Lords Sitting of 22 June 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

The Lord Bishop of Bradford
Robert Kerr, Lord Bishop of Bradford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Carlisle and the Lord Bishop of Truro.

Motor Car Repair and Servicing
2.42 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made, in concert with the relevant trade associations, towards improving standards in the service and repair of motor cars.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the code of practice for the motor industry which has been drawn up by the motor trade associations, in conjunction with the Director General of Fair Trading, contains requirements about car servicing and repairs. Any changes to that code, with a view to improving standards of car servicing and repairs, are a matter for the director general and the relevant associations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. It shows there is not much progress that can be made public since my Question on 3rd November when the Minister's noble friend replied that the Office of Fair Trading was discussing changes to the code of practice. Is my noble friend aware that adverse surveys have continued since November, particularly one in the Observer of 15th March, indicating that there has been little if any improvement in services at garages?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right that there has been little progress. However, I should say that the Office of Fair Trading has been pressing the motor trade associations to take action. I believe that it would be very helpful if some strengthening of the guarantees that are given by garages to their customers could be incorporated in an updated code. There have been a number of surveys which cause concern; on the other hand, I suppose it is fair to say that many garages do an excellent job. It may well be for the motorist to shop around and find the very best garage that will provide him with good service at a fair price.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Office of Fair Trading can help no one who has purchased a car from abroad in getting spare parts or even getting repairs effected? It offers no help whatsoever, and has said so in writing—in particular, to me.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I think that is a very good example. What is wrong with me giving an example of things that I have suffered which might affect thousands of other Britons? This is the place to raise such complaints.
Is the Minister further aware that there seems to be a wide discrepancy of charges among garages in England, Wales and Scotland for the same kind of repair to the same kind of vehicle? Will he not approach the associations involved to see whether they can check on those who are ruthlessly exploiting innocent motorists?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I respectfully suggest that next time the noble Lord might try buying a British motor car. But I do suspect that the Government are correct in believing that competition is the best way to get standards improved. I should point out to the noble Lord that there is a new generation of service centres being operated by operators such as Kwik-Fit, B & Q and Halfords Service Centres. They are bringing considerable competition to the traditional garage trade. There is plenty of scope for motorists to shop around, as I have already said, and to get the best price and the best quality.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the car I own is a British car. The Director-General of Fair Trading did not know that. I shall draw the attention of the Minister to his reply and educate him.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he had suffered problems in obtaining parts from abroad. That was what I understood him to say.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain to the House how competition is expected to operate in this instance? After all, we are talking about competition of service, not of price. How are services and the standard of service to be properly advertised to maintain proper competition? Are garages to say that they are operating a four-star service, or only a one-star service, or that they are not very good, or that they will not replace a gasket or that customers had better watch out for the exhaust systems on their cars? How is this all meant to operate? Does not the Minister accept that trading standards inspectors in local authorities are no longer willing to volunteer their own cars to go into service stations for service because in many cases they come out worse than when they went in?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as in many other industries standards of service are usually judged by the reputation of the person providing them. I believe that in this particular industry—motor servicing—so many people own motor cars and so many people never stop talking about motor cars that no doubt the word spreads round very quickly when an inadequate service is being provided. But as regards the point made about how many stars a garage should advertise and so on, when it comes to safety I do not think that there is any difference at all. One just has to have the very best service to achieve an acceptable

755
standard of safety. When it comes to matters that are more of a cosmetic nature to a motor car than of a safety nature, again I think that reputation and price will lead the consumer to the right outlet.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we hear from the other side of the House about the failure of service stations to give good service, but that my experience is that the small family service station which looks after my car does so to my utmost satisfaction? This must be the case in the great majority of cases. Is my noble friend aware that of course he is right in saying that just as when we are buying anything else we must look around at different suppliers and choose the best one?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. There are many satisfactory garages and I should hope that car owners will take more trouble to make sure that they go to satisfactory suppliers.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question of his noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was totally unnecessary and that competition will resolve everything?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend no doubt would not have asked his Question if he had felt it to be unnecessary.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the Minister give us a report of the last meeting that he had with the trading standards officers regarding this whole question of car servicing and the selling of vehicles which are in an unroadworthy condition? The powers of trading standards officers are very limited because the main ones lie with the police force. But will the Minister be able to report at some future date further consultations with trading standards officers in order to overcome the very bad service that a great majority of motorists receive?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Government's view is that trading standards officers have considerable powers to deal with unsatisfactory services, particularly garages which are in the business of putting unroadworthy cars into the hands of the general public. Anyone who has cause for complaint should approach a trading standards officer; individuals can also go to court. We do not feel that it is necessary to take further steps at this stage. However, we shall be watching the effect of local licensing of used car traders in Scotland to see if any lessons can be learnt.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, since insurance companies frequently pick up the tab for servicing and repairs to vehicles, is the Minister taking any action to ensure that insurance companies get value for money for repairs and services?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, insurance companies have their own teams of highly competent assessors. They are probably the last people to need government assistance.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it was the very disquieting and exhaustive survey in Which?, the journal of the Consumers' Association, which prompted my question of 3rd November last year? Is the Minister aware that his noble friend Lord Young was also much concerned as regards the survey? Is he aware that I have complete confidence that the Office of Fair Trading is the correct office to make any changes in the code of practice which his noble friend indicated would probably be necessary?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the Which? report. I am also aware of a number of other reports published since then. The Office of Fair Trading is pressing the motor trade. If satisfactory progress is not made, no doubt the director general will have to consider his next step.

Defence Contracts and Small Firms
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many small businesses will have the opportunity to tender for defence contracts.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, through the small firms initiative, these businesses are especially encouraged to bid for defence work. In 1986–87 some 4,000 small firms received direct payments from the Ministry of Defence totalling over £1,000 million. Last year 746 more firms came on to the defence contractors list, of which about 40 per cent. employed fewer than 200 people.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. Am I right in assuming that most of those small firms deal with the Ministry of Defence through the main contractors? Does the Minister agree that in the past large contractors have been very slow in paying small businesses and that in some cases payment has been outstanding for as long as 90 days? Is he able to put pressure on the large contractors to pay their small suppliers more quickly?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my Answer referred to firms which have a direct relationship with the Ministry of Defence. There are an infinitely greater number of small firms working as subcontractors to the main systems contractors to the Ministry of Defence—something in excess of 2,000. As for payment terms applied by main contractors to small firms, we have recently invited the main contractors to agree to a code of practice which we shall be putting into some of the terms of our own contracts. The main contractors will be required to treat their subcontractors no less favourably than the main contractors are treated by us.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, in the past firms have been deterred from tendering by long and complicated bureaucratic procedures. Will the Minister ensure that such impediments no longer exist so that many more firms will come forward?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the small firms initiative to which I referred in my original Answer was launched just over a year ago. One important feature of that initiative is a small firms advice division which is available to advise small firms on how to understand and operate the contractual arrangements which the Ministry of Defence has in place. At the same time, we are looking at ways of simplifying the tendering and contracting procedure, particularly where comparatively small sums are involved.

Environmental Health Hazards: Prevention
2.55 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to alert owners and managers of buildings in public use to the measures necessary for the prevention of environmental health hazards such as Legionnaires disease.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the reports of the committee of inquiry into the outbreak of Legionnaires disease at Stafford in 1985 produced a range of recommendations aimed at all those, including the Government, who are responsible for the design, commissioning, operation and maintenance of buildings and building services. The Government, in particular through the health departments, the Health and Safety Executive and the Property Services Agency, have taken appropriate action in accordance with those recommendations.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that tests undertaken in 1987 by independent companies showed that some public buildings and even hospitals had air conditioning systems which were in the most alarming state? Is he satisfied that there is enough urgency in putting the matter right and that tests are carried out regularly at given intervals? Perhaps he can also tell the House how often those tests are carried out in order to ensure that there is an improvement in the air conditioning and consequently the safety of people in such buildings.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that the Government take the matter seriously. The Department of Health and Social Security has issued new guidance about the inspection and maintenance of hospitals with cooling tower systems. In the near future, that will be incorporated into a wider code covering hot and cold water systems. The Health and Safety Executive issued a guidance note on the nature and prevention of Legionnaire's disease in January 1987. The Property Services Agency has
758
also taken action. Only this morning I heard from the local authority associations that they were taking action as well.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the air conditioning systems on 125-trains are extremely unsatisfactory in that whenever the trains brake, the most appalling smell results? Some of us feel very much under the weather if we travel on those trains for more than a hour and a half. I have no idea whether that contributes to Legionnaire's disease. However, I am sure that it contributes to a great many other unpleasant conditions.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have noticed that too. I do not think that it is relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. However, I note the interesting comments made by the noble Baroness.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that the funding problems of the Health and Safety Executive, which have been given some publicity, do not mean that it is unable to give inspections which are as frequent as it would like? Has the executive indicated that the quality of its work is somewhat reduced as a result of funding difficulties?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall draw the comments of the noble Lord to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in my view the BBC is by no means underfunded. It wastes a great deal of money on overpaying second-rate presenters and allowing them to operate within the organisation on a private basis. Is it not a fact that the air conditioning system at the BBC was found to be wholly out of order simply because the slats needed replacing? As a result of the non-replacement of those slats—it would not have happened if the system had been properly inspected and maintained—two people died. Why did the BBC take no notice of the Minister's guidance and frequent reminders about the need to maintain such systems properly?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord will not expect me to answer his questions in detail. Inquiries into the BBC outbreak are continuing: one by the BBC and the other by Westminster City Council. They are expected to report in September. I believe that it would be wrong for me to comment on the matter at this stage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, my Lords, but guidance and advice are available and notice should be taken by other firms to prevent further deaths from the same cause.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I repeat that guidance has been issued and that the Health and Safety Executive is also looking into the outbreak through its normal procedures. If necessary, it will update the guidance which it produced in January 1987.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask my noble kinsman if legionella can be found in the heads of sprays in bathrooms? If so, how best should they be disinfected?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that the disease, and indeed Pontiac fever, can be caught from the evaporation of water. It is important that such installations as air conditioning systems and water supplies are maintained to a proper standard.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, could my noble friend come back to the question that I asked? How often are such installations to be inspected? If our cars have to be inspected every year for safety is it unrealistic to think that the air-conditioning systems of public buildings, and particularly hospitals, should equally be regularly and carefully inspected once a year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that there is nobody involved in health or responsible for public or private buildings who is not aware of the potentially disastrous consequences of Legionnaire's disease, and I am sure that they ensure that their maintenance is to a high standard.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that the Houses of Parliament are inspected every 12 months in the way he has indicated?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness that assurance without notice.

Homeless People and Mental Illness
3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What percentage of homeless people are known to be suffering from mental illness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government have no basis on which to make a calculation in the form requested in the noble Lord's Question. However, we know that during the first quarter of 1988, 3 per cent. of the 31,100 households accepted as homeless by local authorities in England were regarded as vulnerable on the grounds of mental illness.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that people dealing with the problem of homelessness recently issued information which shows that in London alone over the past four years homelessness and the number of people sleeping rough have doubled? Is he also aware that it is now calculated that 12,000 people sleep out rough each night in London alone. Is he further aware that the numbers and percentage of people suffering from mental health disorders of various kinds are increasing substantially? Ought we not to be looking for drastic action in order to stop the escalation in the number of those very tragic cases?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I aceept on behalf of the Government that the number of homeless people is indeed greater in London. In the last quarter, 6 per cent. of those accepted as homeless were mentally ill compared with 1 per cent. in the non-metropolitan districts. There has been a slight increase over the first quarter of last year when 2 per cent. of those households accepted as homeless were vulnerable due to mental illness compared with 3 per cent. this year. The figures for London are likely to be double those that I have just mentioned, which are for England as a whole.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship has asserted that 50 per cent. of people staying overnight in St. Mungo's and Salvation Army hostels are mentally ill? Is he further aware that a team of psychiatrists who interviewed a sample of people at the Crisis at Christmas 1986 discovered that 40 per cent. were suffering from psychotic disturbances? If he challenges those figures, will he instruct or at least encourage regional health authorities to institute proper systems for surveying, following up and statistically examining what happens to people who have been discharged from mental hospitals so that we can have the information which the Minister says that he does not have at present?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has asked two questions. One concerns the identification of this most unfortunate group of people. Local government statistics and indeed health authority statistics have to be precise. They cover that group which has been identified as mentally ill. The difficulty with some of the figures from other authoritative sources in this area is that there is no means of telling whether or not they relate to people who are identifiably ill. I shall certainly bring the noble Lord's words to the attention of health authorities.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this situation emphasises the importance of improved community care? Will he tell us when we are going to get a statement from the Government on the Griffiths Report?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I cannot tell the noble Baroness when there will be a government statement on the Griffiths Report for the simple reason that I do not yet know. When I know I shall of course inform not only the noble Baroness but the House as a whole.
As far as concerns community care, in the mental health field the policy is that in every health district there should be a comprehensive range of accessible and easy-to-use services for all mentally ill people. However in many areas the numbers of mentally ill have been growing at a greater pace than that at which the services can be provided. The Government are very conscious of that fact and that is why they are consistently putting more resources into that area.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that I, like my noble friend Lord Murray, am amazed by the figures he quoted? Is he aware that I have seen a survey which indicated that of 51,000 homeless people 40 per cent. were identified as having psychiatric problems? Does he accept that there seems to be no evidence of an increase in the number of people who are mentally ill, except in the case of the very elderly, and that the problem lies in the increase in the number of psychiatric cases discharged from hospitals and arriving in the community? Is he further aware that in that connection there is an increase in homelessness because there is not a satisfactory response in terms of the community care needs in our local authorities?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government have researched this area fairly extensively, as the noble Lord will know from recent experience and also from past experience. From time to time our attention is drawn to the cases of people who have been discharged from long stay hospitals and are—if the noble Lord will pardon the expression—floating in the community. We have always tracked down those cases and found that that is not the case. The problem arises with people who have had short-term treatment in acute psychiatric hospitals from which it is not unnatural to suppose that they should go back to the kind of living standards from which they came.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the Minister gave some figures concerning the mentally ill. Does he have comparable figures for the mentally handicapped?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not have those figures with me at the moment but I shall write to the noble Lord if I may.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent report by Shelter which indicates that the increase in the number of disabled people—with all disabilities, not just mental illness—recorded as homeless is increasing at twice the percentage rate for able bodied people? Can he say what are the Government's plans to deal with that very serious situation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I know of the report but I have to confess that I have not yet read it. I understand that it is very recent. I shall certainly be looking into it. I made the point earlier that there has been an increase and that the Government are aware of that. I said—I believe to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—that resources have not yet caught up with that increase.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the main difficulties in collating statistics is the fact that very often single homeless people cannot register with a GP and many of them have to use the hard-pressed emergency provisions in hospitals. As has been said, where they have been an in-patient they would be discharged into the same accommodation, which may even have been a cardboard box, with no after-care facilities at all. May I suggest to the Minister that he issues some
762
guidance to district health authorities and family practitioner committees with a view to their investigating means of improving after-care facilities as well as the registration difficulties of the single homeless?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I should like to think further about the noble Lord's very valuable suggestion. It is a fact that central government and the health authorities are concentrating many of their resources into funding the voluntary bodies which are working so successfully in this area. Having said that, I shall certainly investigate the noble Lord's suggestion.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether his department works closely with the Home Office over the problem of the homeless who are mentally ill and who land up in police cells?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, in recent weeks there have been discussions on this very worrying subject.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report from which I quoted in my first supplementary question showed that in the foreseeable future the number of people sleeping rough in London could be of the same order as in New York where it is estimated that at present 35,000 people sleep rough, an ever-increasing number of those people being found to be mentally ill in some way? I and those people involved with this problem welcome the recent announcement of increased financial resources from government to deal with it. But the Minister must be aware of the size of the problem with which we are dealing and realise that even those increased measures are only tilting at windmills in an attempt to fight a major war. Will he ask the Secretary of State as quickly as possible substantially further to increase resources—and I am speaking about providing housing for those people—in order to enable the people who are dealing with the problem to produce some improvement before it becomes too bad to deal with at all?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall of course pass on the remarks of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend. In so doing I shall have to tell him that from the remarks that the noble Lord has made it is likely that he will be a strong supporter of the Government's current Housing Bill, which has such an end in view.

Business
3.12 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Education Reform Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Report stage of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill and the Committee stages

763
of the Horses, Ponies and Donkeys (No. 2) Bill and the Environment and Safety Information Bill will be taken.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the Report stage of the Education Reform Bill. In spite of a very late sitting indeed yesterday, progress was far short of what we had hoped. I realise that many noble Lords feel very strongly on some of the questions that were debated yesterday. However, I make a plea to the House to try to make up some of the ground that we lost yesterday and possibly get much further on today. In this regard perhaps I may draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the Companion to the Standing Orders and in particular to the directions that no noble Lord may speak more than once and that arguments fully deployed in Committee of the whole House should not be repeated at length on Report.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I appreciate the remarks of the Government Chief Whip but I think that he underestimates the feeling about this Bill on all sides of the House. Surely the Government should have provided more time for us to debate this Bill; surely it is not difficult for the Government Chief Whip to talk over this matter with his colleagues, rearrange tomorrow's business and give us an extra day.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord has been a Member of this House for a long time and he knows very well that it is up to the House to get through the business of the Government, whether it is a Conservative or a Labour Government who are in power. That has always been thought to be right. If an extra day is produced for one Bill, it means that that day must come off another Bill. It is the job of the usual channels to try to arrange that the time available, which is a finite commodity, is distributed fairly among Bills.
I do not protest about noble Lords speaking with passion when the House debates matters on which they feel very strongly, but time is limited and if noble Lords will speak in shorter compass we shall get through the business more easily.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord the Chief Whip that the Government have very considerable responsibility for this situation. The House has to consider two huge Bills—the poll tax Bill and the education Bill. They are quite abnormally outsize Bills which we are expected to get through. They are highly controversial and a great many of their provisions are very badly drafted. It is not good enough for the noble Lord to put the blame on the opposition parties. A great deal of it rests with the Government.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Baroness who is the Deputy Leader of the Social and Liberal Democratic Party thinks that it is the duty of this House to hold up government business which has come through another place, then the motives of the Liberal Party have changed dramatically over the years.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I did not say anything of the sort and the Chief Whip knows perfectly well that I did not say any such thing. I said that the Government had presented this House with two absolutely outsize bills to run concurrently and it is quite unreasonable for them to complain when there is delay that the fault lies with the opposition parties.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I do not think I said what the noble Baroness suggests. It is clearly understood that in this House we get through the Government's business. This may be a fairly fraught Session. There have been other fraught Sessions in the past. As the noble Baroness knows full well, the difficulty is that should one take more time on one Bill it means that there is less time available for other Bills. It is an appeal that I make. I am not asking that this House should deal less fully with any subject that it wishes to discuss but that valuable time should be used as effectively as possible so that the business of the House can be carried through.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated what he believes to be the duty of the Opposition. I believe that the opposition parties in this House have behaved in exemplary fashion in recent weeks, especially in view of the burden laid on them by the Government's legislative programme which in my view is out of all proportion to the length of the Session. One must also bear in mind that this is the first Session of what may possibly be a five-year Parliament. In my opinion the Government have placed an intolerable burden upon this House.
Against that background I think it is quite wrong for the noble Lord to say that the Opposition are in any way failing in their duty. The fact of the matter is that noble Lords on the government side of the House have taken an equal if not greater part in many debates on the Education Reform Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill. That is perfectly right and proper. I believe that this House is conducting itself in an exemplary fashion and is acting very much in the public interest. It is therefore quite wrong for the noble Lord to give the impression of chiding the Opposition—or indeed his own colleagues, because I noted that when he was making his speech he looked back at them.
I plead with the noble Lord and the Leader of the House to consider once again what might be done about this situation. My noble friend said that there was a case for allowing an additional day for this Bill. It may well be that a case can be made out for spending more days on it.
I want to say to the noble Lord that I believe it would be quite wrong for him to expect this House to sit into August. This House should rise at the end of July. It has worked extremely hard for 12 months now, since the last election, and it would be quite wrong for there to be a long overlap period. We have the experience of sitting far longer than the other place and, given the nature of this Chamber, that again is to place a burden which is far too great upon it, especially in view of what noble Lords on all sides of the House do to facilitate the progress of business. It would be very much against the public interest and the interest of this House for dicussion about very

765
important and contentious Bills to be squeezed into a short space of time in order to suit the Government's convenience. It is wrong for the noble Lord to expect that.
The duty of this House is to scrutinise Bills properly. That is what it is doing. I do not expect the noble Lord to reply immediately but I ask him to consider with his noble friend the Leader of the House what might be done to hear the interests of this House in mind.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I do not dissent for one moment from what the noble Lord says about the way in which the opposition parties have behaved during this Session. In that regard I have no fault to find at all, and on occasion I have expressed my gratitude for it.
I was answering the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who suggested that more time should be found. The difficulty is that if we find more time it has to come from somewhere. That is the point I was trying to make. The answer is for the usual channels to get together for discussions. I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House will take a very close interest. If I gave the impression that I was in any way detracting from the function of the opposition parties in the House, I apologise.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged for what the noble Lord has said. All of us appreciate that in ordinary circumstances the noble Lord is a nice man. But we want him to transfer that niceness to his office as Government Chief Whip. Perhaps he will be good enough to bear in mind that there have been additions to the programme that was outlined in the gracious Speech last June. For example, we have had the steel privatisation Bill. We have had the addition of the abolition of ILEA to the education Bill. Many other things have been done to increase the burden of work.
The question is whether the noble Lord and other noble Lords expect the gracious Speech to be made in the ordinary way on 5th November. If he is expecting that, then he is expecting this House to do too much. If he is expecting that the House should come back, for example, during the conference period early in October, he is again expecting too much. It is up to the government management to make sure that this House is treated in a proper fashion. I plead with him therefore once again to discuss the matter with his noble friend and his right honourable friends to make sure that business is arranged in a proper fashion.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has, in his normal charming and skilful way, managed to widen discussion about the Companion to the Standing Orders, and its relevance to today's business, to what the House will do over the coming weeks. The noble Lord has every right to do that. As the noble Lord and I very often meet each other outside the Chamber to discuss the House, I suggest that in addition to the usual channels the noble Lord and I have a word about the future.
766
In the meantime, perhaps I may suggest that we now turn to the business in hand within the confines of the rules of orders set out in your Lordships' Companion.

Education Reform Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Implementation of National Curriculum.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the National Curriculum Council, and the Curriculum Council for Wales, so to exercise the powers conferred by section 4(2) below as to propose to Parliament the establishment of programmes of study and attainment targets for a complete National Curriculum as soon as is reasonably practicable and desirable, having regard to—

(a) the availability of teachers, books, equipment and other resources;

(b) the orderly development of educational opportunities for pupils of all aptitudes; and

(c) the views of parents, local education authorities and other persons or bodies who appear to it to be concerned.

(2) It shall be the duty of the School Examinations and Assessment Council so to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(4), in co-operation with the National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales, as to propose to Parliament assessment arrangements appropriate to the implementation of the National Curriculum.
(3) The establishment of a National Curriculum under this section shall commence with the core subjects, followed by any other subjects specified in section 3 above.
(4) Where any of the above councils wishes to propose the making of an Order by the Secretary of State under section 4(2) below, (whether or not on the basis of recommendations from any subject working party established by the Secretary of State), it shall give notice of the proposal and undertake consultation in accordance with section 15(3) below;
(5) Where any Council recommends to the Secretary of State, after the carrying out of the consultation referred to in subsection (4) above, the making of an Order to implement a part of the National Curriculum, he may accept it, or reject it, and in the latter case, he shall refer the matter back to the Council with his reasons.
(6) Where the Secretary of State accepts a recommendation of a Council, he shall, subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, make an interim Order, and any such Order made under this subsection shall be

(a) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and

(b) brought into effect by a final order made in accordance with subsection (8) below.

(7) Interim Orders under subsection (6) above may be made in any sequence, but final orders under subsection (8) below shall be made so as to secure that—

(a) programmes of study, attainment targets and assessment arrangements are introduced at the same date for any subject in relation to pupils in any of the key stages specified in section 3(3); and

(b) the implementation of the National Curriculum and assessment in relation to any subject shall be cumulative in relation to an individual pupil, such that no pupil to whom it applies in relation to a particular subject in one key stage shall cease to be subject to it (in relation to that subject) at any later key stage.

(8) The Secretary of State may, in any year after Royal Assent, make one or more final Orders for the purpose of setting out the timetable for the implementation of any interim Orders which he intends to bring into effect in a subsequent year, together with any modifications to any such Order that he considers reasonably necessary, and no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(9) The National Curriculum and assessment arrangements shall be implemented under this section during the period from the beginning of the academic years 1989–90 to 1994–95, or such later dates as may be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 41, with the leave of the House I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42,53,55,93 and 97. This is a comprehensive amendment, and therefore rather long and complicated. It is designed to secure a proper process for implementation of the national curriculum. In the light of the discussion that we have just had I shall try to be as brief as possible, but I hope that your Lordships' House will bear with me for a moment because this is quite a complicated additional clause. Perhaps I may briefly explain what it will do and then give the reasons why it is needed.
The National Curriculum Council, and the equivalent body for Wales, will be charged with making proposals to Parliament for the introduction of the curriculum subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State. The curriculum will be introduced as teachers and other resources are available and not before, and after discussion with parents, local education authorities and other bodies. The responsibility for proposing to Parliament arrangements for the new national assessments will be passed to the School Examinations and Assessment Council. The core subjects will be introduced first. There will be a consultation process before orders are made as in the Bill at present on attainment targets and programmes, and the amendment extends this to assessment.
The Secretary of State will retain the power to reject recommendations for councils and to refer them back for further consideration. Interim orders will be made as areas of the curriculum become available for implementation thereby allowing Parliament to review the content of the curriculum stage by stage as recommendations are brought forward.
A final order subject to affirmative resolution will be made each year containing the elements of the curriculum to be implemented in the subsequent and following years. In this way Parliament, before giving final approval to any particular part of the curriculum, will be able to see how it fits within the overall timetable for the following years. Whenever a part of the curriculum is introduced—for example, French for 14 year-olds to 16 year-olds—the amendment states that the programmes of study, the attainment targets and the assessment arrangements should all be introduced at the same date. Without this provision pupils could start on examination courses in the early years without knowing what form of assessment arrangements they will have to undergo at the end of the course.
The amendment provides that curriculum and assessment should be cumulative in relation to an individual pupil in respect of a particular subject.
768
This means that once a pupil has entered the curriculum in respect of, let us say, English, he or she should not leave the national curriculum at a later stage in his or her career. Under the Government's present plans there appears to be a possible danger that parts of the curriculum for some of the later school years might not be in place in time for the earliest entrants to the curriculum in that subject to continue to study it within the national framework. The amendment sets down a minimum of five years for the implementation of the curriculum subject to a longer period being set by the Secretary of State. That accords with the Secretary of State's own statements and the recommendations in the TGAT report on testing.
The essential point of the amendment is the remarkably scant detail available, even at this very late stage, on the precise timetable and the processes involved in implementing the national curriculum. Perhaps I may develop this a little further.
The curriculum is at present being developed, even while the Bill is being discussed in Parliament, by the first of a series of informal working groups which the Secretary of State has already set up. At first glance it may appear from the Bill that the National Curriculum Council will be the body which is entrusted with introducing and then monitoring the national curriculum. However, that is not really so. The council will be handed parts of the national curriculum as they come forward from the subject working groups and is then required to undertake consultation on them. It will have the opportunity to comment but it will not have initiated the content of the curriculum. In practice the pressure for implementation at the earliest date will mean that the National Curriculum Council has very little role in determining the precise content of the curriculum. Its real role will be to advise the Secretary of State on possible modifications and changes in later years. Even in that situation its role is secondary and the curriculum will remain subject to the direct control of the Secretary of State.
The same applies to the School Examinations and Assessment Council which will have a quite limited role in reviewing assessment arrangements in future years, subject again to the control of the Secretary of State. The amendment proposes that the fashioning of the curriculum should be restored to the educational bodies appointed for reasons of their experience. The Government are adopting precisely this process in Scotland. We had some discussion about the advantages of the Scottish system yesterday. I should like to repeat the advantages in relation to this aspect of the Bill.
Curriculum guidelines have been issued within the last 12 months in Scotland, endorsed by the Secretary of State, by the consultative committee on the curriculum there. This is being done without notification; the initiative in fashioning the guidelines, which are not prescriptive, is with the educational specialists represented on the councils. The Secretary of State for Scotland is taking no direct role in prescribing the curriculum. The responsibility for implementing the curriculum in Scotland will be that of the council in terms of shaping a national framework for local education authorities in

769
determining the local curriculum and for schools, principally head teachers, to select the individual curriculum applicable to their own pupils. No reason whatsoever has been advanced by the Government for abandoning what seems to me a common-sense approach in relation to England and Wales. I wonder whether the Minister will give the House some reasons for the difference in approach.
The amendment also proposes that the national curriculum should be cumulative in respect of individual pupils. Information now emerging from the DES explains why we consider that this is needed. In maths, for example, five year-olds will start the national curriculum in September 1989, but potentially at least they will leave it in September 1991. Similarly five year-olds starting science subjects in September 1989 will need to have the national curriculum of the seven to 11 year-old key stage in place by September 1991 if they too do not leave it at that date only to re-enter it when they are 11, four years later. Primary school children attempting technology from September 1989 may have only two years of the national curriculum before they cease to be subject to it.
To avoid these pitfalls, can we have a clear commitment from the Government that all the gaps will be filled before any individual child encounters them in going through the school system? The amendment seeks to achieve this.
Parliament will find it very difficult to keep track under the present proposals of the national curriculum as it emerges. It will be asked for each individual order on a negative procedure without knowing how it relates to other orders on other parts of the curriculum. That is clearly unsatisfactory. The amendment proposes that orders should be rolled up in each year under an affirmative procedure to enable Parliament to debate the timetable for forthcoming years. Without this process it will be virtually impossible to exercise proper scrutiny over the introduction of the curriculum and fears as to the effective level of power being handed over to the Secretary of State will be further exacerbated.
The amendment seeks to introduce the national curriculum only when teachers with appropriate qualifications and training are available. Without that very fundamental requirement being met, the whole enterprise will be open to considerable risk. The amendment also seeks to introduce the national curriculum in a way that will be seen as fair and which makes the maximum amount of information available both to Parliament and to the public, including, of course, parents. Without this form of open process parents are likely to be extremely bewildered as to the way in which the curriculum will affect their own children.
Haste to introduce the curriculum on a piecemeal basis means that the Government might fail in their duty to introduce an important educational reform with the interests of children in mind. If on the other hand the Government accept the amendment, that would demonstrate their commitment to an orderly introduction of the curriculum within the timetable
770
that they set down for themselves. Without it, proper planning cannot take place and children will suffer. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as instructed, I shall be brief; but I want to emphasise two matters in particular. One is the total irrationallity and unfairness of asking the teaching profession to teach a curriculum if there is not adequate provision of teachers, equipment and resources generally. There should be no compulsion on the schools to deliver unless the materials are there to make it possible so to do. It cannot be right to ask the education world to make bricks without straw.
The second point I want to underline is the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. As the noble Baroness will be aware, we have all along been extremely anxious about the centralising tendencies of this legislation. We have been told again and again that the Government are decentralising because they are giving power to parents; but Parliament also wants to come in on this, otherwise the details in the hands of the Secretary of State will in reality be dictated by the school service in the DES. It is right and proper that Parliament should play a role in examining how the curriculum is being set and should have the opportunity to have its say. I very much hope that the amendment will be supported.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I believe that I understand the meaning of the amendment—at least I hope I do—although it was a little difficult to take it all in. I wonder whether it would not make matters a little too rigid. In some parts of the country there may be schools to which the national curriculum may not he very suited. In that case surely the head master should be the person to decide what alterations should be made. If I were a head master I should be very angry indeed at having all power to run my school taken away from me and put in the hands of a national curriculum council. While such a scheme might work very well over a large percentage of the country, it is a pity to lay down the law too hard so that no variations can be made.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister—whom I should like to thank for her sympathy when she observed me yawning on the.Bench at 2 o'clock this morning—knows that I am aware of the need to husband time. I make no apology for speaking to the amendment because it has a considerable claim to be regarded as the most important on the Marshalled List. One cannot do a job without tools. One cannot teach without teachers. One cannot read without books. When my own department interviews entrance candidates, it regularly asks them about the contents of their school libraries. We are well aware that standards of provision are falling rapidly, seriously and drastically—indeed to the point where many candidates arrive quite ill-prepared for what they are supposed to be doing.
In these circumstances, laying a major new obligation on teachers (themselves in a steadily diminishing supply), even more obligations on head teachers (themselves in even more rapidly

