessary flexibility is already built into the legislation.
If admissions authorities consider that a school's standard number is no longer a fair reflection of its capacity, they will have to go through a statutory public procedure to have it reduced. We believe that is right, given the restriction in parental choice that such a reduction would imply, even if in respect of only a few pupils. The disappointment felt by the parents of a pupil refused admission will be no less whether he or she is the only one turned down or one of 20.
I hope that in the light of what I have just said the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, as I thought, we have a gulf which is unbridgeable. This chapter of the Bill is a recipe for bureaucracy but I recognise,

461
sadly, that that is the way the Government want it and that is the way it will be. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdaw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Publication of schemes and financial statements, etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 36, line 40, after ("school") insert—
("(hh) such particulars as may be prescribed of the basis on which the authority determine in the case of each such school—

(i) the amount of expenditure on excepted services by reference to which the information required to be included in the statement under paragraph (f) above is determined, and

(ii) the part of the authority's excluded expenditure under the scheme by reference to which the information required to be included in the statement under paragraph (g) above is determined:").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. It requires LEAs to provide information on the method by which they attribute expenditure on non-delegated amounts to individual schools covered by schemes of delegation. A similar requirement is already included in Clause 48 for schools not covered by schemes and the amendment is needed simply to make the two provisions consistent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Staff employed by the local education authority]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 44 [Community schools]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 40, line 9, leave out ("and 43(10)") and insert (", 43(10) and 45").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hooper and speak at the same time to Amendments No. 29 and 127. These are technical tidying up amendments dealing with the application of financial delegation to community schools.
Amendment No. 28 provides for Clause 45 to be among the staffing provisions which LEAs may apply, through their schemes, to staff at community schools who work partly or wholly on activities which we have described as non-school activities— activities such as adult education which are not part of the work of the school as such. Clause 45 gives the governors of schools with financial delegation discretion over the level of compensation awarded to staff who are dismissed. Under Clause 44 it will be up to LEAs to decide whether to apply the staffing provisions of financial delegation to community school staff engaged on non-school activities. This amendment simply rectifies the omission of Clause 45 from the list of provisions which LEAs may apply to these staff.
Amendment No. 29 transposes the order of Clauses 44 and 45. This is simply consequential on Amendment No. 28. Amendment No. 127 introduces two new subsections. The first makes it clear that the discretion over compensation for dismissals given to governors in Clause 45 does not apply to the temporary governors of new schools. This is simply to avoid confusion. The temporary governing bodies of new schools will not have the power to dismiss staff since this is not something they will need to do. They do not therefore need the discretion over compensation given in Clause 45. The second subsection deals with new community schools. Its effect is to put new community schools on the same footing as existing community schools. So if the LEA decides to apply the staffing provisions of the Bill to staff at existing community schools, those provisions will apply to the same extent to staff at new schools, which will be community schools.
These are clearly technical amendments. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 29:
Transpose Clause 44 to after Clause 45.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Financial statements in respect of schools not covered by statements under section 40]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 42, line 15, at end insert ("(as the case may be) with respect to each of the special").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are tidying amendments. I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. They are designed to prevent any overlap in the case of special schools between the information required to be published under Clause 40, and that required under Clause 48. Any special schools covered by schemes will be covered by the former, while those not in schemes will be covered by the latter. This will avoid placing any unnecessary requirements on LEAs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 42, line 24, at end insert ("other than one in respect of which, by virtue of any provision so made, any information is required to be included in a statement prepared by the authority in respect of that year under section 40 of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 32:
age 42, line 37, leave out ("capital loan charges") and insert ("the repayment of the principal of, the payment of interest on and the discharge of any other financial obligation in connection with any loan raised to meet expenditure of a capital nature").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 33, 125 and 128. These are purely technical and consequential amendments, which clarify some specific terms in this chapter and Schedule 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Interpretation of Chapter III and supplementary and consequential provisions]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 44, line 21, leave out ("and section 41(2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Duty of Secretary of State to maintain certain schools]:
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 46, line 22, at end insert—
("or (c) provide for all maintained special schools, or any specified type of such schools, or any particular maintained special school, to be eligible for grant maintained status;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is a last-ditch attempt to try to provide special schools with a potential opportunity to opt out at some date in the future with the permission of the Secretary of State; in other words, to give them some options which are available to other maintained schools.
I emphasise that the amendment does not oblige maintained special schools to opt out. It does not even allow them to do so at present. It does not compel the Secretary of State to allow them to opt out. All it does is to give the Secretary of State the power, should be ever wish to use it, to allow maintained special schools that option. Even if this power were never used, it would at least be seen to be giving to special schools the same opportunity that is presently available to other schools. I think that they resent very much not even having that opportunity anywhere on the horizon.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider this amendment sympathetically. We do not know how the face of special education may change over the years to come, nor what provision we may need to take account of such change. At Report stage my noble friend Lord Trefgarne reiterated many of the reasons given at Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Hooper.
As my noble friend Lord Renton and I have already shown, according to the evidence we do not believe that my noble friend's arguments hold water. I do not intend to repeat the arguments because I know that we are under great pressure of time. My noble friend added that special schools, because they often serve such a wide area, might be able to look to their locality for the sort of support that grant maintained schools will need. This may or may not be so, but many non-maintained and independent special schools already flourish and do so in exceedingly large areas.
My noble friend made the valid point that opting out should not be a means of reprieve for a school which is proposed for closure as part of a properly considered and formulated set of rationalisation proposals put forward by a local authority. Local authorities still need to deal with the problems of falling rolls, as my noble friend said. We recognise that. The problem, however, is that in some cases falling rolls are caused more by local authority policy against special schools than by a genuine shortage of children eligible for them.
The London based Campaign for Choice in Special Education reports that over the past year or so many parents have stood up at meetings and complained of the struggle they have had to get their children into special schools. This is because the authority has not informed them of this option, because it has informed them in such a way as to show the special school in a very unattractive light, or because it has put other obstacles in their way. There are very real problems with regard to special schools. All we are asking is not that the Secretary of State should ever exercise that power in the foreseeable future, but that there should be opportunity for him so to do. In that way, if the ideology with regard to special education were to change in the future, there might not be the provision in certain areas for special schools. This amendment would at least give those schools a lifeline and an opportunity to continue to provide excellent specialist education which might in the future at some stage come under threat. I beg to move.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I heartily support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. There are many parents of handicapped children who are extremely apprehensive about the possibility of these special maintained schools being phased out, which as we know is the policy of some authorities. The parents feel that this is a dangerous sociological fashion. What they want above all is that the maintained schools, which are absolutely super, should remain. I hope that the Government will feel able to give this little thing which will bring much comfort to many parents.
Lord Renton: My Lords, owing to the rapid progress which I am happy to say your Lordships are making, this amendment finds me arriving rather out of breath, but 1 should like to support it.
There is one further point that I should like to make in addition to those that I am sure have already been made. Your Lordships will see that the amendment enables even one special school to be eligible for opting out. If the Goverment do not have the imagination to realise that there could be even one special school which found that it was not being properly treated by the local authority, then the parents of the unfortunate children attending this special school should be given the opportunity of expressing their views and of opting out.
I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind that more than one local authority has said that all special schools should be closed down and all the children in them, however extreme their cases, integrated in ordinary classes in other schools. Speaking as the father of a severely mentally handicapped daughter, I think that this could be a tragedy and cause great unhappiness. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not close their minds on this point.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of extending grant-maintained status to special schools is one which this House and the Government have considered on more than one occasion and at some length. The Government recognise that the present amendments represent a significant shift in approach. They would not permit special schools to apply for

465
grant-maintained status immediately this chapter of the Bill comes into operation but would enable the Secretary of State to extend the right to do so to either some or all special schools at some future date. But I am afraid that I have to tell my noble friends that the Government remain of the opinion that it would be inappropriate for special schools to achieve grant-maintained status, and therefore it would not be proper to encourage false hopes among the governors of special schools by accepting these amendments.
We believe that the arguments we advanced earlier remain valid. I shall not deploy them all again now— the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, did not either— but may I just touch on one of them. We believe that the extension of grant-maintained status to special schools would not increase parental choice which, in the case of admission to maintained schools, is limited by the duty of the LEA to assess special educational needs and determine the provision required upon the basis of that assessment. I am afraid I have to say to my noble friends, and to the noble Lord who spoke from the Cross-Benches, that I think we shall just have to agree to differ on this matter because I am afraid there is no prospect of the Government changing their view.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may say that, not surprisingly, I am disappointed with that answer, and I think my colleagues will be. Many people concerned with special education will also be disappointed. All I can say is that we have fought valiantly to put up a marker. We have put up arguments that we believe have not been successfully answered, and we hope that perhaps at some stage in the future Her Majesty's Government may reconsider this position and offer to special schools that opportunity which at the moment they are denied, which seems a most unacceptable discrimination against them. I have no intention of pressing this to a Division at this time of night, and I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Clause 58 [Initiation of procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No 36:
Page 54, line 5, at end insert ("and if the school is a voluntary school the trustees do not give notice within 28 days of the receipt of the request that they object to a ballot").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the consent of the trustees of voluntary-aided schools to changes of status. Her Majesty's Government recognised that there was a problem concerning trustees of voluntary-aided schools which may wish in future to opt for grant-maintained status. They alleviated the problem by a Committee-stage amendment requiring the trustees to be consulted, and giving them a statutory right to object to the Secretary of State. Even that amendment may have a technical defect, as I pointed out at Report stage. In any case, it did not go far enough as it failed to provide for the express consent of the trustees.
The present situation therefore presents legal, constitutional, theological and practical difficulties. I have tried to circumvent these by asking the Government to publish the criteria upon which the Secretary of State will decide applications for grant-maintained status. I propose that judicial review should be available as a safeguard if trustees refused their consent to a proposed change of status. Alas, the Government have accepted neither of these constructive suggestions.
I regret that the Government rejected these four amendments when I moved them at Report. They did so at 11 p.m. under the glowering eye of the noble Lord the Chief Whip, who was anxious to adjourn the House. I am sorry that there was so little meeting of minds on what is a complex, technical but important matter. It remains the case that voluntary schools are being treated as if they were county schools, which they are not. The spirit of the Education Act 1944, which led to such excellent cooperation, is being, I suggest, violated on this point. This is a matter of considerable sadness over which an agreed solution could surely be reached.
Catholic parents, electors, governors and education committee members are slowly waking up to the shortcomings of this Bill. I have just received a petition of some 1,200 persons living in west London and Middlesex. It specifically asks for the consent of diocesan trustees to be preserved. Perhaps I would be in order in leaving it with the Clerks at the Table.
The covering letter that accompanies this petition made the excellent point that the schools are held in trust for the whole Catholic community and not just for the current set of children or parents. The schools, as I said before, form part of a functioning network and there can be no certainty that this will continue to work satisfactorily once it has begun to be fragmented. In the interests of the continued existence of a dual system of county and voluntary schools, I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, like the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, who spoke at Report, I do not support these amendments, which were moved for the first time at Report. They were foreshadowed in speeches made in Committee, and at that time I made my own position clear. This is that I do not feel that Catholic parents should be deprived of the opportunities which are open to other parents of children in the voluntary and the county sectors. They would be treated as second-class citizens if they were.
The amendments were moved at Report on 23rd June, and this was an extra day slipped into the middle of the Report stage. Unfortunately I was unable to be present. I therefore come quite fresh to these amendments and have several points that I should like to make and develop. The first point— and I do not wish to develop this one— is that the noble Lord's lead amendment tonight is not the same as that with which he started his debate at Report. That amendment, which would have given the trustees power to veto a ballot called by the

