HL Deb 15 July 1988 vol 499 cc1021-32

11.26 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill he now read a second time.

The Government's intention is simple and straightforward; it is to increase the involvement of parents and the community in the decisions which affect their local schools.

Parents are under a legal as well as a moral obligation to provide for the education of their children. The public education system exists to enable them to discharge this duty and education authorities are required by law to arrange school education in accordance with parents' wishes so far as that is compatible with the provision of suitable instruction and the avoidance of unreasonable public expense.

Unfortunately it seems that as the Scottish public education service has developed, in particular with the restructuring of local government in the mid 1970s, parents have drifted further and further towards the fringes. The same Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which set up the regional and islands authorities and made these large administrative blocks responsible for education, required the establishment of school councils. They were intended to maintain a degree of local involvement and authorities were given wide powers to delegate functions to them.

Regrettably, it is generally agreed that school councils have failed to achieve their purpose. Starved by education authorities of a real job to do, many dedicated council members have become increasingly frustrated. In other areas the poor reputation of school councils has discouraged good quality candidates from standing for membership. School councils have been a sad testimony to the reluctance of education authorities to promote real local participation in education.

The other obstacle to parental involvement is the belief that education is a matter which should be left entirely in the hands of professionals. Of course education is a professional matter and it Would he foolhardy to say that parents should tell teachers what to teach, how to teach it and how to assess the results. But that is not a reason to exclude parents from a voice in the education system. It is not an excuse for refusing to explain educational objectives and methods. This Government believe in the importance of a professional education service. They also believe in the duty of the professionals to listen to those they serve and to explain their activities to them. Indeed, the Government believe that it is impossible for the education professionals to plan and deliver a sound and responsive service without listening to what parents have to say.

The result of this exclusion of parents by authorities and professionals is inevitably an absence of full parental involvement in the running of schools. That is bad for the parents: their rights are ignored. As ratepayers and taxpayers they fund the education service. As parents they are legally obliged to see their children educated. But they have no rights to express their views about the services they buy nor to influence how they are delivered.

It is also bad for pupils. Their education suffers. Research confirms that children do better at school the more closely their parents are involved with their education. If the system deliberately excludes parents, the chances of pupils are affected.

It is bad for the education service. In order to be effective and responsive a service needs to have mechanisms for finding out what its customers want. How else can it be properly planned and delivered? It will not do for authorities and professional educators to say that they know what parents want. If they are right, they have nothing to fear; if they are wrong, they have much to learn.

These then are the threads of our policy— to recognise the importance of parental involvement in education; to give parents wider access to information about how their local schools operate; and to allow them to participate in decisions which affect their schools. We are not trying to undermine the legitimate strategic role of education authorities or the standing of the professionals in education. But at the very least their actions and the decisions they take should he open to question by those who are fundamentally responsible for the education of children; in other words, the parents. If authorities and professionals are doing their jobs well their position can surely only be strengthened and enhanced by a wider apprecation of their efforts and of the difficulties they face.

The Bill before us seeks to achieve genuine participation for parents and the wider community by the establishment of a system of school boards. The provisions of the Bill arise from a set of proposals which we modified—after one of the most comprehensive consultation exercises ever —to take account of the genuine concerns which were expressed. Since the Bill entered Parliament we have made and accepted a number of amendments which we believe have further strengthened it. However, the underlying principle of increased parental involvement in school education, which received almost universal approval in the public consultation which preceded this Bill, has never been questioned.

The first six clauses of the Bill concern the establishment of the school boards system. They determine the categories of membership. Two clauses provide for the procedures for election and co-option and lay down the fundamental procedural rules for board business. There will be a board for nearly every primary, secondary and special school. Exemption may be given in the case of very small schools which could not support a board.

All boards will have elected parent and staff members and members co-opted from the local community. Parent members will be in the majority on every board so that there will be at least one place in the system where parents will have a guaranteed voice. We hold this to be so important that if enough parents cannot be found to form a board the school will have to do without. Church representation on school boards, although mandatory only in the case of denominational schools, will be encouraged in the guidance we will issue.