771
diminishing supply) seems to be an unnecessary determination to cause problems.
I listened with a great deal of care to many speeches on the other side of the House on the Local Government Finance Bill as well as on this Bill. There seems to me to be an undue tendency to assume that spending is profligate, to assume that the imposition of financial limits may be met simply by the elimination of waste. If there was any quantity of that it was eliminated some time ago. I do not believe that it is known how hard rate capping, for example, has been and quite how difficult it will be to undertake major new obligations without the tools to do it. It used to be a legal maxim that the law does not compel one to do the impossible. I should like to know when it ceased to be one.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have all listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, introducing this very comprehensive new clause covering two major aspects of the Bill. There are two comments that I should like to make on it. The first concerns the first part of the proposed new clause which seems to be a kind of declaratory statement about what should happen. It is extremely difficult to define what the circumstances are that would be required to be met before anything started at all.
I can see that only too easily almost any local authority or school could say that a part of the statements, (a), (b) or (c), was missing and that they were unable to carry out part of the national curriculum. Were time to allow, which it does not, we could have an interesting debate about the availability of teachers. We could debate the way in which local authorities manage the teachers that they have and whether they make the best use of them. It has always struck me as being a major weakness that they look after the married women who leave to have a baby but then lose track of them and do not reemploy them. What happens to them when there is a shortage of teachers in subjects such as maths or science?
This is not the moment for a debate on the supply of teachers but I should like to make the serious point that one could argue for a long time about the availability of teachers. To write such a provision as that into the Bill appears to give an opportunity for those who do not with to implement the national curriculum not to do so on grounds which are not sustainable. I believe that the same argument applies to books, equipment, other resources and so forth. As we are being pressed not to speak at length I shall not pursue that argument further.
My second point relates to the subject of parliamentary scrutiny to which the House has always attached great importance. There will he opportunities to scrutinise on the delegated legislation. However, Parliament has never scrutinised the precise curriculum within schools, although for the first time it will have an opportunity to see what is being taught in a more public way than has ever been possible. A criticism today is of the difficulty of finding out what is being taught in schools and there is a great deal of contradictory information. This is an interesting discussion and I
772
do not know what line my noble friend will take on the matter. I do not believe that it helps the development of what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the amendment contains a number of extremely important points. I believe that none is more important than the matter to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has referred—the availability of teachers. I should like to speak briefly and ask what the Government mean by the word "teachers" as regards the implementation of the national curriculum. I should like to go further and ask what they mean by the words "qualified teachers".
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat what I said in the House last week. We should be concerned about trained teachers. Defining a teacher as "qualified" and as "trained" can be two different things. The Secretary of State has recently announced a proposal to licence teachers and I hope that he does not implement that. The issue has arisen because of the shortage of teachers in certain subjects: physics, mathematics, certain modern foreign languages and so forth. Before anything such as the national curriculum is implemented I hope that the Government will make quite sure that we shall have qualified and trained teachers, however long that may take.
I believe that the time is long overdue for the establishment of what some people would choose to call a general teaching council. Its remit would include the supply of teachers, about which many noble Lords are most concerned. It would also deal with the question of training. I hasten to say that had such a council been in existence for the past few years we might not have had the present serious shortage of teachers in certain subjects, which I believe will hamper the national curriculum. I hope that in her reply the Minister will comment on that subject which I believe to be crucial.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, one of the reasons that the amendment has been put forward is the uncertainty surrounding the national curriculum. We do not yet know exactly what will happen and when, although the Bill is at Report stage in the House of Lords. The responses of the Government to the various reports are very late. The TGAT report was published at the end of last year and the Government did not make a firm response for some time. The supplementary reports which were requested have only this month been responded to by the Government. There is a great deal of uncertainty everywhere as to what will happen and when. It exists among local authorities, teachers and parents. The amendment attempts to lay down an orderly process for discovering that.
Of course there is anxiety about the availability of teachers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. I obtained figures from Cambridgeshire which show that 69 additional teachers will be needed in secondary schools to implement the national curriculum; 43 laboratories will be needed in 45

773
secondary schools; there will be 2 million children for assessment and testing. All those matters do not appear to have been taken fully into consideration in proposing the national curriculum. We should like to know something about the timescale and how the Government see the introduction of the national curriculum.
I agree with my noble friend that to have the national curriculum implemented for five to seven year-olds, not for seven to 11 year-olds but then again for 11 to 14 year-olds is a totally unsatisfactory way of carrying on. The point of the amendment is to obtain some idea of what will happen and to know that Parliament will be informed of what is happening during the course of the next few years. We understand that it will be at least five years before it is in operation. We should like to know a little more and to make certain that Parliament will be kept informed as matters go ahead.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are faced in these amendments with a number of issues, many of which were dealt with in Committee. Before turning to the detailed amendments I should like to respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in introducing them. She asked why the Government's proposals for the national curriculum in England and Wales will be established in a different way from Scotland. The process of creating a common curriculum in Scotland has been continuing for a number of years and considerable progress has been achieved there. It is therefore possible for the Government's policy on the school curriculum to build on what exists and on the activities of its existing curriculum and examinations council. Progress in England and Wales has been neither as fast nor as well developed as in Scotland. Therefore the Government's proposals for the national curriculum set out to achieve the more rapid progress now required if all the children in the country are to have the opportunity to benefit as fully as possible from their years in compulsory education and with the benefit of a broad and balanced curriculum.
Turning to the specific amendments I should like to deal with the points raised by Amendment No. 41 and then those which are consequential to it. There have been many attempts to have us put into the Bill declaratory provisions to the effect that the national curriculum will be introduced sensibly, taking into account all relevant factors, particularly the availability of resources, and with full consultation. We have resisted such declaratory additions because we feel that they are unnecessary and could even be unhelpful.
What is needed is a framework which ensures that the national curriculum orders, including the speed of their implementation, are fully debated, widely consulted upon and subject where appropriate to the final test of parliamentary approval. That is the framework which we have established in the Bill—and it is a framework Bill after all—with the two-stage consultation process and the publication of a summary of representations and of the NCC's advice, with the requirement for the Secretary of
774
State to publish his reasons if he goes against that advice.
The second is another old favourite, the case for making the orders specifying assessment arrangements subject to the same processes as the orders for attainment targets and programmes of study. I repeat that that would not be the right approach. We have already had the main consultation on the shape of the assessment arrangements, following the publication of the TGAT report, and have agreed to its main recommendations as those which should underpin more detailed provisions. We shall come to TGAT in more detail on later amendments, as the noble Baroness has said, and I shall not make any further comment at this stage.
The assessment arrangements will be set out in orders, subject by subject. They will be the combination of the TGAT framework and the targets set out by the individual subject working groups, on which there will be full consultation. It would not be right to have an independent round of consultation, under the auspices of a different council, on arrangements whch flow from and are designed to serve the national curriculum and will be largely administrative. There will be piloting of tests and other assessment instruments, and we shall be seeking the best professional advice in developing them and ensuring that they meet the objectives we are agreed upon. In practical terms the orders will need to be regularly updated with the details of assessment arrangements year by year. And SEAC will have an important role to play. Under Clause 9(4) (a) its first functions are already to keep all aspects of assessment under review, and to advise the Secretary of State on such matters as he may refer to it or as it sees fit. The Secretary of State is able to ask the council's advice on how the arrangements are operating, and the council can exercise its right to give advice even when no explicit request has been made. For all these reasons, we believe that this aspect of the amendment is misconceived.
Thirdly, we return to the notion that the statutory councils rather than the Secretary of State should be in the driving seat in proposing the national curriculum subject by subject. I believe that in this the noble Baroness Lady Blackstone, has failed to justify how she feels able to give this important duty to a non-elected body, rather than to the Secretary of State who is clearly answerable to Parliament and the country. For this reason Amendment No. 41, which brings in the new clause, is an uneasy compromise—the NCC is required to make proposals "to Parliament" in subsection (1), but it is clear from subsections (5) and (6) that they would only be able to make proposals to the Secretary of State which he may accept or reject. It is obviously right that the main and central duty to establish the national curriculum should rest with the Secretary of State, required as he is to consult the NCC and take full account of its advice, and available as he will be to answer for his decisions.
We now come to a couple of new points raised by the amendment. The idea of two sets of orders, one with and one without a timetable attached, does not appear to add anything to the Bill. Rather it

775
introduces great possibilities for confusion, with "inoperative" orders on the statute book, and two separate rounds of consultation where one could suffice and deal with the interrelated issues raised by any order. In practice I believe that this would be a recipe for muddle, duplication, and worse. All the relevant issues will be debated when orders are made, as they will have to set out the timetable for implementation in relation to the key stages to which each relates.
The second new thought is the proposed provision that national curriculum requirements should only be introduced in a way which allows a pupil to continue through all key stages once embarked on a national curriculum programme in any subject. The noble Baroness took pains to explain exactly what she meant in this respect. Of course, in an ideal world, this would be the best way to proceed as long as it did not require undue delay in any subject. But to avoid the possibility of such delay, we do not wish at this stage to rule out the possibility of introducing the national curriculum in a particular subject for pupils in most school years while delaying its introduction in the later secondary years, which might be necessary to make sure that adequate teaching or other resources would be available. I am sure that the House would confirm that that would be in the best interests of the children. We should not prevent younger pupils having the benefit of a coherent national system as soon as possible, and the degree of consistency already required in years four and five by the national criteria for the GCSE will ensure that they are not at that stage met with wildly different demands which they are unable to cope with. We do not believe that children will suffer.
Finally, perhaps I may deal with Amendment No. 55. The amendment is concerned with the availability of teachers. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, all emphasise that aspect. It seeks to make sure that the speed of implementation of the national curriculum takes account of this factor. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that before introducing any part of the national curriculum he will want to be fully satisfied about the availability of suitably qualified teachers and other resources However, in the unlikely event that some future Secretary of State did not make such consideration, then this would emerge in the consultation processes required by Clauses 15 and 16. The statutory orders defining attainment targets and programmes of study, and detailing the timetable for their introduction, will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and this will give a further opportunity to explore the question of teacher availability.
I must emphasise that the ratio of pupils to teachers is at its lowest ever level. The Government's expenditure plans allow for it to fall still further to 17:1, which will provide LEAs collectively with scope to redeploy teachers to prepare and implement the national curriculum. It should be borne in mind that, in secondary schools, pupil numbers are still declining. In England secondary school numbers will fall by 280,000 between now and 1991—a drop of
776
over 9 per cent. The recovery in secondary school numbers will be much slower than the fall and will not reach the level of this year again until the year 2000. That allows LEAs and schools the chance to redeploy teachers effectively and to make the most of the collective skills and expertise of the teaching force as they prepare for and deliver the national curriculum.
The total provision required for all subjects in secondary schools in the 1990s will be less because of the drop in the pupil population. We have not yet made firm estimates of the need for specialist teachers of maths and science because we have not yet seen the working groups' final reports which are due shortly but we must remember that virtually all pupils up to age 14 now study these subjects. We shall certainly look at the national picture in setting out a timetable for implementing the requirements stage by stage; but of course it will be, as now, for local authorities and schools to ensure that they have the right staff for their needs.
We intend to build on the existing support for in-service training in maths and science to help prepare teachers, over the course of the next year, for the new demands of the national curriculum from September 1989. But again I remind your Lordships that we shall be building on existing practice in the core areas, not asking teachers to throw out all they know and start from scratch.
Indeed, without dwelling too long on the subject, we are also making provision for in-service training through education support grants and we believe that that should cover the needs of the teachers in preparing them. There has been considerable interest and discussion on the proposals, and most teachers are at least alerted, if not already embarked, upon consideration of what is involved.
Therefore, I hope that the proposers of these amendments will feel able to withdraw this and other amendments in the group. If not, I ask your Lordships to join me in rejecting them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her to address the question of availability of teachers in particular subjects. That is something which the teacher-pupil ratio does not altogether address. That creates a need for teachers in particular subjects. Can that need be met?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that addressed the subject of maths and science teachers in particular. Of course, in terms of the national curriculum, there will also be particular needs in terms of language teachers and possibly others. The Government are certainly addressing those needs; but I believe that my general remarks about the decline of the pupil population over the foreseeable period applies in general to this and to the fact that there will be scope for redeployment and in-service training of teachers to meet the needs. We are certainly regarding this matter seriously. Nobody is suggesting that it is a perfect picture, but we are working hard on it.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her long and considered reply. But it leaves a number of unresolved problems. I should first like to comment on what the Minister said about Scotland. I accept that a form of national curriculum has been under development in Scotland for some time. However, would it not be much more sensible to build slowly but successfully here in England and Wales, just as has been happening in Scotland, securing a consensus from all those who will participate in running the national curriculum—the local authorities, teachers, and so on? Would not that be better than rushing to impose it on people who are extremely reluctant to take it on hoard? To do that would be a recipe for failure when, instead, we could be proceeding on the same basis that we have seen in Scotland.
The framework for the national curriculum should he built on an underlying assumption which ought to be made explicit about the availability of resources. I should also say something about teachers. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said she thought we would never get the national curriculum off the ground because there would always be arguments about the availability of teachers. I can assure your Lordships that there is absolutely no intention that the amendment should delay the implementation of the national curriculum. The sole intention is that the national curriculum should be introduced in an orderly way that will make it a success.
It would be dangerous—would it not?—to seek to introduce, for example, a modern language for all pupils in our secondary schools (which does not exist at present) without enough teachers of modern languages. If we are to use teachers of modern languages who do not have the appropriate qualifications I am afraid pupils will turn against learning a modern language rather than benefit from it. A similar situation will arise if we endeavour to introduce science to all pupils in secondary schools. I am very much in favour of both developments in the national curriculum for the reasons put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—the failure in our system to get girls to study science and boys to study modern languages.
Once again, however, we must recognise that there is already a desperate shortage of physics teachers in our system. If we seek to impose on secondary schools science for all pupils without having enough teachers, then I do not believe that we shall have even one extra girl taking such subjects because they will be put off by the incompetence of the teachers. Already in the university sector we are facing the worrying phenomenon of an enormous decline in applications for degrees in physics. I suspect that the position will get worse if we introduce subjects into the curriculum without good teachers. Further, if ordinary classrooms rather than laboratories are used to teach science, what will pupils make of that?
In spite of what the Minister said, the teacher shortage is acute in some parts of the country, especially at the primary stage. I should not like to see primary school children being taught technology by primary teachers who have never had training in the
778
teaching of technology. We need proper in-service courses off the ground before we go ahead.
I now refer to assessment arrangements. The Minister said that she did not think it right to have independent consultation because professional advice will be sought. I am extremely glad that professional advice will be sought but this is such an important new part of the whole education system—assessment on this scale—that I believe it requires the widest possible consultation.
As regards the role of the statutory councils replacing the role of the Secretary of State—the Secretary of State is elected while the councils are not—the purpose of the amendment is to involve Parliament which at least in the other place is elected in scrutinising what is proposed. Moreover, the Secretary of State will continue to have the opportunity to reject proposals that are put forward by the experts on the statutory councils.
Finally, the Minister said that in an ideal world we would have the entire curriculum in place in time for children to work through it rather than entering it and then leaving it. We are told that that ideal world does not exist. I believe that we should wait for something closer to an ideal world rather than almost certainly produce a system where muddle and confusion will predominate as pupils move in and out of the national curriculum, uncertain as to why that is happening.
In the light of all those difficulties and uncertainties to which the Minister has not, in my view, given an adequate reply, I must divide the House.
4.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 137.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Amherst, E.

Flowers, L.

Ardwick, L.

Foot, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Gallacher, L.

Banks, L.

Galpern, L.

Birk, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Glenamara, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Grey, E.

Bottomley, L.

Grimond, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hampton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carter, L.

Hooson, L.

Chitnis, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hughes, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jacques, L.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kagan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kearton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kennet, L.

Ennals, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ezra, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Falkland, V.

Leatherland, L.

779

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Scanlon, L.

Longford, E.

Seear, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Serota, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stallard, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Northfield, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Oram, L.

Underhill, L.

Peston, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Raglan, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

White, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rochester, L.

Willis, L.

Rugby, L.

Winstanley, L.

Russell, E.

Young of Darlington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Headfort, M.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Auckland, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hood, V.

Blake, L.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ilchester, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Ironside, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Butterworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Caccia, L.

Joseph, L.

Caithness, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Knutsford, V.

Carnock, L.

Layton, L.

Cawley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cayzer, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Chelwood, L.

London, Bp.

Clitheroe, L.

Long, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cowley, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cox, B.

Manchester, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Manton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Dormer, L.

Mersey, V.

Dundee, E.

Middleton, L.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Effingham, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Moyne, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Nelson, E.

Fortescue, E.

Northbourne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gainford, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Orkney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Gibson, L.

Pender, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Porritt, L.

Gridley, L.

Pym, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renton, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hastings, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Havers, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

780

Sandford, L

Teviot, L.

Seebohm, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Selborne, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Selkirk, E.

Thurlow, L.

Shannon, E.

Trafford, L.

Sharples, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Truro, Bp.

Somers, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Swansea, L.

Wise, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wolfson, L.

Swinton, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Terrington, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 4 [Duty to establish the National Order]:
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No.45:
Page 3, line 38, after ("the") insert ("core and other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 45, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 and No. 54. The object of this series of amendments is, first, to clarify the confusion that seemed to reign when we were discussing at Committee stage the difference between the core and the foundation subjects. The other object of the amendments is to try to soften to some extent the prescriptive powers of the Secretary of State.
In connection with that second object, I have a third concern which is the question of compatibility with existing legislation. To begin with the first point—namely, clarification—I believe it will be clearer to your Lordships if I read out how the subsection will now read. I am referring to Clause 4(2):
"The Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to each of the core and other foundation subjects as the case may be—

(a) such attainment targets:

(b) such overall programmes of study in respect of the core subjects; and

(c) such guidelines of study in respect of the foundation subjects;

(d) such assessment arrangements,

as he considers appropriate to provide broad guidelines in relation to that subject."
That is how the subsection will read.
When the meaning of core and foundation subjects was discussed in Committee, in the end it seemed that foundation subjects included the core subjects; that all the subjects named are foundation subjects, but that some are more foundation than others and they are called core subjects. It is to be hoped that there will be as little prescription from Elizabeth House as possible as to precisely what is taught in our classrooms. One hopes that the programmes of study proposed for the core subjects will allow the latitude that is needed for creative teaching and will be based upon the reports of the task groups for each subject; the English to be based on the Kingman Report and the maths and science programmes to be based on the reports of the task groups in those subjects.
It is hoped that for the other foundation subjects the term "guidelines" will be more appropriate than "programmes". Napoleonic prescription from on high has never been our way, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said yesterday, do not let us have it now. Genuine enlightenment is wanted by me, at any rate, and I am sure by your Lordships, as regards the question of compatibility with previous legislation.
Two years ago we had the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and we had a great deal of difficulty in deciding who was to do what as regards the curriculum. I remember it well because I played a part in it. I believe that ultimately we straightened it out to some extent. However, perhaps I may briefly remind noble Lords how the law now reads. Section 17 of the 1986 Act states:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority—

(a) to determine, and keep under review, their policy in relation to the secular curriculum for the county, voluntary and special schools maintained by them".

That is the function of the local education authority. Section 18 states:
"The articles of government for every county, controlled and maintained special school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governing body to consider —

(a) the policy of the local education authority as to the secular curriculum for the authority's schools, as expressed in the statement made by the authority under section 17 of this Act".

Section 18(6) states:
"The articles of government for every such school shall provide for it to be the duty of the head teacher, in discharging his duties in relation to the secular curriculum for the school—

(a) to consider the statement of the local education authority … and those of the governing body"—

I shall leave out parts that are not relevant to the argument—
(c) to ensure that that curriculum—
(ii) so far as it relates to other matters"—
matters other than sex education which is now the responsibility of the governing body—
is compatible with the authority's policy (as expressed in their statement) or, to the extent to which it is incompatible, is compatible with that policy as modified by the governing body's statement under subsection (1) above".
That is the law as it stands. Over and above all that we shall have the Secretary of State's programmes of study and attainment targets. How will they fit in? This is what worries me. What is the difference between all these things? What is the difference between the local education authority determining a policy, as in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, and the present Bill specifying "programmes of study"? I might add that on 3rd May the noble Earl, Lord Arran, referred to establishing guidelines and laying down syllabi. What is the difference between all these things? Do we really know what we are talking about?
In all the oceans of words and mountains of paper I do not believe that this issue has been properly debated, though I believe it was touched on yesterday. It seems to me possible that it is another example of the Government overlegislating and disregarding what is already there. It is as though the patient is given a large pill but before the effect of the pill can be discovered a huge bottle of medicine is
782
added to it. Before the result of that is discovered a hypodermic syringe is produced and an injection administered. One cannot discover what, if anything, is doing any good. Confusion is likely to follow. Can the Minister enlighten me? If she cannot, will she be kind enough to write to me on the question of who does what and how the provisions of the Bill tie in with the existing provisions of the 1986 Act?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as we are in the business of clarification and definition, I should like briefly to ask the Minister about something which has never been made clear. We have these two words "core" and "foundation". If there are two different words they must mean two different things. However, they are nowhere defined in the Bill, nor are we clear what differentiates a core from a foundation. It may be an academic point, but given two different terms any court of law will say that Parliament must have intended a difference—I think I am right in saying that—otherwise it would not have used two different terms. By what criteria does a core become a core and by what criteria does a foundation become a foundation? Will the Minister please tell us?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to pursue the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. At the Committee stage we were in some confusion about the differences between core and foundation subjects and about the differences between a syllabus, a programme of study and guidelines. I hope that we can have clarification on that second matter as well as on the first matter raised by the noble Baroness.
Why are we to have programmes for the core subjects and guidelines for the other foundation subjects? As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has already said, would it not he very much simpler to have guidelines for all the subjects, whether core or foundation? There is no doubt that the acceptance by the Government of guidelines across the board would do a great deal to allay the extreme anxieties about the prescriptive nature of the national curriculum. Teachers fear that programmes of study will prevent them from responding to changing social and economic needs. It will stop them working on new approaches to teaching and it will prevent them from developing new materials. In short, there is a danger that it will squeeze the term "innovation" out of their vocabularies.
Flexibility with respect to both local and regional factors will be very much more difficult to accommodate. In putting forward the amendments there is absolutely no intention to sabotage the national curriculum. The Secretary of State will still have a great deal of power to influence the curriculum through guidelines. The Bill involves guidelines only, with respect to the foundation subjects of art, music and physical education. Perhaps the Minister will confirm this and indicate the position regarding the other foundation subjects. I have no doubt that head teachers would respond to guidelines and that the Government would have a great deal of impact on what is taught through their use.
The amendments would restore the notion of partnership between government, local authorities and the teaching profession while at the same time

783
giving the Secretary of State a very much bigger role than he has had in the past in what is taught in our schools. I support the amendments, which I believe will clarify the position between the core and foundation subjects and allow for greater flexibility in the teaching of the foundation subjects.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, perhaps I may throw in a point on core and foundation subjects which I suggested at Committee stage. I thought that the Government would look at it and come back sympathetically. It relates to the interpretation clause, Clause 20. Whatever is decided on the present amendments I feel that a word there would help to clarify the matter.
Clause 20(1) states:
" 'core subjects', 'foundation subjects' and 'key stages' have the meanings given by section 3 of this Act".
I do not see that they are given any meanings in Clause 3. One can infer the meanings and I think it is possibly true that they can have no other meanings than that foundation embraces core. However, as it is a definition clause, it would help if at Third Reading something came forward to make clear exactly what is core and what is foundation under Clause 20.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I appreciate the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, and others over the definition of core and other foundation subjects. We have considered the points raised in the earlier debates—and indeed the points raised as a result of the amendment before us today—about the need for such clarification, but we remain of the view that the Bill as drafted allows only one interpretation.
In saying that, I take on board what the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has said. The reference back in the definition clause to the main clauses is, we believe, adequate. After all, Clause 2 of the Bill says that the national curriculum,
"shall comprise the core and other foundation subjects".
Clause 3(1) specifies the core subjects and Clause 3(2) specifies the other foundation subjects. The same formulation is used in Clause 4(1)(a), taking first the core subjects and then the other foundation subjects. Again, the important word here is "other". It makes clear that the national curriculum, in England for example, consists of 10 foundation subjects for secondary school pupils. It means that where the Bill refers only to foundation subjects, as it does in Clause 4(2), it is referring to all 10 subjects. Therefore I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that the amendment is not necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it on that basis.
Let me now turn to the rest of the amendments in this group. Clause 4(2) allows the Secretary of State by order to specify for each of the foundation subjects such attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements as he considers appropriate for that subject. These amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has explained, seek to enable the Secretary of State to distinguish between the core and other foundation subjects by allowing him to set guidelines only for the other foundation subjects.
784
However, we have already made clear that we expect the programmes of study and attainment targets to apply to the other foundation subjects, as well as to the core subjects, although in the case of the core subjects they will be more detailed; so that it is only in the case of art, music and PE, where detailed attainment targets and programmes of study would be more difficult, that it is proposed to issue general guidelines. The level of prescription appropriate for any subject—I appreciate that this was a special concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—will be a matter for consultation when orders are being made and subject finally to Parliament's approval.
The amendments have served a useful purpose in allowing me to clarify the position regarding core and other foundation subjects, but, as I have explained, they add nothing to the provisions of the Bill. I must therefore ask the noble Lord not to press the amendments. However, I shall take up his invitation to write to him in more detail on the other questions which he raised.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister, before she sits down, whether it would be helpful—as I am sure there will be confusion among the general public, and those who will subsequently read the clause—to include in the Bill some phrase which would show that the term "foundation subjects" embraces the core subjects. If we have all misunderstood the issue, I am quite sure that many other people will find the same difficulty. Therefore, would it not help to further clarify the position?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was not aware of any confusion in this respect until an apparent confusion arose in this House on a previous occasion. Therefore I do not think that it is widely creating a problem. Further, I believe that my statement today must have helped to clarify the position.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I must say I do not think that the present situation is very satisfactory. So far as I remember, we had a 20-minute discussion on the matter in Committee. Further, without wishing to flatter the Members of this House, I do not think that we are short of brains in this place. If it is possible to debate the matter for 20 minutes surely there must be some lack of clarity. As the Minister has finished her reply, I do not think that I can ask her to reconsider the matter. However, I shall be most grateful to hear anything she has to say about the compatability with existing legislation, which seems to me to make confusion worst confounded. With those words, I feel that I must withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 50 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert ("based on the system of assessment set out in the reports of the Task Group on Assessment and Testing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is intended to ensure that any orders in respect of assessment under the national curriculum are made in line with the various reports of the task group on assessment and testing; that is, the TGAT

785
report. It is important both in the context of question marks left after debate in Committee and in respect of the parliamentary Written Answer issued by the Secretary of State earlier this month. The Answer constitutes the Government's response to the TGAT report, which we have been waiting for since January. However, it stills leaves many points unanswered. Further details are necessary if Parliament is not to be treated in a wholly cavalier fashion on one of the central proposals of the Bill.
At the same time, I welcome the fact that the Government accept many of the main recommendations of the TGAT report. However, there are many other important recommendations which were not covered in the Secretary of State's Written Answer, issued on 7th June. The first point concerns the publication of statements by the school as to its curriculum policy, and by the local education authority as to the social composition of the school, to accompany any examination or assessment results which will be published. The report stated that the only form in which the results of national assessment for, and identifying, a given school should be published should be part of a broader report by that school of its work as a whole. The latter has been ignored by the Government in their response, despite statements made by the Minister in Committee that,
"the Government fully accept the need for any published assessment results to be set in context".
Secondly, as regards attainment profiles and records of achievement, these were also omitted from the statement, again despite government commitments made in Committee that examination and assessment results would be produced as part of them. In Committee the Minister said:
"the Government still intend that records of achievement at age 16 should be introduced. We feel that such records can be used to record the results of assessment".
Thirdly, the TGAT report stated:
"final reports on individual pupils to their parents should be the responsibility of the teacher, supported by standardised assessment tasks and group moderations".
The latter statement was notably absent from the Government's response, as is any indication of the precise balance between classroom assessment on the one hand and external tests on the other. The reply simply says that assessments,
"should be a combination of national external tests and assessment by teacher".
The TGAT report stated that the primary curriculum would need further development before comprehensive assessment arrangements could be produced for it. It proposed the establishment of a working group to undertake the task. However, there has been no comment on that proposal in the Secretary of State's response.
The TGAT report also implied that the GCSE would need to be changed after a period of time to bring it into line with other aspects of the national assessment. I think we shall be faced with some confusion regarding pupils of the age of 16 when national assessment is introduced. The Secretary of State's reply simply stated that at the age of 16 the GCSE will be,
"the main form of assessment".
786
without any indication of any possible changes in the future either to the GCSE or to national testing at 16.
The TGAT report also recommended that assessment tasks should be reviewed regularly to ascertain any evidence of bias, especially in relation to gender and race. Again, there was no comment on that recommendation in the response. I am sure that all Members of this House will agree that it is easy when testing children and young people for such bias to unwittingly occur. Indeed, there have been many studies which have demonstrated the incidence of bias when certain forms of assessment and testing are used; that is, both in respect to girls and ethnic minority children.
If the Government can accept the amendment. many teachers will be most reassured that the important recommendations contained in the TGAT report will actually be implemented. There are some parts even of that report which teachers find somewhat difficult to accept. But I think the vast majority of them and others who have expertise in the field of assessment of pupils in both primary and secondary schools consider the proposals to be much more desirable than some of the alternatives that have been discussed, some of which seem to have emerged from No. 10 Downing Street.
If, on the other hand, the Government cannot accept this amendment it would greatly help if the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, could tell the House what are the Government's intentions on these important matters that I have just indicated. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I wonder if I may, in speaking to Amendment No. 51, suggest to the House that since many of the considerations involved apply also to the following Amendment, No. 52, this should be taken into account. Both amendments seek to ensure that the national assessment system associated with the national curriculum follows the key recommendations of the report of the Task Group on Assessment and Testing. In fact, the principles which should govern the national assessment system were clearly stated by the Secretary of State in the Parliamentary Answer he gave on 7th June, when he published the supplementary reports which he had received from TGAT. Those of you who have read his statement will know that the principles now adopted by the Government reflect all the elements which TGAT regarded as essential to such a system.
We have made considerable progress in answer to some of the preoccupations which were raised at the previous stage. These principles will include prescribed national assessment tasks or tests and also moderated teacher assessment. Assessment will be used both formatively, to help better teaching and to inform decisions about the next steps for a pupil, and summatively at seven, 11, 14 and 16 to inform parents about their child's progress. At age 16 the GCSE will be the main form of assessment, especially in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science.
The information requirements will ensure that the assessments of individual pupils are always made available in full to parents in a way they can readily understand. Individual's results will not be