467
governors, is not before us tonight. This appears to me to be an oversight and I shall speak to what I believe to be the noble Lord's intentions.
The amendments tonight provide that trustees may bring to a halt the procedures whereby parents of pupils in voluntary schools ballot to show whether or not they wish to seek grant-maintained status. This is to apply even before the parents have voted and shown their feelings one way or another. To my mind this is a curious way to go about things. I should have thought that were trustees to seek the power of veto they would at least concede that their veto should only be exercised after the parents had spoken.
The views of all the parents are surely factors which trustees, given a veto, ought to consider. These views can best be expressed by a ballot and the enthusiasm or otherwise that parents show by their votes for grant-maintained status. To my way of thinking, to apply the veto before the parents have voted is a very authoritative flaw in this series of amendments. The Bill provides for massive consultation to be carried out by the Secretary of State before he decides an application, but the amendments provide for no consultation by trustees before they effectively abort an application, and I find this most disturbing and unsatisfactory.
In his speech at Report on 23rd June my noble friend Lord Harvington drew attention to recent events at the Cardinal Vaughan School in west London, which he said amply justified giving this veto to trustees of voluntary schools. He said at col. 1037 of Hansard in relation to the Cardinal Vaughan School:
"The foundation governors were not in agreement with the trustee who had appointed them over the establishment of a new sixth form college. That college was necessary for the adequate provision of Catholic education in central London and was supported by many parents of the other schools involved. A long time was taken to bring matters to a head.
In the end the trustee decided to press ahead with his proposals and therefore dismissed the opposing foundation governors, whereupon the foundation governors took the trustee to court, hoping to set aside the trustee's decision, and lost their case".
That is what the amendments seek to deal with so that the trustee…can join the foundation governors and the rest to settle the opting out question without using the drastic method that I have described".
My noble friend's name was down as supporting the amendments at Report. It is not on the Marshalled List today but I understand that unfortunately he is unable to be present. It seems to me that the problems affecting the Cardinal Vaughan school do not have much to do with this Bill. Certainly the Bill would not stop the foundation governors of a voluntary school taking a view on opting out, or on any other matter, contrary to the wishes of the trustees who appointed them. Nor does the opting out question have much to do with the Cardinal Vaughan school. What happened there was in the quite different context of the requirement in Section 13 of the Education Act 1980 that the governing body of a voluntary school must publish proposals for making a change in the character of its school and submit them to the Secretary of State for approval. The Bill leaves all this intact.
468
I bring this matter up tonight because I have received letters from the chairman of the parents' committee and from the headmaster of the Cardinal Vaughan School. They disagree profoundly with much of what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said at Report. I should explain that the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School is a voluntary-aided 11-to-18 secondary school with three forms entry. It is, to put it bluntly, one of the most successful ILEA schools. If and when the Bill is passed it will come under Kensington and Chelsea. The school was founded in 1914 as an independent fee-paying school, largely with money raised by nationwide subscription after the death of Cardinal Herbert Vaughan, of the old Catholic family of Vaughan of Courtfield, third Archbishop of Westminster and the builder of Westminster Cathedral. The school became a voluntary-aided grammar school in 1944, and so continued until in 1977 it abandoned selection and became the comprehensive school it is today.
The trustee decided that the present three forms entry 11-to-18 school should be replaced— for that is what it would amount to— by a four forms entry 11-to-16 school, but keeping the same name. It was this proposal which on three separate occasions the governing body did not pass. In order to ensure that the proposal was passed, the trustee dismissed and replaced two of the foundation governors. As my noble friend Lord Harvington said, there was then a court action, and the parents lost it. Your Lordships should know that legal aid for an appeal has been granted and the case will go to the Court of Appeal. I have no more to say about that.
What noble Lords should know also is that a petition against this fundamental reorganisation of their children's school was signed this year by the parents of 564 pupils out of a total roll of 566. The views of the Cardinal Vaughan School parents are clearly that those who support the amendment fail to distinguish between obedience owed by them as parents to their bishop on matters of faith and morals and their freedom to speak with equal authority on matters of purely educational organisation. The alleged need to close the Cardinal Vaughan sixth-form arises from falling school rolls in central London and the difficulty of providing sixth-form education in the Catholic voluntary sector for those pupils who need it. So there is a genuine dilemma here between the rights of the parents at the Cardinal Vaughan School and the perceived rights— I say "perceived" to point out that it is doubtful at least whether the proposed reorganisation would be for the long-term benefit of the Catholic community— of the Catholic children in other schools. What is beyond doubt to me is that the collectivism satirised by George Orwell in Animal Farm has been born again as the current social philosophy of Christian theologians in the 1980s. This comes to me clearly through the fog of the Cardinal Vaughan dispute.
In such circumstances of inbuilt collectivist bias it is right that where the sixth-form of the Cardinal Vaughan School is concerned the Secretary of State, as is the case under the Education Act 1980, should arbitrate the question and ultimately decide where the balance should lie between individual rights and

469
the claims of community. This is to me the lesson of the Cardinal Vaughan School in relation to the opting-out question and why opting for grant-maintained status should be left to the Secretary of State and not to the trustee.
I conclude by referring— and this is the first time it has been referrred to in the debates— to what I see is the position of the Church of England in this matter. I am glad to see that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is present because it seems to me that the amendment legislates for the parents of all children in voluntary schools— Church of England as well as Catholic. The trustees of Church of England voluntary schools arc, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out in committee,
"local bodies merely representing the individual schools.— [Official Report; 12/5/88, col. 1302.]
The right reverend Prelate welcomed the provision for consultation of these trustees added to the Bill by the government amendment in Committee. He is surely surprised to learn, as would be the parents in the Church of England voluntary schools, that these trustees would be given, if the amendments were carried, the right to prevent the taking of the vote of parents which is necessary before the Secretary of State can consider an application for grant-maintained status.
The right reverend Prelate explained that within his Church the education responsibility which falls in the Catholic Church on the diocesan bishops is taken up into a statutory body— the diocesan education committee. He said that provision would be made by a measure of the General Synod for the consultation of the diocesan education committee. He did not suggest— and it has not been suggested— that the diocesan education committee should have the right of veto. How surprising it is therefore to find these amendments putting the right of veto into the hands of local trustees, who, as I understand it, may be bodies quite unconnected either with the Church of England or with education. This is a quite unwarranted intrusion into the rights of parents of children in Church of England schools. For this reason, if for no other. the amendments should be rejected.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sorry that we have not so far been able to set at rest the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on this subject. I have tried on a number of occasions to set out what are now in our view the substantial safeguards in the Bill for the role and interests of the trustees of Church and other voluntary schools which are contemplating an application for grant-maintained status, and so I shall not repeat them now.
In the light of what we have already done to establish common ground with the Churches, I am afraid that I cannot accept that there is a need to give the trustees of voluntary schools an absolute right of veto over applications for grant-maintained status, as these amendments would secure. Such a veto would be fundamentally inconsistent with our prime objective of giving parents in all maintained schools, both county and voluntary, greater influence over their conduct and future development.
470
From what he said, the noble Lord's essential concern is that the Bill unjustifiably treats the county and voluntary sectors of education as one. I cannot accept that charge. We are agreed, I am sure, that the essential feature of a Church school is the religious ethos it imparts to its pupils. The Bill expressly forbids a voluntary school to change its religious character or ethos in the course of becoming grant maintained; and any subsequent proposal to do so would require the express permission of the trustees. I suggest that those provisions clearly demonstrate the Government's full recognition of the special and valuable role which Church schools have always played and which they will continue to play under these proposals. In short, neither the trustees nor the schools for which they are responsible have anything to fear from these provisions.
In the light of these reassurances I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments, in the knowledge that we too are committed to the continuing contribution of the Churches to the maintained sector of education and that grant-maintained status is in no sense an obstacle to that contribution.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I have no doubt that I would have benefited greatly from his drafting expertise when putting down the amendments. It may well be that he has a good point about better consultations or more formalised procedure for consultations between the trustees and the other parties involved. Nevertheless, when he began to expound at some length on the situation at the Cardinal Vaughan School I could not help thinking that it was something of a red herring, because surely that arose over a matter of the reorganisation of a whole pattern of schools, especially of their methods of dealing with sixth-form education, whereas on these amendments that I have proposed we are dealing with opting for a change of status, which to my mind is a different matter.
I move on now to the Government. I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, not only for her reply but also for writing to me in advance of this debate on the modification of deeds of trust and how that is dealt with under Clause 94 of the Bill. She also very kindly gave me an advance sight of the draft guidance which will be issued fairly soon, I suppose, about schools becoming grant maintained. I am also glad to know that major non-technical changes to trust deeds will still require the consent of the Charity Commissioners. That at least preserves one safeguard about which I had been concerned.
However, having said that, I have to say that I am a little disappointed. I feel that Her Majesty's Government have missed a possible chance to remove the real difficulties to which I have alluded. I should like to invite the Government at the first available legislative opportuntiy to do something over and above what they already did in Committee. It is not unreasonable to suppose that this major piece of legislation will require some corrections and improvements within perhaps the next two to three

471
years. So with that I shall say that I do not intend to divide the House in this rather late and uncertain hour. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 39 not moved.]
Clause 59 [Ballot of parents]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 55, line 35, at end insert ("within guidelines issued by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises, as do the next three amendments which we shall shortly be discussing in a separate grouping, the question of who or what is a parent. The Bill under Clause 59(4) at present provides,
"For the purposes of subsection (3) above, it shall be for the governing body to determine any question whether a person is a parent of a registered pupil at the school".
As the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, brought George Orwell into the debate, perhaps I may bowdlerise him a bit and say that the Government's attitude seems to be one parent, bad, two parents, better, and four or more parents, best of all. That seems to be their attitude, which is to say that there should be one parent, one vote. It does not matter how many children the parents have, but the more parents the more votes. It is an extraordinary proposition. This amendment would at least give the governing bodies some guidance on it because the amendment says that it is to be,
"within guidelines issued by the Secretary of State".
That of course implies that the Secretary of State will issue guidelines. At the moment all we have— as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, told the House; I think, in Committee— is the definition contained in the Education Act 1944 which really does not tell the governors anything at all. Under Section 114 it says:
" 'parent', in relation to any child… includes"—
It does not define, in just includes—
"a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person".
So if you consider the case of a child whose parents have divorced and remarried and who is staying at the time with a granny or its grandparents, that gives them a possibility of six votes for that child. I very much doubt that the Government, in their wisdon, are really going in for this kind of thing. We must have some guidance for the governors of schools as to how they are going to operate this ballot so that they know who the people are who are entitled to vote. It is a ridiculous position at the moment and some guideline is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, perhaps I may point out that I raised this question in Committee and I have not yet heard anything said to clear it up. Who is going to be able to vote? A one-child family has two parents; do they get two votes? What about a one-parent family with, say, three or four children; do they get one vote? In one case there could be one vote for three or four children and in the other two votes
472
for just one child. It is a little practical point, but I think the Government should clear it up. I asked about it before but I have as yet received no reply.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, even though I should like to express my support for the amendment, I do not wish to detain the House. This is obviously not a party political point. However, as I understood it last time, it was perfectly possible for one child to be represented by four votes and another child to be represented by one vote. In any sane world that is Alice in Wonderland arithmetic. A normal distribution of parents is two to a child. That seems to be quite a reasonable compromise if the Government will accept it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may follow on what the noble Baroness has just said. Of course, conversely, if we were to follow the logic of her argument, there could be a parent with one child who had one vote or a parent with four children who had four votes which some might think equally anomalous. However, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue guidelines to assist the governing body in determining any question as to whether a person is a parent of a registered pupil at the school for the purposes of a ballot on grant-maintained status.
I must say frankly that we do not see the need for the amendment. We have made it clear that we intend to issue guidance for governors on all aspects of the conduct of ballots. Indeed subsections (7) to (9) in the clause turn on that premise. In particular they require the governing body to take account of such guidance in conducting its ballot and empower my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to declare such a ballot void if it is not conducted in accordance with that guidance. A draft of our proposed—
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, if the position is that the Government are going to issue guidance anyway, what is wrong with their accepting this amendment, which just says precisely that? I do not see what we are arguing about.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would reply to the noble Lord with this. What is the purpose of pressing the amendment if we have given the assurance which covers the point that he has sought? A draft of our proposed general guidance on grant-maintained status is already in circulation. This will be followed, after Royal Assent, by separate, more detailed guidance for governing bodies which will focus more closely on the statutory procedures for becoming grant maintained. It will set out the Government's views as to who is a parent for the purposes of Clause 59 and explain the role of the governing body in those exceptional cases where a question is raised about a particular—
Lord McNair: My Lords, if the draft is already in circulation, is it not possible for the noble Lord to tell us how it defines a parent?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, guidance which will cover new detail on that point will be available after Royal Assent, as I explained earlier. It will underline and amplify the existing document. We have discussed this matter at great length, not only at this stage of the Bill but more especially at earlier stages. The Government remain of the view that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that it will not be pressed.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, it is very unsatisfactory.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I contrast the Bill with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill or even the Financial Services Bill, with both of which I was involved. On occasions the Opposition moved amendments which the Government regarded as unnecessary. If they were not inimical to the Government's purpose, they were occasionally accepted. If an amendment fits the Government's purpose, although the Government say that it is unnecessary because guidelines will be issued, why not just accept it?
If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment and adopt a totally intransigent attitude, I intend to press the amendment. We are entitled to have something on the face of the Bill which says what a parent is. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government to discover who a parent is. They should have put that definition into guidelines, even if they are still in draft. I should have thought that they might have some idea of who a parent is.
The Bill has been before Parliament for nearly a year now. This difficulty must have been considered by the Government. I hope that the Minister can give me something on this point.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, they should explain the guidelines to us.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, as the guidelines are apparently to remain secret and the Government are not prepared to say a word about them, I must press the amendment. The Government's attitude is wholly irrational. On that ground, I press the amendment.
8.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 62.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ardwick, L.