The Bill also gives the Secretary of State power to set the precise numbers of members for boards for schools of different sizes or types by regulation. We intend to make regulations providing for the size of a board to depend on the number of pupils at the school. In most cases boards will range from seven members to 13 members; single-teacher schools will have five members.

We have paid particular attention to representations about the procedure for elections. The consultation exercise caused us to make a number of changes to our original proposals to help ensure the representativeness of boards. More recently we amended the Bill to free authorities from the need to submit electoral schemes for the Secretary of State's approval. As the Bill now stands, authorities will be required to prepare schemes for elections in accordance with the fundamental provisions of Schedule I and in accordance with detailed guidance that the Secretary of State will issue. We have also amended the Bill to limit the period during which a casual vacancy for a board member may be carried and to restrict the continued service of a member who becomes ineligible.

Clauses 8 to 14 set out the basic functions, powers and duties which boards are to have. These concern mainly rights to information and to make representations about any aspect of running of their schools. A board's right of access to information and its corresponding duty to communicate with parents is the undisputed key element in the development of parental involvement.

The rights of boards to approve head teachers proposals for spending the school's budget for books and materials has been the subject of considerable debate. It should be clearly understood that we are not proposing to give boards the power to determine the curriculum of the school. The initiative for making proposals will lie with the head teacher exclusively and both he and the board will be required to have regard to the education authority's policy on the curriculum and to any guidance it may issue.

Boards are also given rights to be involved in the selection of senior staff for their schools. The detailed provisions in Schedule 2 will provide for the first time a coherent national approach to senior appointments which draws on existing best practice. We believe that boards have a legitimate place in the choice of the personnel who will determine the ethos of the school. But it is equally right that in these key appointments the education authority should have a continuing role.

In providing a basic set of functions for all boards we believe that we have addressed those aspects of the running of a school which are of immediate interest to all parents and which will allow a modest degree of executive responsibility to be exercised by every board. But we also believe that boards which show competence and appetite should be given the opportunity to play a still more active part. Accordingly Clauses 15 and 16 and Schedule 3 provide for the delegation of additional functions to boards either with the agreement of the education authority or on appeal to the Secretary of State. The Bill's provisions for delegation show clearly how we listened carefully to the concerns expressed during the consultation period about the accountability of school boards. Certain exclusively professional functions (such as the regulation of the curriculum) and strategic functions (such as the employment of staff) are reserved entirely from delegation by the Bill.

The Bill places a duty on every board always to act in accordance with its education authority's statutory and other legal duties. If a function is to be delegated an authority may attach further specific conditions to ensure the proper discharge of the function. If the authority believes that a board is being too ambitious it may propose a trial period or simply refuse to make the delegation order. But the Bill entitles a board to appeal to the Secretary of State. Before a board may appeal to the Secretary of State it must obtain the support of a majority in a ballot of parents for its proposal. The Secretary of State may refuse the board's appeal if he is satisfied that the delegation would prejudice the good running of the school.

The Bill strikes a clear balance between the desire to allow boards sufficient room for growth without being stifled by bureaucracy and the genuine need to make boards properly accountable to their electorate and to the education authorities on whose behalf they are acting.

Education in Scotland undoubtedly has a proud heritage and a reputation for being at the forefront of new ideas. It is all the more regrettable then to know that on the subject of parental participation, Scotland lags behind every other country in western Europe-if not the world. This Bill redresses that balance and gives parents and representatives of local community interests a proper place in the running of their schools and a voice in the education system.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)

11.38 a.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill and his manner of dealing with its important clauses. We all wish to see parents play a part in the education of their children, not just in the home atmosphere, but in the wider area of schools and the whole environment in which young people live during their school years. No one can seriously believe that the Bill at a stroke will produce the conditions for mass parental involvement. But we must start somewhere. The experience of school councils has made it clear that as a first step parents should be involved specifically in the schools their children attend so giving them a direct connection.

In time we may see a growth of co-operation, at least in the exchange of ideas, between different school boards while each retains its own independence. That is something that time will decide within any one area. Perhaps, as was the original conception of school councils, the natural coming together of schools, especially the feeder schools, as they are sometimes called, towards the secondary school, may happen. But that is all in the future. The Bill deals only with the individual school and that is an advance on the old school council idea. If. in good faith, that is the intention of the Bill, we on this side of the House can do no less than support it.