787
published, but the aggregated results at the ages of 11, 14 and 16 will be, so that the wider public can make informed judgments about attainment in a school or local education authority. There will be no legal requirement for schools to publish such results for 7 year-olds, although we intend to recommend them strongly to do so.
Pupils' performance in relation to attainment targets will therefore be assessed and reported on at ages 7, 11, 14 and 16; but the attainment targets will be grouped for this purpose, as TGAT suggested, to make the assessment and reporting manageable. Different levels of achievement and overall pupil progress demonstrated by the tests and assessments will be registered on the 10-point scale—again recommended by TGAT—covering all the years of compulsory schooling. Each number on the scale will represent a level of achievement roughly corresponding to the average educational progress of a child over about two years.
Level 1 will therefore be the first level in a profile component, at whatever age that profile component is introduced. The scale will be used to register different levels of ability within each age group—and TGAT made the point that at all ages except seven we can expect pupils' attainment to be spread across half a dozen or more levels. The advantage of the scale, therefore, is that children will have a real sense of progress as they move from one level to the next, whatever their ability, and parents also will have a clearer idea—through the attainment targets associated with each level—of what that progress actually means.
The process of moderating the results of teacher assessment by comparison with the external test results will ensure that internal assessments are related to the standards which are applied across the country as a whole. It will also provide a valuable opportunity for teachers to discuss with their colleagues the basis for their own judgments, and the validity and reliability of the external tests.
Also as TGAT recommended, we intend to have a wide variety of tests developed and trialled, so as to take into account the different experiences of children, especially in the primary phase of education, and their different abilities and capacities—for instance, the circumstances of children whose first language is not English, or who have physical but not mental handicaps. There will be a place for the traditional pencil and paper tests, but we shall be taking advantage of the latest developments in oral and practical testing to ensure that so far as possible the test instrument used is the most valid for the task in hand. At ages seven and 11 in particular, test developers will be commissioned to develop and trial standard assessment tasks of the kind envisaged by TGAT, which will take the form of the kind of topic work ordinarily encountered in the primary classrooms. The whole process of assessment will be monitored for evidence of ethnic and gender bias, so that this can so far as practicable be eliminated.
This assessment framework will inform the consultations which will take place later this year on the recommendations of the mathematics and science working groups, and will also inform the thinking of
788
the working groups on English, and on design and technology, which were announced last month.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, raised a number of particular questions, some of which I think I have already answered in the course of my remarks. However, I should say that, perhaps in particular regarding the balance between assessment and tests for working groups, her suggestion that they should advise on this balance has to depend on what their recommendations actually are.
As for the primary curriculum working group, a sub-group was set up by the different working groups already established for maths, science, technology and English. It has been advising these groups and its work will now be taken forward by the shadow (as it still is) National Curriculum Council.
In the light of my explanation and the clarification I hope I have been able to give of the Government's position in relation to the report of the task group, and indeed in relation to our intentions on testing and assessment, I hope it will be felt that there is no need for these amendments.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Baroness perhaps give me an answer to a question? I think I understood her to say that the testing will be given weighting for the physically handicapped but not for the mentally handicapped. I may have been quite wrong in taking that point up, but I am concerned that those children who are in the integrated groups going through the primary schools will have some kind of consideration given to them because they have special needs which are not physical needs.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sorry if I have misled the noble Baroness in that respect. Of course there will be certain children with mental handicaps who are totally exempted from the provisions of the national curriculum, but there are others with a lesser disability who will be fitted into one of the 10 levels.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her response but to say that it leaves me a little puzzled. I think what she was saying was that the Government have decided to follow the recommendations of the TGAT report in almost every respect. Nothing in anything that she said indicated that the Government would be rejecting the TGAT proposals. If that is so it would surely be very easy to accept the amendment, yet the Minister appears not to be doing so.
I raised a number of specific questions that the Minister has not answered. Much of what she said seemed tangential to the issues that I raised. There was no response on the question of dealing with the social composition of schools when test results are to be published. There was no response to the points on attainment profiles and records of achievement and how this will fit with the new national assessment system. Similarly I think that the Minister did not respond on the primary curriculum although there was some reference to test developers involved in topic work in primary schools. I am grateful for the

789
Minister's response that there will be monitoring on ethnic and gender bias. In the light of what the Minister has said, I should have thought that it would not be too difficult for the Government to accept the amendment. Am I right about that?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, whether she really suggests that my noble friend ought to agree to legislate that assessment arrangements should be,
"based on the system of assessment set out in the reports of the Task Group".
I quite see that the amendment is worded to probe what the Government are doing. The noble Baroness has done that successfully, and it was very interesting. However, she surely cannot ask the Minister to accept an amendment worded in this way. I am no expert on legislation, but I should have thought that that was not possible.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may be forgiven for interrupting at this point.
Once again, I think that we are somewhat straying away from the rules as laid down in Standing Orders which say that only the mover of an amendment should speak after the Minister on Report. I think that it would be best if we were all to observe that in the interests of time and regularity.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it not a fact that one can ask questions that have arisen out of a reply?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand that that is correct, but only the mover of the amendment can do so.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to challenge that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, may I have a reply to my questions, since I moved the amendment?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if I am correct, the noble Baroness asked whether in the light of what she said the Government could accept the amendment. My answer is no.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in that case, I feel that I must divide the House.
4.53 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 130.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Banks, L.

Airedale, L.

Barnett, L.

Ardwick, L.

Birk, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Blackstone, B.

790

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Leatherland, L

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Oram, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Flowers, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Galpern, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Grimond, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Willis, L.

Kagan, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kearton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Arran, E.

Dormer, L.

Auckland, L.

Dundee, E.

Bellwin, L.

Eccles, V.

Belstead, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Elibank, L.

Blake, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blyth, L.

Faithfull, B

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ferrier, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Fortescue, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Butterworth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Caccia, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Caithness, E.

Halsbury, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harvington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hastings, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Havers, L.

Carnock, L.

Hayter, L.

Cawley, L.

Henley, L.

Chelwood, L.

Hesketh, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hives, L.

Colwyn, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hooper, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cowley, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cox, B.

Joseph, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Killearn, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

791

King of Wartnaby, L.

Renton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Knutsford, V.

Rugby, L.

Layton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Lindsay, E.

St. Davids, V.

Long, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

McFadzean, L.

Sandford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Seebohm, L.

Manton, L.

Selborne, E.

Marley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Marsh, L.

Shannon, E.

Merrivale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Middleton, L.

Somers, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Morris, L.

Mottistone, L.

Swansea, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Moyne, L.

Swinton, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Teviot, L.

Nelson, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Orkney, E.

Trafford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ullswater, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Windlesham, L.

Porritt, L.

Wise, L.

Pytn, L.

Wolfson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the next amendment is called, I wonder whether the Government Chief Whip wishes to make a statement.
Lord Denham: My Lords, yes, I do. I expect to make a statement very shortly and I must apologise for interrupting the House in this way.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that following discussions through the usual channels it has been decided to defer tomorrow's Report stage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill to 6th July. The Report stage of the Education Reform Bill will be continued tomorrow in its place. This extra provision of time has been made necessary because of the interest shown on all sides of' the House in yesterday's debates on religious education. I very much hope that this will enable us to get back on course and conclude the Report stage next Tuesday, as planned.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord for making that statement. I am sure that it is a wise decision that we should devote tomorrow to a further day's consideration of the Education Reform Bill.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for making that timely statement and also for the acceptance of the fact that there was a very long debate on religious education which was largely conducted between the Bishops' Bench and the Back Bench of the Conservative Party which made us all go to bed so very late last night, or rather early this morning.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord for the statement. I should like to make one comment. Noble Lords who travel to this House from Scotland to discuss Scottish legislation find it extremely difficult to make their plans and complete their travel arrangements when announcements are made on a Wednesday afternoon concerning Scottish legislation on a Thursday.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord is absolutely justified in his remark. I am extremely sorry for it and I believe that my colleagues on the usual channels will be extremely sorry too. The difficulty is that it is almost impossible to be absolutely certain about business. I apologise on behalf of the Government to any noble Lords who were interested in the original business for tomorrow. I hope that the inconvenience will not be too great. I wish to thank the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their generous acceptance of the change of plan.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may ask what date has been fixed for the Housing (Scotland) Bill, if one has been fixed?
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords, it is 6th July.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Chief Whip this. If we are meeting on Friday morning at 11 o'clock, does it mean that on Thursday 23rd June we shall finish at 11 p.m.?
Lord Denham: My Lords, when the House sits on a Friday, it is usually hoped by all sides of the House that the House will not sit too late the preceding Thursday. I should not like to be too positive about whether it is exactly 11 o'clock or whether there is a marginal variation.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 52.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in view of the statement about the acceptance of certain aspects of the TGAT report made before the vote by the Minister, there is now no longer any need to move these amendments. As the Minister said, they are incorporated in what the noble Baroness said.
However perhaps I may briefly point out—and I do not wish to be venomous about this—that the TGAT report has been out since Christmas Eve. If the Government had been able to study it and come to the conclusions which they have now reached, it would have saved those of us on the Opposition Benches a great deal of time in preparing amendments. It would have saved the House a great deal of time in discussing those amendments.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the House. There was a great deal of discussion at earlier stages of this Bill about testing and in particular about diagnostic testing. I am not sure—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to which amendment he refers.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, Amendment No. 52.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I did not move the amendment in view of what the Minister said in regard to the acceptance of the TGAT report. The Minister made it quite clear that the report incorporates teachers' assessments.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 55 not moved.]
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington moved Amendment No. 55A:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("Provided that if the parent of any pupil requests in writing that the pupil should not be tested for attainment at any of the key stages, that pupil shall not be so tested.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was only taken to the Table at one o'clock last night. I must apologise for having put it down so late. It was only because I was trying to keep myself awake last night that I was reading through the amendments which were going to delight us in the future, or what was then the future, and in particular the amendments on the supplementary list. I think we received it only yesterday, certainly I only received it then. I noticed that there was a new amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, which put me in mind of the amendment which I am now putting before your Lordships.
The amendment in question was to insert after Clause 109 Amendment No. 352C, which appears on page 74 of the Marshalled List that we now have. As I read it, the amendment provides that parents can, if they wish, withdraw their children from examinations. It suggested to me that if there is a case for this then there could be an equally good case, which I hope the Government will be able to accept, for allowing parents who, for one reason or another, object to their children being tested, to withdraw their children from the test.
There are a number of arguments in favour of this amendment which I shall try to express as succinctly as possible. First, there is the argument of general principle about parental choice. Parental choice should be enlarged if at all possible. Indeed, the Bill rests on that principle to quite a large extent. But it follows, as I see it, that if parents choose not to have their children tested, and that is the choice they make, then the right to exercise that choice should be honoured.
There are then a number of arguments by analogy. It is in the first place fully accepted that parents should be entitled to withdraw their children from religious education, and has been for many years. If that is the case with religious education, why is it not the case for testing? Secondly, it has always been accepted that parents should be able to withdraw their children from school altogether provided that they could supply adequate instruction at home. Thirdly, parents have some latitude about whether their children should attend classes for sex education. Finally, there is the case that I have already mentioned, which is from this very Bill itself, where if
794
the later amendment is passed parents are to be given the right to withdraw their children from examinations if they so wish.
I do not think that it is far-fetched to think that some parents may object to testing. It may be only a small minority, but we are here to protect the interests of the minorities as well as those of the majorities. It could be the case that particular children have test nerves just as some children have examination nerves. Tests could make them so anxious, particularly at the age of seven, that their parents would rather they were not submitted to the tests.
A further case could be where children repeatedly do badly in the tests and parents feel that to submit them once again to tests at a later age would only further demoralise them. It could be that parents do not believe that the particular tests chosen are reliable and the kind of tests that should be used. There could be parents—we have heard of such parents in this Chamber during debates on the Bill—who do not believe that any children should be tested, at least at the periodic ages which are being proposed. I think myself that testing has been much overdone in the way it has been presented in the Bill.
I do not think I am exaggerating in saying that this is a matter of civil liberties as well as educational policy. In this it is somewhat like the issue which has been very much debated as regards whether testing for the AIDS virus should be made compulsory. It could be the kind of matter which, if it is not given attention in the Bill, could end in the Government being taken to the European Court. I hope that it will be possible to accept the amendment because it is very closely in line with what is proposed about examinations.
I quite appreciate that it may not be possible to say anything very firm today because of the short time that has elapsed since the amendment was put down. Marvellous as the DES is, there may not have been time to consider fully the implications of the amendment that I am proposing. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that an issue of importance has been raised here and that consideration will be given to it before this Bill leaves the House on Report. I further hope that at some later stage, perhaps in Clause 109, an amendment similar to the one I am proposing (if not the exact amendment) will be accepted in order to make it quite clear to this House, and through this House to the world in general, that the right of parental choice should extend to the withdrawing of children from testing if the parents think it would be in the overwhelming interests of their children to do so. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, if this amendment were accepted and if a large number of parents took advantage of it, it would destroy or remove the element of comparability from any tests. That may be a very good thing. In earlier stages of the Bill many noble Lords argued for diagnostic testing only. On that point I should like to quote very briefly a few lines sent to me by Somerset County Council. The letter stated:

795
"It is important that testing for the National Curriculum is used for diagnostic purposes only. There is concern that if it is used for comparative purposes, teachers will find themselves restricted by the tests and will endeavour only to take children to the level of the test and not beyond it, and those children not likely to reach the standard of the test may be neglected".
Those are very serious words coming from a major education authority. The Minister, in replying to the previous amendment, said that results would be grouped and that there would be different kinds of tests for different kinds of children. She said that, furthermore, efforts would be made to eliminate any bias resulting from gender or ethnic background. If those kinds of things are done, how is there to be general comparability? Would it not be much simpler and better to go for diagnostic purposes only?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wish merely to say something which I know that my noble friend Lady Hooper is too kind and gentle to say but which, having served in her capacity or something like it, I know she must be burning to say. Her job entails being on the Front Bench for perhaps 12 hours at a stretch with only a short break for dinner during which she is pestered by your Lordships, including myself, for advice and other things. She has an avalanche of amendments to be briefed on every night and every morning.
With the best will in the world, I think it is unreasonable to expect her to respond in any constructive way, on top of all that, to amendments tabled after midnight the night before, however important. I hope that your Lordships will have a little sympathy for the noble Baroness, who is carrying the heat of the day for a great length of time with extreme restraint and great lucidity and not place the last straw on the camel's back.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Baroness. I cannot understand this widespread horror of testing of children. These tests are not intended to be of the nature of examinations. They are not tests which a child either fails or passes. They are merely indications to show to what degree a child has taken in what he has been taught. They are for the information of teachers and parents. I cannot see that there is anything of which either the child, the parents or the teacher should be afraid.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry if it is felt that the Minister is unable to comment on this amendment. I am somewhat surprised because the Minister has usually coped extremely well on this and all other matters. I certainly wish to comment on the amendment because everything that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, does is extremely interesting. It would be a pity to let it go without responding.
However, I am bound to say that I think the noble Lord has got somewhat the wrong end of the stick. I do not see the equivalent between the parental view that they would like to be able to opt out of examinations and the view that they would like to be able to opt out of diagnostic testing. I concentrate on the latter because, as I understand the matter—those of us on this side of the House are not opposed to diagnostic testing—it would be regarded as an
796
integral part of the education process. It is meant to be constructive and helpful. I certainly take the view that it would be very strange for anybody interested in education to say that a parent could opt out of this form of testing.
If I may just for a moment delay the proceedings, I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, draws our attention to two matters. I should not regard it as unreasonable that a parent should want his child to opt out of a specific subject. Indeed, in a system of genuine freedom of choice—which this system is not; and it is absurd ever to portray it as such—a parent could say, "I do not want my child to do that subject". It would therefore follow that there was no testing on that subject. The freedom of choice issue relates to a choice of subject rather than a choice of diagnostic testing.
I wish to go further because I am still puzzled by all the other variations of testing which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has raised. I might well say, if my child were being used as material, as it were, in order to test a school, that I had a conscientious objection and that I did not want my child to be used for that purpose. However, that is not the diagnostic testing we are discussing.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, has recognised that raising a fundamental matter such as this at a late stage makes it difficult to respond. He put his finger on the freedom of choice question. However, I believe we must accept that we have been through that matter on several earlier occasions as regards the Bill. It is an interesting and important area; it is a pity that we do not have more time to deal with it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have a point regarding the drafting of the amendment which I think is probably fatal to it in any case. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, seems to assume that all children are the children of one-parent families. He refers in the amendment to "the parent of any pupil". Surely, if he is trying to legislate, he should either say "parents" or "a parent". It is not to be assumed even nowadays that there are no children who are the children of married couples.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, was thinking of the Interpretation Act which says that the singular includes the plural.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, there is no reason why the amendment should not be correctly drafted rather than relying on the Interpretation Act. The noble Lord should rely on accurate drafting. He should have said "parents" if that was what he meant, or "a parent" if that was what he meant. The Interpretation Act, however, ingeniously deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, does not let him off that hook.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, if children are not to be tested, how can we test the teachers? Surely that is part of the whole process. Secondly, what happens if a little rascal organises a gang of boys to go to their parents and say, "Let's get out of this"? Very serious disciplinary problems might result.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, might I say—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: This is a point of order.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble friend Lord Elton for his kind-hearted intervention since it gives me the opportunity to say that the burden that I carry, such as it is, is shared by the officials who support me. I wish these remarks to be conveyed to them. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to answer the amendment.
I believe that the amendment does much more than remove the comparability which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, suggested. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I believe that it may derive from a basic misunderstanding of the assessment arrangements which are proposed. The system which I described in my response to Amendment No. 51 will be founded on the fundamental principles stated by the Task Group on Assessment and Testing; namely, that assessment should be an integral part of the education process, continually providing both feedback and feedforward for teachers. In other words, the assessment which we envisage will be primarily formative in nature, especially at the first three key stages, and is therefore intended to help pupils, teachers and parents alike by identifying both the positive achievements and the weaknesses of pupils—what they know and can do—so that teachers can plan the next steps in their education. That is as important to teachers as it is to all of us to know how well teachers are doing. That relates to the point made by my noble friend Lord Eccles.
Testing associated with that kind of assessment will not only take the form of nationally prescribed external tests but will also take the form, as it does now, of classroom tests devised by teachers to check week by week on the progress of each pupil. In that sense, parents have never had the right to withdraw their children from procedures which have always been a fundamental part of the education process in our schools. It is clear that such assessment is an integral part of teaching.
The national external tests will be designed as an extension of that process, not to categorise pupils on a pass-fail basis but to provide useful information both for them and for those with their educational interests at heart. I am sure that when parents understand that they will realise that it would actually harm the educational prospects of their child if he or she were not allowed to participate fully in the national assessment process. It is worth adding—I know that many people are worried by the intention to publish aggregated national asessment results—that the results of individual pupils will be kept confidential in all cases.
The noble Lord also referred to specific cases of test nerves. The Bill contains provisions in Clauses 12 and 14 that enable exceptions to be made in certain circumstances for particular children. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary in that type of situation. Given that explanation, I trust that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, particularly given the shortage of time. Perhaps I may say a brief word about some of the points made in the debate. In referring to "the parent", which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, objected to, I am following the precedent of the later amendment which refers to "the parent". I believe that what is implied is that either of the parents could object by requesting in writing that the child should not be submitted to testing. I do not believe that it is implied that we are only speaking of single-parent families but rather that the right attaches to both parents.
The important issue, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and by the noble Baroness, is to what extent individual interests and choices should be given weight. The arguments for having diagnostic testing and for making it general are very strong. However, where there is a conflict between the general interest and the individual interest, the individual interest ought always—or almost always—to prevail. If the parents, after they have heard the arguments presented to them by teachers in favour of their children participating in testing, still think that it would be wrong for their children to be submitted to testing, the parents' decision should be the final one. I agree that this is too important a matter to expect a decision at this stage of the Bill. While expressing the hope that it will be discussed on Clause 109, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) No Order made under subsection (2) above shall apply to any pupil to the extent that it is incompatible with any work which he is undertaking under the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment which seeks clarification. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements do not prevent pupils from following a TVEI curriculum. I think that we have all been rather at a loss to know what exactly was to happen under the new arrangements about those children undergoing TVEI at their schools. TVEI was given very little attention at Committee stage. There was a reference on 3rd May by the Minister to the implementation of the national curriculum:
"We amended the Bill in another place to state that orders to be laid before Parliament to implement the national curriculum cannot themselves determine the time to be allocated to any one subject, nor the way in which it is to be timetabled; for example, whether in combination with other subjects, as a distinct module in a TVEI course, or as an individual examination subject—again leaving a lot to the professional judgment of teachers".—[Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 484].
Of course it was a relief to know that there would not be a detailed prescription of time. However, the Minister's statement still did not make it quite clear how the subjects which were to be the foundation and core subjects in the national curriculum were to be taught if a young person was following the very different TVEI course. The Minister's comment seemed to imply that TVEI is compatible with the national curriculum.
Later in the debate my noble friend Lady Blackstone raised the issue of how TVEI would fit into the national curriculum. She said:
"I should like to ask what will happen to important initiatives such as TVEI in a prescribed curriculum of this kind. I believe there is a real danger that such initiatives will be pushed out. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he was chairman of the MSC, along with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, spent a great deal of time and effort getting TVEI off the ground. Indeed, we have spent £1 billion on the initiative since it was first introduced. I am sure that both will be somewhat concerned that heads, in their efforts to meet the new directives of the Secretary of State for Education, will have extreme difficulty in finding both resources and space for initiatives such as TVEI".—[Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 529.]
I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is here and I hope that perhaps he may be able to comment during the debate on the amendment. There was no ministerial response to my noble friend's question other than a reference to the design and technology working party which had just been set up and that that is due to report next year.
The director of education programmes of the Training Commission, Anne Jones, who has overall responsibility for TVEI within her directorate, takes the view that TVEI will fit into the national curriculum. However, there is no clear evidence that that is the case. Indeed the evidence tends to point in the opposite direction.
The TVEI initiative launched in 1982 can be seen as having originated in the great debate speech by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in the 1970s when he made his Ruskin speech. The demand was made for a curriculum more relevant to the needs of industry. The TVEI initiative was born out of the need to create a more relevant curriculum for certain young people. It was designed to be pre-vocational. It was explicitly designed for the final years of secondary education, namely the 14 to 18 age range. As far as I can see the task group plans take us up to 16 only. How does the 14 to 16 part of the key stage fit in with the 14 to 18 TVEI?
The national curriculum offers a much more academic curriculum. As I say, it is intended to cover the five to 16 age range although it certainly gives the impression of being more of a secondary than a primary curriculum structure. TVEI curricula, I understand, vary considerably but they tend to concentrate on technical subjects and take up a very considerable proportion of the curriculum. Certainly in those schools in which I have seen it in operation it seems to occupy a vast proportion of the time. The curricula provide pupils with various options which fit in with the normal system of option choices at 14. Since the national curriculum will presumably alter the way in which option systems work at 14, it is again not clear how TVEI will fit in. Without having a clear idea about the nature of the programmes of study in particular it is difficult to say whether TVEI will present problems. We want to press the Government further on precisely how that will all be fitted in.
One further point which I think that it is worth making is the relationship between the TVEI initiative and the city technology colleges. When TVEI was first proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young, the idea was to set up separate schools. They would have been similar to the CTCs which were
800
proposed several years later by Mr. Baker. At the time there was a great deal of opposition to TVEI so that the schools idea was dropped. Now the CTC proposals have developed out of the TVEI scheme. It is worth noting that CTCs will not be expected to follow the national curriculum.
In its booklet on the Bill Education Reform (The Government's Proposals for Schools) the DES explains that:
"It will be a condition of grant paid to City Technology Colleges that they follow the substance of the National Curriculum",
whatever "the substance" may mean. Perhaps we can have clarification of that point. What the Bill actually says in Clause 98 in relation to the curriculum of CTCs is that such schools must have:
"a broad curriculum with an emphasis on science and technology".
It is clear that CTCs are not to be expected to follow the curriculum, presumably because the Government do not consider that it would be appropriate for them to do so. How then is the TVEI curriculum different, and why do the Government seem to take the view that TVEI will fit effectively with the national curriculum? I hope that we shall have a very clear explanation from the Minister because I think that everyone wishes to be enlightened on that point. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree at least with the concern of the noble Baroness that it is absolutely essential that whatever comes out of this Bill should be compatible with that very successful innovation in our schools, TVEI.
I should like to revert to the numerous statements now being made not only by my noble friend the Minister in this House but also by her colleagues in the other place about two aspects of the Bill. One aspect is the emphasis on flexibility. There will be flexibility in the approach to teaching the national curriculum to our children. The second, which of course is very important, is a cross-curricular approach, which again has been reiterated time and time again. Looking across the subjects it is easy to find examples—maths, science, English and communication skills and art are just four examples of subjects which will impact on TVEI or on which TVEI will impact. I think that so long as the Government stick with both the cross-curricular and flexibility of approach in teaching those subjects nothing is incompatible. While I sympathise with this amendment, I regard it as entirely superfluous. That view is confirmed by what has been said so far and what I am sure my noble friend the Minister will say in her reply.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this amendment seeks to lay upon the Secretary of State the duty to ensure that no orders issued to define the national curriculum conflict with the demands that may be made upon a pupil by TVEI.
I believe that to attempt to lay such a requirement upon the Secretary of State reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of TVEI. It cannot conflict directly with the national curriculum because, unlike the constituent part of the national curriculum, it represents not an area of the