Glenamara, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Gregson, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hylton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

474

Lawrence, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Russell, E.

Longford, E.

Seear, B.

McNair, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Swann, L.

Mountevans, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Peston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Killearn, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Borthwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Morris, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

St. Germans, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Dundee, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eccles, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Elton, L.

Swinton, E.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Fortescue, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thurlow, L.

Grantchester, L.

Trafford, L.

Greenway, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 55, line 35, at end insert ("and every person shall, on submitting their name for inclusion in the school register as a parent, state their relationship to the child (which information shall be entered in the register)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can now raise the question of what is to go in the register. The governors, without guidance, are to determine any question of whether a person is a parent. The purpose of Amendment No. 41 is that:
"every person shall, on submitting their name for inclusion in the school register as a parent, state their relationship to the child".
It is a fairly reasonable request that somebody should state whether they are a father, a mother, a stepmother or stepfather, a grandparent, a foster parent or a social worker who has the child in his or her care. All those are within the definition of a parent in Section 114 of the Education Act 1944.
When one is dealing with this, I think the governors should be allowed to know, if Johnny is registered at the school as a pupil, who are registered as the parents and what the relationship claimed is. On the only definition we have in the statute, a parent is every person who has the actual custody of the child. If the child is staying for a week with auntie, is

475
she a parent for that week? In that case I can foresee a wonderful piece of juggling where a ballot comes along. Somebody who is unwise enough to be a single parent with two or three children will farm them out, put them into the custody of other people who will vote their way. That is what I would advise them to do under this extraordinary reluctance of the Government to define "parents" and to define how many votes there are to be for each child. That is Amendment No. 41.
It may be for the convenience of the House that I at least speak to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. Amendment No. 42 is to allow the director of social services to vote as a parent in respect of a child subject to a care order. The director of social services is the person who has the custody of the child. He is therefore within the definition in the 1944 Act.
If we are dealing with children in custody, it is perhaps coincidental that we are dealing with this in the week of the Cleveland report. I remind noble Lords that in 1985, three years ago, there were in England 72,800 children in care. I suspect that the number may have gone up since then. Are all these children to be disfranchised on any question of a ballot? Or is the position that the director of social services is to have a vote in respect of what will happen to these children? Alternatively, are the actual parents— those whom the director of social services or a court has decided are improper to have the custody of these children at the time in question— to have the vote as to whether the school should opt out or not?
This is a matter about which the Government must have at least thought because I think this is the sixth stage of discussion of the Bill in its passage through Parliament. The question of who has the vote and how many votes there are has been considered, but the Government have shut their mind, shut their eyes, put their head down and charged through, without wishing to give any guidance at all, at any rate publicly, until the Bill receives Royal Assent, as to the definition of "parent" and who is to vote. Amendment No. 42 suggests that the children in care should not be disfranchised.
Amendment No. 43 provides that in respect of any child or children at school with the same parents, no more than two persons may vote. We proposed at Report stage that there should be one vote per child. The House disagreed with that view so we have come back with a different one. It seems to me quite extraordinary that the Government should take the view that the more divorces there are in the family or the more splits there are, the more votes there are. Therefore the children from a really divided home which is split up in all sorts of directions get more votes than the children who belong to, say, a two or three-child family with two parents or one parent who will only get one vote.
It seems to me that the position of the Government is quite insupportable. These amendments at least put some rationality into the situation. In this country we work basically on a democracy based on one adult person, one vote. The idea that the more you split up in marriage the more votes you will get
476
in a ballot on your children seems to me extraordinary. I think we should get something more rational into the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish to add a few remarks. When I inadvertently spoke out of turn previously because I thought we were moving all these amendments together, I said that there should be only two votes for the child. The Minister answered me by saying that by my logic, if there were four children the single parent would get four votes. I put it to the Minister that it is four children's education we are talking about.
The Minister used the word "logical". It seems to me far more logical, since we are concerned With children's education, that one parent with four children should have four votes than that one child with four parents should give those parents four votes for the one child. That surely is sounder logic than any the Minister presented.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this amendment appears to have uncovered a major ambiguity in the Government's thinking. The Government have said consistently that one of the purposes of this Bill is to transfer power to consumers. However, there is a considerable difficulty here about who actually consumes education. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, exposed the difference between us when he referred to a proposal which might have the effect of disfranchising children. It seems to us in both the opposition parties that if education has consumers, they are the children. They are not those who presumably at some future time will be asked to cross the palm with silver.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the Government's attitude to Parliament in this Bill is completely incomprehensible. Throughout the Bill there have been anywhere between 30 and 50 simple amendments which the Government could have accepted but they dug their toes in and refused to do so. The last amendment on which we have just voted was a all-time low for the Government. They could have accepted it but they did not do so.
They have told us that these guidelines will be issued. They have told us that the guidelines are in existence. Why can we not be told what the guidelines contain? Parliament is in the dark about how this balloting is to take place. There are all kinds of questions; the noble Baroness has raised one. What about the couples living together? They may have children who are the children of the couple or of the man or of the woman. Do they both get a vote? The Government must take Parliament into their confidence.
If the local authorities are to be told, why cannot we be told? We are part of Parliament. This is treating Parliament with contempt. The Government have the information, they tell us that the guidelines are in existence. Please will the Government tell us what those guidelines contain about balloting? No messing about, tell us in clear, unambiguous terms who will get a vote.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord and others who have spoken by saying that of course the Bill has not yet completed its passage through Parliament. A number of changes have been made in the balloting arrangements, one at least of which was against the advice of the Government. That will have to be taken into account in the guidance that is eventually produced. Of course we do not yet know how the Bill will emerge in this respect because amendments that your Lordships have agreed to will have to be considered in another place and, if they are disagreed to, your Lordships may have to decide whether you wish to take the matter further.
Some draft guidelines— I emphasise the word "draft"— have been produced and I understand that these have been made available to a number of noble Lords who have taken part in this Bill. My noble friend Lady Hooper told me that she had sent them to a number of noble Lords who have spoken.
9 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I wish to make it quite clear that certainly those acting for the Front Bench of the main Opposition party have not been part of the bounty of the noble Baroness.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I am misinformed on the matter, I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord now tell us what guidelines he is talking about? We are taiking about guidelines to do with this particular matter on balloting. Is that correct?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am talking about the guidelines on grant-maintained status. I understand that the guidelines do not yet go into great detail about the ballots because, as I have said, the final legislative form that the ballot arrangements will take has not yet been finally decided upon. Parliament has yet to reach a conclusion on all of these matters.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but we might as well know what we are talking about. There is a document of guidelines on grant-maintained status, but my reading of it is that it is not a set of guidelines to do with what I understood the noble Lord was talking about, which were the guidelines on balloting and in particular the specific points of this amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. The guidelines to which I have referred do not go into great detail on the question of the ballots for the very reason that I have explained, which is that Parliament has not yet decided upon the legislative form that those balloting arrangements will take.
After Royal Assent, by which time the form of the Bill will be decided, more detailed guidelines will be issued upon which all will be able to express their views. But I wish to explain to your Lordships why I think that, despite the fact that the final form of the guidance is not yet available, this amendment and this group of amendments is unnecessary.
478
The governing body is already required under the pupils' registration regulations to maintain details of parents against pupils' names on the admissions register. In future details of all parents will have to be included on the register. It is that register which will be used in order to obtain the necessary information about names of parents for the purpose of conducting ballots under Clause 59 of the Bill.
In general it will be up to the parents to make themselves known to the school. The duty of the governing body in this respect is not to go to the end of the earth to track down every person who might conceivably qualify as the parent of a registered pupil at the school. It is a duty simply:
"to take such steps as are reasonably practicable"
to contact those people known to them to be parents.
We accept that there will be cases occasionally where a question will arise as to whether a particular person is a parent for the purposes of Clause 59 of the Bill. But we believe that such cases will be very few and far between and we do not believe that any attempt to define "parent" comprehensively could ever totally eliminate them.
It is of course because there may be rare cases where a genuine question as to whether a person is a parent could arise that we have provided in subsection (4) of Clause 59 for the governing body to be able to decide such a question. And I must remind your Lordships that similar provisions were included in both the 1980 and 1986 (No. 2) Education Acts in the context of arrangements for parent governor elections without, to my knowledge, any particular problem being brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of' State. In earlier discussions we have drawn your Lordships' attention to subsections (7) to (9) of Clause 59, which are predicated on the basis of my right honourable friend's intention to issue guidance on the question of who is a parent for the purposes of this clause.
I turn to Amendment No. 42, which would give a vote to the director of social services of the local authority in a case where parental rights and duties are vested in the local authority through an order of the courts. The Government take the view that a statutory corporation such as a local authority is not and should not be a parent for the purposes of Clause 59 of the Bill. But that is beside the point. We see no need to set out a comprehensive definition of a parent in the legislation which would anticipate all possible circumstances.
Where a genuine question arises about who is a parent, it is for the governing body to determine the question in the light of the guidance provided by my right honourable friend. That is not to say that a child in care will be left unrepresented. Section 114 of the 1944 Act defines a parent as including a person who has actual custody of the child. In this case that person would normally be the head of the children's home.
Amendment No. 43 raises a different matter. It seeks to restrict the number of votes per family to no more than two. As we have said before, amendments of this kind raise at least as many issues as they solve. In particular, they fail to address the fact that occasionally a child can have more than two parents