Concern has been expressed that the Bill could pave the way for the opting-out of some schools from the general educational establishment. We would resist that with considerable commitment and, I hope, a great deal of vigour. I should never wish upon any child the competitive pressures I saw 20 or 30 years ago in the west end of Glasgow. At four-and-ahalf and at nine years of age some children considered themselves to be failures because they had not obtained places in fee-paying schools. To some extent that was also the view of the parents and some of the children's contemporaries. I saw that happen frequently.

The assistance given by government to fee-paying schools in the old days must have been about 90 per cent. It was embarrassing to listen to parents whose child had been unsuccessful in getting into such a school, and it was shameful to see the effect on the children. Therefore, we would resist any idea and it has been suggested—that that may be a possibility. I hope that it can he avoided because it would be a retrograde step for Scottish education. Most parents were glad to see the end of that pernicious system. Few would like to see it return.

I believe that there is now a greater awareness on the part of parents. A significant number are eager to become involved in their children's schools. Surveys carried out by representatives and by those involved in education show that while parents wish to become involved in the running of the school, they do not wish to have responsibility for controlling the running of the school. They want to be a part and they want their voice to be heard; but they do not want the responsibility of control.

If we go ahead and have school boards, I hope that the Government will accept that the amendments we shall be tabling in Committee are genuine and an attempt to be helpful. I should not he willing to participate in any wrecking of a Bill of this nature hidden behind the pretence that I was trying to improve it. However, I believe that we must have improvements. Our amendments will be tabled in good faith at the Committee stage; we shall spell them out in detail.

I should like to select a few areas where we believe that the Bill needs clarification and redirection. First, we wish to make absolutely clear the fact that at all times the guiding light for the new school boards is that their primary duty is the provision of proper school and further education, as laid down by Section 1 of the 1980 Act. We believe that to be fundamental.

Secondly, we believe that the chain of command must he explicitly stated. I believe that the Minister went some way towards that objective. But it must be made clear that, at the end of the day, the head teacher is responsible for the entire school. A good head teacher—and we hope that they will all he good — will be aware of the desires of the new school boards and of the power that they will he given under the Bill.

Thirdly, in order to keep the school boards and the parents involved, it will be essential to maintain contact between the two groups. Some regularised reporting-back machinery must be built in to the Bill so that parents and the boards can meet for report and questioning sessions. I do not think that the Minister was clear about that matter. If there are to be boards consisting of between seven and 13 members without regular reporting back, I do not understand how we can consider that we are involving the community or the parents. Perhaps that matter can be clarified in Committee. If there is regular reporting back and attendance of parents there will then be a greater interest among parents. Therefore, when new board members are required there will be available people already interested and partly integrated in the machinery of the schools. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.

I believe that Clause 8(2) and (3) could be the cause of considerable difficulty. The Minister will be aware of the anxieties expressed in another place. No doubt he will have given serious thought to the potential for conflict or even the serious break-up of the scheme. To be an agent of an authority in action while being immune from the liability of that action seems to introduce a dangerous novelty into an untried relationship. That is in part an objection of the Scottish Law Society.

The Minister spoke of increasing the scope and the range of the work that the school boards will be given. He mentioned Clause 15. I believe that there may be a great opportunity for active, progressive boards. We must be cautious but not too cautious. I believe that to achieve the best results the new school boards must be given time to absorb their role. Too much, too soon, or running before they can walk, could be just as disastrous as working a board below its potential capacity. A certain amount of skill will be required in deciding how much and where any new powers should be given to the boards. In some areas it has been suggested that a period of about three years will he necessary. The period will vary considerably, but I believe that thought needs to be given to the problem. The education authority, the headmaster in the area and the school board must be the judges of the appropriate time for assuming new powers.

The Minister knows that the question of religion has caused considerable trouble. It is easy enough in non-transferred schools but there are problems in transferred schools. I suggest that the form of words chosen by the Church of Scotland is adequate to cover the matter. I hope that we shall be able to consider the problem perhaps more briefly than was done in relation to England and Wales.