801
curriculum to be studied but a means of approach to that curriculum. It will be the national curriculum that defines the framework within which TVEI operates, as the new TVEI criteria make clear in stipulating that each pupil's programme from 14 to 16 should, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, be designed to cover all the core and other foundation subjects, as well as a number of other desirable topics and themes. To make the national curriculum wait upon TVEI, the content upon the means of delivery, would be to put the cart before the horse. It would also put statutory provisions, subject to Parliament's scrutiny and approval, at the mercy of a non-statutory initiative whose criteria are determined by government without such formal checks and balances.
It is not envisaged that the national curriculum will cause major changes to TVEI, as I assured the House yesterday and indeed as my noble friend Lady Blatch has reiterated today. The Education Reform Bill requires the curriculum to prepare pupils,
"for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life",
and fostering economic awareness and preparation for employment have an important role to play. Within the framework of the national curriculum, the funding and expertise that TVEI provides should help to ensure that many practical, vocational and technical elements are properly represented in every student's education. The aims both of the national curriculum and of TVEI are to ensure that pupils are properly prepared for adult life, including work and the wider responsibilities of citizenship; to this end the Department of Education and Science and the Manpower Services Commission—the Training Commission as it is now called—liaise closely on the TVEI programme and will continue to do so.
Until we have the reports and recommendations of the working groups we cannot of course tell the noble Baroness precisely how TVEI will fit in, as she asked, but, as again I said yesterday, it is anticipated that there should be no difficulty in combining TVEI with the proposals on the national curriculum in view of the flexibility that has been built in.
So far as concerns CTCs, which again were the subject of a specific question raised by the noble Baroness, they will be expected to follow the substance of the national curriculum as a condition of grant. There is of course a distinction, in that CTCs are independent schools and we believe that it would be wrong to place a stautory requirement on them which is similar to that imposed on the county voluntary and grant-maintained schools, since they are in the independent sector.
In the light of that explanation of the approach of TVEI, which is fully compatible with the proposals of the national curriculum, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I believe that I am permitted to ask a question for clarification after the Minister has spoken. When we discussed this previously, I understood that all testing of all subjects in the national curriculum was to continue until the age of 16. If that is so, will the testing be at the same
802
standard for all subjects? As I understand it, TVEI puts a great deal more emphasis on certain subjects than it does on others. That is the point of it being TVEI.
Therefore if pupils are specialising in one subject more than another it would be unreasonable to expect them to reach a common standard in all those subjects. Is the examination to be adjusted? if not, I do not see how what the Minister says can be achieved and that TVEI can in fact be accommodated within the framework of the national curriculum. Can she explain?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that this point was raised yesterday in the course of the debate. If the noble Baroness is speaking specifically about the school-leaving age of 16, I said then that we anticipated that the core subjects would be followed in most cases to GCSE level; the other foundation subjects would not necessarily all be taken to that level but would be to various levels of attainment within the spectrum permitted under the TGAT arrangements, so that it would be possible for additional flexibility to be built in in the fourth and fifth years. I believe that this covers the point on TVEI that was raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: My Lords, I was rather mystified by one comment that the Minister made at the end of her remarks to the effect that CTCs would only have to follow the substance of the national curriculum—I am not quite sure what the substance may be—because they were independent schools. Well, grant-maintained schools will be independent schools but they also have to follow the national curriculum.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must correct that impression. Grant-maintained schools will not be independent schools. They will still he part of the maintained sector. Funding will simply come from central government rather than local government.
Baroness David: My Lords, the funding will come from the same source. The CTCs will have to be funded by the DES just as the grant-maintained schools are funded. There will not be enough coming from private industry to do the funding as well as the initial setting up and there does not even seem to be enough for the initial setting up anyway.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall need to read it carefully in order to ensure that I have understood all of it. I still find it extremely hard to believe that with the concentration on technological subjects that TVEI demands, there can possibly be time for all the 10 core and foundation subjects. However, as I said, this amendment was a probing amendment and so, having probed, I shall read the response very carefully and hope that I shall be a little more enlightened than I am at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) No Order shall be made in respect of any subject in relation to the third or fourth key stage under subsection (2)(c) above unless a working group, established by the Secretary of State to advise him on the implementation of the National Curriculum, in respect of that subject, has reported with recommendations as to the relationship of the proposed assessment arrangements in that subject during the fourth key stage and the General Certificate of Secondary Education.
(2B) Before making any Order to which subsection (2A) above applies, the Secretary of State shall refer the recommendations of consultation to the National Curriculum Council, the School Examinations and Assessment Council, the local authority associations and such other bodies and organisations as he considers appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very similar amendment which again is probing in order to try to discover how exactly the national curriculum will fit in with the GCSE. At moments we have come across this matter already and we understand that it will be expected to fit in. However, we are still not quite sure how there will be time. We know that to do six subjects at GCSE is very time consuming and we have heard a good deal about that in the course of this summer. However, if the standards will be different for those subjects and the subjects which are not being taken but which are in the national curriculum, of course that may give some explanation. I still think that it will lead to a very crowded programme for those two years.
The first part of the amendment specifically prevents an overlap between existing areas of the GCSE and the incoming national curriculum in any particular subject. That is important for a number of reasons: to avoid further upheaval in the GCSE, which has been so recently established at considerable cost in terms of resources and teacher time. That point was stressed particularly by the TGAT report, which stated in Recommendation 24 that the GCSE should be retained at the moment in its present form. Paragraph 107 of the report described the GCSE as a:
"major educational innovation which has led to considerable upheaval in the secondary school system: teachers need a period of stability to come to terms with these changes".
The recommendations of the report did not go beyond the medium term in respect of the future of the GCSE, although the group's concern at the need to bring the national curriculum into line with aspects of the GCSE system from the earlier stages onwards is clear from the terms of the report.
Pupils who will be studying for the GCSE in the early years of the implementation of the national curriculum at the fourth key stage need to know at the outset of their course what they will be expected to do, and by when. The rather ragged process of introduction of the national curriculum planned by the Government may leave considerable areas of uncertainty, both for legislators and in the public mind generally. It would be grossly unfair if a student who was studying French at GCSE level discovered at age 15 that different requirements were to be imposed in relation to the course which he was half way through completing.
There is a further argument in respect of those pupils who may wish to study for a substantial
804
number of GCSE subjects which some pupils do—perhaps six, seven or eight subjects—for whom certain aspects of the national curriculum may simply be too great a burden to bear. This would apply both in respect of the subjects for which they were studying for GCSE and also potentially in other subjects falling within the foundation list. Although the amendment does not specifically exempt pupils studying GCSE at a substantial level from other areas of the curriculum, this point could be usefully commented upon by Ministers. A pupil talented, for example, in languages or literature may find the need also to study geography or history a positive disincentive to undertaking serious work to public examination standards.
At the very least it seems plain that a pupil studying the GCSE in a particular subject should not have to take on board additional areas of the subject which may be specified by the national curriculum but not covered by the present GCSE. The argument relates not merely to 14 to 16 year-olds but also the 11 to 14 year-old age group which may be set upon courses of study under the national curriculum which will not be continued under the GCSE or, conversely, arrive at the age of 14 ill-prepared for the GCSE.
Much of this difficulty could be resolved if the Government were far more specific than they have been to date about the precise timetable and approach to be adopted in introducing the various stages of the curriculum. The little that they have said to date removes the fear that the curriculum will be introduced gradually up to the age of 14, although not in any sequential order by age, and that the curriculum for the 14 to 16 year-old age group will need to be changed at a later date to meet the demands of the earlier years.
A considerable political debate about the nature and the standard of the GCSE underlines the basic equivocation in the Government's position; namely is the national curriculum for secondary pupils to be modelled largely on the pattern of the GCSE which the pupils will do later in their years or will the GCSE be altered to fit in with the new pattern of the national curriculum? The Government have sought to avoid this question for fear of promoting criticism from their own supporters about the nature of the GCSE. From the limited comments of Ministers the fears of educationists would appear to have some foundation that the national curriculum will be used as a covert means of altering GCSE in an unwelcome direction.
The second part of the amendment exempts the brighter child who has completed GCSE at an early age from having to return to national curriculum-dictated study in that subject in his or her last year at school. The amendment would appear to be extremely reasonable and indeed operate as an incentive to high flyers to achieve success in public examinations early. It may be thought to fit in with the Government's overall approach in offering opportunities to the brighter pupil. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government believe that there is any good reason why this part at least of the amendment should not be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I feel that this is a necessary amendment. When reading the Bill as it stands, it states:
"The Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to each of the foundation subjects (a) such attainment targets; (b) such programmes of study; and (c) such assessment arrangements, as he considers appropriate for that subject".
How can he know what is appropriate for every single individual child in the country? He cannot possibly. No one single human being could possibly know that. The amendment recommends that a working group be established by the Secretary of State to advise him. Although I believe that the recommendation in the amendment does not go very far, it at least puts some brake on the absolute power that the Secretary of State has given to himself. I said during Committee stage that the Secretary of State has given himself individually far too much power in this Bill. I feel that this is an amendment which should be accepted.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few points on the first half of the amendment to indicate some worries. One accepts that assessment is different from examination. I do not think that we need argue about that. If I was a parent with children at school I should be worried at the enormous burden that seems to be building up for young people with assessments of various kinds and GCSE. In due course I shall comment about A-level also. Perhaps the Minister will go to some trouble to reassure us, and those outside who are parents, that they can be confident that the different arrangements which are being introduced will not interact in a detrimental way and that the concentration on assessment and preparation for GCSE and other matters cannot do any harm.
This amendment enlarges the range of advice and says that the Secretary of State ought to act with a modicum of care. I am aware that the noble Baroness will say that we can always assume that he will. Having some experience of Secretaries of State, I do not find that a wholly compelling argument. However, that is en passant. There are genuine worries about this matter. The least we can do in your Lordships' House is to place on record our fears in these matters so that as these matters emerge, people who occasionally look at our debates can take these fears into account as the position is developing. It is an important amendment. I hope for some reassurance from the Minister.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on the amendment. There is a complete chapter in the publication of the Task Group on Assessment and Testing devoted to the relationship between the GCSE examination and assessments. Clearly this needs to be worked out. However, I do not agree altogether with the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about this being a lot for children to undertake. Although the assumption has been throughout the discussion on this Bill that children will suffer a great deal from all this, in my experience children rather like to feel that they have accomplished something. Quite clearly, as there will be 10 levels at each grade of assessment, they will accomplish the level at which they should accomplish it. This could be a great incentive to children to go on
806
to the next stage. We do not need to feel that this is an enormous burden on children.
I take the point that there is a limit to the numbers of tests and examinations in one year. My understanding is that this matter is being very carefully considered so that there is no conflict between the two.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I echo the last remark of my noble friend Lady Young and emphasise what she said about the careful consideration that has been given in this matter and the intention that there should be no conflict.
We expect that GCSE will be the main vehicle of assessment at 16, especially in the core subjects. However, where pupils take national assessment tests instead of GCSE in some of the other foundation subjects, we generally expect these to be simpler and less demanding in nature than GCSE. There will obviously need to be a basis of comparison with GCSE gradings, but the Task Group on Assessment and Testing advise that it would not be possible for the subject working groups to make recommendations on this since there is too little evidence as yet about the distribution of performance at age 16 in GCSE. We shall therefore look to the Secondary Education Advisory Council (SEAC) to advise on this on the basis of further experience with GCSE. In fact TGAT advised us to make no changes to GCSE at the moment—that is for the next four to five years. That of course fits with government intentions. SEAC will advise, review and revise syllabuses.
We regard this as a technical matter, to be dealt with by those with the appropriate expertise. I am sure that that will be welcomed by noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I see no advantage in including a reference to it in orders governing the assessment arrangements, nor in submitting proposals for grading equivalence to consultation. On that basis. I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw what I believe she said was essentially a probing amendment.
6 p.m.
Baroness David: Yes, indeed, my Lords. I thank the Minister for her explanation, which I shall read with interest. I hope that I am fully enlightened when I have done so. I believe I understand what she was saying—that it is a matter that has caused a good deal of anxiety in a great many quarters. I am glad that we now have in Hansard something which we and other people can read and study. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) In making any order under subsection (2) above in relation to pupils in the final key stage, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the major recommendations of the Report "Advancing A Levels".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is about A-levels, which we have not said a great deal about. I want to make some remarks of an educational nature. I hope I may be forgiven for

807
doing so occasionally on a Bill that is called the Education Reform Bill! I shall concentrate on the subjects that I know about. I believe that A-levels are of an extraordinarily high academic standard. In my own subject of economics I would imagine, broad brush, that an A-level student with a grade B probably knows as much economics as I knew by the end of the second year when I was in university some 30 years ago. The standard is astonishingly high.
The point I make and the points that Professor Higginson and his committee seem to be making I hesitate to say it because I know of the kind of knee jerk reactions that people have, especially those who know nothing about education—is that the standard is not only extraordinarily high but that it is too high. My students come to me knowing far too much economics and far too little of lots of other subjects. In other words, the basic issue here is breadth versus excessive depth. I know why school teachers achieve these standards. It is because they too are very ambitious. Speaking of my own subject which I know about, and of my students and other people's students, I find they are keen to set very high levels of academic achievement. The problem is that they are too keen.
It seems to me that in this major Bill, which is our only opportunity to talk about fundamentals in education for quite a long time, it would be a mistake not to remark on the A-level question. I have chosen this opportunity to draw it to your Lordships' attention.
It seems to me that most of our interest ends at the final key stage when we were discussing GCE and all that and the students then go on to A-level. Many of us want more students to go on to A-level and on to higher education. I believe it would be a pity if that kind of expansion took place within the narrow confines of the two Bs at A-level approach that we have, or at the most three. That is a great pity. It is a wasted opportunity. I am not too happy to say what I am saying here, but I was genuinely surprised by the response of the Secretary of State to the Higginson Committee. I am asking the noble Baroness to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to at least one person's opinion—perhaps others with academic experience will speak.
The Secretary of State commissioned the Higginson report. To my reading of it that report was really very sensible, based on experience and a deep understanding on the nature of the problem. I hope that what we seem to read in the papers—which I believe is a rather premature response of a more negative kind to that report—was a misunderstanding, not to put too fine a point on it, and that the Secretary of State will be fully apprised of the need for a broader A-level curriculum.
I shall not delay your Lordships by arguing at length about what I regard as the enormous economic benefits from our students having a broader range and knowing more subjects than the present narrow range. There are benefits, and if we had more time I should enlarge on them.
My main point is to probe. I shall not divide the House on an issue of this kind but I wish to draw the noble Baroness out on this matter. I hope that it is a
808
matter that the Department will take a little more seriously and positively than it seems to have done in the past week. In due course perhaps we can return to this subject when we are not discussing the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, it is unusual for me to be able to agree with so much of what has been said from the other side of the House, but on this occasion I really do. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is absolutely correct in saying that the breadth of A-levels should be expanded and that the very high concentration that is now put into what we call the two Bs and an A result is incorrect. If I may use a metaphor, one now sees the almost hot-house product, brilliant in two fields and virtually ignorant in many others. I hope that as a result of the other changes in the Bill this will tend to change and that there will be a much broader base from which to develop A-levels and the breadth of the A-level syllabus.
We all speak about those parts of the education system that we know most about, but I have been particularly struck over the past two years with the very high but very narrow quality of all those entering medicine. When we come to teach these students we find that they are brilliant. As the noble Lord said, his students today know more economics than he did when he was in the second year at university. I do not think I ever knew as much physics as the average medical student knows when he arrives today.
What worries me is that he knows nothing else. I should like to see a much broader field at the A-level stage, but the risk is that we might then press the children that much harder to try to produce five results at the same level at which we now produce three. I do not wish to detain the House, but I merely suggest to the noble Lord that there is support elsewhere for some of the educational remarks he made.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like briefly to support what has already been said on this amendment. It is now at least 20 years since we first heard criticisms about the narrowness of our sixth-form education in this country. I should like to point out particularly how narrow it is compared with that of all our neighbours and competitors. There is no other country which educates its able 16 to 19 year-olds in such an extraordinarily narrow and overspecialised way.
I should also like to point out that for some time the universities dragged their feet in this respect. If we go back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were a number of different proposals for reform that came from the schools council and other bodies, university science departments in particular, which were sometimes heard to say that they wanted people who had already been educated to a very high level in their own specialised fields.
That is never said now. There has been a major change of view. It is true that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and indeed those who are involved in the CNAA—everybody at the higher education end who is receiving these young people—would much prefer them to come with a broader base than is the case at present.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I suggest that one of the ways the Government could meet the requirement of the universities and broaden A-levels would be to expand the number of hours per week or weeks per year in which schools operate their studies. We have far fewer hours per year as a requirement in education than our main European competitors and I hope that my noble friend will take that possibility into account.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing the amendment and also for the fact that we have his indirect support for the broad and balanced approach to the national curriculum. That applies also to other noble Lords who have contributed. In saying that what he wants is a statement from the Government as to their intentions the noble Lord will not be disappointed. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary because, in making orders under Clause 4, we shall need to take account of many things. However, we do not intend to specify them all now.
The Government are in full agreement with the Higginson Committee on the key principle of broadening the sixth-form curriculum, and have taken practical steps already to bring this about through the introduction of AS-levels. We are firmly committed to this development, and want to see many more young people having the opportunity to take some AS-levels in addition to A-levels. We are pleased that about half of schools and colleges will be offering courses at AS-level next year.
Where the Government disagree with the Higginson Committee is on the proposal to achieve breadth by a substantial streamlining of A-level syllabuses. The Government do not believe that it is desirable or practicable to streamline all A-level syllabuses by reducing the amount of time for teaching them and their factual content. We do not believe that this can be achieved without loss of standards. A-levels are a tried and tested system which has the confidence of higher education, employers, schools, parents and the pupils themselves. We cannot afford to put at risk the very high standards which A-levels at present guarantee and to which the Government are committed,as they made clear when they set up the committee.
Higher education and industry want broadening, and AS-levels will give them that. Young people can put together a four or even five-subject programme combining A- and AS-levels. More usually, they will take one or two AS-levels in addition to, or in place of, one A-level. So young scientists will be able to take a modern language, or a humanities student may take mathematics or statistics at the different level. Young people in schools and colleges are doing so now and have told us that they enjoy the opportunity to broaden their study in this way. It is now up to higher education to show its commitment to broadening by accepting candidates with AS-levels on to their courses without discrimination. The challenge is there. Schools and colleges will welcome the clear lead they have now been given to provide the courses.
810
I have seen some comment to the effect that Higginson's five-subject programme would lead to an increase in the number of candidates going on to higher education. This is a misconception: Higginson is quite clear on the point. A-levels, even streamlined A-levels, are for pupils of the highest ability. The proposals were not intended to change the nature of the A-level cohort as some have suggested. The Government agree that A-levels must continue to stretch those of the highest ability.
The committee has, as it was asked, produced general principles for A-levels in Chapter 2 of the report, and we have broadly welcomed these. The ongoing process of developing and revising new syllabuses will take account of these, but we do not consider it necessary or desirable to engage in an overhaul of all syllabuses at the present time. To do so would place too great a burden on the examination system and the schools at a time when they are coping with other fundamental changes as a result of our policies for GCSE and national curriculum assessment, as we are often reminded.
I know that concern has been expressed that young people who have become used to the teaching and learning approaches of GCSE may find it difficult to cope with the co-called "old-fashioned" A-levels. This is to misunderstand the nature of A-levels and GCSE. Despite what we hear, A-levels are developing all the time. Some well-tried syllabuses already incorporate an active approach to learning. Her Majesty's Inspectorate tell us that some of the best quality A-level teaching lays stress on developing oral and practical skills and on the understanding and application of knowledge and that it reaches very high standards of achievement. So the ongoing process of developing and revising syllabuses will take account of best practice, and will have the Higginson principles as a guide.
It has been useful to hear the views advanced in this short debate, not least the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Joseph. However, I have stated the Government's case.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. It is a trifle controversial but I can save my response for a later occasion when we have finished with the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) An order under subsection (2)(c) above relating to pupils in the final key stage shall include provision for the introduction of pupil profiles covering all aspects of the performance at school of a pupil, including the results in respect of that pupil of any assessment carried out in accordance with the order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords I was rather nervous about speaking to this amendment. I am no longer because the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who was Secretary of State during some of these events, is not present. I see however that the noble Lord has re-entered the Chamber; so I am nervous once again.
I should like to give the following quotation:
"Boys and girls who stay at school until they are 16 may reasonably look for some record of achievement when they leave".
It comes from the Newsome Report published in 1963. As a result, it was, I believe, in 1984 that the Government set up a steering committee to oversee the development of the idea by providing every school boy and girl with such a record on leaving school. The steering committee is to report finally in the autumn of 1988.
The purposes of a record of achievement are four-fold. I shall read a few brief excerpts. The first is that it is a recognition of achievement,
"not just in terms of public examinations but in other ways as well".
It was to show the,
"all-round potential of…pupils".
The document of record,
"should provide a more rounded picture of candidates for jobs or courses than can be provided by a list of examination results, thus helping potential users to decide how candidates could best be employed, or for which jobs, training schemes or courses they are likely to be suitable".
A further excerpt states:
"At central government level it will be important that a clear and continued commitment be given to records of achievement and to their integration with other intitiatives such as GCSE, other examinations pre- and post-16, and the national curriculum. The national priorities selected for in-service training provide a means of demonstrating this commitment".
There is no reference in the Bill to that excellent initiative; it appears to have been forgotten. It is rather like the conflicting aims and claims of the national curriculum assessments and the GCSE assessments about which we have been talking this afternoon, and with regard to the curriculum, of the responsibilities of local authorities, governing bodies and head teachers as laid down in the Education Act 1986 and those of the Secretary of State in the current Bill. I wonder whether in drafting the present Bill the Government have sufficiently thought about the matter.
The amendment seeks to state that national curriculum assessments should form part of a record of achievement. As I have shown by my quotations it is an overall estimate of a young person's achievement at school, not confined to examination results but an all-round picture of that person. That would be a useful document for employers. It would be a fairer and more just and civilised estimate than a bare, bold account of the examinations that the person had passed or failed. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to say a few brief words in support of this amendment. I assume that in a well-run school material for a profile would be there anyway. The idea of a profile seems to be intrinsic to education and to helping the pupil. There are two questions which arise. The first is whether it requires formalising; in other words that there should not just be a few pieces of paper stuck together but there should be a proper profile worked out. The second is whether it should be universal and, if universal, whether this is the time to introduce it.
I belong to the school of thought which believes that a well rounded pupil is what we want and that a profile is closer to the assessment of a well rounded
812
pupil than a simple assessment test. There is a very good intellectual case to be made for the profile and, indeed, noble Lords on all sides of the House have made that case. In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, I hope that to some extent we are pushing at an open door.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the introduction of records of achievement for all pupils in secondary education is already government policy. We have set the objective of introducing by 1990 arrangements under which all school-leavers will have such records or profiles. Pilot work has been under way in nine schemes, involving 22 local education authorities throughout England and Wales, over the past three years and a national steering committee has been asked to report to the Secretary of State this autumn. It will offer draft national guidelines in the light of the experience gained in the pilot schemes under which all school-leavers will have records of achievement. This report will be published.
One of the issues on which the committee will be offering advice is the scope and coverage of records of achievement. It would be quite unacceptable, and in practice unworkable, to lay a duty on schools to report on all aspects of pupil's performance. This is altogether too general and sweeping a requirement. We shall be looking very carefully at the committee's advice on this and all other aspects of recording pupils' achievements before we take decisions on the national introduction of records of achievement.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, asked me specifically about records of achievement and reporting on assessment. TGAT recommended that records of achievement should be used to report the results of national curriculum assessment as well as other matters. Subject to advice from the steering committee on records of achievement, the Government endorse that. Regulations made under Clause 17 of the Bill can be used to ensure the use of records. Provisions have deliberately been drafted widely enough to cover such records of an all round picture of a pupil's achievements at school. Therefore, I believe that this amendment is somewhat premature and unnecessary and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which is to some extent reassuring and encouraging. I am glad that we have talked briefly about this because records of achievement are not mentioned in the Bill. One has the feeling that what happened two, three of five years ago has a tendency to be forgotten. However, it obviously has not been forgotten. The initiative is proceeding and I hope that we shall see good results in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) No order made under subsection (2) above shall apply to any pupil during the key stage in which he is preparing for a public examination, if in the opinion of the head teacher, compliance therewith might diminish his chances of success in that examination.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that your Lordships will have to listen to me again, but I shall be brief because a great deal of this has already been discussed.
I am very concerned about the stress that young people may undergo as a result of the conflicting pressures of the national curriculum, GCSE, TVEI and all these other demands which are being made on them. Of course the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is right when she says that young people must be challenged and that they appreciate and respond to that challenge.
However, it is the business of teachers to see to it that the challenge is right. If the challenge is too little then one receives nothing from the pupil; if it is too great it breaks him. It has to be right. I feel that if a young person is taking six or seven subjects at GCSE and still being, as he or she may call it, bugged by tests in the national curriculum in subjects which they are not taking, it is rather like fighting a war on two fronts. That sort of conflict can be extremely damaging. I cannot believe that that is in their best interests.
Perhaps I may give two concrete examples to make the matter seem a little more alive. There might be a boy of 14 who is a little dyslexic. He is not greatly so and it has not been a great handicap. However, he suffers a little in that way but he has a gift for art, which is very often the case. He is all set for graphic design, which is what he wants to do when he leaves school. He needs much extra English because his English is weak. Therefore, when he arrives at the age to take his GCSE exams he will be taking art and design, English language, English literature, maths, history, geography and CDT. Does he really also have to satisfy teachers on attainment targets on programmes of study in science and a second language? If so, the demands may well be damaging to his GCSE results.
There might be a girl aged 16 who wants to be a doctor. In GCSE she is taking maths, biology, physics, chemistry, English language, English literature, music, for which she has a talent, and French; that is eight subjects. Does she really have to continue to be tested in history and geography as well as continuing to take art and PE even though those subjects will not be assessed?
On paper that can be fitted into the time available on the timetable, but that is not the only consideration. I should like to feel that each case of this sort could be individually considered. That is a matter which can only be decided at school level by the head teacher who knows the child concerned. It cannot be done by the governing body. How can the governing body know every child in the school? Still less can it be done at county hall or by the Secretary of State, who might as well be on the moon. That sort of decison has to be made by the child's teachers represented by the head teacher; namely, somebody who is on the spot who knows the children and their capacity and who can correctly gauge the demands which are to be made on them.
I hope that the Minister will give sympathy to this cri de coeur from an ex-teacher. I hope that she will
814
give us something more than an assurance that the Government have thought about this. One wonders whether they really have. With much feeling, I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I once had a pupil who had been an officer in the US army. He told me that one of the principles that he had been taught in that capacity was never to give an order which would not be obeyed. That struck me as a very sensible principle. It is also an illustration of the central point of this amendment.
The risks of stress to which my noble friend Lord Ritchie has drawn attention are real. However, I am rather more worried about the risks of contempt and that people will simply not co-operate with the requirements placed upon them. A great many people take the GCSE fairly seriously. It is a demanding course. The course work tends to be due all at the same time, and as course work it is hard to fix the maximum amount required.
There is a Morton's Fork in this area. Either the tests are on something which is being studied for GCSE, in which case they are redundant, or they are on something which is not required for GCSE, in which case they do not command interest.
I have discussed this with my son, who finished his GCSE yesterday. In spite of revising, which he has taken seriously, being a person who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, has a desire to accomplish something, nevertheless he found time to read the section of the TGAT report on the GCSE and testing. Having read it with care he told me in. I regret to say, language which I would not dream of repeating to your Lordships that this is an order which is not going to be obeyed.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government's intention in introducing the national curriculum is to ensure that, as in other European countries, all pupils are guaranteed a broad, balanced education throughout their years of compulsory schooling. The purpose of the assessment arrangements is to ensure that all aspects of that basic curriculum are being taught and studied to a reasonable standard. That is the safeguard for the problem put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
At age 16, we expect GCSE to be the main means of assessment, especially in the core subjects, but we do not expect pupils to take GCSE in all the foundation subjects. We expect the national assessment arrangements to be simpler than the GCSE process, but still to allow pupils to demonstrate a range of attainment up to and including GCSE standard. It will, as now, be for the schools to decide in consultation with pupils and their parents what will be an appropriate mix of GCSE and national assessment study for each individual pupil; and, in relation to the national assessment tests, to decide on the appropriate level for the pupil to attempt in each subject, as they do now for the GCE.
In these circumstances I do not think there is any danger of pupils being overtaxed by the new

815
arrangements. The results of assessments in non-GCSE, as well as GCSE subjects, will form part of each pupil's overall record of achievement which they will carry forward to further study or employment.
We have said all along that we are aiming for a broader curriculum, with higher standards being reached, covering all the years of compulsory schooling. This amendment seems designed to let pupils abandon this concept of a broad curriculum, at the head teacher's discretion, simply to gain good results in fewer subjects at GCSE level, directly contrary to the debate we had about A-levels. It would strike at the heart of our proposals and I must urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment for that reason. I am sure that he shares with us the general aim of breadth and balance for all, as set out in Clause 1, and would not really wish to press an amendment which would have the reverse effect.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I am reminded of something which someone said to me a day or so ago—that whenever one offers criticism of this Bill or points out some of the difficulties involved, the aims of the Bill are always given as the answer. One might ask how a particular aspect will work and the answer is always, "Our aim is such and such" and that it is broad and balanced. That still does not get over the difficulties which some children will meet.
The Minister also said that the final record of achievement of pupils will show their GCSE passes and also what they have achieved in other subjects in which they have not taken the GCSE. That is a laudable aim. I appreciate that it might lead to a broad and balanced curriculum, but I can tell the noble Baroness what will happen, It will be very much in line with what my noble friend Lord Russell had to say; that is, nobody will care a four letter word for anything other than the GCSE.
We are living in a very competitive society and the vast majority of young people only care for the exams they are going to take. The subjects other than those they are taking in the exams will be ignored. There will be a strong tendency for those subjects to be ignored and for the teachers to collude with the pupils. That is what worries me. It sounds much better in theory than in practice.
I revert to what I said in moving the amendment that the only people who can decide what subjects a child should or should not be taking are those on the spot. The demands laid down in statute law as to what a child should be taking are so unrealistic that I can hardly believe it is happening. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to take the amendment to a Division.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 60) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Blease, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Meston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Chitnis, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Flowers, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Thurlow, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kagan, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kearton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Arran, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Greenway, L.

Beloff, L.

Halsbury, E.

Belstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bessborough, E.

Harvington, L.

Blake, L.

Havers, L.

Borthwick, L.

Henley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hesketh, L.

Brantford, V.

Hives, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Butterworth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Joseph, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Chelwood, L.

Lindsay, E.

Coleraine, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Colnbrook, L.

London, Bp.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Long, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Lothian, M.

Cox, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

McFadzean, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Milverton, L.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Eccles, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Morris, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Nelson, E.

Ferrier, L.

Orkney, E.

817

Rankeillour, L.

Swinton, E.

Reay, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Trafford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trefgarne, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ullswater, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selborne, E.

Windlesham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wise, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal L.

Young, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.44 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, the next two amendments have to be reversed because they are wrongly marshalled. Amendment No. 61 is first, followed by Amendment No. 61A.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(2A) No order made under subsection (2) above shall apply to any pupil to the extent that it is incompatible with either the content of, or assessment arrangements under, any subject which he is studying for the General Certificate of Secondary Education.
(2B) No order made under subsection (2) above shall apply in respect of a particular subject to any pupil who has completed early a course in that subject under the General Certificate of Secondary Education.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to speak very briefly on Amendment No. 61. In listening to the noble Baroness and her replies to other amendments, as regards the first part of the amendment on page 5 of the Marshalled List, I believe that she said that the Government expect best endeavours to be made to ensure that the orders made will not lead to detrimental effects on pupils studying for GCSE. I do not see any reason to pursue that further.
I am interested in the response of the noble Baroness to what is set out under subsection (2B). It is a matter that occurred to me only recently as a result of speaking to a young person who is currently taking these examinations. I had not thought about it before, but it dawned on me that it is not unusual for a pupil to take some GCSE examinations before the fifth year. The young person to whom I was speaking was at a fee-paying school where it is even less unusual than it is at schools in the maintained system, where, to use a slang expression, one knocks off one or two subjects in order to get them out of the way.
The problem I have in mind does not arise in the independent sector. I do not want to rehearse my arguments why the national curriculum does not apply to the independent sector because I have had my say on that matter and I have not changed my views at all. However, it does not have the problem. But in the maintained sector it seems that there is a genuine question of education here. As I understand the national curriculum, a pupil who is making very rapid progress and whose teachers feel that the time has come to take the GCSE after four years (a year early) and does not intend to take the subject any
818
vol. 498further on not unreasonable education grounds as viewed by the teacher, will still be obliged to pursue a course of study in the subject that he has dropped. As I understand it, and more to the point, he will be obliged to be assessed on it. Not to put too fine a point on it that seems to be absurd if that is the case. It cannot be a course of action that anyone would wish for. To reverse the question, it cannot be that anyone would want all the examinations to take place necessarily in the maintained sector at the end of five years.
It seems that there is here a genuine problem and I hope that the Government have addressed themselves to it and at an earlier stage than I did. I thought about it only in the last couple of weeks. I tabled the amendment simply with a view to probing, getting an answer or being told that the Government have taken the problem on board and that they will let us have an answer in due course. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the noble Lord anticipated, there is no need for either of the changes suggested in this amendment. First, there can be no question of the GCSE being incompatible with the requirements of the national curriculum. The latter will be a general requirement and no GCSE syllabus would be approved by the SEAC if it was not compatible with the law. There is also no question of our introducing the national curriculum in such a way as to change the rules for any pupil while he or she is in the middle of a GCSE course. There will be ample opportunity for GCSE syllabuses to adapt before the formal requirements are introduced for the fourth key stage in any subject.
As for the notion that the national curriculum requirements should not apply to a pupil who has completed a GCSE course, while accepting the intentions of the noble Lord, the amendment as drafted is clearly defective. If the course has been completed but very little achieved, I think we would all feel that the pupil should be required to study the national curriculum programmes for a year longer to improve his performance.
However, there is of course a real point here, with which we have every sympathy. We do not want any pupil who has demonstrated high achievement in the GCSE to be held back by the requirements of the national curriculum. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear that we intend to use the flexibility already allowed under the Bill to ensure that such pupils can move on to further study in core areas and perhaps drop the study of some of the other foundation subjects if they wish to add others at that stage.
There are general questions to be resolved about how this is put into practice; for example, what levels of attainment are expected before subjects can be dropped completely. We shall want to consider carefully the NCC's advice on this matter. The regulations under Clause 12 of the Bill allowing for these exceptions will be subject to full consultation and the final test of parliamentary approval. This is the right way to proceed in this complicated area rather than by attempting to write specific exemptions on the face of the Bill.