479
with a strong interest in his or her educational future— for example, natural, divorced parents and a step-parent. It would be very difficult to say which of these had the greater right to vote in the ballot. I have no wish to exacerbate existing family divisions, but I believe that this amendment would do just that. But in any case, our Bill is about enhancing the rights and influence of parents, and I remain firmly convinced that we should cast the ballot in those terms. It will have become apparent that—
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Bill was about enhancing the rights of parents. We now understand the rights of parents, not the rights of children. Is that correct?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have explained very carefully the Government's view in this matter. As regards this provision, we believe that it is the views of the parents that should be pre-eminent. I believe that in the light of all those considerations, noble Lords will understand that these amendments are not acceptable to the Government. I recognise that we have a gap here which I fear is fairly wide and perhaps unbridgeable. It is a clear difference of perception between us, but 1 am afraid that the Government's position is firm.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I regret this position. I thought that the Government had some attitude to accept the general importance of Parliament. The Government are treating the House with total and utter contempt. They have done so throughout our consideration of the Bill. The Government have listened time after time to views expressed in particular from this side of the House, on many occasion from the Cross-Benches and on several occasions from the Government Benches put forward by noble Lords who disagree with the Government and who have some knowledge in matters of education. On almost every occasion the Government have said: "This is what is in our Bill. We shall not even answer your argument. We shall not attempt to answer your argument. We stick by the Bill." In my view, that is treating Members of the House with contempt.
With respect to the Minister, in dealing with Amendment No. 41 he has said that it is up to parents to register their parentage with school governors and not up to the governors to— I believe his words were— "seek out in every byway" those who are entitled to be parents. He therefore could not accept the amendment. Perhaps the Minister will read Amendment No. 41. It contains precisely the point which the Minister put forward as a reason for refusing to accept the amendment. The amendment states that a person will put himself on the register as a parent and state his claim to parentage. The amendment says nothing about asking governors to go out and search in byways. If we accept the amendment, there is no duty placed on governors to search anywhere in order to find out who the parents are. They will look at the register and the register will tell them who the parents are.
480
If the secret guidelines which the Government may issue are produced, the governors may act on that and say, "So-and-so is a parent and so-and-so is not because she claims to be an aunt or great-grandmother or whatever". My amendment makes it clear that each person claiming to be a parent must put his or her claim on a register. What is wrong with that? We have heard not one word from the Minister as to why that suggestion is not acceptable. That is what I mean by saying that the Government are treating the House with contempt.
If the Government do not like the idea of using the director of social services, as stated in Amendment No. 42, they should produce an alternative amendment. Our amendments were put down some time ago. Perhaps the Government would prefer to use the head of a children's home. How many votes would the head of a children's home have? If the children's home had 14 or 15 children, would the head of the home have one vote for those children, whereas another child might have six votes because he or she had step-parents? There has been no real answer from the Minister. Again the Government are treating the House with contempt. There has been no answer in principle as to why Amendment No. 43, saying that for any child there should be no more than two parents, is totally unacceptable to a Government who allegedly adhere to Victorian values.
9.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 65.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Mountevans, L.

Blackstone, B.

Peston, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Craigavon, V.

Russell, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Swann, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Longford. E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Beloff, L.

Carnegy of Lour. B.

Belstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Boardman, L.

Coleraine, L.

Borthwick, L.

Cox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

481

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dundee, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Perth, E.

Ferrers, E.

Prior, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Grantchester, L.

St. Germans, E.

Greenway, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinton, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Killearn, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Long, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trafford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trumpington, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mersey, V.

Wynford, L.

Morris, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.20 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 58, line 22, leave out ("and address").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I rise to move Amendment No. 44, which is a relatively minor amendment but nevertheless is evidence of our willingness to consider the arguments put to us. At Report stage my noble friend Lady Carnegy proposed an amendment to remove the requirement that proposals for a school to become grant-maintained must include the address of the head teacher. We made it clear that the Bill simply required an address where the head could be contacted and that this could be the school rather than the home address if the head so desired.
My noble friend argued, however, that in that case there seemed little point in requiring the inclusion of the address because everyone would know that the head could be contacted at the school. On reflection we have been persuaded of the force of this and agree that the offending words should be deleted. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for attending to this matter. In view of the discussion that we have just had on the previous amendment, I should like to remind noble Lords that the Front Bench strongly resisted eight or 10 amendments which I and my noble friend Lady Young tabled regarding the position of head teachers. I think that every single one of those points has eventually been met at a later stage. I am quite sure that head teachers all over the country will appreciate it very much indeed. I thank my noble friend.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Government and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. From her I learn the lesson
482
that if I have any amendments that I wish the Government to accept I know whom to approach on those Benches to act as my advocate. In due course I should still like to see some response by the Government to the amendments that I move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Transfer of property, etc., to governing body of grant-maintained school]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 71, line 37, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 45 and with your Lordships' permission I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 54, 57 and 121 at the same time. First, however, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the way to a Minister's heart as far as accepting amendments is concerned is to move amendments with merit rather than to persuade some noble Baroness or noble Lord on this side of the House to move them on his behalf.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the balance of knowledge on educational matters on this side of the House in comparison with the balance of knowledge on educational matters on his side of the House?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that that arises particularly on this amendment. I think it fair to say, however, that on educational matters almost every noble Lord considers himself to be an expert of one kind or another.
I turn to the amendments before your Lordships and first to Amendment No. 45. As I said, at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 54, 57 and 121. These are minor technical amendments. Amendment No. 45 removes the provision relating to the transfer of property held on trust by a local education authority to the governing body of a new grant-maintained school. Amendment No. 121 consolidates this provision with provisions elsewhere and moves these provisions to the general interpretation clause, Clause 232. Amendments Nos. 54 and 57 clarify the arrrangements for the disposal of property or money held on trust when a grant-maintained school is wound up.
I hope that with that explanation your Lordships will agree to these simple amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Religious education in former county schools]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 46 to 50:
Page 82, line I, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, in the case of a school to which this section applies the collective worship required in the school by section 6 of this Act shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.
(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, collective worship is of a broadly Christian character if it reflects the broad traditions of Christian belief without being distinctive of any particular Christian denominations.
(2B) Every act of collective worship required by section 6 of this Act in the case of a school to which this section applies need not comply with subsection (2) above provided that, taking any school term as a whole, most such acts which take place in the school do comply with that subsection.
(2C) Subject to subsections (2) and (2B) above—

(a) the extent to which (if at all) any acts of collective worship required by section 6 of this Act which do not comply with subsection (2) above take place in such a school;

(b) the extent to which any act of collective worship in such a school which complies with subsection (2) above reflects the broad traditions of Christian belief; and

(c) the ways in which those traditions are reflected in any such act of collective worship;

shall be such as may be appropriate having regard to any relevant considerations relating to the pupils concerned which fall to be taken into account in accordance with subsection (2D) below.
(2D) Those considerations are—

(a) any circumstances relating to the family backgrounds of the pupils concerned which are relevant for determining the character of the collective worship which is appropriate in their case; and

(b) their ages and aptitudes.").

Page 82, line 7, leave out ("such a school") and insert ("a school to which this section applies").
Page 82, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) That syllabus shall not provide for religious education to be given to pupils at such a school by means of any catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular religious denominations; but this provision is not to be taken as prohibiting provision in such a syllabus for the study of such catechisms or formularies.").
Page 82, line 47, at end insert—
("(11) References in this section to acts of collective worship in a school to which this section applies include references to any such act which under section 6 of this Act takes place otherwise than on the school premises.").
Clause 85, Page 84, line 49, leave out ("(10)") and insert ("(11)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendments Nos. 46 to 50 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 87 [Change of character or enlargement of grant-maintained school]:
Lord Stewart of Fulham Lord Stewart of Fulham moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 86, line 44, after ("may") insert ("by order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 51 are connected Amendments Nos, 86, 117 and 119. Their common feature is their concern with the relations between Parliament and the powers of the Secretary of State to act when making orders and regulations. This Bill has been subjected rightly to criticism for the degree of power that it gives the Secretary of State to do this, that and the other simply by writing something down on a piece of paper which will sometimes be subject to the later consideration of Parliament and sometimes not.
Amendment No. 51 deals with the question of grant-maintained schools. It is possible for a grant-maintained school to make a change in its status if it receives among other things the sanction of the Secretary of State. However, that sanction can be given or withheld by the Secretary of State without Parliament having any say in the matter. If the Secretary of State makes a decision agreeing to a
484
change in the status or nature of a grant-maintained school, as the Bill now stands that is the end of the matter. In this amendment it is proposed that that decision by the Secretary of State should be in the form of an order that can be prayed against in Parliament. I believe that this is important, because what happens to grant-maintained schools can make a very considerable difference to the general impact of the Bill.
Although the arrangements for grant-maintained schools do not carry out the hope first expressed by the Prime Minister that they will be able to become fee-paying schools— the Government have withdrawn from that position— one very possible development of the grant-maintained school is this. If it is situated in a rather better-off neighbourhood of a local authority area it will be in a position to increase that quality. It will determine that parents sending their children to that school will be better-off parents. In general, the school will be better provided for than others. This is not a desirable arrangement.
To talk of giving freedom of choice to parents when one is offering a choice between a better and a worse school is not a particularly valuable freedom. Moreover, there is the possibility that the status of a grant-maintained school may be used to turn the school into one where entry is by selective tests of ability. If that becomes a general practice it will make a serious difference in our education system— and a difference for the worst. It will reproduce all the evils that existed in the days of the 11-plus examination.
In moving this amendment we are saying that if this change is being made in the status of grant-maintained schools, Parliament and the nation ought to be aware of it. That will be achieved if the Secretary of State, on making a decision in favour of such a change in the nature of a grant-maintained school, has to do so in a manner that can be prayed against in the Houses of Parliament.
Amendment No. 86 deals with the extraordinary power with which the Secretary of State is endowed, again without any recourse to Parliament as the Bill now stands. In considering what to do when he has destroyed ILEA, the Secretary of State will have to lay down what the management structure of the education system is to be in those London boroughs which inherit ILEA's task. After laying down that he has the power to decide what the management structure shall be, there is a remarkable provision that he can forbid the appointment to the senior post of anyone whom he considers not to be a fit and proper person to fill that post. This is an extremely wide power. He is not required to give statements of his reasons why he thinks that the person is not a fit and proper person. It is merely his diktat, his statement that "this person is not in my opinion fit and proper" which can settle the matter. This could mean quite easily that anybody to whose politics the Secretary of State objects is prevented from holding a senior position in the educational structure of an inner London borough.
We are not going so far as to say that the Secretary of State ought not to have that power. But we are saying that if he exercises a power of such a formidable nature the exercise of it ought to be a matter that can come before Parliament to be prayed