If we are to give the school boards a good start we must decide upon the means by which the boards are to operate. That almost always involves the question of how much money the Government are willing to provide, and it is certainly so in this case. After looking at the Government's figures and comparing them with those evaluated by the local authorities and supplied in detail by CoSLA, I favour a colourful American expression used by an active Member of the Minister's party in Scotland who said that when you are doing something you should not "nickel and dime" it; you should decide what to do and provide the resources to do it.

Local authorities are believed by the Government to be profligate. The costs which have been worked out by CoSLA, are different from the Government's by a factor of over three. Even allowing for the costs of the old school councils, the gap is not only quantitative; it also becomes qualitative. Without proper finance the whole scheme will collapse. We must consider the importance of the Bill. The Minister will have the local authority estimates and his own. In order that we can make a comparison they must be given in considerable detail before the debate is properly started. The seriousness of the Government will be judged by their frankness over resources, and we look forward with anticipation to the answer to that and many other practical details which are not yet clear even after the long process in another place.

This Bill is not a revolution but if the Government believe in its stated purpose and do not become caught up in half-thought-out ideological arguments, which I hope I shall avoid, then it will be a modest beginning to something which we should all like to see: namely education conducted in an atmosphere of full community co-operation between pupils, parents, teachers, head teachers and the elected local authorities. If that is the spirit of the Bill, I can assure your Lordships that we on this side will give all the help we can to its passage.

11.50 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, we on these Benches believe that this Bill is disappointing. It is one of the most disappointing Bills brought forward by this Government. It is disappointing because they could so easily have produced a Bill which could have gained widespread all-party, all-section support based upon a desire to give parents a wider involvement in the education of their children. Such a Bill would have created a partnership in schools between teachers, parents and the community. It would have benefited children and would have been welcome throughout Scotland by all parties and all those involved in education.

The Conservative manifesto for Scotland in the last election promised to reform and strengthen school councils. Instead, that widely supported concept has been distorted by the insistence of the Scottish Office that parents should have a majority on the new school boards. That decision goes against the grain of consensus in Scotland which is in favour of a partnership. Parental majority is not only rejected by the teaching profession, which fears that it could become a barrier to educational development, but also seems to have been rejected by the parents themselves who do not believe that they are qualified to run schools, but who would still like their voices to be heard.

A survey carried out by Education Alert and the Lothian Parents Action Group of a random selection of parents, mostly though not exclusively in the Grampian and Lothian regions, found that 77.8 per cent. of parents did not wish there to be a parental majority and that 87.9 per cent. wished for additional staff to be elected to the boards.

We shall seek to amend the Bill so that it does not store up trouble for the future. It is not so far-fetched to think of the damage which could be done if an organised special interest group of parents gained control of a school board.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Addington

My Lords, instead, a school board should be created which is a true partnership between the headmaster, staff and parents, as well as involving students to an extent and the community as a whole.

We are happy to acknowledge and welcome the fact that the Bill is different in a number of significant proposals from that originally put forward by the Government. For example, we hope that the Government have accepted that the so-called ceiling powers are inappropriate to Scottish education and the idea of opting out which seemed to hover menacingly over this Bill has been safely put on the sidelines. The Government must understand that those are alien to Scottish educational traditions and the Scottish Office must not attempt to use this Bill as a Trojan horse to smuggle them in at a later point.

The Bill has been improved during its passage in another place. We welcome the fact that regional councillors will be able to attend meetings and that additional scope is given for pupil involvement. We believe that the Bill can still be greatly improved in other areas. The House will not be surprised that one of those issues will be the method of electing the school boards. We believe that parents, especially if they are to form the majority voice, should be as well informed as possible, hopefully with the inclusion of an annual report on the financial running of the School. We also feel that parents should be elected by the most representative system possible. Not surprisingly, we on these Benches would favour a system related to PR. An interesting point to bring to the attention of the House is that between 1919 and 1928 the independent schools in Scotland had their boards elected by a system of PR.