819
In the light of my assurance that both of the noble Lord's points are met, I hope that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. She will appreciate that I cannot get her to answer a question unless I put down an amendment, however defective it may be. I think I found her answer reassuring; I shall look at it carefully in tomorrow's Official Report. I am especially reassured to know that the DES and eventually the other relevant bodies will look at the matter carefully. It is an important matter, in particular for young people who are trying to achieve high standards. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 61A:
Page 4, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (2) above shall, where it is at variance to any significant extent from the advice of the National Curriculum Council or the Schools Examination and Assessment Council as appropriate, shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, and any dispute as to the extent of any such variance shall be determinable by judicial review.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage the Minister said that she would take the issue away, give it further consideration and perhaps return to it at the next stage. That is an accurate paraphrase of what she said. Two amendments were moved at the Committee stage. The first was given no encouragement by the Minister and the second received the degree of encouragement I have set out. It is connected with the concern felt by many of us all along that, although the NCC and the SEAC will be set up by the Secretary of State to give him advice and assistance, he can ignore their advice. In the hands of the wrong kind of Secretary of State they could be just puppet bodies.
Under the Bill as it stands no affirmative resolution will be necessary at any stage in the introduction of the national curriculum. The process will either be the negative procedure in respect of attainment targets or programmes of study or no parliamentary order at all in respect of assessment arrangements. As a consequence, the level of parliamentary scrutiny over the introduction of the national curriculum will be minimal. After the attainment targets and programmes of study have been shaped by the working groups with the approval of the Secretary of State, they will be submitted to the National Curriculum Council for consultation. There is widespread concern that the role of the council and the consultation which arises from it will take place at too late a stage to be effective. It remains the case however that the council at least has the opportunity to give a view to the Secretary of State although he may ignore it.
This amendment merely states that an affirmative order should be introduced where the Secretary of State departs substantially from the NCC advice. This is intended as a minimum safeguard to enable Parliament to debate a matter on which the Secretary
820
of State departs from expert advice. It should be remembered that the NCC will, we hope, be a body of experts. They will know about education; they will not be outsiders merely fulfilling the political will of the Secretary of State. Without such a safeguard the Secretary of State will literally be able to ignore the advice of the National Curriculum Council. It would be down to Parliament to be informed of these circumstances and to call for a debate.
Many circumstances, including pressure of legislative time, might inhibit this process. The Secretary of State will be perfectly well aware when he is, or is not, accepting advice on the national curriculum in the spirit of the orders that he puts forward. The amendment simply states that he should make a judgment as to when an affirmative resolution is required. It is hardly an earnest of the good faith of the Government that they appear unable to accept even the basic thrust of this modest amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. We hoped very much that the Government would put down an amendment to this effect. There was no absolute commitment but the noble Baroness did say that she would take the matter back and give it further consideration. We hoped for a positive response from the Government. There have been few positive responses but we hoped for one. Too much is being done by negative resolution. I hope that we shall have a full explanation from the Minister.
All we have asked is that an affirmative resolution should be introduced where the Secretary of State departs substantially from the NCC advice. It is a minimum safeguard, as the noble Lord said. There could be drafting issues as to whether any variance from the terms of advice was significant but amendments sought to cover this point by making it clear that any challenge to the judgment of the Secretary of State in not bringing forward an affirmative order would be made subject to judicial review. It is not credible to suppose that the parliamentary draftsman is unable to produce a form of words which meets the substance of the point, if that is what the Minister intends to say. If there is no way in which a distinction may be made as to the degree of variance from national curriculum advice, the only proper course for the Government to adopt is to make all such orders subject to affirmative resolution. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. We have had little accepted; and this would be quite a simple proposal to accept.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister said earlier today that she wants to assure us on the subject of the Government's willingness to listen to professional advice. I was glad to hear that. This could be a good opportunity to offer precisely that reassurance and also to put the point in a nutshell. It might be in the Government's interests to remember that some day there may be a Secretary of State who is not of their political persuasion.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I react against this amendment. It is the old story of not having confidence in the impartiality of the Secretary of State, whoever he may be. I cannot imagine anyone likely to hold that office who, in operating the statutes, would blithely ignore the advice of this group. To suggest that someone else should step in to see whether the Secretary of State has departed significantly from what was recommended to him undermines the whole purpose of Parliament saying that the Secretary of State shall be the final court of appeal. We should not undermine that. To say that the matter must go through both Houses of Parliament, with negative orders and so on, is using a sledgehammer against something that is hardly likely to arise.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, during our debates in Committee I did indeed express sympathy with some aspects of this amendment. However, I must point out to the proposers that as it stands the amendment is technically defective in that it refers to assessment orders which, as we have discussed, are not to be subject to Parliament's approval. The reference to judicial review is also inappropriate. However, the main point is that there should be adequate parliamentary scrutiny of orders establishing the attainment targets and programmes of study for the national curriculum. I believe that to be the noble Lord's real concern.
We are all conscious of the need for such orders to be given an appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny. It is clearly right that important and contentious orders should be fully debated. Further examination of the options suggests that we do not really need to make any change to the provisions of the Bill to ensure that this is the case. There is already provision in the Bill for the National Curriculum Council to publish a report containing its advice on any order and for the Secretary of State to publish and circulate a full statement of his reasons if he departs from that advice. This will give noble Lords and others good and clear warning of any case in which the NCC's advice is not followed and enable them to judge whether the departure is sufficient to justify parliamentary time and a full debate. If they, or Members of another place, reach that conclusion of course they can pray against the order.
To add a requirement that the order should be subject to the full affirmative procedure when there was any significant difference from the NCC's advice would add little to the process. However, it would require us to devote what we have all established is very precious parliamentary time to changes which were significant in a legal sense but perhaps minor in terms of the overall impact of the order. For that reason we decided on this occasion not to offer any amendment as a result of our further consideration of the matter.
I must point out to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that we have offered amendments in other areas and although there may not have been many this afternoon, or indeed any, nonetheless concessions have been made. Therefore, although I decline to make one on this occasion, the debate has nevertheless given me the opportunity to explain the
822
already considerable hurdles that we believe any Secretary of State would have to overcome if he wished to depart from the National Curriculum Council's advice.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I think that our unease on the issue arises from a fear of what might happen under a different government. The many franchises that have been given to the Secretary of State in the Bill form part of the cause of our unease. Therefore, as the Government seem unwilling to move on the amendment, I feel that this is an occasion when I must divide the House.
7.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Ardwick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Birk, B.

Meston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Monson, L.

Blease, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Flowers, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Scear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Scrota, B.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

Kearton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Listowel, E.

Winstanley, L.

Longford, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Annan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Barber, L.

Coleraine, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Beloff, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belstead, L.

Cox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Craigavon, V.

Blake, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Blyth, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dundee, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Eccles, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Butterworth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Caccia, L.

Elton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Faithfull, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ferrier, L.

823

Gainsborough, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Nelson, E.

Greenway, L.

Orkney, E.

Halsbury, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Reay, L.

Harvington, L.

Renton, L.

Hastings, L.

Renwick, L.

Havers, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henley, L.

Selborne, E.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hooper, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinfen, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swinton, E.

Joseph, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kimball, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trafford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

McFadzean, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Windlesham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wise, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.9 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that we have reached an appropriate moment at which to take a break in these proceedings. I therefore beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill
Report received.

Horses, Ponies and Donkeys (No. 2) Bill
7.10 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offence of cruel tethering]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page line 6, at end insert (""or").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I have to report with some distress that my team of horses, ponies and donkeys has broken up and it is necessary to reassemble something in their place under good order and discipline. I suppose it is only
824
to be expected that any Bill that goes through another place without any discussion is bound to cause some trouble when it gets here. That is just what has happened because we find that, according to the conventions of the Chamber and the legislation, we have to be careful about our definitions. "Horses" includes "ponies" and therefore there is no need to mention ponies separately from horses.
The next problem is that donkeys apparently do not exist in animal protection law. Most of these laws were passed so long ago that the lovable donkey had not come into circulation; so there are asses. In a way, this Bill could relate to horses and asses. That in fact is what we are doing now. We have to convert this Bill from one dealing with horses, ponies and donkeys into one that deals with horses and asses.
However, as the Committee will see in a moment or two, a noble Lord may say to me, "What about mules?" I did not know about mules. Somebody else may say, "What about other animals which are tethered from time to time?" Mules present a problem, because they have not been mentioned in the principal Act of 1911 in quite the clear form that enables us to proceed without some consideration.
I therefore move Amendment No. 1 and I will link it with Amendment No. 2. We therefore start on our process of reformation and we will delete "pony or donkey" and insert "or ass". That will not be the end of our trouble because we still have "mule" to deal with later. But at the moment I think we should move one step at a time in this complex situation—much more complex, I may say, than religion in schools—and then go on from here.
I can only recommend that the Committee should accept this amendment. I am sorry about it. The romance has to some extent been taken out of this Bill. After all, the title we have been using has excited a good deal of interest. People have said to me, in all sorts of places and at all sorts of different times, "How are your horses, ponies and donkeys getting on?" Here am I, having to abandon them and having to be content with horses and asses, which are not anything like so romantic.
I may add that the reason this Bill is called a No. 2 Bill is that the earlier Bill was withdrawn and replaced by a second Bill in another place. That is another little hitch in the situation, because we shall come in a moment or two to the question as to whether the title of the Bill has to be altered. However, for the moment I will take the Committee on step at a time. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord Kilbracken: In spite of what my noble friend has said to the Committee, I think we have to consider my Amendment No. 3 at this stage because, on my reading of it, if Amendment No. 2 were agreed I would not be able to move my Amendment No. 3.
I agree entirely with what my noble friend has said about ponies and donkeys. There is no reason whatsoever for including a pony, because a pony is just a small horse. The great racehorse Hyperion, who won the Derby in the 1930s, being under 14.2 hands, was in fact a pony and therefore would have been covered by the definition. On donkeys and asses, my noble friend said that donkeys do not exist. I

825
believe that donkeys do exist, and indeed the dictionaries tell us that donkey and ass are synonymous; but because it is the word "ass" that is used in the 1911 Act my feeling is that we should conform with the usage in the Act, which means that I agree with my noble friend on those two points.
However, he has already raised the question of the mule. Why should mules, on which I have ridden many miles in the mountains of the Yeman and Kurdistan, be omitted from the benefits of the Act? The mule is a sterile hybrid between the horse and the donkey—an animal, it has been said, with no pride in the past or hope for the future. At present, not being either a horse or a donkey, it can be tethered as cruelly as anybody likes. I should like to remedy that.
Furthermore, my noble friend said that the mule did not feature in the 1911 Act, but I must say I did not find that to be the case. I found that each time equine animals were mentioned in the 1911 Act it specified horses, mules and donkeys. Therefore I suggest that in this Bill, which will amend Section 1 of the Act, we should again use the same language and include mules.
What, I hear your Lordships thinking, about hinnies? If any noble Lord does not know about hinnies, the answer is that if the sire is a donkey and the dam is a mare then the progeny is a mule, but if it is the other way round—which apparently happens less frequently—then the progeny is called a hinny. The only known progeny of that great steeple-chaser Cottage Rake was a hinny, because shortly before he was gelded a she-ass was left in the same field for company and she happened to come into season: Cottage Rake took advantage of this. That progeny is technically known as a hinny. Fortunately the dictionaries tell us that the word "mule" is popularly taken to include hinny. As they are not mentioned in the 1911 Act, I feel that it is perhaps unnecessary to include them here. Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 I see as being consequential on Amendment No. 3. As my noble friend suggested, I should prefer to wait until they are called to speak to them.
I should mention finally that there is a small misprint in the amendment. The first time that the word "or" appears it should not appear. It should read:
"and insert ('ass or mule')".
It still makes sense if that superfluous conjunction is left in, but I prefer that it should be deleted.
The only effect of my amendment is that, in addition to the inclusion of my noble friend's point, protection would be given to the humble mule. That is why I have tabled it, and I hope that it will be preferred to that of my noble friend.
The Earl of Arran: I crave the indulgence of the Committee because we are not aware of the existence of Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 as apparently tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken.
I can however speak to Amendment No. 1 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, concerning "ass". The proposed amendment does not alter the scope of the Bill and its purpose is to
826
bring the Bill's terminology into line with that used in the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which the Bill seeks to amend. In the 1911 Act the term "horse" is defined as including pony so that reference to "pony" in Clause 1 of the Bill is superfluous. In the 1911 Act the term "ass" is used in place of the term "donkey". To be consistent with that Act, the Bill should do the same. That said, we support the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: Is the noble Earl aware that, as I said, the humble mule is also included in all reference to equine species in the 1911 Act? It should therefore surely be included in any future amending legislation.
The Earl of Arran: I am not aware of that, and I apologise if I should be aware of it. Perhaps we may come back to the point on Report. We may be able to satisfy everybody concerned in writing before Report.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: We want to bring mules under the protection of the Bill without making ourselves look ridiculous. We can surely bring the mule into the Bill without a lot of palaver and without any substantial technical difficulty. If we cannot do that, it is time that we examined our procedures.
I suggest that my noble friend Lord Kilbracken should withdraw his amendments and that we allow mine to go forward. We can then try to get this sorted out—the title of the Bill and everything—before the next stage. My difficulty is that I have not had the opportunity to consult the sponsor of the Bill in another place, Mr. Amess, Member of Parliament for Basildon; indeed, I have had little time to consult anyone. I received advice from the Home Office yesterday suggesting that it would complicate matters unnecessarily if we tried to bring in the mule without contemplating other changes, including changes to the title. Unfortunately, some difficulties arise in the legislative procedure in altering long titles and short titles. The more the public see of how we have to cope with tradition, technical problems and legislative practice, the more I think they will feel sorry for us and say that it is about time we had some better procedure to do what we wish to do.
I can only suggest therefore that without further discussion we make progress in Committee and consider the mule on report. That is the best solution. If not, I shall have to go to the 1911 Act and show how the mule can be accommodated within the definitions of the various species therein. I shall not read them out, but the mules and the asses are there and it is clear that donkeys are not there. In that case, we can dispose of donkeys and get donkeys out of it. I am sorry about that because they are lovable and intelligent animals. They are a bit stubborn, but so be it. Let us get them out of it; we can then finish the Committee stage and, if time permits, we can probably take a little refreshment before the hordes come back to resume on education.
I hope that my noble friend will accede to this. If not, some difficulty may arise between the Minister and me as to what other changes might be made. I hope that I can be got out of this difficulty.
Lord Kilbracken: If my noble friend wants the Bill to embrace the mule, there is no palaver necessary at all. The Committee simply has to accept Amendment No. 3. When we reach Report, I expect to be somewhere in the wilds of the Middle East and unable to table an amendment. However, as it has been requested by my noble friend, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. This will make Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 superfluous, which I shall not move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I have moved Amendment No. 1 and I suggest with great respect that we decide on that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("pony or donkey") and insert ("or ass").
The noble Lord said: The amendment does not cover the mule, but I feel that it should be included in the Bill so that the mule can be attended to at a subsequent stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("or position").
The noble Lord said: I mentioned this on Second Reading. The Bill as it stands reads:
"shall tether any horse, pony or donkey under such conditions or in such manner or position as to cause that animal unnecessary suffering".
The point has been raised by horse trainers and breakers that there are certain procedures which are gone through in breaking in a horse. They might be regarded as an offence under this clause, so we agree that the word "position" should come out. Then I think there will be no doubt that we are talking about:
"in such manner as to cause that animal unnecessary suffering".
That ought to be good enough. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Perhaps I may add a couple of points here. I do not wish to enter into the discussion on terminology but to reiterate a point which I made on Second Reading. The great irony of this Bill is that it has caused great anxiety to travellers and gypsies—the very people who tether their horses and the very people against whom the RSPCA makes it quite clear that the Bill is not directed. They are the people who look after their horses best. The trouble is, as I said on Second Reading, that travellers are very often viewed with great suspicion by the local people. They feel that this Bill could give an extra stick to the local people with which to beat the travellers.
Therefore perhaps my noble friend would be so good as to confirm the two points which appear to
828
give the travellers anxiety. The first is very simple, that this Bill does not make tethering illegal. The second point is that the code of practice which has been issued by the RSPCA is merely a guidance and is not part of the Bill. In that case, if the travellers did not carry out every single point of this code of practice and the guidance which has come from the RSPCA, and if they deviated from any of those points, they would not be considered outside the law. I think it would give a lot of comfort to travellers—I know my noble friend did this on Second Reading so perhaps he would do it again—for him to confirm that the Bill has no adverse effect on those people who look after their animals.
I must admit that at the weekend I met some local people who had read a very lurid description of the Bill in Horse and Hound. One of them had sold two of the horses because they were so concerned about the effects which they suspected—wrongly I know—that the Bill would have. Therefore in order to put those anxieties at rest perhaps I may ask my noble friend briefly to confirm the two points I have mentioned.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am aware of the angle on the Bill which my noble friend has raised. I am also aware that letters come to me asking why cruelty cannot be forestalled by a stipulation of certain tethering conditions. What would be a model tether and what steps could be taken to enforce its use are an entirely new subject. I promise my noble friend that on Third Reading I shall be prepared to make a statement on this. I think that some fears have to be allayed.
On the other hand, there are people who have horses, and plenty of them live by horses. It has been said that the British Empire was built up on the back of a horse. We are generally regarded as being kind to horses. The first protection of animals legislation had the horse and the dog in mind. That is where animal protection began. The poor old cow did not get much attention then nor the bull. After all, there are tethered bulls and we have not mentioned their tribulations. There was one in a field near me which pawed the ground until there was a big hole and I thought, "I don't know whether that is cruel but it certainly caused him great psychological distress". However we have not dealt with bulls. I think we must be content with going as far as the mule and see how we get on; that is the best we can do. I am sure that there is a moral in this Bill somewhere as regards the position.
I hope that we can now proceed to deal with Clause 2 and Amendment No. 6. There needs to be something in the Bill to say when the Bill as an Act of Parliament should begin. If we did not have a delay of two months it would begin on the day after it received its Royal Assent and then the courts would have all sorts of difficulties in each particular case.
Lord Kilbracken: On clause stand part, I want to say that I share the feelings of sympathy towards travelling people which have been expressed by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs. But I cannot see how there can be any feelings of apprehension that under this legislation the tethering of any horse would

829
become illegal. The proposed paragraph states quite clearly that the illegality is in tethering any horse:
"in such manner as to cause that animal unnecessary suffering".
If it is not tethered in that manner, then of course it is not against the law.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
("(2) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Environment and Safety Information Bill
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ewart-Biggs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Maintaining of and access to registers]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page line 23, at end insert—
("(4) Any register under this section may be kept by means of a computer.").
The noble Earl said: Before addressing the substance of Amendment No. 1, I should just mention that in speaking to the Second Reading I said that the Government would bring forward some amendments, but of a detailed and legal sort which I believed would prove no impediment to the Bill's progress to the statute. We are now at that stage and I hope the Committee will find none of the amendments at all controversial. They are only intended to tidy up loose legal ends and clarify the text.
The Bill has moved quickly with some substantial amendments being introduced, and it is therefore right that officials and the parliamentary draftsmen should have stood back to check that it all fits together and is right in detail. From the minor nature of the changes we are proposing I think it now does fit together, and when these improvements are taken on board it will be a simple yet sensible Bill.
I now turn to the substance of Amendment No. 1. From its inception, the originator of the Bill has stated his wish not to overburden the Health and Safety Executive and other authorities who will have to maintain these registers. Accordingly, and to make the registers easier to maintain, Clause 1(2) requires only that sufficient particulars need be entered rather than a copy of the entire notice.
In Committee in another place it was said that this change should allow the use of a computer to keep the register and provide printouts. However, lawyers have now advised that it was not entirely clear whether that had been achieved, because in other Acts where computer printouts may be used they are referred to explicitly, and therefore the implication might be that they are not permitted by this Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to make the position absolutely clear—that computer printouts may be used. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am very grateful to the Minister for having told me beforehand that he would be making a few changes to this Bill and that it would be mainly a tidying up process. He said, and I am grateful to him for having repeated it, that he did not think the amendments he would be putting down would cause any impediment to the passage of the Bill when it got back to another place.
I very much welcome the positive attitude that the Minister has taken towards this Bill. I am also grateful for his explanation of this amendment. I must say that the sponsors of this Bill and I had assumed that the material in question would be kept in a computer. Therefore, the amendment of the Minister frames into law what is really the practice anyway. We had wished to keep things as simple as possible and not put too much extra work into the hands of the authorities.
However, I understand the intention of the Minister. He wished to make the practice that we had presumed occurred more precise with this amendment. He wished to close any loopholes. I am grateful for the very constructive attitude that the Minister has taken in putting forward this amendment, to which I give my deep support.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Interpretation]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 1, at end insert ("is employed in his Ministry and").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 6 together. These amendments relate to the responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for keeping a register. He may, if he wishes, authorise other authorities such as local authorities to enforce the Food and Environment Protection Act on his behalf. In such cases these amendments provide that it is the delegated authorities rather than the Minister who should maintain a register of the notices which they have served.
It is of course more appropriate that the authority which knows at first hand about the notice should have the responsibility for providing information about it. It is then also more likely to be held at a location which is accessible to those with an interest. The Minister's responsibility is therefore confined through these amendments to maintaining a register of those notices which have been served by MAFF officials. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I wish to ask for clarification. I wondered at the use of the words:
"is employed in his Ministry and".
I wondered whether those words could relate to people who may be employed on contract work or are specialists. We hear about sections of government being contracted out. We hear about people who are employed on a specialist basis. Do I understand that we are talking here about employees of the Ministry or employees of a council; that is, the responsible bodies? I should he grateful if the Minister could clarify that point. If the Minister is ready to reply, I shall be happy to allow him to do so.
The Earl of Dundee: I think the noble Lord is asking about the position of the employees of the Ministry of Agriculture as distinct from other people and authorities to whom the Ministry of Agriculture, under the Bill, is empowered to delegate. If that is so, I can assure the noble Lord that the provision relates to the employees of the Ministry.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In effect, then, it covers the employees of the Ministry. People who are not, as it were, employees of the Ministry but are employed by the Ministry will not be covered by this part of the amendment.
The Earl of Dundee: The noble Lord is correct. The latter implies the process of delegation, but the former implies, in contrast, direct employees. That is the case.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I wish only to say that I am glad my noble friend has sought clarification on that point and that the Minister has been able to give his assurance. Again from my point of view and that of the sponsors of this Bill, we are grateful for the effort that has gone into clarifying these points. We see this as an improvement, and therefore we are grateful to the Government for having gone through it so carefully and for having made these technical changes which to our minds have improved the Bill. I give my support to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("by") to ("or") in line 9 and insert ("that Minister or the Secretary of State").
The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("the Schedule to this Act").
The noble Earl said: The amendment seeks to make a very minor presentational change. At one stage, subsection (3) followed another subsection which referred to the schedule to the Bill. However, amendments in another place have caused the two subsections to be separated. To use the words proposed—"the Schedule to this Act"—is clearer than the words "that Schedule", which are currently in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Protection of trade secrets etc.]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 48, after ("notices") insert ("served").
The noble Earl said: The verb "served" was missed out in the printing of the clause and needs to be added. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 49, leave out ("in its application in England") and insert ("by persons employed in his Ministry").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8.10 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 5 [Courses leading to external qualifications]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) Where the Secretary of State allows for a choice of approved qualifications for pupils of compulsory school age, and where sufficient parental demand exists for an approved qualification, the school, the governing body, and where appropriate the local education authority shall have regard to parental demand, provided adequate resources are available. "Sufficient parental demand" shall be deemed as that which constitutes a viable teaching group.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 63 stem in part from the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on 5th May, when we discussed the worries she and others have voiced about certain GCSE history syllabuses. The arguments revolve around the heavy emphasis laid on what is known as "empathy" which permeates the approach to the setting and examining of history, particularly by the Southern Examination

833
Group but also various criteria laid down across the five examination groups and throughout the system.
At the heart of the debate is a cause célébre in which four history teachers from the Priory Comprehensive School at Lewes have been disciplined and have probably not improved their career prospects on account of their strong opposition to features in these exams which they believed were a travesty of the true purpose of history as a discipline. They therefore encouraged a group of parents to enter their children privately for the traditional Scottish 0-level and taught the children for that purpose in their own time at no charge and off the school premises. This remains a matter of conflict between them and their school which I strongly hope will not lead to victimisation.
The case is also a symptom of a much wider unease which has subsequently, in the few weeks since we last discussed it, become the subject of a national debate in editorials, features and correspondence in the columns of the press.
In the historical context empathy is designed to lure into the fold of history those for whom history has hitherto had little or no meaning—an admirable aim one might think. What is in question is the method. Unless based on a rather profound knowledge of the complex circumstances and conflicting views involved it can be a dangerous game for untrained minds to be asked to play.
Candidates in most cases are not asked to empathise with historical actors but with imaginary people—for example, an active suffragette, a Jew under Hitler, a Cuban at the time of the Bay of Pigs or a PLO representative—and asked how they would feel in such circumstances. On the last topic one trial paper asked the candidate to draft a PLO speech justifying a number of terrorist acts, including the attack on the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games. It is hard to see how that could be answered without simulating murderous feelings against Jews or vice versa if the Israeli response was called for. If differentiated empathy—as it is called in the horrible jargon of educationists—is required by the question, this can only lead to empathetic advocacy of two violent and opposed positions.
Understanding of the past must surely be based largely on actual events and recorded thought of real historical actors. Even here, where a question is posed on, say, Joseph Chamberlain or Neville Chamberlain it is often not in the form of what they did or said but what they might have said in certain hypothetical circumstances. It is rather hard to see why a candidate should be asked to invent what a national figure might have said rather than answer a question on what he did say, which is the stuff of history. It might produce a sophisticated response from an able student but would completely flummox a mediocre candidate who could have coped adequately with a more traditional paper. That hardly seems to fulfil the purpose of opening up history to those who have little aptitude for it.
I do not want to go into any further exposure of those papers. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is in his seat, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is coming in later and they are far better equipped to do
834
that than I. I do want to express my deep unease at the luring of students in these papers into role-playing almost as if it were a game to which a certain excitement attaches because of the strength of feeling or the violence which the issue attracted in its day. That day is often not very far removed from the present, because much of the material is closer to current affairs than to history. Immature students are thus encouraged into political attitudes at an earlier age and with less information than is usually considered adequate for the formation of a mature opinion.
Furthermore there is the question of fairness to the candidate, because not only does excessive emphasis on empathy force on children an almost intolerable level of moral involvement in or commitment to past events that they do not fully understand, but empathy is also extremely difficult to test. That was recognised in a letter from the DES to Mr. McGovern, one of the teachers concerned, on 24th April accepting that:
"it is widely recognised as difficult to assess".
To my knowledge there is only a very small background of research carried out by the old Schools Council on a sample of about 100 children. To the best of my belief no independent research has been done by any respected non-state education foundation, so much of the marking is bound to be subject to dubious criteria.
I was interested to note that in our last debate on this subject the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who I am very glad to see in his seat this evening, said he was initially a strong supporter of empathy but:
"I now find that what appeared to me to be a broadening and deepening of empathy has been used to seek to associate pupils with concepts of terrorism, for instance. To my mind that is a straight abuse of the original idea".—[Official Report, 5/5188; col. 765.]
I hope very much that he will support these amendments. I agreed with him on that occasion when he said he did not believe that,
"GCSE would cause discontent on any great scale, but it should have the potential competition if it should fall below expectations".
That is precisely the point we are discussing and to which these amendments are addressed.
There is no reason why only Scottish 0-levels should be available as an alternative. There are other English examining groups which do not push empathy to such extremes and to which parents might like to turn. It might even be a good idea for a new examining board to come into existence to pace the development of GCSE. The GCSE system, as a whole, seems to have been captured by a particular view of what it is that pupils are expected to have attained in their subjects after two years of preparation. Would not the Government perhaps be prepared to consider recognising an examining group which represents other reputable professional opinions and which offers schools and parents a different view of required attainment and a countervailing pole of attraction? Where genuine agreement does not exist should not our motto be, "Let a hundred flowers bloom", or, more prosaically, "Let the market decide"?
If there are no takers for an examining group to deal with a different philosophy, that will decide the question. On the other hand, if teachers and parents

835
want to opt out of the present examination straitjacket—which I emphasise is not inherent in the conception of GCSE itself—should they not be allowed to do so? Is it not in harmony with the Government's own approach that they should be allowed to do so?
I turn briefly to the Government's response to this sometimes rather passionate debate. It has been on the whole cautious but not unfriendly. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said on the last occasion when this was discussed that she had some sympathy with the amendment moved by her noble friend Lady Cox. On 10th May, Mrs. Rumbold wrote to Mr. Tim Rathbone saying:
I share the concern expressed that some syllabuses may he adopting an unbalanced approach to assessment in this area. The Secondary Examinations Council will be looking carefully at the summer examination papers and will consider in the light of practice whether changes are needed to the syllabuses or criteria".
The Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions that history syllabuses will be kept under review in the light of GCSE experience. The trouble with such assurances—genuine though I am sure they are—is that any review and subsequent changes are bound to be a matter not of months but of years. Therefore they are of little comfort to unhappy parents or bewildered children who will be sitting the exams next year and the year after that, and probably the year after that as well.
The main concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, seemed to be that amendments along these lines would undermine the position of governors. She wrote on 13th June to Dr. Freeman, who is one of the four Lewes teachers to whom I referred, and said:
"We believe that the proper place for the voice of the parent to be heard on school curriculum policy is the govening body of the school".
That is certainly an important forum, but parents do not have anything like a majority on governing bodies and if their voice is to be effective surely it should be an informed voice. It should have some leverage for the expression of urgent concern. That is the main purpose of these amendments.
The first amendment, Amendment No. 62, is less prescriptive than the amendment that was originally moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in that it simply requires the school, the governing body and where appopriate the local education authority to have regard to any parental demand for the syllabus and examinations of an alternative board, with the further proviso that there must be a viable group requiring the alternative course and sufficient resources to teach it. The latter provision was designed specifically to take account of anxiety expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the last occasion about placing an additional demand on the teaching workforce and the availability of resources.
The second amendment, Amendment No. 63, is designed in the first place to prevent the recurrence of what happened at Lewes where the teachers concerned were forbidden by the headmaster on pain of severe discipline even to mention to parents on school premises the existence of any other legitimate examination. That is surely unwarrantable interference with a normal parent-teacher
836
relationship. In my own recollection discussions normally take place between parents and subject teachers before the child begins his or her fourth year studies. That would be a perfectly legitimate occasion for doubts about the local board's history syllabus to be aired and discussed in time for parents to seek support for an alternative or enlist the sympathy of the parent-governors or indeed of other governors as well. This amendment may be free-standing and should be approved on civil rights grounds alone, but it will be better in conjunction with Amendment No. 62, because parents, having sought and obtained professional advice, will then have a fall-back mechanism if their concerns and demands should fall on deaf ears.
I apologise to the House if I have spoken at some length but this is a complex issue. I can assure your Lordships that it is not our intention to knock GCSE but it is our contention that in view of the volume of objections, queries and general unease surrounding some history syllabuses in particular parents should have at least some safety valve written into the Bill.
All that may settle down and in the long run I am sure that it will do, but in the meantime, during what promises to be a rather lengthy transitional period, it is vital that something on these lines should be in place. After all, history will no longer be optional; it is a basic requirement of the curriculum, and in those circumstances parents must surely have a right to question whether it is being judiciously presented or fairly tested. If choice is to mean anything other than choice of one dish, these rather modest amendments will be a way of increasing it, which surely is a basic element in the Government's philosophy. Therefore, if the noble Baroness does not like the precise form of words that we have submitted, I very much hope to hear from her that she will come back at Third Reading with a more expertly worded government amendment or amendments to meet these widely shared concerns. I beg to move.
Lord Annan: My Lords, if Conan Doyle had been chronicling this amendment for the Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, I suspect that he would have called it, The Singular Case of the Four Teachers from Lewes. It is a very peculiar case in which a history syllabus produces questions for an examination such as: "How would you feel if you were a Jew under Hitler, or a Cuban in the Bay of Pigs, or a PLO representative?" "Draft a speech justifying the terrorism of the PLO with particular reference to the assassination of the Israeli athletes at Munich."
What is also peculiar about this case is that when the children complained to their parents and the parents complained to the four teachers, the teachers were disciplined by the headmaster who said that it was totally unreasonable that they should talk to parents about this matter on the school premises. I do not think that that concerns us at the moment when we are considering this amendment except to draw it to the attention of the authorities. I do not want to begin a long disquisition about the fact that this is not history but current affairs—and I rather doubt whether it is even a question of current affairs.
However, I think that one must recognise that there are different philosophies in schools. I do not