485
against. I find it very difficult to see how anybody who believes in the liberty of individuals can object to that. I do not know of any other example where a Secretary of State has been given a power of this kind to tell local authorities that they may not appoint a certain person as he is not a fit and proper person. As the Bill now stands he can do that without any recourse to Parliament or being subject to any parliamentary criticism.
I beg the noble Viscount's pardon.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I said nothing.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I am sorry; I thought that the noble Viscount made a comment.
Amendment No. 117 deals with directions to the Universities Funding Council and the comparable body for the polytechnics. They are required, again in one of those sweeping phrases so common to the Bill, to comply with directions given to them by the Secretary of State. We are suggesting that this is a power of such scope that it ought not merely to be subject to the negative procedure of praying against it but ought to require the affirmative approval of Parliament for directions of that kind.
The Government have run into certain difficulties with the universities during the passage of the Bill. If they were prepared on this matter to accept a willingness and to make themselves subject in some degree to Parliament's scrutiny, I believe that would go some way towards healing the differences of opinion that have arisen between the Government and the universities.
I have mentioned these three matters. My noble friends who are to follow will enlarge on them and deal with one matter I have not mentioned; that is, Amendment No. 119, which deals with testing and assessment arrangements. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall comment briefly on two or three aspects of these amendments. I start with Amendment No. 86. Noble Lords will recall that when we were concerned about the abolition of the ILEA and the taking over of those educational functions by the individual boroughs as local education authorities, many of us on this side were worried about the ability of the local education authorities thus created to do the job. That was one of our arguments against the abolition of the ILEA.
However, we lost that argument and it is now all water under the bridge. We are now considering the individual boroughs themselves. I remember raising— and I believe other noble Lords also raised the issue again— the problems that will confront the individual boroughs as local education authorities. The reassurance we were given was that the Secretary of State and the DES would take an interest and would try to be helpful. The present Bill simply does not appear to be doing the job that we had in mind and about which I understood we had assurances from the Government, because its method of help is to have this veto power whereas the method of help we had in mind was something much more constructive. That is why we are extremely worried.
486
The other reason we are worried is on the political side because we have not heard in terms from Ministers that political considerations will not be relevant. If newspaper stories that we read are remotely near the truth the Government's concept of "political" seems to be slightly narrow, to say the least. I must make the point that, in my terms, simply disagreeing with the Government is not political. It is possible to disagree on grounds other than political difference. I know that Ministers often have difficulty in following that concept but I must assure them that there are other grounds for agreement and disagreement. To take an obvious example, it is possible to have different economic views and not to interpret them as being different political views. That is why the political point in respect of the amendment is of such importance.
Amendment No. 119 deals with the exclusion of testing from the negative procedures. I understand that the introduction of attainment targets and the programmes of study will be by negative order but that testing will be by statutory instrument made without a parliamentary resolution. I believe that noble Lords on this side of the House cannot understand the logic of that. In answer, the noble Baroness said that as regards assessment arrangements following the publication of the TGAT report there had been— to use her phrase— main consultation on all of that. I should like to press the Minister to tell the House a little more about the consultation that has taken place; at least about the consultation that the department believes has taken place. So far as we know, there has not been a great deal of consultation. If that is so then the Government's view on not subjecting the testing arrangements to negative procedures is most unsatisfactory.
I am well aware that such points could occupy the House for a long period but I have no desire to do that. However, I should like to have some kind of response to each of the amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I believe that the fallacy that lies behind the argument for the amendments is the view specifically stated by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, that if one does not have to take the decisions by statutory instrument Parliament can do nothing about it. That is a complete fallacy. If the Secretary of State or any other Minister does something wrong it is perfectly possible for either House of Parliament to hold him to account. If he does something wrong, and scandalously wrong, it can be drawn to the attention of a local Member of another place or one of your Lordships. Through ordinary parliamentary proceedings, perhaps beginning with a parliamentary Question, it is perfectly possible to challenge a decision and bring it before Parliament. It is a fallacy to try to contrast decisions which have been taken by statutory instrument as therefore being subject to parliamentary control and decisions which do not require that as being immune from it.
Perhaps it is easier to look at the matter on its merits. If the merits are bad, as they could be— the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, was hinting that they could be— it is morally certain that the matter will be raised in either House. The Minister concerned will

487
be held to account and must defend himself. As the noble Lord knows, one can go much further. There can be motions of censure on the Minister if the offence is gross.
On the other hand, simply adding to the large number of statutory instruments which are solemnly put on the Order Paper and never looked at— the vast majority receive no attention— does not make any practical difference. I have at least as much enthusiasm as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, for parliamentary control of the administration. However, I suggest that his proposal will not help that.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I should like to put forward one or two sentences in support of the amendments. I do so because an important principle is involved. It is the supremacy of the legislature over the executive; in other words, Parliament controlling the Government. In the Bill the Government are proposing to take, and will take, over 300 new powers (I do not know the latest count) which were previously in the hands of the schools or the local authorities. This is without any doubt the biggest piece of centralising legislation in my 37 years in Parliament and probably the biggest ever in peacetime in this country. Therefore, it is a matter of some considerable importance.
In these three or four cases the Minister is taking new powers. We are not suggesting that he should not have those powers. All we suggest is that they should be subject to a parliamentary veto because they all involve the freedom of the individual in one way or another, and that makes them into a very important and sensitive category of new powers which the Government are taking. Perhaps I may repeat we are not proposing to take those powers away from the Minister. All we say is that they should be subject to parliamentary veto.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we are also deeply concerned about the accumulation of powers in the hands of the Secretary of State in this Bill and the excessive centralisation which goes with it.
In passing, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that surely he would agree— although being Third Reading he cannot— that prevention is better than cure. He has said that if the Secretary of State does something ghastly then a Member of Parliament will take it up but by that time the Secretary of State will have acted. If the order has to be laid before Parliament, the action can be avoided, which is surely desirable.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may just begin with a general observation about the basis of grant-maintained status. We would not for a moment accept that that is some sort of privileged status because the only privilege which grant-maintained schools will have will be the freedom to run their own affairs and to provide the education which they think best for their children. They will not be funded any more generously than they would have been had they
488
remained with their local education authority. They will maintain the character which they had as local authority schools and will continue to form part of the local system serving local people.
Their admission arrangements will have to be agreed with the Secretary of State and will have to be in keeping with their character, so that, for example, a comprehensive school must continue to admit across the ability range. Any parent not satisfied with the admission arrangements would be able to use the statutory appeals procedure. Of course education at grant-maintained schools will continue to be provided free.
Against that background, perhaps I may address the specific amendments. Amendment No. 51 would require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by order to reject, approve or modify proposals submitted to him by a governing body to change the character or enlarge the premises of a grant-maintained school. By virtue of Clause 229(1) an order will have to be exercised by statutory instrument and laid before Parliament.
Under the existing provisions of this clause a grant-maintained school wishing to make such a change would be required to go through a public statutory procedure corresponding to that required for similar changes at LEA-maintained schools. All interested parties would have the right to put forward objections to or comments upon the governors' proposals, and my right honourable friend would be required to take these into account in deciding whether to approve the change.
I cannot see that submitting my right honourable friend's determination, whatever that may be, to the further consideration of Parliament by negative resolution would enhance the existing provisions. It would, on the other hand, add considerably to the bureaucracy and the length of time the processing of such proposals inevitably takes.
Amendment No. 86 would require my right honourable friend if he were to prohibit an appointment to an inner London LEA to do so by means of statutory instrument. That was not the method set out in the 1944 Act— and for good reason. The intention, as was made clear on Report, was that a borough would send to the Secretary of State for clearance a short list of candidates. In the unlikely event that the Secretary of State directed that one of the candidates was not a fit person to take on the duties of director of education, it would be rather odd for that person to have to be named in an order before he or she had been interviewed. It would also cause unnecessary delay and with little corresponding benefit in terms of protection for the individual concerned. The processes of administrative law can of course be brought to bear if it were to be believed that the Secretary of State had acted unreasonably.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, will not mind if I remind him that when he was the distinguished Secretary of State for Education he had just such a power under the 1944 Act. Under Section 88 he could veto the appointment of any chief education officer in the land. LEAs had to send to the noble Lord— the right honourable gentleman as he then was— a short list in each case. It is not, therefore,

489
such an extraordinary power. In this case it is limited, first, to the inner London boroughs when they become LEAs and, secondly, for a period of no more than five years.
I turn now to Amendment No. 117. Under Clause 132 the Secretary of State is empowered to confer additional functions on the UFC or PCFC. He is also empowered to give directions to the councils. However, both powers must be exercised by order. By virtue of Clause 229(4)(b) of the Bill such orders are subject to negative resolution of either House. This amendment seeks to make any direction subject to affirmative resolution. I believe that is unnecessary. If either a supplementary function or direction was at all controversial, of course it should be a matter of public interest and parliamentary debate. The negative resolution procedure is perfectly adequate for that.
During the passage of the Bill noble Lords and, indeed, honourable Members and right honourable Members in the other place, universities and other higher education institutions, demonstrated their alertness to parliamentary business concerning higher education. I have no doubt that that will continue once the funding councils have been set up.
The Government fully accept the need for parliamentary accountability in this respect. We have fully met it by requiring that the Secretary of State's powers to confer supplementary functions and to give directions should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and concurrence through the negative resolution procedure. Affirmative rather than negative resolution is, I believe, a needless reinforcement of that and I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
I now turn to the final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 119. We have debated on a number of occasions the case for treating orders governing assessment arrangements on all fours with those setting out attainment targets and programmes of study. I believe your Lordships have been convinced on each occasion by the very different nature of the assessment orders and the need to treat them accordingly. The subject matter to which assessment will relate, the attainment targets and programmes of study laid down by orders under Clause 4(2)(a) and (b) will be subject to the negative resolution under this clause and the principles on which the assessment arrangements are to be based are largely those recommended by TGAT, which have been widely debated and have received general support.
These orders will be technical in nature, setting out the arrangements for teacher assessment and test administration and listing the assessment and testing instruments which schools will apply towards the end of each of the key stages. These arrangements will be developed by bodies with proven knowledge and will have been piloted with expert advice. The detailed arrangements may vary from year to year as additional instruments are devised. It would not be appropriate for such orders to be subject to wide consultation and even less for them to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We should concentrate our efforts on ensuring that the objectives are clearly set out subject by subject and that the programmes of
490
study are defined in a way which gives teachers a clear, not a confusing, framework. Technical details of the precise assessment instruments are not appropriate subjects for the parliamentary process and I hope that the amendments will therefore not be pressed.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I cannot allow myself to be persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Towards the end of his speech he seemed to reach the point of saying that the less legal parliamentary control there was, the more actual control there would be. He argued that if you did not have the duty either to get an affirmative resolution or to pray against orders, there would be so much fuss made in Parliament that you would actually lose by having to go through either the affirmative or negative procedure.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, perhaps I may just finish this point. I was left feeling that if all that is true, why has Parliament bothered to provide for affirmative or negative procedures at all?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the second question asked by the noble Lord is a long one and I shall take a long time to answer. It depends upon the importance of the subject matter. Parliament has taken the view that matters above a certain degree of general importance should he subject to these procedures.
I have had the pleasure of having my arguments misinterpreted by the noble Lord for a great many years, as he will recall. I did not say that it would make it easier to deal with misconduct by the Minister if there were no such procedure as statutory instrument. I said that it was not necessary because his argument had been that, unless you had it, there was no parliamentary sanction or control. If the noble Lord looks at Hansard he will see that he said that several times. All that I did was to point out to him that Parliament has many resources for calling Ministers to account quite independent of statutory instruments and that simply piling up the number of orders that had to be circulated in the lists, in the hope that someone might be looking through them, was not going to be the effective check that he thought it was. The really effective check is the fact that in this House and in another place Ministers who do wrong things can be and are held to account.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I think that the argument now advanced is that Parliament has felt that you must look at the importance of the matter, and that helps you to decide whether you have—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Public importance.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: That helps to decide whether you have the affirmative or the negative procedure, or indeed no procedure at all. I tried to make the point with regard to each of these amendments that they are matters of public importance. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord

491
Trefgarne pointed out, that a grant-maintained school will not be better treated to begin with in regard to public funds. It is very likely to be the kind of school that benefits from gifts from better-off parents. It will become increasingly the kind of school that attracts that kind of parent and will become gradually separated, socially and economically, from the other schools. I regard this as a matter of considerable public importance. I would say the same about the other amendments.
The answer from the Minister was the usual thing: you must not have too many checks on the Minister because that is bureaucratic and will waste time. This is the regular argument of people who want to move towards an unparliamentary system of government— that the attempts to put checks on the executive are bureaucratic, a waste of time and all the rest of it. I do not think we can accept that. Nor do I feel disposed to accept the general position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who finds in every case a reason for not doing what is suggested by the Opposition. As mentioned by my noble friend, the Government always have some reason why they will not accept an amendment coming from the Opposition. I think that we have had enough of this, and I should like to test the opinion of the House on the amendment.
9.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 56.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

492

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Flowers, L.

Glenamara, L.

Russell, E.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Swann, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Longford, E.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

White, B.

Mountevans, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Peston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Hesketh, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Beavcrhrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beloff, L.

Killearn, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnock, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Prior, L.

Coleraine, L.

Renton, L.

Cox, B.

St. Germans, E.

Craigavon, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Swinfen, L.

Dundee, E.

Swinton, E.

Eccles, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Elton, L.

Trafford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Glenarthur,L.

Trumpington, B.

Grantchester, L.