We remain concerned that the Government have rushed into imposing school boards and have not properly considered the financial cost and the professional back-up which the boards will require. For example, one can foresee problems for rural schools which may have very wide catchment areas and which may have to transport people from the islands to get them to school. "Transport" is probably the wrong word to use. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities estimates that an additional £17.2 million will be required to run the boards. The Scottish Office disputes those figures but says that negotiations are under way. Scottish education is already being starved of funds and it would be quite wrong if any shortfall in funding were to come out of resources allocated for general education.

There are many areas of concern at present in the Scottish education system at all levels. One has only to think of the crisis facing the universities, particularly Aberdeen and Stirling, both of which are well below their original student capacity and both seem to be staring bankruptcy in the face. There is also a lack of nursery school provision which would seem to suggest that there is much to occupy the Scottish Minister for Education and his colleagues.

Instead of addressing these issues much time, effort and expenditure is being spent on creating school boards which bear little resemblance to that promised in the manifesto. The boards will be deeply flawed if the insistence on parental majority is carried through and that could stand in the way of their effective operation. There is still time for the boards to be an asset to Scottish education, but as they stand they are an unwelcoming and damaging diversion from the real needs of parents, teachers and pupils.

11.59 a.m.

The Earl of Selkirk

My Lords, I must confess that I am rather sorry to hear the somewhat disturbing report which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, gives on this matter. I have a much more hopeful outlook that these boards will serve a useful purpose. There are difficulties with this and I believe that my noble friend realises the delicate position of a school board. It lies between the education authority, the school and the parents. There may be trouble from all three so that they need to conduct themselves with a great deal of understanding, and I hope that will happen.

I am not concerned about majorities. I should not think that this board will vote very much. To my mind what is needed is to have people with understanding—understanding of the problems of the schools and the parents. That is what is required. I do not see why it should be too difficult to find those people. On the other hand, if those people try to run the school or try to have a row with the education authority, they would he absolutely useless, but they can play a role. I should like to ask what is the status of this body. Has it any status in law at all or is it just a gathering of trustees? What is it exactly? I believe it is not unimportant that we should know what sort of body it is.

What seems to me most important—and I should like to know whether the Government have any views on this —is who will be chairman. It seems to me that to obtain a first-class chairman is extremely difficult. The whole quality of this board will depend very largely upon the chairman. I do not know what steps are being taken to ensure that a person with experience and ability should hold that post.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised the question of cost. What this will cost is rather worrying. I do not know whether the Government have any further views on this subject but there is a wide difference between Government estimates and local authority estimates. I do not know whether that has been bridged.

There is one point which I do not understand; namely, the question of reporting back. How are the parents to know what goes on in the board? After all, it is fundamental that they should know because the board is supposed to be the link between the parents and the schools. Are we reckoning on a quarterly, half-yearly or annual report? Someone should be told what are the discussions and how these decisions are being taken.

What is the intention about delegation? Is this to be done straightaway? This Bill creates an executive body which is not unimportant. The suggestion in some cases is that delegation should be delayed, perhaps for three years, to see whether the body is showing itself to be competent.

I should like to say a few words about religious education. I see that all the denomination schools will make an appointment, but a great many schools in Scotland are not denominational. Is that to say that they will have no one charged with the duty to see that religious education is carried out in some form? Is it the intention that one member of the board, either co-opted or a parental member, should be charged with responsibility for supervising that? We should be given some idea of how that stands.

The Bill is a bold endeavour to bring in a relationship. I must say that I was shocked to hear my noble friend say that Scotland lingers behind all countries in Europe in parent-school relationships. I have to admit that I did not know that. If that is true, it is very sad. I hope that this relationship can be properly built up. I shall not detain the House further. There are points which need a great deal of clarification which can perhaps be dealt with in Committee.

12 noon

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, in his opening remarks my noble friend Lord Sanderson explained the importance of this Bill in giving parents in Scotland a real voice in the decisions that are taken about the education of their children in local authority schools.

The public education system exists to help parents to discharge their legal duty. This is to ensure that their children receive schooling and parents have a right to choose what they judge to be the best for their own children in this respect. The teaching profession itself has come to realize—perhaps it always did realise—that the commitment of parents is vital to the success of schools. Teachers are indeed most anxious that parents should take due responsiblity for their children, particularly in matters of discipline. Yet the recent development of public schooling in Scotland has tended to exclude the parental voice and previous attempts to redress the balance have failed. This has given rise to the paradox of an educational establishment on the one hand bemoaning the lack of parental interest while on the other hand insisting that there is no place for lay opinion when real decisions have to be made. The Government, with this Bill, have solved that paradox which was created out of fear; fear that genuine parental involvement would lead inevitably to lack of accountability and the usurping of the legitimate role of the professional in education.