837
want to suggest that this particular philosophy is totally ludicrous. Indeed, something of this kind was well known 60 years ago. Questions of that kind were set for scholarships to public schools. The reason that they were set was that the small boys in the prep schools were crammed with knowledge; they all knew the difference between malo I would rather be, and malo up an apple tree. They all knew the differences between zeugma and hysteron-proteron and the dates as well as the battles in the Wars of the Roses. But the public schools wanted to know whether a boy was somebody who had simply been stuffed like a tub with facts or whether he had some kind of originality and when faced with a question of that kind could show imagination.
I think that it would be wrong if we simply became philistines on this matter of examinations. However, I believe that it is a singularly bad examination because history is not what one feels; it is what people did or said. One then has to go further, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, did, and ask what can be done about this matter. I suggest that the amendment that is now before us tries to give something which is near to the Government's heart, and that is choice. This amendment seeks to provide that if parents do not like the syllabus being offered or are positively hostile to it, they can with consent move to another syllabus. I can hardly believe that the Government are hostile to that idea.
I shall say no more because the noble Lord introduced the amendment at length and said everything that needs to be said on its behalf.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, very briefly perhaps I may declare an interest in that I have sat for years as a Recorder in Lewes. I have been written to about this subject and I wish to support the spirit of this amendment on the basis of the information that I have received and of what I have heard this evening. I hope that the Government will regard it with sympathy.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope very much that the Government will take this occasion to accept something which comes from the House because, unlike possibly some other amendments against which the noble Baroness has been obdurate, this amendment is squarely in line with the Government's philosophy. They have said that one of the purposes of the Bill is to widen parental choice, to increase variety and to improve standards. I should have thought that the freedom to choose a better syllabus compared with a poorer syllabus would fit squarely with all three objectives.
I hope that this amendment will have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, because in brief it says: Scotland good, England bad. However, there is more to it than that. I join in welcoming the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and reiterate that it is very important that the GCSE, which is bound to have teething troubles as is any new examination system, should be given the maximum possible chance to succeed. Where
838
weaknesses are found there must be opportunities given to remedy them. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, pointed out, when dealing with educational matters one is in a particular difficulty in that one has to do something for children who are there now even though one is looking forward to a change in the future.
I would hope that within three or five years—whatever it may he—the Southern Group would either appoint new examiners or the examiners would think again about what they are trying to do. I would hope that the paper would fall in the general line of historical teaching in schools, in universities even, and that this problem would disappear. We are not asking for a major change. We are asking the Government to give a little play while this matter settles down.
There is an additional argument that I should like to raise very briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, quite justifiably pointed out that empathy questions—questions asking people to enter into the minds of others—are no new thing. The great R. G. Collingwood—whose greatness as a philosopher is in some dispute; but he was a great historian—argued that the purpose of historical study was largely to try to enter into the mind of historical figures but always through the evidence available. One has to try to know as much as Julius Caesar knew when he tried to cross the Rubicon and then imagine how he arrived at that decision.
However, there is a difference between now and 60 years ago. That difference is made very largely by television. One of the effects of television is that there is some inevitable confusion in the minds of the young between fact and fiction. I think that this is occasionally exploited, but that is another matter. Therefore it is very difficult if one is asking people, and children in particular, to imagine being the kind of characters that have been referred to (and there are others in other questions in these papers) and to distinguish that from the writing of fiction. The question is not asking, "What did Wellington feel when Blucher was late at the field of Waterloo?" At least they might know what the field of Waterloo was, and who Wellington and Blucher were. But if one were to imagine an Irish peasant or a PLO terrorist, whoever it may be, one is asking them to do something which for modern children is particularly difficult.
The merit of the Scottish examinations—and those papers have been published as well as the Southern Group's papers—was that it built on some structure. The child would at least have known the sequence of events and the kinds of things that people were trying to tackle, whereas the paper to which reference has been made, and which has been printed almost in full in newspapers, seems to me a marvellous way for teachers to ask pupils to repeat their own prejudices under the colour of historical argument. But it would leave a child with no idea as to what came first or second, or how important some aspects of history were compared with others.
For these reasons I very much hope that the Government will not reject this mild and temporary possibility for particular groups of parents to deal with the problems facing their children.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, perhaps I may deal very shortly with the Scottish challenge. It is delightful to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has been converted to the prospect that everything Scottish is good. I do not think that I have ever said that. I certainly would not intend to say that. If I did say it the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would probably disagree.
However, if we are going to discuss Scottish history, and history as tested in Scotland, it would be very interesting and I would certainly not be against it if somewhere in England—possibly in Lewes, certainly in Sussex, or anywhere—the history of Scotland were taught. That would be a new effort and I certainly would not want to be against that.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested something with which I must quarrel. I should have thought that history was not so much about what people did but why they did it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt. The whole point about the dispute that the teachers at Lewes had was this. One has first to know what people did before one can say why they did it. One must get the children to understand the facts.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I totally agree with that. But if one goes through a straightforward list of what Archbishop Laud, Lord Strafford, the Earl of Montrose, Cromwell, Pym and Hampden did, one is left in total confusion. One has to know something about the circumstances in which they lived and why in those circumstances they did what they did. That in my view is what history is about.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am in favour of these amendments. I shall not speak at length because I spoke in Committee and shall not repeat the points I made then. I should like to emphasise that these amendments presented to your Lordships on Report are desirable and necessary on educational and philosophical grounds.
Educationally, the point has been well made that if there is general dissatisfaction with the standard or quality of examinations available, there must be the freedom for teachers to offer and for pupils to take more acceptable alternatives. There is ample reason at the moment to believe that there are good grounds for dissatisfaction not just with the history examinations, on which great emphasis has been placed, but also with some of the examinations and some other subjects in other places. Therefore choice is very important at this time.
The predicament of the teachers in Sussex gives particular urgency to these amendments. They have not been allowed the basic professional freedom to discuss with parents alternative provisions. They have had to meet on the pavements. They have been threatened with disciplinary procedures and their behaviour has been called something akin to mutiny. A phrase that one of them used was that it is more like living in East Germany than East Sussex.
These amendments give the basic right for teachers to give professional advice to parents. Current events
840
show that at the moment these professional rights need the protection of law. I hope the Minister will be prepared to take these amendments very sympathetically. They go against the spirit of the Bill. They are essentially dirigiste and this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Annan has said, is basically premised on freedom of choice. It seems that these amendments would be one way of bringing the Bill more in line with a basic philosophy than if the provisions are allowed to stand as they are at present.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I should like to explain why I am less than enthusiastic about two amendments which on the face of it look quite reasonable and have attracted quite a wide measure of support. We have heard a lot about examination syllabuses but I wish to look at the wording of the amendments. There is a point of principle here which is in danger of being overlooked. In curricular matters, just as in disciplinary matters, the head is in charge of what goes on in his or her own school, answerable to the governors, and within the broad framework of educational law.
We heard some nautical metaphors at Committee stage. The head is indeed traditionally captain of his own ship. I have heard no convincing arguments during the course of this Bill from any side of the House that this position should be altered. However, in these amendments we see the thin end of a wedge. Parents will be able to come to the head of a school and demand to be heard as of right on a matter of professional curricular judgment. I am not too concerned with the fact that they will need to be in reasonable numbers to do so, nor with the fact that their demand will not be a mandatory one as it was in the draft amendment brought forward at Committee stage.
What concerns me is that we are seeing here an attempt at a radical departure from a principle which has underlain school practice in this country for a very long time. I do not believe that the professional authority of heads should come under attack, however mild the attack may appear in this fashion. What if a head acts unreasonably, though, supported by his governing body? That assumption is the genesis of these amendments. I do not believe that the answer is to legislate. Where there is any freedom there will always be loopholes. There will always be hard cases. However, hard cases do not make good law. I hope that we can resist the urge to legislate against every abuse that is brought before us, tempting though it may seem in the short term. If we do not, we shall contribute still further to the bureaucrats' and lawyers' dream that I referred to in Committee. We shall not improve the overall quality of education in so doing.
It was, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who said at an earlier stage, in proposing a national curriculum free from the restrictions which the Government are seeking to impose, that he preferred to live with the risk of the occasional abuse than to impose a straitjacket. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
The abuse at which we are aiming a sledgehammer in this case is a pretty occasional one. I cannot help feeling that it may perhaps spring as much from a

841
sense of grievance as from a desire to improve educational provision, though that may be unfair. The case has been admirably presented and most tenanciously pursued by its protagonists. There has been much publicity for it. I still believe however that we should be wrong to legislate. Parents should have rights, but not these kinds of rights. The proper route to a teacher or group of teachers is always through the head—good, bad or indifferent—who carries the can for all that goes on in the school.
Amendment No. 63 sets a bad precedent. In matters of school policy I agree with what the noble Baroness the Minister said in reply to the argument at Committee stage, in contrast to the view put by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I quote again:
"Parents may have strong views, and in some cases considerable detailed knowledge, on how subjects should be taught. The proper place for those views to be expressed is through the governing body in contributing to the formulation of curriculum policy".—[Official Report, 5/5/88; col. 767.]
That must be right.
I hope your Lordships will not agree to amendments which would have the effect of conferring inappropriate rights on parents and of beginning to undermine the professional and constitutional authority of head teachers. That would be a radical new departure. I feel strongly that it should be resisted.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, my intervention will be very brief. Having heard the speeches I am in an even greater state of confusion than usual. I am not at all sure at what vice these amendments are directed. Are they directed to the examiners who set these rather ridiculous questions, or are they directed to the unfortunate headmaster at Lewes who is supposed to have proscribed discussion? Was it on the school premises that he caused the offence? It seems to me that one needs to be quite sure what was done before one administers historic reproof and parliamentary castigation to the headmaster at Lewes. There seems to me to be considerable doubt.
If his objection was that parents, as they came to see him, were intercepted by other teachers wishing to discuss matters with them, that would seem to me to be a legitimate objection. Any discussions they wanted with the parents should take place outside the school. It is by no means clear to what the amendment is directed. If it is directed to the general proposition that parents should not be deterred from discussion of matters with teachers at the school, that may be a valid reason for the amendment. On the other hand, we need to determine what the amendment is directed at.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I wish to say a very brief word. I come from Lewes and I am also an LEA appointed governor of a primary school in that area. I am afraid that I shall say what I think without fear or favour. I am very unhappy about what happened. The governing body of the school in Lewes, I believe, made a considerable mistake. I do not want to see that happen again if it can be helped.
I believe that headmasters are like prime ministers. In the end they are the servants of the public. We are
842
trying to see that the combined wisdom of teachers and parents is synthesised and somehow produces the best result that we can get. That is really what we want to achieve.
I believe that the amendment tries to steer a sensible course—more sensible than the proposal at Committee stage. I believe we need something of this kind to avoid recurrence of what happened. It may be necessary to adapt the amendment but we badly need something. That is why I tend to support it.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I doubt whether I shall want to support this pair of amendments, but I shall listen to the Minister with great care. On the immediate issue, I am sure that the Secretary of State will initiate a thorough review of how GCSE is working. I doubt whether it need take as long as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, fears, at least in respect of this area of worry. I am puzzled why the governors apparently forbad the teachers recommending to parents a particular syllabus that was available from Scotland. I therefore share the anxiety about their decision expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
On empathy, I make no apology for seeing some value, provided that underlying the use of empathy there is a grasp of the basic facts. I thought, when I became seized of the concept of empathy in relation to examinations, that it was relevant that pupils should take into account for example the widespread belief in immortality and physical hell fire that dominated some previous centuries. I fully accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, reminded us, that difficult questions involving empathy can be used to test the intelligence of a pupil, always bearing in mind the importance of the grasp of fact on which the judgment of empathy is based.
I wonder whether another part of the Bill is not brought into question by what we are now discussing; namely, the power of the Secretary of State to approve, or not to approve, different examining authorities. It seems to me that untidy perhaps though it would be, the full freedom of parents in the schools would better be served if there was more freedom for any group that wished—no doubt for a commercial purpose—to offer examination. They would be sanctioned in the exercise of that freedom by the knowledge that unless schools and employers, pupils and teachers, respected the examinations they offered there would be no survival for them and certainly no profit. But the rigid requirement of the Secretary of State's approval of the examining boards limits the freedom to offer different examinations to meet needs.
I hope that the Minister will explain that the review of the GCSE will not take too long and that the idea of limiting examinations to approved bodies might itself be reviewed though it is not contained in these amendments.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment although I have no particular views about Lewes. The debate has been rather strained. In large part it seems to have been a debate about the merits and demerits of the four

843
Lewes martyrs. If that were so and if the case for the amendment was purely based on what we thought had happened in Lewes, and the view we took about it, clearly there would be no case at all.
The case must be based on some general principle. Because the amendments are based, I believe, on a good general principle I give them my wholehearted support. I do not like the degree of centralised control the Bill vests in the Secretary of State. I welcome any latitude which allows parents to escape some of the rigidities that I fear. I welcome too any possible escape from those who might emulate the DES at the local level.
I believe that parents have a right to a voice in the exams that their children take, even if it takes them away from GCSE. On the whole it is an admirable new examination which should be given every possible chance. I say that partly because if the parents are against a particular examination it will prejudice their children's chances; their children will not be so keen if their parents are against it. If their parents are for the examination the children will have a better chance. Parents should have a right to the best advice that they can have from teachers about the best examination their children can take. I believe that to be undoubted. The second amendment which we are discussing, Amendment No. 63, appears in many ways to be more commendable than Amendment No. 62. In any event, I am happy to support both the amendments.
Baroness David: My Lords, we know that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is a splendid libertarian and that that would be the line he would be likely to take. I had a certain unease when I read the amendments and did not feel happy about them. The more that I listen to the debate the more it appears to be based on the Lewes case, and the more I dislike making arrangements for the general from the particular. That is what the House appears to be doing tonight. I believe that more noble Lords have spoken about the Lewes case than about anything else.
I hope that the Minister will not accept these amendments because it is a rather dangerous principle. The GCSE examination may have had its teething troubles early on. However, it should have a chance to run and I believe that we should wait for a while. I hope that she will not accept the amendments.
I should like to point out that my first reactions to the amendments were slightly hostile and I have been more convinced of that by what I have heard. I have been most convinced by what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. His remarks convinced me that my instincts were right.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the proposed amendments to Clause 5 because they are directed at giving parents more influence. However, I also understand that these amendments have been prompted by a specific case which regrettably arose at a particular school. I recognise the genuine concerns that many noble Lords have about this matter but I am sure that they will also agree with the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin,
844
and the noble Baroness in saying that hard cases make bad law.
For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I should like to explain that in that particular case Mr. McGovern, the head of the history department, was dissatisfied with the approach taken in one of the GCSE history syllabuses. He hoped to bypass the GCSE examination by entering his pupils for a Scottish O-level in history. However, he was refused permission to do so by the headmaster and the governors. He was also refused permission to meet parents on school premises to discuss his proposal to teach the Scottish syllabus after normal school hours.
While much of that is regrettable it is important to say that in the volume of correspondence with Ministers and officials Mr. McGovern refuses to accept the fact that even if that particular GCSE history syllabus was unsuitable for his purposes there were over 30 others from which he could have chosen. Therefore the choice exists. It is also worth noting that not all GCSE history syllabuses are based on empathy. The GCSE does not equal empathy.
The Government agree that schools must be responsive to the wishes of parents in curricular and other matters. We encourage schools and LEAs to exercise the freedom they have in choosing from the range of syllabuses which will lead to an approved qualification. Proposals elsewhere in the Bill will require schools to publish information which we expect to include the courses, syllabuses and qualifications offered. There will be separately published lists of nationally approved syllabuses and qualifications. So parents will have ready access to relevant information.
It is worth pointing out that parents cannot choose examinations as such, only the syllabuses on which they are based. A perfectly innocent-looking syllabus is no proof against silly examination questions. The two are not always set by the same people.
The 1986 Education (No. 2) Act and the provisions of this Bill regarding school governing bodies will ensure that parents have much more influence over the school curriculum through the governing body. As I said previously, the governing body is the proper forum for parents' views to be expressed when contributing to the formulation of a school's policy and we want to encourage that. It would not be desirable to bypass this forum by placing the statutory requirement on schools which the first amendment proposes.
The second amendment concerns the giving of professional advice by teachers to parents about examinations approved by the Secretary of State.
The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document, made under the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987, already provides that one of a teacher's duties is to consult and communicate with parents. This document also requires teachers to carry out their professional duties under the reasonable direction of the head teacher. So the law already allows for teachers to engage in all reasonable consultation with parents—about qualifications among other things. Therefore this amendment is not only unnecessary but overlaps existing legislation.

845
I should like to take the opportunity to assure my noble friend Lord Joseph that that review of the GCSE will take place quickly. The southern examining group has already revised its history syllabus.
While understanding the reasons so well expressed behind the amendments, I am not able to accept them. I urge your Lordships to reject them.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to ask the Minister to resolve my confusion by telling me what the motivation of the headmaster was. Was it his objection that there was a rebel group meeting on the school premises or was it more general? If it was more general, I shall vote for the amendment, but if it was that he thought that it would be disorderly to try to arrange for a set of parents to meet and form an opposition group on the school premises I certainly shall not vote for the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must tell the noble Lord that I am not privy to the headmaster's reasoning. Therefore I am not able to tell him of his reasoning for refusing to permit the meeting to take place.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I apologise for continuing the discussion. Does any noble Lord know his reasoning? Is it right that we should pass a resolution that amounts to a severe criticism of the headmaster without knowing what motivated him?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. I shall address myself most to the speeches in dissent from the proposed amendments. I fully take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, about the authority of the headmaster. We all listen to the noble Earl on such matters with respect because we know of his previous involvement in that world. However, it must be pointed out that not only headmasters make choices of the syllabuses of examinations which are to be taken but the local education authority plays a predominant role in that.
The noble Earl says that hard cases do not make good law. He goes to to say that "occasional abuse"—I believe that that was the phrase he used—does not justify taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It must be said that all questions of rights are matters of occasional abuse. All pieces of legislation that are to preserve the rights of individuals as citizens are drawn up for and against their occasional abuse. Therefore, to argue that occasional abuse is something which can be brushed to one side does not, to my mind, hold up.
On the question of the confusion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in view of the sharpness of his mind I believe that I must have expressed myself very badly in introducing the amendments. However, I assure him that the general proposition of the second amendment is that parents should be able to discuss curricular matters with the subject teachers. It certainly cannot be the case that all
846
parents can have access at all times to discuss that with the headmaster. It is obvious that they will want to discuss curricular matters with the teachers concerned in the particular subjects. I propose that the parents and teachers should have the right on the school premises to do precisely that.
The noble Baroness tells me that there is already a duty on teachers to consult with parents. However, I am bound to say that that is not widely known. I am prepared to accept that the first of these two amendments is not perfectly drafted and to some extent trespasses on the ground of the governing body and existing channels. My inclination is not to press that amendment. However. I am firmly wedded to the second of those two amendments. That amendment states:
"Where parents wish to receive professional advice from teachers regarding examinations approved by the Secretary of State for pupils of compulsory school age, no impediment shall be put in the way of teachers offering such advice".
That is what that amendment says. If the noble Baroness tells me that that is already partly covered by regulations, I shall be delighted to hear it. However, I believe it is a point which should be a great deal more widely known.
Finally, before I come to a final decision on this I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she will accept the suggestion of her noble friend Lord Joseph that the thorough review that the Secretary of State has promised, particularly in the history syllabuses, should be speedy. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that that could drag on for three or five years, which is little comfort to children coming up to examinations in that period. I hope that she will undertake that it will be speedy. Perhaps she will say whether she is also prepared to undertake—and this is the second suggestion—a review of the policy as to widening the possibilities of syllabuses which might be available to parents. I should be grateful if she could answer that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already said that the review of the GCSE will take place quickly. On the other point, there are already over 30 history syllabuses from which to choose. Therefore I am not sure whether the noble Lord is suggesting that there should be more.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am partially satisfied with what the noble Baroness said on that point.
On the second point, when the amendment is put I shall be obliged to test the opinion of the House. It seems to me that the point about the right of consultation between parents and teachers on school premises is something which could be underwritten and underlined in the Bill.
Question, amendment negatived.
9.04 p.m.
Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 79.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Monson, L.

Beloff, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Blatch, B.

Stedman, B.

Cox, B.

Walston, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Wilson of Langside, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young of Dartington, L. [Teller.]

London, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hooper, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hylton, L.

Barber, L.

Jeger, B.

Barnett, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Joseph, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blease, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Borthwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lothian, M.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Molloy, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Morris, L.

Cowley, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Norfolk, D.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Eccles, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Swinfen, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Faithfull, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Gainford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Galpern, L.

Trafford, L.

Glenamara, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Greenway, L.

Ullswater, V.

Halsbury, E.

Underhill, L.

Harvington, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hastings, L.

Young, B.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.12 p.m.
Clause 6 [Duties with respect to certain requirements]:
[Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 66:
Leave out Clause 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 67:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions
. —(1). It shall not be required, as a condition of any pupil attending any maintained school, that he shall attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school or any place of religious worship.
(2) For the purposes of subsections (3) to (10) below "maintained school" does not include a maintained special school.
(3) If the parent of any pupil in attendance at any maintained school requests that he may be wholly or partly excused—

(a) from attendance at religious worship in the school;

(b) from receiving religious education given in the school in accordance with the school's basic curriculum; or

(c) both from such attendance and from receiving such education;

the pupil shall be so excused accordingly until the request is withdrawn.
(4) Where in accordance with subsection (3) above any pupil has been wholly or partly excused from attendance at religious worship or from receiving religious education in any school, and the responsible authority are satisfied—

(a) that the parent of the pupil desires him to receive religious education of a kind which is not provided in the school during the periods of time which he is so excused;

(h) that the pupil cannot with reasonable convenience be sent to another maintained school where religious education of the kind desired by the parent is provided; and

(c) that arrangements have been made for him to receive religious education of that kind during school hours elsewhere;

the pupil may be withdrawn from the school during such periods of time as are reasonably necessary for he purpose of enabling him to receive religious education in accordance with the arrangements.
(5) In this section "the responsible authority" means—

(a) in relation to a county or voluntary school, the local education authority; and

(b) in relation to a grant-maintained school, the governing body.

(6) A pupil may not be withdrawn from school under subsection (4) above unless the responsible authority are satisfied that the arrangements there mentioned are such as will not interfere with the attendance of the pupil at school on any day except at the beginning or end of the school session or, if there is more than one, of any school session on that day.
(7) Where the parent of any pupil who is a boarder at a maintained school requests that the pupil be permitted—

(a) to attend worship in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination on Sundays or other days exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs; or

(b) to receive religious education in accordance with such tenets outside school hours;

the governing body of the school shall make arrangements for affording to the pupil reasonable opportunities for doing so.
(8) Arrangements made under subsection (7) above may provide for affording facilities for such worship or education on the school premises, but the arrangements shall not entail expenditure by the responsible authority.
(9) In this section—

(a) references to religious worship in a school include references to religious worship which under section (Collective worship) of this Act takes place otherwise than on the school premises; and

(b) references to religious education given in a school in accordance with the school's basic curriculum are references to such education given in accordance with the provision included in the school's basic curriculum by virtue of section 2(1)(a) of this Act.

(10) Schedule (Consequential amendments relating to religious education) to this Act shall have effect for making amendments of the enactments there mentioned consequential on the provisions of this Chapter relating to religious education.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 68:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Duties with respect to certain requirements.
("Duties with respect to certain requirements
.—(1) Subject to section (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of this Act, in relation to any maintained school (other than a maintained special school) and any school year it shall be the duty of the local

849
education authority and the governing body to exercise their functions with a view to securing, and the duty of the head teacher to secure—

(a) that all pupils in attendance at the school take part in the daily collective worship required by section (Collective worship) of this Act; and

(b) that religious education is given in accordance with the provision for such education included in the school's basic curriculum by virtue of section 2(1)(a) of this Act.

(2) In relation to any maintained school and any school year it shall be the duty of the local education authority and the governing body to exercise their functions with a view to securing, and the duty of the head teacher to secure—

(a) that the National Curriculum as subsisting at the beginning of that year is implemented; and

(b) that section 5 of this Act is not contravened.

(3) In relation to any time before the beginning of the school year following the establishment of the National Curriculum so far as relating to a particular subject and a particular key stage, subsection (2)(a) above shall have effect as if that Curriculum required that subject to be taught for a reasonable time during that stage.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Collective worship.
("Religious education
.—(1) Subject to section (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of this Act, all pupils in attendance at a maintained school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.
(2) The arrangements for the collective worship in a school required by this section may, in respect of each school day, provide for a single act of worship for all pupils or for separate acts of worship for pupils in different age groups or in different school groups.
(3) In the case of a county school the collective worship so required—

(a) shall in the main reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief in ways appropriate to the age, aptitude and family background of the pupils involved; but

(b) shall not be distinctive of any particular Christian denomination.

(4) The arrangements for the collective worship in a county or voluntary school required by this section shall be made—

(a) in the case of a county school, by the head teacher after consultation with the governing body; and

(b) in the case of a voluntary school, by the governing body after consultation with the head teacher.