Vaux of Harrowden. L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.2 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the next amendment is taken, I should like to ask the Government Chief Whip a question in the light of what I asked earlier today. What is his proposal concerning consideration of the remainder of the Third Reading and the debate that the Bill do now pass? It is now 10 o'clock and the House should rise at 11 o'clock.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for being able to make a firm statement only at this time. The time has now come when a firm statement must be made. There were a number of options before us. We were hoping, first, that we would finish the whole Third Reading stage of the Bill, including the debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. That clearly became unrealistic an hour or two ago. The second option was to finish the amendments to the Bill by about 11 o'clock, when two alternatives would have presented themselves; first, to carry on with the debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass; and, secondly, to adjourn the debate on the Motion until the next day. Even that second option is now no longer available to us. The only option we have is to finish the Bill tonight, which would mean vacating tomorrow's business. We have to take this decision now because it would be only fair to get in touch with noble Lords who were to have taken part in the debate tomorrow. They have been told that any decision would be passed to them at 10 o'clock. I must say to the House that, with regret, we must vacate tomorrow's business. The debate due for tomorrow, which was originally to have been held next Friday, will probably have to go back again to next Friday. I must apologise to the House but a decision must now be made.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that statement. I am quite certain that the decision must now be made, as noble Lords must be aware of the progress of business. When we discussed this earlier my noble friend Lord Cledwyn pointed out that it was likely that two days would be needed for Third Reading and the debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords, I know that has been said. It would have been a very unusual step to have two days for the Third Reading of a Bill. As I said at the beginning of business today, amendments on Third Reading are usually of a minor nature, giving the Government an opportunity to meet arguments that had been made earlier in the process of the Bill. I am afraid that no option is now left and I hope that we shall be able to complete the amendments on the Bill as expeditiously as possible.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the light of the discussions and exchanges we had previously, I must express my deep concern and dismay that this House may sit late or even all night again.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, as a Back-Bencher, I must protest against the option that the Chief Whip has accepted. It means that the final debate in this House on the Bill— when we have discussed the whole Bill as it has emerged— will be held in the
494
middle of the night. I think that this is most unfair, especially in view of the high average age of your Lordships, although perhaps, if I may say so, not the noble Lords who are present here now. I think it is most unfair that an important Bill of this kind, which is really four Bills in one, should be treated in this way. It is, as I said before on certain amendments, typical of the Government's handling of the Bill throughout. It is a contempt of Parliament by this Government that the Motion that the Bill pass should be taken in the middle of the night. I protest against it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to protest. The whole handling of the Bill has, in our view, been extremely unsatisfactory and this is just a culmination of a very bad phase.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I must say to the House— I think I shall get support on this alone— that we have a great deal of freedom in this Chamber in putting down amendments to a Bill at this stage which is denied to Members of another place. We have no selection of amendments; we have no timetable and we have no guillotine. It is a freedom that the House greatly values, but it is a freedom that sometimes has to be paid for, by possibly sitting rather later than we would normally do. In saying that, I must apologise for any inconvenience that the House has caused for the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and the others who have complained.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the Government Chief Whip explain to us why we cannot adjourn at around 11 o'clock this evening and finish the Bill tomorrow? If we are going to lose tomorrow's business in any event, why not deal with this Bill in a civilised and intelligent manner?
Perhaps I may ask him a supplementary question. Is he giving us a firm assurance that the debate which was to have been held tomorrow— I am one of those who would be inconvenienced, but I put it no higher than that— will be taken next week? I should like to know if he is giving us a firm decision— because we have had no decisions about the business that we can rely upon— that tomorrow's business will be tabled for tomorrow week.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I can give a firm undertaking to the House that time will be found for tomorrow's business. I think it looks like being tomorrow week. However, my difficulty is that the Opposition Chief Whip and I were due to meet to discuss the matter about one minute after the time that the Division bell rang. Therefore that discussion was pre-empted by the Division bell. In my view, the noble Lord quite rightly thought that it was only fair to the House that an announcement should be made. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss the finer points of detail. However, I shall be meeting the noble Lord immediately after this and I hope to make a further announcement fairly soon.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I still cannot understand why we cannot adjourn at 11 o'clock and then carry on with this business tomorrow. Surely that is the sensible way of dealing with the situation.
Lord Denham: My Lords, these matters are discussed through the usual channels. This particular discussion has taken place and I think it is a mistake to discuss business of this kind on the Floor of the House.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, no! We are entitled to discuss the matter. We are the people who are sitting here and who will have to go on through the night. Surely we should be consulted on something as important as this.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may just say that some Members of the House have other duties tomorrow.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the point that the noble Earl has just made is very apposite. Therefore I think it would be possibly even more inconvenient for many people if we did not finish the Bill tonight.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that when he comes to discuss the matter in a few minutes with my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip, that is one of the matters they will consider; that is, the possibility of sitting tomorrow?
Lord Denham: My Lords, of course I am prepared to discuss any possibility with the noble friend of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. However, I cannot make any firm statement on the matter now.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not know whether those of us who are doing the work are allowed to speak on this matter. I hope that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip will bear in mind that some of us are finding this extremely hard work and are anxious to do it properly. I for one should find it easier to do it properly at 11 a.m. tomorrow rather than being hurried tonight and being under undue pressure. I know that the noble Lord the Chief Whip has to take all matters into account. I am not pressing him for an answer now. The point made by my noble friend Lord Taylor is one that must be taken seriously. We have worked hard on the Bill from the very first day, and it would be a pity to ruin it at this late stage.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as Back-Benchers are taking part in this discussion, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it would be possible to debate how we resolve this matter all night. The purpose of restricting the discussions to the usual channels is that the respective Chief Whips take the views of their respective Back Benchers. They will dispose of the matter much more quickly in the Prince's Chamber than we can do now.
Clause 92 [Winding up]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 92, line 44, leave out from ("any") to ("used") in line 46 and insert ("interest belonging to the governing body or held by any trustees on trust for the purposes of the school in any dwelling-house").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 53, 55 and 56. They are purely technical amendments. They clarify the definition of "school premises" for the purposes of property disposal by a grant-maintained school which is being wound up. I hope that with that modest explanation your Lordships will be able to agree to the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, these are technical amendments. They are some of the 73 amendments, not all of them technical, which the Government have enrolled for Third Reading. It is perhaps worthy of note that more than half of the amendments that we have to consider at this stage of the Bill are government amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 92, line 47, leave out ("teacher") and insert ("person employed to work").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Disposal of school property]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 94, line 8, after ("concerned") insert ("beneficially").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments No. 55 and 56:
Page 95, line 3, after ("premises") insert ("(including any interest in a dwelling-house such as is mentioned in section 92(7)(b)(ii) of this Act)").
Page 95, line 9, at end insert—
("(13A) Nothing in any provision included in an order under section 92 of this Act by virtue of this section shall affect any interest or right of any person in, to or over any school property which is held by that person otherwise than for the purposes of the school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 94 [Surplus money and investments]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 95, line 32, at end insert—
("(2A) Without prejudice to the power of the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above, any payment of money or transfer of investments under this section shall be free of any trusts on which the money or investments are held by the governing body before the payment or transfer is made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has likewise already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Discharge, transfer and termination of liabilities, etc.]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 58, 59, 60 and 61:
Page 95, line 46, leave out ("property") and insert ("premises").

497
Page 95, line 47, leave out ("the school") and insert ("those").
Clause 97, page 100, line 19, leave out ("property") and insert ("premises").
Page 100, line 20, leave out ("the school") and insert ("those").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments are all technical amendments which ensure that where school premises have been transferred these clauses concerning the recovery of public investment will bite. There is no need for all school property to be transferred. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 102 [Interpretation of Chapter IV]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 66:
Page 105, line 3, leave out ("and").
Page 105, line 12, at end insert ("; and
(j) references in relation to such a school, to school property include, in the case of such property as is mentioned in section 92(7)(b)(iii) of this Act, references to any right to such property.").
Page 105, line 25, leave out ("such a school") and insert ("a grant-maintained school").
Page 105, line 28, after ("in") insert ("or easement, right or charge in, to or over").
Page 106, line 12, column 2, at end insert ("and subsection (1)(j) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are purely technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 67:
Before Clause 103, insert the following new clause:
("Local education authorities duty in respect of special education.
In the 1981 Act the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4) of section 2—
"(4)(a) It shall he the duty of every local education authority—

(i) to prepare and publish within twelve months of the coming into force of this Act a scheme for ensuring that special education provision is made for any child for whom they are responsible who may have special educational needs;

(ii) to ensure that such scheme provides for such children to be educated in ordinary schools or further education provision wherever practicable;

(iii) to ensure that such scheme is regularly reviewed and kept up to date so as to take account of changing circumstances;

(iv) to submit such scheme to the Secretary of State for his approval on first preparation and from time to time as it is revised.

(b) The Secretary of State shall have a duty, after consultation with all relevant interests, to issue guidance to local education authorities setting out the matters to which they shall have regard in drawing up their schemes for ensuring that special educational provision is made for any child for whom they are responsible who may have special educational needs, and establishing standards of good practice for local education authorities." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithful! and Lady Warnock. The noble Baronesses cannot be present tonight, though they would have liked to be here to support the amendment.
Although this amendment is starred today, it has had a slightly ill-starred history in this House in that it was the very first or among the first of the amendments to be tabled in Committee. Unfortunately I was not well at the Committee stage and the amendment was therefore not moved. When I moved it on Report, the noble Baroness was, for perfectly understandable reasons, not able to give me a reply. She very kindly indicated that she would expect me to raise the matter again on Third Reading, which I do now.
I wish to say at the outset that I am deeply grateful to the Government for the concessions they have already made or indicated in regard to special educational needs. This amendment is designed not so much for the detail of the delivery of special educational needs as to provide a structure for the schemes which must be set up on a local education authority basis. It is subject to the guidance which I believe the Secretary of State must give to those local education authorities; otherwise the result will inevitably fall short of the wishes of all of us.
I wish to explain the amendment very briefly and say why I think it fits in with the general philosophy of the Bill. For instance, in Committee in another place on 8th March the Parliamentary Secretary seemed wholeheartedly to associate himself with this in the debate on what was then the new Clause 19. That discussion was about the value of the role of local education authorities in exercising a positive management function on special education. Again, I do not believe that it is against the policy of the Government. It must be in the swim of the Government's policy, when they have taken so many powers themselves, for this amendment to give power to the Secretary of State. He would have the power to formulate, as it were, a code of guidance for the LEAs on special educational need and for the local education authorities to have regard to the Secretary of State's advice or guidance.
I believe that this amendment, which I am putting forward together with my colleagues from all round the House, is in the spirit of the Bill, both as regards its mechanics and, in the use of the word "scheme", as regards the formulation of schemes and the overriding guidance of the Secretary of State. The intention is to ensure that all local authorities make schemes, publish the schemes, alter them from time to time and submit them to the Secretary of State so that he can give guidance on them.
All that is very roughly what is said precisely in the amendment. I certainly do not want to press this amendment. I do not want to take the time at this stage because my main purpose in moving it is to elicit a reasoned reply from the noble Baroness. It may be that the wording is not perfect. It may be that the amendment could contain further provisions. For instance, as I mentioned at the Report stage, it could well to advantage contain provision for local education authorities to co-operate with each other. I hope they will do that in any case. But it does not do so because that was not in my mind nor in the minds of my colleagues when the amendment was drafted. The fact is that the amendment provides the structure for the delivery of special educational needs, and that is its whole purpose.
If the noble Baroness could indicate that the Government were broadly in agreement with the provision and that, although they cannot accept the amendment as drafted, they could perhaps bring in something on the lines of this amendment by regulation after the passing of this Bill, I should be very happy indeed. In the hope of eliciting that kind of answer, I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, of course I recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and the co-sponsors of this amendment. That concern is shared by the Government. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said on Report and to what he said today.
Perhaps I could set out the present law. Section 8 of the Education Act 1944 gives local education authorities a duty to secure that there shall be sufficient schools available for their area. In carrying out this duty they must have regard:
"to the need for securing that special educational provision is made for pupils who have special educational need".
That description, by the way, includes not only the small minority for whom the local authority makes statements but the larger though still minority group— Warnock's one in six— who may have special needs. Section 2(4) of the 1981 Act requires local education authorities to keep their arrangements for special educational provision under review.
Under the 1981 Act, governors of schools maintained by local education authorities have a duty to secure that, if a pupil in the school has special educational needs, the special educational provision that is required for him is made. The present Bill extends that duty to the governors of grant-maintained schools by Schedule 12, paragraph 26.
The amendment here proposed would add nothing of substance to the existing duties of local education authorities to secure provision and keep it under review. But I have to say that it would add to the number of bits of paper that local education authorities produce. It would also add to the amount of correspondence between local education authorities and the Department of Education and Science.
I fear that it would result in the kind of bureaucracy we all seek to avoid, without necessarily improving the provision made in the schools. Most particularly, it would divert the time of local education authority officers away from the real job of providing for the individual children.
Finally, the new Clause would require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local education authorities on the principles which would guide their schemes, and for the publication of guidance on good practice. Examples of good practice are always valuable and successive Ministers have looked to the support they get from HM Inspectorate and others in offering such guidance, not least in the area of special needs. I can certainly undertake to continue to do that. Examples of good practice will continue to be sought and will
500
be published. Moreover, guidance will be issued in good time in advance of the implementation of the Act.
However, the spirit of the Education Act 1981 concentrates not on general standards of provision but provision to meet the needs of the individual child. This means that there needs to be a great deal of flexibility in the arrangements made by local education authorities, and I do not think that this proposal contributes to that objective. So in accepting the spirit of this amendment, I must reiterate that it is our view that existing requirements already offer sufficient safeguards. I hope that the noble Lord, as he has indeed indicated, will not press his new clause.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Clearly the intention of the amendment was to spell out and amplify the provisions of the 1981 Act. However, I accept what the Minister has said. She has made it clear that the intention of the amendment is fulfilled by the provisions of the 1981 Act and that local education authorities already have the duty which the amendment desires to provide for them.
In addition, the Minister mentioned that the Secretary of State fully intends to issue guidance as provided for in paragraph (b) of the amendment. That being the case, I am of course willing to withdraw the amendment. I shall only say that the difference between the amendment and what the Minister has said about the issuing of guidance is that the amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State, whereas all we have— it is very welcome—is the Minister's undertaking that the Secretary of State will provide that guidance. Having noted that difference, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 103 [Agreements for establishment, etc. of city technology colleges]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 106, line 30 [shown as line 12], after ("or) insert ("either—(i)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 to 71 and 102. These amendments will not bring with them any great changes within the CTC programme. They respond to an amendment tabled at Report stage by my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley.
Like CTCs, city colleges for the technology of the arts will be required to implement the substance of the national curriculum. They will also equally involve sponsors from industry in the running of schools. The two types of college will be entirely complementary. Both will emphasise technology. Both will emphasise the importance of preparing young people effectively for their adult lives and for jobs in industries increasingly dominated by new and changing technologies.
But the colleges which might emerge if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young of