This Bill provides a straightforward framework within which parents can exert a beneficial pressure on the system. Equally it is a framework in which a constructive partnership between parents and teachers can be formed. Of course, it will need good will on both sides—any system which is to function well always does. It will require parents to learn a lot about what teachers are trying to achieve for their children, and it will cause teachers to formulate their own aims and objectives in clear terms and to put them across persuasively. It should be a salutary experience for both parties.

In no way are we attempting in this Bill to devalue professional expertise, but we have confidence in the ability of lay people to make sound judgments, and we contend that there is ample opportunity for the exercise of sound, informed judgment in local school matters.

Of course, the Bill does not limit the scope of school boards to the interests of parents and teachers. It makes provision for the wider community to be represented by co-opted members and in the membership of the board sub-committees. It also incorporates all the checks and balances that are necessary to protect local authorities in the discharge of their statutory and other legal duties, and to safeguard the legitimate interests of the professionals in education and to ensure that school boards are properly representative of those who elect them.

I turn now to some of the matters raised in the debate. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his overall welcome to the measure. The noble Lord raised one or two points. He asked about the board as an agent of local authority. Clause 8(2) determines that in respect of its relations with third parties the board is to be treated as the agent of the education authority. This is necessary to protect those with whom boards make contacts. In the event that the board is, for example, disestablished, a contractor must know that he has recourse to the education authority for the completion of the contract. Without the provision of Clause 8(2) the contractor would be left high and dry.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also referred to the cost of school boards. He mentioned that CoSLA had estimated a cost to authorities which was rather different from that put forward by the Government. CoSLA's estimate was £17 million per year. The Government's initial estimate was £5 million. There have been several different estimates from CoSLA and individual authorities. They range from the equivalent of fewer than £5 million to more than £20 million. CoSLA's latest estimate is in fact £17.2 million. When the unreasonable elements of that estimate are removed, the figure is around £8 million. The Government's initial estimate of additional cost was around £5 million per year, but Ministers have always made it clear that that figure was not set in stone. Ministers have undertaken to consider any reasonable case made by the authorities in the annual rate support grant settlement. CoSLA's most recent estimate is being discussed in that context now.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the personal liability of board members. Board members are only protected from liability if they believe that they are acting in good faith.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his remarks. I am sure we all wish to congratulate him on graduating this month from Aberdeen University. The noble Lord was a little concerned about a number of points in our proposals. He felt that there had not been sufficient consultation before we devised them. I can assure him that there was extensive consultation, and I believe that throughout the country there is a wide measure of agreement with our proposals.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of the composition of school boards. He said that he was unhappy that there should automatically be a parent majority. The parental majority is a fundamental part of policy. Authorities and teachers are dominant in other parts of the education system. The parental majority at school level will ensure that the parental voice is heard. However, the majority does not mean that parents will be taking over schools. Authorities remain responsible for management of education, and boards must ensure that the statutory duties of authorities are complied with. The professional areas such as the determination of the curriculum and assessment of pupils are excluded from delegation.

The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred to the chairman of the board. The Bill requires boards to elect a chairman and vice-chairman from among their members other than the staff members. The chairman, or in his absence the vice-chairman, will have a second or casting vote in the case of a tied vote.

In conclusion, I believe that there is general agreement that greater parental involvement in schools is highly desirable. Today's debate has raised a number of points about the detailed provisions of the Bill and these we shall be returning to at the Committee stage. However, I feel that all of your Lordships, although with one or two reservations which have been quite rightly expressed today, support the fundamental principle of this Bill which is that of parental involvement. It goes without saying that any responsible parent wants to see his child's school improved. Essentially, what this Bill seeks to do is to release the latent interest of parents in their schools. This can only be to the good of the system as a whole, and I therefore have no hesitation in commending this Bill to your Lordships.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.