HL Deb 07 July 1988 vol 499 cc457-512

Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.

Clause 23 [Interpretation of Chapter I]:

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 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 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 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 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, 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 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—

  1. (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
  2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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.]
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 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 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 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 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—

  1. (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;
  2. (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
  3. (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—

  1. (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
  2. (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 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 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 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.

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 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 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, 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendments Nos. 58, 59, 60 and 61: Page 95, line 46, leave out ("property") and insert ("premises"). 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 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 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—

  1. (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;
  2. (ii) to ensure that such scheme provides for such children to be educated in ordinary schools or further education provision wherever practicable;
  3. (iii) to ensure that such scheme is regularly reviewed and kept up to date so as to take account of changing circumstances;
  4. (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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 70: Page 106, line 42 [shown as line 24], leave out ("on science and technology") and insert ("—

  1. (i) in the case of a school to be known as a city technology college, on science and technology: or
  2. (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 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 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 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.