501
Dartington, were accepted would be very different. They would have no curricular emphasis on science and technology or on the application of technology to the creative and performing arts. These are central to the CTC programme. We would lose this common critical element and divert efforts from the central purposes of the Government's CTC initiative if we were to extend the programme in the way advocated by the noble Lord. I therefore urge the House to reject the noble Lord's amendment.
The arts industries are faced with the need to implement rapidly changing technologies. These are, however, creating new job opportunities particularly relevant to young people. We believe it is right to enable this industry to play a full part in the development of the CTC programme.
The CTC programme continues to make excellent progress. Announcements of new CTCs have been made recently and more will follow. Over £ 20 million is being raised by private sponsors. That will continue. These government amendments will enable further growth of the programme and I urge the House to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the amendment that she has tabled on behalf of the Government. I am gratified that my little mouse of an amendment, which was moved at Report stage, has been transformed into a mountain by the technical efficiency with which the present amendment has been drafted. Thanks to my noble friend, it has become the mouse that roared. It is a transformation scene for which I am grateful.
I welcome the strengthening of the role of the arts in education, which is the whole point of the amendment. It matters not, as far as I am concerned, that it strengthens the idea of the city technology college as such, although that is a thought that at Report stage succeeded in igniting the noble Lord, Lord Peston, into an incandescent rage which caused everyone present great surprise. The point is that the noble Lord was not looking at the merits of the amendment as such. He so hated the idea of city technology colleges that he did not want to see them improved in any way.
The other and more constructive point of view was put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who made it quite clear that she did not particularly like the idea of the CTCs but that she would rather see a better version than a worse one. I think that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take.
I would have preferred to see a school for the performing arts as such. We have European schools, after all, which emphasise European issues and policies but which also have a general curriculum. It would have been a very good thing to have an arts school or schools following a general curriculum but giving to those who manifest talent and interest in the arts at an early stage an opportunity to develop that talent.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to have been enough cash from sponsorship for that purpose. About £ 1·5 million would be needed and the amount of money that was promised came nowhere near that sum. I hope that a sponsor will be found for that
502
college, or school as it in fact is, in its new form. The concept of technical, or technical and arts, colleges is to build a new bridge between the public and private sector. That, I think, is a good thing. Although one could call such a school elitist, it offers a new opportunity to a certain number of children within the educational system. It is for that reason that I hope that noble Lords will support this government amendment whatever side of the House they happen to sit on. It opens up a new opportunity for children to appreciate what is after all our most precious inheritance, the arts.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, following upon what the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, has said, I should like to give the government amendment a moderate welcome and also speak in support of my own amendment, Amendment No. 71. It is not that I like city technology colleges, but I should dislike them less if those new colleges were not to be confined to science and technology alone. I am hoping against hope that even at this hour it may be possible to persuade the Minister to take a more broad-minded view and go a little further than the amendment in her name.
I have argued at every stage of the Bill that there is a case for more variety in schools so that parents and children can have more choice. I have always given as examples of the schools we need but do not have schools with a bias towards the performing and the creative arts. That is a reason for being glad that the Government have taken one step. albeit such a small step, towards greater variety by proposing the setting up of new schools, not just in technology, but in technology in its application to the performing and creative arts. But why such a narrow and narrow-minded extension? Technology in the arts is important: film, television, video and so on are important. But technology in the arts is much less important than the arts themselves.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Young of Dartington: To circumscribe in this way is to recognise on the face of the Bill that the arts matter, but only if they are pulled along by the chariot of technology, secondary and subservient. That in itself is to denigrate the arts. It means that there could be no schools like Cheetham secondary school in Manchester which specialises in music and which has been so flourishing unless presumably the whole emphasis in such a school was on electronic music which would be absurd. There would be no new visual arts school like the Arts Secondary School which used to flourish in Manchester unless it were devoted to the chemistry of pigmentation or the optics of colour or some such matters; and presumably no ballet schools at all. I do not see how technology can be allied to the ballet in a way that would bring it within what the Government are proposing.
A noble Lord: Robots, my Lords!
Lord Young of Dartington: Yes, robots. Not many of us would want to attend Covent Garden to see a performance of robots.
My last plea to the noble Baroness leads to a submission that the Government would be making an ass of themselves if they were to support the arts but only on the back of technology as though the arts were thoroughly secondary and subservient, whereas here in this very small amendment— if only they were ready to accept it— they would be recognising that the arts have and should have a central place, and that new schools could be set up which would have a bias toward the performing and creative arts as well as those which have a bias toward technology.
I submit that it is a considerable opportunity. I hope that the noble Baroness at this late hour will feel herself able to accept it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I hope that I shall not get into the incandescent fury about which the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, spoke. I have a difficulty in that I do not recollect my noble friend glowing incandescent. He can occasionally be firm in his views. Indeed, I hear him whisper that he was incandescent. I regret that I did not see it.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would give way. It was indeed a pyrotechnic display. It was like seeing an extinct volcano suddenly erupt.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I regret that I did not see that resumption of life. The "mouse" of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, perhaps was suggested and certainly has been welcomed by the Government at a very late stage in the Bill giving us no time to consider this aspect. It is totally absurd that we should be considering such a radical departure at this very late stage.
I suggest that these amendments represent a further departure from the Government's original conception of the city technology colleges. It is perhaps typical of the Government that the amendments have been published without even the cursory description of a curriculum content and the allocation of time to various subjects which was available in the original publicity booklet, presumably now totally out of date, called A new choice of school.
Apparently it is the case that the Government are making desperate, obvious and rather tawdry efforts to secure sponsorship from one part of the industrial and commercial world to try to conceal the total failure of the original concept to attract other than a relatively modest level of support. The changes that the Government have made to the CTC ground rules are striking. The principal ones are the heavy Treasury support for capital as opposed to revenue costs and the extension of the permitted locations of CTCs from inner city areas to any urban areas. Even as a Scot, I was rather surprised to find suggestions that inner city areas include Croydon and Solihull; but this is perhaps the rather surprising education in the geography of England that I have to come to expect.
504
There is the abandonment of the new Bill principle in favour of trying to persuade local education authorities to give up existing and functioning schools, and some of them seem to be successful schools such as Riverside and Aske's. The total sponsorship that they have secured from industry is little more than £ 20 million. I suggest that this is a clear verdict on the whole concept given by industry. Companies prefer to direct their investment in education, which local authorities greatly welcome, into proposals that benefit children across an authority's area. One example is the London compact. A more recent one is a project sponsored by Northumberland local education authority and British Gas, whereby local companies are being asked to donate between £ 5,000 and £ 25,000 of equipment each year for five years to schools in the county. In that way it is hoped to raise a total of between £ 400 and £ 500 each year for each local authority in the North-East.
The companies would be asked to provide training in the schools as well as industrial placements of the teachers. The schools would ensure that learning targets were met; for example, in information technology. The intention is that all secondary pupils would benefit, not just a selected few. I suggest that that is the total concept, the basis of the CTCs. They are not a new opportunity based on the curriculum needs of particular pupils. They are a return to selection, and the diversion of resources to the favoured minority. That is the reason that we oppose these amendments.
Lord McNair: My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word in support of the amendment to the amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, and a general word on the question of technology, about which I am profoundly suspicious.
I am not certain about the position under Clause 103, and even less so about these colleges. After all, what is technology? It is the study of skills. It teaches you know-how but it does not teach you know-what. If one goes to one of the technology of art colleges one will learn how to do all kinds of things but it is only the artist who knows what to do.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, is satisfied with what he appears to have got out of the Government. I very strongly prefer what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, is asking for.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should very much like to support what my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna has said. I should also like to defend my noble friend Lord Peston. He is by no means an extinct volcano; he erupts very effectively on many occasions when the circumstances require it, and I think that this is one of those occasions.
However, I wish to focus in particular on one aspect of the points that were made by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. In doing so, I speak as a very strong supporter of the arts and of arts education. If one considers the current provision of arts education in our secondary schools I believe it is