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, the collective worship in every maintained school required by this section shall take place on the school premises.
(6) If the governing body of—

(a) an aided or special agreement school; or

(b) a grant-maintained school;

are of opinion that it is desirable that any act of collective worship in the school required by this section should, on a special occasion, take place elsewhere than on the school premises, they may make such arrangements for that purpose as they think appropriate.
(7) The powers of a governing body under subsection (6) above shall not be so exercised as to derogate from the rule that, in every such school as is there mentioned, the collective worship required by this section must normally take place on the school premises.
(8) For the purposes of this section—
"maintained school" does not include a maintained special school; and
"School group" means any group in which pupils are taught or take part in other school activities.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Thorneycroft Lord Thorneycroft moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 69, Amendment No. 69A:
In subsection (1), line 4, after ("collective") insert ("Christian").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we turn to the subject of religious worship. Here we are not talking about religious education. We move from the field of knowledge to the field of faith or, more accurately, the field of religious faiths.
Perhaps I may describe very simply the form and purpose of this amendment. It is to insert the word "Christian" after the word "collective" in the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. I can say quite simply that it is to do what I have no doubt the right reverend Prelate has every intention of doing, and that is to secure an act of Christian worship. Obviously one cannot have an act of Christian worship in every school for all the pupils. It is too rich and varied a pattern of people. Therefore the amendment is linked to all the exceptions in the Bill.
The exceptions I particularly wish to mention are those contained on page 67 of the Marshalled List and which are in the names of my noble friends Lady Cox, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others. For example, they include the case of a denominational school for non-Christians. Plainly one does not have Christian worship there. They include the case where parents wish to contract out. In the case of our amendments, they include provision for worship by other faiths such as a number of Moslems in a school or a school with a large Jewish population or the like.
So far I believe that there can be no difference between us. The amendment which was moved by the right reverend Prelate describes the act of worship in terms that it is in the main broadly based upon the Christian faith and suited to the age, the attainments and the family background of the pupils. Perhaps I may say this about the latter point. I have a little doubt about the age, attainment and family background. When I attend church on Sundays at the Church of St. Mary the Virgin in Eastry in Kent, it is packed with children. As they crowd to the altar no one asks them about their age, their attainments or, above all, the background of their families.
I believe that simplicity is important in worship, particularly for children. Our Lord said:
"Suffer little children to come unto me".
In those simple words we have a clearer definition of what is wanted than in some of the tortuous efforts of the draftsmen of this Bill. I am a little nervous of this approach to children. It has been so grossly abused. The schools are full of documents which trivialise all religions. They trivialise the Jewish and the Moslem faiths; they include a page on Easter between a page on two other faiths. When one turns to the page it is merely a drawing of Easter eggs. I believe children deserve more than this. They have a more simple but clearer understanding about worship than many of their elders. They should be allowed to see it in all its beauty and simplicity.
The main problems are concerned with the word "Christian", with the words "in the main" and with the question of other faiths. The argument used for including the words "in the main" in religious

851
education is that we are after all mainly a Christian country. It is said that as there are other faiths in this country—quite a number of them—it is better to face the fact and say that in a mainly Christian country one should have mainly Christian education.
It is said that we should have mainly Christian worship. I ask the House to ponder carefully what on earth those words mean. Surely if Christians worship, they worship our Saviour. There is no room for worshipping anything else. One cannot say that one worships in the main our Saviour but that somehow something else is left over, unspecified and unidentified. The right reverend Prelate believes that we should worship our Saviour and that it should be a Christian act of worship—I have no doubt about that. I merely say that there is a wide gap between what the right reverend Prelate intends and what the draftsmen have put into the Bill, as one might say, on his behalf.
There is also the question of other faiths. The definition in the right reverend Prelate's amendment does not mention other faiths at all. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has raised this question on a number of occasions. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised it the other day.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as the noble Lord has brought me into it, perhaps I may say that I received a satisfactory answer from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, the last person I want to offend is the noble Baroness. I said that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, asked this question and that it was raised—and perfectly rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It has been raised—by many people. What does one do about the other faiths? If an act of worship is mainly Christian, one can say—although it is not made very plain—that one has an act of worship broadly wide enough to permit almost anybody to attend it. That is an unhappy solution for Christians and it is an equally unhappy solution for other faiths. My noble friends and I have received a good number of approaches from people of other faiths to say how unhappy they are to see their beliefs trivialised or subsumed in some all-purpose act of worship. In their families and in their churches they practise very devout acts of worship.
I am not, I hope, a dogmatic Christian. I am an Anglican married to a Catholic, and my daughter is married to a Jew. If anyone wishes to hear about the problems of comparative religion within a family these days, they only have to join me for lunch. Indeed, I am far from being dogmatic on such issues because I know something of the problems involved. However, you cannot mix them all up together. A
852
Catholic person will want a Catholic ceremony and a Jewish person will certainly want a Jewish ceremony. Further, in the often cited case of a Moslem school—for example, in the middle of Bradford, or elsewhere where there are schools whose content is 80 per cent. Moslem—they will want a Moslem act of worship.
We believe that the right answer is to square our shoulders and have Christian collective worship so that anyone who wishes to attend can do so. However, we also believe that provision must be made for the other faiths so that, if they wish it and they are there in sufficient numbers and it can be conveniently arranged, then they can have their act of worship. We feel that that is preferable to a kind of broad "all purpose" provision.
I must say here that the noble Baroness from the Front Bench has been conducting the proceedings with great ability. We all admire her patience and the way in which she has carried on during these long hours. I listened to her speech the other day when she said that there are difficulties about using the word "Christian", because if it is put in to the legislation many other people will contract out and contracting out is not the answer. However, to degrade the act of Christian worship, and to degrade it to the point where you avoid any contracting out, is also a deplorable solution to the problem.
In those circumstances, what I seek is this. I very much hope that no one will say that all this is a package and therefore unamendable. In my view that is not a proper answer; it is not a good answer from this House and, indeed, it is not right. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will be prepared to say that he recognises that there is a problem in this connection. It is not only a problem for Christians; it is a problem for Jews and also a problem for Moslems. It is a real problem. If we are to have real acts of worship for such people then a different form of words to that presently in the Bill must be found. I believe that suitable words can be found which would meet the wishes and the intentions of the right reverend Prelate but which, at the same time, would not raise the same difficulties for Christians, Jews and Moslems alike.
I sincerely hope that in his reply the right reverend Prelate will say that he is prepared to meet some of us—for example, my noble friend Lady Cox who has done so much to advance matters to this stage, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others. Indeed, I hope above all else that he will say that he will have the closest discussion with the Chief Rabbi —who would be here if he were not suffering from flu, and we all wish him well—to ensure that not only our views about the needs of Christians, but also his views about the interests of the Jewish population, are brought into effect. I believe that such consultation will advance the causes which the right reverend Prelate has deeply at heart. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as my noble friend referred to Amendment No. 340, standing in the names of myself, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, who is in his place, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, perhaps I may deal with the issue as it arises, because it is our amendment. I have had an informal word with the right reverend Prelate and we agree that this is—
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, of course.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, are we discussing a group that includes Nos. 337 to 340? If that is the case, then it is not in the grouping—or are we discussing only the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, as is my understanding? It really would be much clearer, certainly for me and, I would hope, for other Members of this House, if we knew what we were discussing. I was not clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said whether he was speaking to his Amendment No. 69A and some other amendments, of which I did not have prior notice, or to his own amendment only.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as I understood the position—and this was clarified, I hope, by the intervention of the Government Chief Whip and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, yesterday—we had an introduction and outline by virtue of the grouping. We, who were respectfully challenging the package in order to question what it offered and to seek assurances, were assured that we would be able to speak freely and fully on both religious education—which we have done and we have received assurances which have matched the two main principles of those who support our amendment—and on collective worship, which we are now in a position to consider. I propose, as my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft is dealing with—
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way once more. This is a quite important amendment. I realise that I am fairly new to this House, but if we are going to have amendments in the 300s which come up and which are not in the groupings, it is very unfair if we are suddenly asked to discuss them without notice. The groupings are available outside this Chamber and we work, as I understand it, on the basis that these groupings are agreed to, unless we have some notice that they are not. It is very difficult if we are suddenly asked to discuss amendments that are not on the list of groupings and not expected to be discussed today at all. Some noble Lords who might have wished to discuss the amendments may not be here or, like myself, may not, even if they are present, have prepared themselves in regard to the amendments in question.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the ruling of the Government Chief Whip—or at least the suggestion, if it was not a ruling—was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. It was that we should be in a position to discuss these matters because we were challenging: we had on our first two principles received assurances of great value from the right reverend Prelate and we needed to ensure that the grouping would not prevent us from being heard on this issue also. It is an issue on which we wish, and indeed demand, to be heard.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if I may attempt to help the House and at the same time help my noble friend in regard to the ruling, there is absolutely no objection to his participating in this discussion on this topic; but what we are discussing now is Amendment No. 69A. I understand that my noble friend the Chief Whip, when he made his statement yesterday, said that any Member of the House would be perfectly free to speak to his or her amendment when it came up in the order. We are not now speaking to a grouping.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, may I perhaps just call the attention of the noble Lord to the particular amendment that we are discussing? If he will look at page 8 of the Marshalled List, in the amendment standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate, the subsection with which we are dealing is this:
"Subject to section (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of this Act; all pupils in attendance at a maintained school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship".
The amendment proposes the insertion of "Christian" after "collective". It would be impossible to utter a few sentences without referring to the fact that there are exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions. One could not debate it without mentioning that fact.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if that is the position, my understanding is that one informs the Chief Whip's office of the amendments that one wishes to be taken in a group. That assists the House. I fully appreciate that I have little experience of this House or of the other place compared with the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, but it is a bouncer to deliver at one's head if I may use a cricketing term—suddenly to say that we are discussing Amendment No. 337 and certain amendments thereafter without prior notification that those may be discussed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may continue with my speech and refer to Amendment No. 69. The amendment proposes a collective act of worship for all pupils, irrespective of the faith to which they adhere, which reflects the school itself. If one reads Hansard, it is plain that the right reverend Prelate

855
explains what is involved, which is much more than the gap, as my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft said, between what is written in the amendment and what in other contexts and in this context is said by the right reverend Prelate.
The right reverend Prelate said, at col. 666 of Hansard of 21st June, that this collective act will be Christian unless the nature of the school demands worship in another faith. This is not—I repeat "not"—what subsection (3) of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 69 appears on the face of it to say to an ordinary common lawyer. An amendment for clarification on Third Reading would indeed be welcome.
A subsequent amendment—in deference to the sensitivities of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I shall not name it—makes further provision, as he well knows (and this comes as no surprise because it was spoken to yesterday) for a collective act of worship in a faith other than the Christian faith if the parents request it and if it is reasonable and practical to do so.
The dilemma that arises by having separate acts of collective worship was explained totally logically, as one would expect, by the right reverend Prelate at cols. 666 and 667 of Hansard of 21st June. He said that the problem cannot be met by withdrawal or by making separate provision, as proposed by the unmentionable amendment to which I have referred, without splitting the school. I understand this approach. However, I am afraid that I and those who support my amendment do not agree with it. Let us have no mincing of words, no misunderstanding; we do not agree. The problem is that we take the view that this is essentially a religious problem, a question of worship. At col. 665 of the Official Report the right reverend Prelate took the view that essentially this was an educational approach, not a purely religious one. So as regards worship we are already beginning to get to a divergent approach, which is of crucial consequence. How we start to consider a problem tends to drive us into the ultimate position.
We take the view that there can be no act of worship, collective or otherwise—and this is directly concerned with Amendment No. 69—without belief in a particular faith, creed or catechism. As regards worship, religious considerations are of prime, paramount consequence. The point was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham (at col. 650) and I am grateful to see him in his place. The point was also taken by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff (at col. 659) and by myself, maintaining that a confusing nonsense for the child would ensue.
It is now appreciated that this proposed multifaith collective act of worship is not to be a mish-mash of various faiths but a Christian act of worship unless the nature of the school demands worship in another faith. I have given great credence and care to what the right reverend Prelate has said, for which I am grateful to him as always. The point is that if the nature of the school demands separate acts of collective worship in other faiths, there is no provision whatever for this. The basic point remains that worship by a child who does not adhere to the
856
faith relevant to the act of worship can have no meaning, can make no sense and has no value as regards the behavioural position on which Archbishop William Temple set great store.
Perhaps the right reverend Prelate could offer this accommodation; it is a bridge. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could spare the right reverend Prelate for one second to attend to my proposals. Perhaps she could do that. I am asking the right reverend Prelate, with the greatest respect and humility, whether he could afford this accommodation, this compromise, to build a bridge between those who support my amendment and his proposals. In effect they come to this: that we amend Clause 69(2) to make it possible that a separate act of worship could be made for children of faiths other than the Christian faith, with consequential amendments quite simply drafted to other clauses in that amendment.
This would mean that it is within the discretion of the governors, in the circumstances that the right reverend Prelate explained, to decide whether there should be two separate acts of worship, not limited as under the present drafting of the amendment to age or school groups, but also extended to cover other faiths than the Christian faith. If the right reverend Prelate could give some indication of an accommodation along those lines, I am sure that this whole question could be resolved and there would be no need even to refer to, or move to, the subsequent amendments. I see that my noble friend the Chief Whip is worried about time. Much time would be saved in the result and a satisfactory result achieved. I hope that those who support my subsequent amendments agree.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, time being short I wish to make only one allusion to the speech of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft. It is simply that he made a distinction between the intention of the amendments and their effect. His speech was addressed almost entirely to what he supposed the effects would be. It appears that his remarks were directed to the right reverend Prelate, and therefore to myself, because I signed up to Amendment No. 69.
I merely wish to repeat that the intended effect is precisely that which my noble friend espouses, that is to say, Christian worship and education for Christian children and proper education and worship in their faiths for children of other faiths. Of course there may be exceptional and difficult cases, but that in the main is what is intended. I use the phrase "in the main" because that is the sense in which it is used in the amendment. "In the main" is what is normal. It does not mean that a service or a course of instruction is partly Christian and partly something else. It means that it is usually Christian, but sometimes something else. That is a crucial difference. I have taken two minutes of your Lordships' time. I hope that it saves further questions.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I shall be as brief as I can. I wish to make a technical point as it were about the actual amendment before us, Amendment No. 69A. The noble Lord, Lord

857
Thorneycroft, said that he thought that our intentions were the same as regards this amendment. I am afraid that the nature of Amendment No. 69A makes it impossible for him to agree with me. It would make the new clause read,
"all pupils in attendance at a maintained school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective Christian worship".
The phrase "maintained school" includes county and voluntary schools, both aided and controlled. The effect of the amendment—I must put this quite bluntly—
Lord Thorneyeroft: My Lords, I think with great respect that the right reverend Prelate has got the amendment wrong. I think he has the word "Christian" in the wrong place. It occurs in the first subsection, not half way down.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, it is his amendment that I am talking to. That phrase occurs in line 4 and it is in the place which I have just described.
Lord Thorneyeroft: My Lords, it is in line 4 of subsection (1). The right reverend Prelate is looking at line 4 of the page.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am looking at subsection (1) line 4 which is exactly as I have read it, if the Marshalled List is accurate. It has the effect of requiring an act of Christian worship in every Jewish aided school.
Lord Thorneyeroft: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate will forgive me, I must say that the words in his own amendment make it absolutely plain that this provision is subject to all the exceptions, differences and matters that are cut out in the rest of the Bill. The right reverend Prelate cannot ignore the words of his own amendment. I think he is looking at the wrong clause.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am not looking at the wrong clause. What I am saying is that this is totally inconsistent. If the amendment is passed, it will make absolute nonsense of everything else that follows in this part of the Bill. Having said that, I am not standing on a technicality.
We are, I believe, in great difficulties over this matter because there is clearly much misunderstanding. Some of the things that have been said make me wonder if any noble Lords heard my speech last night in this very Chamber. On the other hand, I want to be as constructive and sympathetic as possible. I want to see the matter discussed in a creative way without spending any more time on this aspect of the Bill than we have spent so far. Vitally important though it is, I do not believe that we will achieve the purpose on which we are all agreed by the way in which we are proceeding.
I appreciate that the noble Lords, Lord Thorneycroft and Lord Campbell of Alloway, are worried about some aspects or interpretations of the package which I presented yesterday, and which the House has agreed. Perhaps I may say that I have
858
given an undertaking to write to the noble Lords setting out as clearly as I can our intentions and the way in which we see them being achieved. Perhaps the noble Lord has not received my invitation; however, I have invited him and his noble friends to meet me between Report stage and Third Reading to discuss what I have suggested. They can read and analyse my proposals in the hope that by those means any misunderstandings can be resolved. I believe it is clear from our discussion this evening that misunderstandings exist. Some of the views which have been attributed to me are not those which I hold, as I have made clear to the House on more than one occasion.
I hope that by that means a proper and satisfactory outcome can be achieved. I do not dispute that this is a religious issue; that is why it is vital. However, it is a religious issue in an educational context. We are considering an education reform Bill and not a Bill about worship. Worship is to be considered in an educational context and must therefore be understood in the context of our schools and of our nation at large. I hope that what I have proposed will be acceptable to noble Lords who have spoken in our debate and that we shall be able to proceed on the understanding that we shall be meeting and discussing those problems together.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, we discussed religious education for several hours yesterday. The Bill deals with many other matters. The House made a clear decision yesterday in accepting the amendment put forward by the right reverend Prelate. He holds the view that further discussions may be helpful. There is a point at which the House must get on with the business of the Bill. There are Members of the House who are deeply concerned about other parts of the Bill. It would be utterly deplorable for the House to get into a discussion which involved a competition to see who was the better Christian on a basis of who spent the most time in this Chamber discussing the various arguments. We must have a sense of proportion. If we have a suggestion for further discussions, let us leave it at that and get on with the next stage of the Bill.
hurlowds, before we come to other issues perhaps I may briefly pursue the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, in relation to the words "family background". In his very emotive picture of the service in his country church and the presence of children there—I may say that that corresponds to the picture in my own country church—he presented a picture which is not representative of the problems that confront the country and with which we are largely concerned in these amendments.
As teachers and local authorities are well aware, the problem in our schools is the difficulty of getting across to boys and girls, particularly in the big urban centres, the nature of the message which we are trying to present. That cannot be done in old-fashioned ways, if I may use that slightly pejorative term. The world we live in has moved on. In contrast to country villages the general cultural background, as Clifford Longley has said, is largely agnostic materialism. One

859
cannot force a particular presentation of values and traditions down the throats of boys and girls who do not want it.
It has to be left to the teachers, the governors and the local authorities among them to work out, in relation to the particular conditions in each school, the way in which this difficult matter of collective worship is to be handled. So I hope very much that your Lordships will continue to back the way in which the right reverend Prelate has solved this problem in his discussions so far.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the opting out arrangements that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway wanted are already covered in Amendment No. 67 which the House passed some 40 minutes ago? I think that subsections (3)(a) and (4) cover the opting out of Christian worship and the right for children to participate in worship of a proper nature of another religion, also organised by the school or elsewhere. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would answer that point in due course.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not concerned with opting out.
Noble Lords: Order! This is Report stage.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. I should like to say to the movers of these amendments what I think the right reverend Prelate, after a process of consultation which was a model of its kind, knows perfectly well. The trouble arises from the fact that in trying to provide worship in schools in a state system we are trying to provide something which will affect everyone.
The right reverend Prelate and I may differ on many things, but I think that we agree on two things. One is that we believe in liberty of conscience and the other is that we believe that politics is the art of the possible. It is because I think we have those two things in common that I spent a considerable amount of time yesterday trying to persuade my fellow unbelievers not to divide against the right reverend Prelate's amendment. I should like to ask the movers of these amendments not to press ahead and unscramble those agreements.
I can understand very well and I can respect what they say about mish-mash, but I think the trouble arises from the fact that they are providing worship in schools for a mish-mash of different sorts of believers and unbelievers. I think that what they ought to accept, if they want their worship to be pure, is the proposition of John Locke that a Church is a voluntary society and that Christian worship is for professing Christians.
Lord Morris: My Lords, the problem that arises is that the right reverend Prelate, with great sincerity, has offered something that cannot be delivered. This House is barred at Third Reading from making any substantive alterations to a Bill other than drafting amendments. This is the problem. Amendments were brought forward so late in the Bill.
860
If I may before my noble friend the Minister answers, I should like to ask whether it is technically possible to bring through amendments at Third Reading along the lines of those of my noble friends, having consulted the right reverend Prelate, which would meet their common interests.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I must say a few words but I shall not keep the House more than a minute. Perhaps I may just say, please remember what we went through yesterday. A lot of discussion took place yesterday. The right reverend Prelate gave assurances yesterday; discussions have taken place. Noble Lords must remember that if this issue does not go through in this way those people who have held discussions with the Lord Bishop will feel very much let down. On behalf of my own denomination I am bound to say that we shall feel very much let down. Therefore I urge my fellow Christians on the other side of the House to be very careful about what they are doing and to accept the recommendation that the right reverend Prelate has put to them this evening.
10 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I shall keep the House only a minute or two. I have had some experience with this question of daily worship. I helped Mr. Butler before the 1944 Act came in and when it was introduced those religious clauses were put in as part of a bargain of which the larger part was the transfer of Church schools to controlled status. We never expected much to happen. I did not become a Minister until 1954 and then for eight years off and on not one single protest was made to the effect that there was no carrying out of the religious clauses. I did not hear from a layman, a clergyman, a teacher or a bishop. Nobody ever protested at what I told everybody; namely, that less than 10 per cent. of schools held a daily act of worship.
That means that we should support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London today. He has taken a stand, which I never thought that the Church would do. Of course the Church is under attack and has to make a counter move. This is the counter move and we ought to support it. I should not wish to complicate the matter by accepting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft and would accept the right reverend Prelate's amendment as it is.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I think that there is probably only one answer to this question. My noble friend Lord Thorneycroft possibly puts a different interpretation on the words "in the main" than does the right reverend Prelate. I see no other way except to have more talks and have them quickly and hope that we can have some adjustment of the amendment, if the right reverend Prelate can accept this, on Third Reading. It is a difficult position because time is so short, but I think that more talks is the only answer.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I may start by confirming to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that

861
his interpretation of the effect of the Government's Amendment No. 67 is correct. There is a right for children to be excused from both religious worship and religious education.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 69A, which is an amendment to the right reverend Prelate's new clause on collective worship, Amendment No. 69, it has the same effect as earlier amendments tabled by my noble friend. It seeks to provide that the act of collective worship in all maintained schools should be Christian.
We have debated this matter at some length and I think that we are well aware of the strongly held views. In view of the strong support given by the House yesterday to the right reverend Prelate's package of amendments, and indeed his further assurances today that he will seek as far as possible to clarify the position, I can assure the House that the Government will continue to give their support and co-operation in that endeavour. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will now be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, with the permission of the House I rise simply to say that moving this amendment has created rather more heat than I had either intended or anticipated. Like everybody else my object is to support the right reverend Prelate. I agree with virtually everything that he is trying to do. I see some gap between his expressed intention and the Bill and amendments as drafted which come before the House, but he has offered in the most generous terms to meet us and discuss these matters. We shall certainly take that offer up. I thank him very much for it. Against that background I am absolutely willing to withdraw the amendment and beg leave to do so.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton Lord Renton had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 69, Amendment No. 69B:
Line 14, leave out from ("involved") to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the discussion that we have just had, and on the assumption that the right reverend Prelate will be so kind as to consider the point raised by my amendment, I do not intend to take up the time of the House in moving it.
[Amendment No. 69B not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 69 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Religious education required in the basic curriculum: further provisions.
.—(1) Section 2(1)(a) of this Act is subject to section (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of this Act.
(2) The religious education for which provision is required by section 2(1)(a) to be included in the basic curriculum for any
862
particular maintained school shall be religious education of the kind required by such of the provisions of sections 26 to 28 of the 1944 Act or sections 76 to 78 of this Act as apply in the case of that school.
(3) Any agreed syllabus which after this section comes into force is adopted or deemed to be adopted under Schedule 5 to that Act (which, as amended by this Act, provides for the preparation, adoption and reconsideration of an agreed syllabus of religious education) shall reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Standing advisory councils on religious education]:
[Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 4, line 45, leave out ("the religious instruction") and insert ("religious worship in county schools and the religious education").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 5, line 5, leave out from ("particular") to ("for") in line 6 and insert ("—

(a) the application of section (Collective worship) (3) of this Act in relation to individual schools; and

(b) methods of teaching, the choice of materials and the provision of training").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 5, line 17, leave out paragraph (a) and
insert—
("(a) such Christian and other religious denominations as, in the opinion of the authority, will appropriately reflect the principal religious traditions in the area;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("time") to end of line
38.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert—
("Each representative group concerned shall have a single vote on the question of whether to require such a review.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Advisory councils: supplementary provisions]:
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 6, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Establishment of Councils]:
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I shall be speaking to Amendments Nos. 84, 92, 99, 102, 103 and 105. They all relate to the idea of a special advisory committee for children with special needs. I wish to say a few words about the background to this. The idea has been in existence for some years. I should like to go back 10 years; it will not take very long, I assure the House.
The Warnock Committee sat 10 years ago and was investigating the needs of children with special educational difficulties. It produced its report in May 1978. Among other things it stated:
"that a National Advisory Committee on Children with Special Needs should be established by the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales on the provision of educational services for children and young people with special educational needs and their co-ordination with other services. A separate Advisory Committee should be appointed for Scotland".
That was one of the recommendations of the Warnock Committee.
In response to some of the recommendations of the Warnock Committee the 1981 Education Act followed which dealt with special needs: the needs of children with special educational difficulties. It laid upon local education authorities the duty of assessing children who were considered to be in special need and, where necessary, providing them with a statement which named their needs and how those needs should be fulfilled. But in fact the government at the time refused to set up the advisory committee. Instead a working party was funded by the Department of Education to examine the desirability and feasibility of establishing a national committee. That met in September 1983.
The findings of that working party were summed up briefly:
"We endorse the almost unanimous view that the case for setting up a National Body broadly on the lines recommended in the Warnock Report is stronger now than when that Report was published in 1978.
The need to set up a body is urgent; otherwise there is a risk that present goodwill and effort will be dissipated and present expectations disappointed. The main immediate task is to monitor the implementation of the 1981 Act and the ideas underlining it to promote its disciplinary co-operation and to help overcome difficulties. A National Advisory Body would also look ahead and would discern the emergence of new demands and would help to promote and develop ideas and practices".
That was said in the report on the working party on this subject.
Nevertheless, for various reasons the Government decided against setting up such a body. However, research continued and a research project at the Institute of Education in London showed that the 1981 Act was not being implemented effectively. To mention two of the salient points, the Act was said not to be working as it should. First, education authorities were dragging their feet over producing statements for children. Sometimes it could take as long as 18 months between an application being made on behalf of a child and the final reception of a statement. There was a strong tendency which was
864
evident over the years for local education authorities to offer what they felt they could afford rather than what the children needed.
Years have passed since that time and one might have expected that when this Bill was published the needs of children with special difficulties would have considerable attention. In fact, when the Bill was first published only four lines were given to this. That has been considerably improved since then and there have been concessions from the Government. But I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that in the Warnock Report the opinion was expressed that at one time or another during their school lives as many as 20 per cent. of children need special help. That is a fifth of all the children who attend our schools—a considerable number. So when we consider special needs we are not talking about 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the severely mentally or physically handicapped children, but about a considerable proportion of the children who go to our schools.
If we do not help these children we shall not be raising standards and we shall not be improving the education standards in our country. I believe that there are two aspects to raising standards, which is what the Bill is about. One I accept is to raise expectations, raise demands and increase the challenges to children, but another equally important aspect is to help those in special need because a great many of our school failures are children who near the beginning of their career at school have difficulties and those difficulties are never diagnosed and never helped.
I have a particular interest in dyslexia because I have had dealings with it through a great deal of my teaching life and also because, unlike the problems of the partially sighted or partially hearing child or handicaps of that kind, dyslexia can pass unnoticed. It can pass for stupidity or laziness. That has often been the case in the past and to my amazement it still is. For that reason it is unnoticed. I believe that many of the 20 per cent. of children who at one time or another have difficulties are probably dyslexic.
This is the moment, I believe, for a special body to be formed which will be expert on those subjects and which will protect and advance the interests of children with special needs—all in the name of raising our educational standards which is what the Bill is about. What better moment could there be than now? I urge that side by side with the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council there should be a special needs council. There should be a special advisory body for children who need special help. That body should consist of experts in the subject. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the amendment on three counts. First, the Education Act 1981 has been in existence for some time, but we must frankly admit that it has not been fully implemented throughout the country. It is good or partially good in some parts of the country, bad in others. Many schools have needed advice and help which they have been unable to obtain or which has not reached them.

865
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has pointed out that when the Bill came before the House the educational needs of such children were mentioned only once. In the consultation paper issued in July 1987 children with special educational needs were not mentioned at all.
I suggest that such a council is needed. When the Bill was printed, the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children met and 200 organisations attended. They subscribed a number of the ideas which have been put before your Lordships' House by a number of noble Lords present. I believe that that proves how much the council is needed.
I do not denigrate what the Department of Education and Science has, or has not, done. In 1981 it was given an enormous job; it could not carry out the work throughout the country. I believe that such a council would lift standards and give help and advice to those who need it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I should like to deal with one matter mentioned by the noble Baroness. I agree that there was an overwhelming welcome for the 1981 Act which was a milestone. However, in my view it raised expectations unnecessarily. Will the noble Baroness agree that the main reason for the unsuccessful implementation of the Act is lack of resources? I see that the noble Baroness disagrees. I believe above all that specialist teachers and specialist training are needed together with more equipment. I support the amendment but although in favour of such a body I wonder whether its setting up will greatly improve the material situation.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I agree that resources are very important. But the lack of knowledge is abysmal. I recently visited a school which admitted a spina bifida child without having any conception or idea of what was needed for such a child. That story can be repeated time and time again throughout the country. I believe that if we were to have knowledge, experience and advice then the resources would come in some way.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. A great deal of my services on the Birmingham City Council were specifically connected with special education. I agree that the 1981 Act made certain recommendations. The forward-looking authorities have put many of those recommendations into operation. However, I believe that the 1981 Act failed to legislate for education for post 16 year-olds. Throughout the country many post 16 year-olds have been deprived of that education. Therefore, the 1981 Act only extended education to the age of 16. There was no further provision for special education.
One hopes that the proposed body will look very seriously at further education provision for those pupils that need the continuation. Their education will have been slower because of their special needs. They will need the extra time in which to catch up. At present they are being deprived of that facility.
866
Therefore, their disablement is further worsened. We hope that the advisory body will be acceptable to the Government. We hope that it will make sure that that provision is extended and will clarify the legal basis of further education which was not clarified in the 1981 Act. The DES at that time said that there needs to be a satisfactory statutory basis for providing for those with special needs.
It is also true to say that there are colleges of further education—and I know this applies to the eight colleges in the city from which I come which take students with special needs. The students at colleges of further education are all very costly because they are very special. It is important when they go to college that it is recognised they will not fit in a class with 10, 15 or 20 people. In many instances it has to be one to one. Therefore, the concern might be that if their interests are not safeguarded by an advisory council like this, further education will be diminished completely even by those forward-looking authorities which provide it at present.
Perhaps I may make a plea that if an advisory committee is set up it will have representatives of not only the physically handicapped. It is important to remember that there are also children with sensory handicaps. The visually handicapped and partially deaf also have to be considered. There are many research organisations which might be helpful to other organisations if this body is set up. I believe that it is important that the continuation of special education should be protected not only at school level but also in further education. I give all my support to this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I particularly support the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, on the length of time needed to educate children with special needs. As many of your Lordships know, I work with physically disabled people. Because of their great difficulties a large number of those children who have left school come to my organisation still not fully educated to a standard where they can go out into the world and live on their own. We then have to carry on.
I was of a mind to support this amendment but the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, in moving it has put me off. He made the field too large. I am entirely in agreement with him when dealing with physical and mental handicap and sensory deprivation, but to say that at least one child in five needs help at some time or another should be ruled out.
I have always thought of myself as a perfectly ordinary human being, particularly when at school, but not necessarily very bright. However, I would not describe myself as handicapped. I accept that I needed special help with some subjects and sometimes with all subjects. I should have thought that any teacher worth his or her salt should be able to help the ordinary, unhandicapped child, to give extra help and to—
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords—
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, may I finish what I have to say because I cannot continue once I have sat

867
down? We are on Report and there has been an awful lot of getting up and down as if we were in Committee.
I do not think it right that we should treat ordinary individuals as handicapped. Teachers of perfectly so-called normal children should be able to deal with this within the normal school day.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment to say—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I wish only to reply—
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord has the right to wind up at the end of the debate.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I have not yet spoken so perhaps I may do so now. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has completely misunderstood my noble friend Lord Ritchie. My noble friend was not talking about normal people who need a little help because they are finding a specific lesson to be a little difficult. He was referring to dyslexics and he made the valid point that it is a difficult condition to diagnose. The noble Lord was wrong to suggest that my noble friend was talking about ordinary people such as the noble Lord.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, as the parent of a dyslexic child I should like to point out the sad fact that highly qualified teachers still do not always recognise this condition when it occurs. One very much hopes that the Government will be able to accept this amendment. One also hopes of course that such a council will attract additional resources into this special field.
However, even if it does not, the council could very well take on board, for example, the extra time required by dyslexic pupils for examinations. Some examination boards give that extra time, but not all of them do. It is a lamentable state of affairs which I hope will be put right.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, I support the amendments in principle, if not in detail, and I do so because I am very much afraid that what is in the Bill is not sufficient to make the Government's policies effective in this area of special education.
My feeling is enhanced by my experience with the Department of Education. For the past 13 years I have been closely associated with a voluntary school for the mentally handicapped and on behalf of that school, and two others, some three years ago I initiated negotiations with the Department of Education in respect of the qualifications of teachers. It so happens that these schools have a three-year training course in curative education which is recognised on the Continent of Europe and internationally, but not, strangely enough, in this country. The department is very sympathetic and it admires greatly the work of these schools, both verbally and in writing. My noble friend Lord Joseph, who was then Secretary of State, issued a
868
circular advising local authorities, though these schools were not approved, that they were nonetheless to be freely used by the local authorities if they so wished.
This is the point: local authorities vary very much, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Some followed the guidance and some—all too many—did not. I am sure that this is what will happen with the Bill as at present drafted. I am confining my remarks to that about which I know; namely, the mentally handicapped. Government policy has been to try to integrate as many of these children as possible in mainstream schools with the laudable objective that normal children will come to recognise them as worthwhile human beings who have something rather special to contribute to the community.
This policy may work very well in the early stages, but when one reaches secondary education it becomes increasingly difficult for these children to keep up and to cope. If one has one or two out of 10 who can do so, one is very lucky. What will this Bill do for the great majority of these children who cannot cope? The resources must be there. If special schools are to be closed, more money and training must be put in so that there are the teachers with the sensitivity and the ability to deal with these special children.
The responsibility in the Bill, as I understand it, is laid upon not only local education authorities but governing bodies of schools, probably only a few of which will be knowledgeable about special needs in education. If the responsibility is to be there solely, the results will be very uneven throughout the country, as they have been in the past and as they are now. I do not see where the improvement is to come unless, some authority is set up which has been recommended by the Warnock Committee and recommended yet again by the working party, but not yet accepted.
In my closing remarks I wish to make a point which I hope the Minister will not take amiss, because it is not meant personally. My worry is that the Department of Education suffers under the delusion that it is always right. No human being or organisation is always right. I hope that it will be ready to admit that it does make mistakes and that some suggestions can be accepted which will greatly improve upon its own thoughts.
Last night we had an unfortunate example of this attitude when, very late, there were two amendments of a non-political character. In particular, one dealing with the arts could very easily have been accepted, in my humble opinion, as being self-evidently an improvement upon the wording of the Government and it would have been more effective than what was put into the Bill. The noble Baroness said yesterday and emphasised again today that many concessions had been made and amendments had been taken back to be looked at again. The reverse of that coin and the inference to be drawn is that enough is enough and no more were to be accepted yesterday and, possibly, no more today. This means that amendments are not being considered on their merits.