505
something of which we can be relatively proud. There are areas of the curriculum in secondary education in this country that are not well covered. Arts education is not one of those. It is something that we do rather well compared with many other countries. At the same time we are now seeing the introduction of a national curriculum which will constrain the provision of arts education. It has caused a great deal of concern to the Arts Council, which has made various representations on this issue.
We shall see dance and drama— two very important performing arts— excluded from the national curriculum. I therefore find it rather odd that on the one hand the Government should be reducing the availability of scope for teachers to develop arts education, in particular in the performing arts, and at the same time that they should be introducing a new institution (with the oddest title for a school that I have ever heard) to specialise, it appears, in arts education. Surely there is some inconsistency here. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Government are doing one thing with one hand and something quite different with the other in proposing to set up these new institutions.
Before an amendment issued at this very late stage is agreed to, surely we need much more information about it. How many of these new institutions will there be? Is the purpose of this amendment simply to allow Mr. Richard Branson partially to fund a school in Croydon; or is it, as we are told in the newspapers, to allow hundreds of these institutions to be set up? I believe that the House deserves some indication of what the Government's intentions are here.
Can the noble Baroness also tell us how the pupils of this new institution are to be selected? Is geographical proximity to be the basis for selection, or is it to be ability or talent? Again I believe these are very important questions. But most important of all is what on earth these institutions are to teach. What degree of specialisation is entailed? The noble Baroness referred to the substance of the national curriculum being covered. Will she perhaps elaborate a little on what that means?
What expenditure from public funds is to be involved? What is the balance to be between private and public funding for these institutions? Last of all I should very much like her to answer this question. Why are we not strengthening arts education in existing schools? Surely that would be more consistent with the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, than what we are presented with here. Can we have answers to all these questions before we go any further?
10.45 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, the noble Baroness who has just spoken raised the question of this very odd name, a college of technology, and its application to the performing and creative arts— not a college studying the performing and creative arts, nor a college apparently studying technology, but a college devoted to the study of the application of technology to the performing and creative arts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, used an expression while she was speaking— I cannot
506
remember the exact wording but she suggested that technology was playing an increasing part in the arts and that this was providing employment. I wish we could hear a little more about that. The more I think about it the harder I find it to picture anything that can be described as the application of technology to the performing and creative arts. However, I can think of something, but the odd thing is that it is about 23 centuries out of date.
In classical Greek drama one finds striking examples of the application of technology to the performing and creative arts. The essence of a Greek drama was that it was a religious service and that consequently the persons of the actors were sacred. One could not knock them about or knock them down in the course of the play. If anybody was to be killed in the course of the action it had to be done behind the scenes. The audience could hear that something was happening, but they could not see any fisticuffs. It would be a good idea if this rule were applied, I believe, to some television programmes, but that is by the way.
When it was finished the doors of the palace opened, a kind of platform rolled forward on wheels and the audience could see the two corpses and the triumphant avenger standing over them. Again if one wrote a play that contained not only mortal men and women but immortal gods descending from heaven, one needed a crane of some kind to bring them down, which, indeed, the ancient Greeks had.
I am not wasting the House's time. I am talking in the most literal and precise sense about the application of technology to the performing and creative arts. I respectfully submit that so far I am the only person who has given an exact example of what is meant by that.
It would be rather fun if these colleges were really to go into the study and presentation of Greek drama, with all the applications of modern technology to what the Greeks no doubt did in a rather crude way. It would be great fun to have colleges doing that, but I do not see who would be prepared to pay for them and I do not think the Government would approve of them.
If these colleges are not to be what I have been describing, what on earth is this expression, the application of technology to the performing and creative arts? It is quite extraordinary that as new a concept as this should have been sprung upon us at this stage of the debate. It does not fall into the definitions that the Chief Whip was giving us earlier of the kind of subjects that Third Reading and "Bill do now pass" debates are designed for. I wish we could have an explanation of what the Government are going to do with these colleges whose curriculum will be based on the application of technology to the performing and creative arts.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I should like to ask a question supplementary to one of the important questions asked by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. She asked the Minister what would be the proportion of public and private expenditure on the colleges. Will the Minister deal specifically with the point that when they were first mentioned by the

507
Secretary of State they were to be entirely financed by private money? Is it not a fact that there has been a massive failure of industry and associated sources to come forward with money and that for that reason there has been a subtle change in statements made by all education Ministers in respect of this matter? I hope that we may be given a clear answer to that specific point.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, first, I should like to reassure the House, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, that existing schools with traditions and specialisations in music and the arts will continue. We hope that they will also continue to flourish.
I must correct the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who stated that dance and drama were excluded from the national curriculum. I have been at great pains to show that our intentions for art, music and PE in the national curriculum will also allow for drama and dance in the course of the curriculum—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that neither dance nor drama are core or foundation subjects in the national curriculum? That is the point that I was trying to make.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in discussing the core and other foundation subjects of the curriculum I have explained that the intention is that at secondary school level, art, music and drama can be included in the core subject of English, and that dance can be included in the foundation subject of PE. As part of the flexibility that the Government intend for these subjects, schools will be able to implement them in accordance with any particular tradition or specialisation which they may have. I shall go further and say that in including in the national curriculum art and music we are emphasising their importance, which, in some schools, is not necessarily being emphasised at present.
CTCs were and are intended to provide additional choice to parents. They are aimed at involving industry not only as the sponsors of schools but in the actual running and consideration of the curriculum of the schools. Noble Lords have mentioned other arrangements for involving industry in the running of schools. They will also continue and we shall encourage that. The first of our CTCs is about to open. The response of parents has been, to say the least, encouraging and gratifying.
We had a discussion on the subject at the Report stage, when again my noble friend Lord St. John excelled himself by explaining the importance of technology in relation to the arts and the importance of the arts in relation to employment. Noble Lords who participated in the debate added to that. The arts industries are faced with the need to implement rapidly-changing technologies, and they are creating new job opportunities. We believe that they are particularly relevant to young people.
We expect that a range of potential sponsors will come foward to sponsor such colleges. Already a number have been talking to officials and ministerial
508
colleagues. These are private initiatives and it has always been our policy that the sponsors must decide when they wish to make public their intentions. I hope that your Lordships will respect that confidentiality. Over £ 20 million has already been pledged by sponsors and much more will eventually be raised. It has been interesting to note that initial sponsors have come forward with large amounts of money which has been complemented by local industry and commerce attracted by the idea of having such a school in their district. Albeit in small amounts they have added very considerably to the total. We hope that that trend will continue and that much more will eventually be raised. This is a truly unprecedented response to an educational initiative.
Nevertheless, establishing new institutions is not cheap and investment of public money is also necessary. We believe that this investment is justified by the dynamic effect that CTCs and CCTAs will have on the rest of the educational system. The amounts of public funding have been quoted at various exaggerated levels, but of course each CTC will have differing capital costs but in each case at least £ 1 million will be contributed by sponsors.
It is our intention that all schools should be influenced by the successes achieved and lessons learnt by CTCs and CCTAs within the system. We believe that the CTC idea is a good one which will be translated into practice as efficient centres of education for the benefit of our children. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her, since we are discussing the arts, whether she is of the opinion that Amendment No. 70 is written in the English language as we know it. I have been puzzling over the matter for some time and I cannot make any sense of the syntax. It states:
"in the case of a school to be known as a city technology college, on science and technology".
I cannot give any meaning to that. There is similar syntax in sub-paragraph (ii), which states:
"in the case of a school to be known as a city college for the technology of the arts, on technology in its application to the performing and creative arts".
That is simply not a correct grammatical sentence. Indeed, given that we are discussing the arts, I should have thought that a minimum condition of passing an amendment of this sort is that it should be in the English language.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that in responding to the points raised by the noble Lord I shall have to look at the amendment in the context of the Bill.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am sure we have every sympathy with the noble Baroness, but perhaps one of the extinct volcanoes on the other side might help.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that this matter is perfectly clear, because we express one as a city technology college and the other as a city college for the technology of the arts. At this moment I

509
cannot fit them into the context of the Bill very easily but if there is any obscurity we shall ensure that all is revealed and that lightness is brought to the subject.
Lord Young of Dartington: With the leave of the House perhaps I may point out how it should read. At page 106, line 24, it should read:
"has a broad curriculum with an emphasis in the case of a school to be known as a city technology college, on science and technology."
The English may not be perfect but it has a meaning.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
10.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 68) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 30.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Arran, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beloff, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Blyth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Boardrnan, L.

Killearn, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V. [Teller]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mancroft, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Renton. L.

Cox, B.

St. Germans, E.

Craigavon, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Dundee, E.

Swinton, E.

Eccles, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Elton, L.

Trafford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Grantchester, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mountevans, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Peston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Carter, L. [Teller]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Russell, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Flowers, L.

Swann, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.6 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 106. line 31 [shown as line 13], leave out ("and having") and insert (". Or
(ii) and independent school to be known as a city college for the technology of the arts:
and having (in each case)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 together. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, there is an amendment to Amendment No. 70 which is Amendment No. 71. I think that we should take Amendment No. 69 first of all.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 106, line 42 [shown as line 24], leave out ("on science and technology") and insert ("—

(i) in the case of a school to be known as a city technology college, on science and technology: or

(ii) in the case of a school to be known as a city college for the technology of the arts, on technology in its application to the performing and creative arts.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. [Amendment No. 71, as an amendment to Amendment No. 70, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 70 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.]
Clause 118 [Functions of local education authorities with respect to higher and further education]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 120, line 5, at end insert ("(which shall include adult education)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as on previous occasions, we are extremely anxious to make certain that adult education and the statutory requirement to provide it appears on the face of the Bill. I know that the noble Baroness has told us on previous occasions that adult education is a part of further education. It has not been so seen in the past when it has been widely understood, and indeed has been the case, that there is no statutory obligation to provide adult education. This is why we have repeatedly asked that it should be made quite clear on the face of the Bill that there is such a statutory obligation. The noble Baroness said that it did include it. If that is her view, then it can only be extremely helpful if she will accept this amendment. It is not the view of most people that there is such a statutory obligation. If there is no such statutory obligation there cannot be the slightest doubt that where local authorities are hard-up for cash— and that means nearly everywhere— those obligations for which there is no statutory requirement are bound to suffer. It would be a normal way for anybody to behave; that the authority will meet the requirements that they are statutorily obliged to meet, but will not meet, or will diminish their contribution to, those for which there is no statutory obligation. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I put forward on previous occasions, but I beg the noble Baroness this time to

511
make sure that the requirement is on the face of the Bill and therefore it is understood that there is a statutory obligation. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in supporting this amendment I would particularly emphasise the point on clarification. I was intrigued by the point made earlier that further education included adult education in the sense in which we understood it. Nothing would please all of us more than to be told that further education includes adult education, because that would then cover everything that we have in mind.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, these two amendments would insert into Clause 118 explicit statements that adult education is a part of further education, as the noble Baroness has said. Amendments with much the same purpose have been moved at each stage in the Bill's passage through both Houses of Parliament. The Government recognise the value and importance of adult education and that is why our commitment has been amply demonstrated in the support we give to the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education and indeed to various programmes to develop adult literacy and numeracy, and in our commitment in the education support grant programme.
However, the key point, which I must repeat, is that further education is already defined to include adult education. Clause 118 defines further education as including all full-time and part-time education for persons over compulsory school age, other than higher education. In this it follows closely the 1944 Act. Further education is not defined as being only for 16 to 19 year-olds, or only for those up to the age of 21. It is for all those over the age of 16.
I believe that this covers the point the noble Baroness made. I believe that we all recognise the value of adult education, but it would be a great mistake to believe that by supporting these amendments it would in some sense be supporting adult education itself. These amendments would do adult education no favours at all. They would only introduce confusion and divisions where none now exists. I therefore hope that the proposers of this amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I deeply regret the reply of the noble Baroness. The adult education world does not understand the position as she has described it. It would have given the greatest support to it if she had confirmed what she believes to be the case by writing it into the Bill. However, at this time of night I am not proposing to press the amendment, although I would dearly like to. I must with the greatest regret— and it will be widely regretted throughout the adult education world— withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a business statement. Discussions have taken place through the usual
512
channels and it has been agreed that, in view of the lateness of the hour and of what has been said earlier on the Floor of the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, it would be right to adjourn further proceedings on this Bill until tomorrow and to finish the Bill tomorrow.
I think I should also say that I was unable before to make a statement about when the European Community debate that was scheduled for tomorrow would take place. I understand that there may be some difficulty for some of the people interested in that debate to manage next Friday, so discussions will continue as to when that business will take place.
I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Tor Bay Harbour (Oxen Cove and Coastal Footpath, Brixham) Bill
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.

River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past eleven o'clock.