869
Before us is a strictly non-political amendment in the interests of a section of society needing protection and guidance in the fullest possible measure. I ask the Minister not to give us the stock reply that the amendment is not necessary and not to reject it out of hand, which I think would be generally unacceptable to the House. I feel that last night the department greatly miscalculated the atmosphere in the Chamber and greatly underestimated the objectivity and intelligence of noble Lords in regard to a strictly nonpolitical amendment designed to improve the Bill and to aid and help the Government. I hope that the Minister will use her discretion in this case and at least agree to look at the amendment, if it is not already acceptable, and to discuss it thoroughly with the officials in her department and with the Secretary of State himself. I am quite convinced that something of this nature must be put into the Bill at this stage.
I know teachers who are quite desperate. They say that this is the last chance. One teacher in the North of England whom I know has a mentally handicapped child and therefore knows very well the problems, as well as the possibilities and potentialities, of educating a mentally handicapped child. She has told me that when a subject is being dealt with where these children cannot keep up and cannot cope they are pushed out into the corridor and left there until the class is over. I am sure that that example is not unique and must be mirrored many times over. That is why I support the amendment or something of this nature. If we do not take this opportunity, it will be lost for the next 30 years and a generation of handicapped children will not be educated as they ought to be.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perspective is very important to this debate and I agree with my noble friend Lord Swinfen that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, expanded his introduction to the point of being unrealistic.
It is true that the Warnock Report said that 20 per cent. of our children require special education; but it is also true that about 2 per cent. of that 20 per cent. were children with severe learning difficulties and that another small percentage were children with moderate learning difficulties. A large percentage of that 20 per cent. were children who from time to time—sometimes over a short period, sometimes in one subject and sometimes in all subjects—would require special attention. In the normal course of education they would be taught by normal teachers in the classroom. Reference was made to them because from time to time they would require special attention and so were brought under the umbrella.
Two points occur to me. First, we have the whole matter out of perspective in this debate. Secondly, I am saddened to discover how greatly we have underrated much of what is being done by local authorities right across the country for children with special needs. No reference has been made to the work being done by local authorities. The vast majority of our children with special needs, in particular those with severe special needs, are having those needs well met by local authorities.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most ready to admit to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that both I and the department can and do make mistakes at times.
These amendments provide for the establishment of an advisory council for people with special educational needs on similar lines to the National Curriculum Council, the Curriculum Council for Wales and the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC), for which Clause 9 already provides. It will be constituted and serviced in much the same way and funded by the Department of Education and Science. There would be a requirement that the Secretary of State in appointing members to the council shall as far as is reasonably practicable appoint at least two members who are disabled and at least one member who has expertise relating to mental handicap.
As we have been reminded, this is not the first time the Government have been pressed to establish such a committee. Indeed, it was considered most recently by the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts in its report last year on special educational needs and the implementation of the Education Act 1981. After careful consideration the Government's response, only seven months ago, was that there was no need for such a committee.
The 1981 Act was concerned principally with the integration of children with special educational needs into ordinary schools. In this respect it implemented many of the recommendations made by the Warnock Committee, which have been referred to. Therefore it is important to ensure that such children receive the education most appropriate to their needs, wherever they are placed.
The Bill will apply the national curriculum to all pupils, including those with special educational needs. The National Curriculum Council will have a specific remit to consider the requirements of those pupils. Therefore it would be inconsistent to set up a separate national body which would, to a large extent, not only duplicate but possibly fragment responsibility for giving advice nationally. The Government have not been convinced in the past of the need for a national advisory body for special needs and, as I said, we have considered the matter most thoroughly in the recent past.
More widely, the responsibility for seeing that special education legislation is carried out rests with my right honourable friend and the Department of Education and Science. We have the means for obtaining information and advice. If we need additional specific advice, we can seek it by commissioning research and through our close contacts with the voluntary bodies. That is valuable two-way traffic. Such bodies are never slow in bringing to our attention matters of concern in their field.
The Government feel that such arrangements as will be made in the Bill for children with special educational needs would not be further assisted by setting up a separate council, as proposed by the amendments. Therefore I must fulfil the prophecies of certain noble Lords by saying that I must ask the House to reject the amendments.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask whether she can say what form the special remit will take.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it will be given a remit to take into account the whole area of special educational needs.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the fact that the NCC would have a special remit as regards special needs. My question was: what form would such a remit take?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it will be based on government policy and the implementation of the 1981 Act. We have already considered the composition of the council. Indeed, I have assured the House that consideration will be given, when making appointments to that body, to people with the relevant expertise and, in some cases, personal experience of special educational needs. And, at the very least, consultation will take place between the bodies concerned with that area.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness can tell the House whether what she has just referred to is contained in the consultation documents; or has it been printed in Hansard? I have been trying to follow carefully what is being said but I should like to be able to read it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was repeating assurances given at a previous stage of the Bill's proceedings. They will be found in Hansard.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, we have had an airing of the problem but I am afraid it has been rather disappointing, as is so often the case. However, I should like to take the opportunity to comment on one or two of the contributions from noble Lords, for which I thank them.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that when I spoke of one child in five I was indeed quoting from the Warnock Report, as confirmed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. That report said that at any one time one child in six was likely to need special help and that overall throughout an entire career as many as one child in five is likely to need help of some sort.
I shall read Hansard tomorrow, but I was not aware that I had used the word "handicaps". I was speaking of children with special educational needs. They include children with much milder and less obvious handicaps than the severe learning difficulties some of your Lordships will have been thinking of. I assure the noble Lord that I have experience of these children, having taught them for many years. I know how difficult it is sometimes to spot a child who is having particular difficulty and needs expert help.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke of a normal teacher teaching normal children who were having normal difficulties. What does "normal" mean? It requires special skills to spot difficulties. I have been in common rooms when teachers have
872
asked me, "What is wrong with such and such a child?" They have given the clearest description of a dyslexic child but have not recognised it. So many teachers do not recognise special difficulties. To remedy this, special training is needed.
As regards the work of local education authorities, I believe that attempts to fulfil the 1981 Act are very variable. I know that my county of East Sussex is doing rather well: it has special report teams which go out to schools. There are other counties about which I have heard bad reports and bad stories. So what is happening is very variable.
In view of the hour and with just a crumb of assurance from the Minister that the Government are going to take special account of this matter on the National Curriculum Council and appoint members to it who recognise the special needs—I hope that this discussion will be remembered and that it will indeed come to pass that there is expert opinion on the council—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 7, line 6, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twenty").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be speaking also to Amendments Nos. 86 and 89. Because of the way we structure our discussions, the basis of at least the first two of these amendments means that later amendments would be capable of being carried. The case for acknowledging the size of the councils is the case for agreeing that the subsequent amendments are correct. The argument that says they are correct but that there is no room on the council would fall. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, as one always has to do when we are discussing legislation, I am doing it the wrong way round.
Indeed, I have slightly, but very briefly, to anticipate the arguments on later amendments; namely, that the reason one wishes for a council of larger potential size is precisely that it would be possible to make room for someone who knows about ethnic minority children, for someone who is a member of a health education authority, and for someone, as I hope the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and others will argue, who knows about special educational needs. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has already argued that. I could go on about such cases. That is the argument for the difference between 10 and 20 and between 15 and 30. Although I did not hear a crumb of comfort in the previous debate, I hope that in due course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said earlier, we may be given a crumb of comfort. That is the nature of the first two amendments. I think that this is a very important matter.
The third, of a different kind, concerns the broader qualifications of members of the council. As an old-fashioned person in this regard, I think that the people who know about education should be those who are dominant in educational bodies. I do not intend to start the kind of controversial argument that I managed to produce earlier about appointing businessmen and other such people to these bodies in

873
large numbers. I have had that row, and had a great deal of pleasure out of various responses to it. That is not my point.
My point is the positive one that the councils require people who have relevant knowledge and experience. By people with experience, one does not mean those who assert, "We know all about education; we all went to school, didn't we?". That is the greatest fallacy of all. It makes us all into experts on education, which we are not.
I think that this is precisely the area in which Members of your Lordships' House make contributions of the kind that the occasion requires. We know about these things, and we are an example of the kind of people referred to in the amendment. Had the Government chosen to write the Bill not in this way but in a more limited way, they would have done what was suggested by several noble Lords—that is, they would have listened to our advice and accepted that we know about these things. They would then have responded more positively than they seem to be capable of doing on this issue.
There is no more to be said. It is an important matter. I hope for some support and a positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the effect of Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 would be exactly the same as the effect of those introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, which he withdrew after I had explained why we do not think it necessary or helpful to have such large councils. Perhaps I may repeat that the Government do not believe it would be helpful or efficient to have such large councils. We believe that the provisions in the Bill for the councils to be between 10 and 15 in number give adequate scope for the appointment of people with a wide range of background and experience while the bodies will remain small enough to take decisions and operate quickly and efficiently.
I recognise the need for the councils to have access to as wide a range of expert advice and counsel as possible. However, we believe that there is plenty of scope for tapping the experience of a wide circle of people through co-option on to sub-committees of the councils. We have been careful to provide for this in Schedule 1.
On Amendment No. 89, I have to say that we see no good case for amending the Bill to prescribe a fixed percentage or proportion of members because they are knowledgeable and experienced. As I suggested before, composition is essentially a question of judgment. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide on the balance of expertise and experience required on the three new councils, taking account of their respective roles and functions. Moreover, I believe that in making his appointments so far to the shadow NCC and SEAC he has got the balance right, as has my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales in the appointments he has made to the shadow CCW.
I can of course assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will have in mind, as I said earlier, the need to appoint knowledgeable and experienced
874
people to the councils whenever such appointments are made. Indeed, the value of the councils' advice will depend crucially on the wisdom and competence of members. However, we do not think it necessary or even useful to lay down that any fixed proportion of members be qualified in the way that the noble Lord suggests. We trust that all the members of the councils will make their distinctive personal contribution to the work of their council, whatever their particular background.
For those reasons I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am obviously not happy with that. I have also refrained from commenting on the shadow bodies that have been set up. I think it would be most inappropriate at this stage for us to comment on the particular individuals who have been appointed. That does not mean that I am incapable of making comments on what the Secretary of State has been up to, but I do not think it would be a gentlemanly thing to do at this stage of the Bill.
I am willing to give the noble Baroness the benefit of the doubt as long as she bears in mind that the very first time that the Secretary of State tells us that he cannot apppoint such an appropriate person because the council is not large enough, the very first time that argument is used, I shall not be the first noble Lord to do so, but I shall not be left out in saying, "I told you so". With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 7, line 7, after ("State") insert—
("after consultation with such organisations as he may recognise as representative of local authorities, teachers, school governors and parents").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is the same as one which I moved at Committee stage and very similar to one which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, had down. All it is asking for is to make the Secretary of State's powers to appoint members of the NCC and the SEAC subject to consultation, and consultation with the organisations listed in the amendment.
I think it is important that the phrasing is taken from the National Health Service Act of 1977, which is the major Act controlling the NHS, under which the powers of the Secretary of State for Social Services to set up the Central Health Services Council and standing advisory committees are subject to a duty to consult with representative organisations. The amendment therefore simply imposes a similar requirement on the Secretary of State for Education.
When the amendment was moved in Committee on 5th May (at cols. 781–83 of Hansard), the noble Baroness said that the Government were not unsympathetic to the thoughts which lay behind it. However, she added that they preferred to consult informally and that a mandatory requirement to consult would detract from the independence of the councils and could also give rise to delays in making appointments. But when she was pressed further she said:

875
"I have to say that I am somewhat persuaded by some of the arguments that have been advanced … I should like to take this matter back, without commitment, and perhaps to deal with it at another stage".
This commitment was also made to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
However, there seems to be no government amendment and a lot of the appointments have been made, if only in a shadow capacity. There has been concern about the methods of consultation prior to the appointment of members, the shadow members or perhaps rather the shadow curriculum and assessment councils. The Secretary of State stated in his announcement of the membership of the shadow National Curriculum Council and the shadow School Examinations and Assessment Council that the members:
"have been chosen after a good deal of consultation with interests directly concerned with the work of the two Councils".
That was printed in a DES press release No. 159/88. There would appear to have been no formal consultation, and what the Secretary of State is referring to is the fact that he was willing to receive suggestions. I understand that he has ignored quite a few of them.
This amendment would require consultation with the bodies mentioned in the amendment. It is worth while noting the quality of the department's consultation on the proposals which are embodied in the Bill. I have with me a Written Answer with a list containing information supplied by Mrs. Rumbold, Minister of State, on 21st October 1987. It shows the number of documents produced for consultation initially and those subsequently distributed. For example, of The National Curriculum 5–16 document only 2·1 per cent. of those produced were distributed initially; 97·9 per cent. of the consultation documents were subsequently distributed. Similar figures for the grant-maintained schools consultation paper are 4·5 per cent. and 95·5 per cent. Was the consultation on the shadow membership of the NCC and other bodies similar to the initial distribution of consultation documents on the national curriculum?
It seems to me not a very satisfactory arrangement for consultation. We were encouraged by the Minister's comments to us in Committee, and we should very much like to hear what she will now say about this. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I had hoped that I had been able to persuade the noble Baroness after the debate in Committee that the Secretary of State was prepared to listen to suggestions on the curriculum and assessment from organisations and individuals knowledgeable about education, before making appointments. Indeed the names put forward by the noble Baroness and others have been considered. The appointments to the shadow bodies are not yet complete.
The Government have undertaken a very wide range of informal consultations with bodies and interests within education in order to identify the best people to sit on the councils. It was as a result of those consultations that my right honourable friend was
876
able to announce last month the names of those whom he has appointed as members of the shadow NCC and SEAC. We shall also be considering the suggestions made to us in those informal consultations when we come to choose the remaining members.
However we still do not believe there should be a formal requirement to consult. The Government have made it abundantly clear at every stage of the Bill's passage through this House and the other place that the council appointments are to be personal appointments by the Secretary of State. Formal consultations, even if they are conducted without prejudice to the Secretary of State's right to select the people to be appointed, detract from that fundamental principle and could even lead to divided loyalties on the part of members. Although we are adamant on the principle, we remain open to suggestions about membership. As I have said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is still considering the names of those he should add to the shadow councils. I hope that I have made the Government's position perfectly clear. I must ask the House to vote against Amendment No. 87 if it is not withdrawn and indeed the other amendments we are discussing in this grouping.
Baroness David: My Lords, I was not sure that we were discussing other amendments. Which other amendments is the noble Baroness referring to?
Noble Lords: No. 91.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry. Of course we were also discussing Amendment No. 91 standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied with the reply. I think that the consultation has been fairly perfunctory. It seems to me rather odd that appointments are made before the Bill is enacted. We cannot deny that these shadows will doubtless have substance later. However, I shall not divide the House at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 7, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert ("and at least one shall have relevant knowledge and experience of the education of children of ethnic minority origin.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 88 I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 89A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Rea, and Amendment No. 90, in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. Most of the arguments for the amendments are well known and I shall not rehearse them. As regards Amendment No. 88, that has two advantages. One is the obvious substantive advantage of having such relevant knowledge and experience. Secondly, apart from the technical argument that the amendment is a good thing, the boost that the amendment would give to the morale of the relevant minority population which we are discussing would be very important.
I would not assume that the person coming under the rubric of the amendment would necessarily be

877
from an ethnic minority, just as I would not assume that a person from an ethnic minority appointed to such councils, or more than one such person, would be regarded necessarily as a person who confines himself or herself to ethnic minority issues. I do not go in for that kind of tokenism. I should not wish to be misinterpreted as suggesting that there should be a simple one-to-one relationship. I am discussing the representation of knowledge and experience of ethnic minority problems. I take it for granted that all inhabitants of our country would be regarded as potential members of the council on the basis of their knowledge and experience in any case.
Turning to Amendment No. 89A, that is illustrative of precisely the point I made earlier about the size of the council. I should find it hard to argue that in a council of only 15 people one would have such priorities that being a member of a health education authority could be a dominant criterion.
I can think of many other things which, if I were advising on who should be appointed, I might well believe should come first. I have not the slightest doubt in terms of the arguments that have been put forward that representation by someone who has been connected with a health education authority is an extremely important matter. It is precisely that example that I press on the noble Baroness as showing why the department is in error in not being willing to countenance larger councils. Both of those arguments seem to me to be relevant in that area. I shall reserve my few comments on Amendment No. 90 until I have heard the comments of the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 90 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth), the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. The amendment refers to the National Curriculum Council, the Curriculum Council for Wales and the School Examinations and Assessment Council. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, said, 20 per cent. of all our children at school will, at some time or another, have special educational needs. Therefore it is all the more necessary for a member who can represent their views and aspirations to be on all the councils.
The Government have been sensitive about the needs of young people with special educational needs in other parts of the Bill. However, we think that there is a need to strengthen the commitment further. However helpful and sensitive the guidelines of the Government may be, Secretaries of State come and go. It is not enough that the commitment remains in the heart of the Secretary of State. It must be written into the Bill.
Despite the changes to the Bill which have been made by the Government, it shows insufficient consideration of the effects of many proposals on young people with special needs. Developing appropriate curricula for that group of pupils requires knowledge, interest and commitment to children with special educational needs. We are not asking for extra money or for additional members for these councils; rather that at least one member should
878
be knowledgeable or have experience of special educational needs. It is clearly preferable and certainly possible to find someone who has both knowledge and personal experience of disability and suitable educational qualifications.
This is a very important amendment in that it asks that children with special needs are represented on councils and schools examination and assessment councils in the same way as children who have no such needs.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to support both these amendments. The councils are obviously of the very greatest importance. As the noble Baroness knows, we are deeply apprehensive about the great powers that the Secretary of State has taken to himself. The councils represent a way of feeding into the Secretary of State the views of people who do not necessarily share the views of the Secretary of State. They can therefore bring fresh air into his discussions.
I shall not pull my punches on this matter. With the Secretary of State having only informal consultations and making all the appointments personally, there is a very grave danger that the councils will be filled with people who are of a like mind to the Secretary of State. That is not the kind of advice that many of us in your Lordships' House would wish him to receive.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, this group of amendments and the previous group moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, are very interesting. They lead me to ask the Minister how she and her department visualise the National Curriculum Council operating.
It seems that if there were to be a member on the council representing the physically disabled—and I think that that is very desirable indeed—that would not cover those with mental disabilities whose needs are entirely different. If one also had a representative for the mentally disabled, that would take up two places straightaway. It leads one to wonder whether 15 members will be sufficient to represent all national interests.
Those of us who have served on committees know that a small committee is much more efficient than a large one. However, on a national basis that does not necessarily apply. I wonder whether the noble Baroness or her department visualise the National Curriculum Council making rules and regulations and giving advice over the whole field of education, including special needs and every other department one could possibly imagine. Alternatively, will it divide itself into sub-committees of people with knowledge in special fields? I think it is of some interest to know how it can operate to the maximum benefit of the education of the nation as a whole.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support this group of amendments. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that Amendment No. 89A concerning the health education authority proves the case for a larger council. However, I should have thought that even if

879
the council were not expanded, it certainly needs to include representation as proposed in Amendments Nos. 88 and 90—people with knowledge of children from ethnic minorities and with special educational needs. Turning to what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, I certainly understand special educational needs to cover physical, mental and sensory disabilities.
When my noble friend Lady Kinloss moved the same amendment as Amendment No. 90 in Committee, it gained support from all sides of the Chamber, which induced the Minister to think again about it although without commitment. The council will be so enormously important that I believe that it is crucial that at least one person—and we are only asking for one—should have knowledge of children with special educational needs. I feel strongly that it should be a duty to appoint one such person and that that duty should be written into the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Baroness has underlined the problems of having representative interests on these councils; namely that if every possible interest were represented the numbers could be unlimited. In each case we envisage a relatively small compact group as widely drawn and as widely experienced as possible, which will be able, where necessary, to co-opt specialist members, appoint special advisory sub-committees and consult specialist interests.
We do not want to argue about the importance of having available to the councils in this way through appropriate appointments, co-option and sub-committees, all the advice and expertise they need in order to carry through their important work. The Bill already provides for the councils to include persons with relevant knowledge or experience in education—an important requirement, in our view, which Amendment No. 88 of the noble Baroness, Lady David, would have the effect of removing, though I am sure that that was not the intention. We believe that this is a sufficient basis on which to build councils which are in all respects aware of the problems they face and competent to deal with them. I would include in this the practical problems and opportunities presented by having in our schools children from a wide variety of faiths, cultures and ethnic origins.
As I hope we have now made absolutely clear, we see no case for providing in the Bill for the representation of particular interests, no matter how important those interests may be. This does not imply that the Secretary of State has no wish to include on the councils members who might have special knowledge in the area to which I have referred. On the contrary, I expect that he will see to it that appropriate expertise is included among council appointments in order to reinforce the links which the councils establish at professional level and through their committee structures.
The Government's position in relation to Amendment No. 89A is similar and I shall simply reaffirm that those appointed to the council will be appointed in a personal capacity. That does not
880
imply that my right honourable friend has no wish to include on the councils members with special knowledge and experience in particular parts of the curriculum. We shall also seek to ensure that the councils have good links with subjects such as health education through professional contact and perhaps again the appropriate membership of sub-committees.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 90, proposed by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, as I hope I have made clear in relation to the previous amendment, Amendment No. 87, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, the Government have considered the issues raised but do not consider that there is any need to change the Bill as drafted. The Bill provides for the councils to include in their membership people with knowledge or experience of education. That includes all aspects of education, including the education of children with special educational needs.
With those assurances, I trust that the proposers of these amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I certainly do not regard any of the noble Baroness's remarks as a reassurance. Speaking for the first and second amendments, I must say that I am profoundly disappointed at the Government's response. If I may refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, these are matters which are not in the remotest sense political. They are matters of judgment.
When the Government legislate in this area they are legislating for all of us. I think that the Government have missed a vital opportunity here to emphasise, as it were, the importance of these matters. Referring particularly to the ethnic minority problem, I do not think that it is a trivial matter to boost morale and give confidence in that area.
As to the special needs problem, it is not my amendment and it will not be for me to decide whether or not in due course to divide the House on it, but I am rather angry because the case for special needs has been made continuously throughout the passage of this Bill both at Second Reading and now on Report.
I am most concerned that the Government have found it completely impossible to respond to this kind of demand that I have heard from across the Chamber. There is nothing that we on our Benches can do about it. We do not command in this situation. It seems to me that the noble Baroness ought at the very least to have said that she will convey to the Secretary of State the broad non-party support for a move in precisely this area.
It will not be up to me whether we divide on this matter but I am deeply upset by the response of the noble Baroness especially to Amendment No. 90.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 89 and 89A not moved.]
Lady Kinloss Lady Kinloss had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 90:
Page 7, line 11, at end insert—
("One member of each Council shall have special knowledge of and concern for provision for children with special educational

881
needs, and regard shall be had to the desirability of that member being a person with a disability.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I am sorry that the noble Baroness cannot accept it. I cannot understand why. We are not asking for any extra money. She states that line 10 speaks of:
"having relevant knowledge or experience in education".
However, it does not state that these people have to have understanding of special educational needs. That is a very difficult issue.
I can only say that I should like to read again in Hansard what the noble Baroness has said and think about what to do at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 93 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 7, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) to determine a framework for the National Curriculum within which any subject working group established by the Secretary of State shall operate and make recommendations;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the issue of the relationship between the subject working groups and the National Curriculum Council. One of the extraordinary things about the national curriculum proposals is that they are currently being written while Parliament is still discussing the Bill. Were Parliament to reject the national curriculum—though perhaps that is a little unlikely in the circumstances—a considerable amount of public money would have been wasted. But the Secretary of State apparently has little doubt that the detail of his proposals will be implemented since he has chosen to plan their implementation before Parliament has had the opportunity to discuss all the principles involved.
The process by which a national curriculum is introduced is an important one. As I said earlier, the Government are currently engaged in introducing voluntary arrangements in Scotland under which local authorities will have regard to guidelines established by the equivalent National Curriculum Council. The approach has been specifically endorsed by the Secretary of State for Scotland but a different process is being introduced in England and Wales with the expert bodies being established after a certain amount of the work has been done, and having a purely supportive role in relation to the Secretary of State.
Under this Bill there is a considerable lack of clarity as to the dividing line between the subject working groups and the National Curriculum Council. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that, once the Bill is passed and the National Curriculum Council established, no further working groups will be set up and that the council will undertake their function. Alternatively, there appears to be some suggestion that the council will have a role in guiding the activities of the working group, although nothing appears on this on the face of the Bill.
Perhaps I may remind the Minister—although I see that she has just left the Chamber—that at the Committee stage she stated:
"We have not sought to map out the full curriculum in this clause of the Bill. We are specifying the important subject areas to be covered and it will be for the subject working groups, with guidance from the Secretary of State and in due course from our new National Curriculum Council, to ensure that such themes and topics are appropriately covered". [Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 5321
This statement appears to suggest that once it is set up the National Curriculum Council will be asked to produce guidelines for the subject working groups. This is the first time that such a suggestion has been made and it does not appear on the face of the Bill. The amendment seeks to rectify the omission.
The Minister also said that she anticipated that one of the first tasks of the National Curriculum Council would be to look at cross-curricular themes as a whole so that there are proper frameworks for considering the working groups' recommendations. On the one hand this statement appears to accept the notion of a framework determined by the National Curriculum Council; on the other hand it suggests the council's responsibilities to determine the framework for itself in relation to the recommendations of the working groups rather than setting out a framework for the working groups. It would be very helpful if Ministers could make clear precisely what is intended.
Will the National Curriculum Council be enabled, once established, to lay down guidelines for subject working groups and if not why not? It would also be very helpful if Ministers could state how many more subject working groups are to be established. It is not clear whether one will be established for each of the remaining subjects not already covered, when they are to be set up and when the reports are expected from them.
What the amendment seeks is to give the National Curriculum Council the role of setting the framework for the national curriculum with the detailed work being done by the subject groups. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 undoubtedly reflects the considerable knowledge of the noble Baroness of educational matters and her understanding of the intended role of the National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales in establishing and developing the national curriculum. However, as I shall try to show, it is unnecessary in the short term and would have no relevance in the longer term when the curriculum working groups will have done their work.
The amendment would have the effect of adding to the list of functions in the Bill a new function; that is, to determine a framework for the national curriculum within which the various subject working groups which are being set up by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can operate and make their recommendations. We do not dispute that a framework for the curriculum is not just desirable but essential if future generations of school children are to receive the broad and balanced education which this Government have promised them and which we will see to it that they have.

883
One of the first tasks of the NCC and the CCW must be to begin work on that framework. It will not be easy and it will take some time. In the meantime, I expect that my right honourable friend will ask for and receive advice on the proper relationship of the various curriculum subjects with each other and with the issues and themes which should run through the curriculum. All this is provided for in the present list of NCC and CCW functions set out in the Bill, including the functions of keeping the curriculum under review and advising the Secretary of State on curriculum matters.
Unlike the new function proposed by the noble Baroness, however, the functions in the Bill will still be relevant when the curriculum working groups have all reported and the national curriculum is in place. Then the emphasis will be on monitoring the curriculum and ensuring that it remains relevant in all respects.
I hope that in the light of these considerations the noble Baroness will accept that the functions given in the Bill are more than adequate for present and future needs and that the NCC and CCW can do all that is needed to ensure the success of the national curriculum within them. I therefore hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can be answer the question which I posed earlier? It concerns how many more subject working groups the Government intend to set up. How many will be established? When will they be set up? What kind of reports are expected from them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not aware of my right honourable friend's exact intentions in this matter. However, I shall see whether I can obtain any information and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am not altogether convinced by it. I believe that there will be a problem in relation to these diverse subject working groups and the way in which they relate to the National Curriculum Council. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that there would be a clear role for the council in setting the framework. However, at this late hour I do not intend to divide the House in the matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 7, line 16, at end insert ("and undertake research for this purpose").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 96 and 98. I hope that on Amendment No. 95 we have an example of the argument which noble Lords used yesterday; namely, that it is already implicit in the Bill. I refer to subsection (3) (a), which reads:
"to keep all aspects of the curriculum for maintained schools under review".
884
The words in my amendment are:
"and undertake research for this purpose".
I tabled the amendment because I hope to receive the answer that it is not necessary because it would be impossible to keep all aspects of the curriculum under review without carrying out the appropriate amount of research. In other words, I am hoping to receive the kind of answer that was given yesterday. I am happy to be put down by the Minister saying that if only I understood the words correctly my amendment would be irrelevant. Inverting the argument, I say that if my amendment is not irrelevant and is needed, it certainly is needed because there is no other way of keeping aspects of the commitment under review.
Although the other two amendments are grouped together, in my opinion they are not quite the same. They are partly the same because it would follow from the duty of the council to keep all aspects of the curriculum under review that logically it must undertake research whether or not requested by the Secretary of State. That follows logically from what I have said and from my reading of paragraph (a). It would follow a fortiori from my amendment which would make explicit that reading of paragraph (a).
I should like to return to a theme which I and other noble Lords raised earlier and which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised this evening. It is that our view of the value of these councils, and in particular this council, is that they derive their value from their independence. As regards matters of research, independence is of the essence. I have previously argued that much of the advice worth having is precisely the advice which is not asked for. That is what the amendment is about. I feel strongly that the phrase "if so requested by him" should be omitted. I accept the fact that there have been known to be female Secretaries of State for Education and Science and that the word "him" is a term of art to cover both. That does not mean that the Secretary of State should not be in a position to ask for such research and advice but he or she should also be in a position of obtaining such research and advice whether or not asked for.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to support the amendments most strongly. Following on from what I said earlier, the value of the councils is their independence from the Secretary of State for the reasons already mentioned. They will inspire no confidence whatever in the general public if the people appointed are seen to be clones of the Secretary of State.
"One of us" is a familiar phrase which means not one of us. Unless they are free to take initiatives of the sort to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred, the value of these councils and the value to the Secretary of State and, much more important, to the wider society of the creative tension which should be established between the councils and the Secretary of State will be lost. A good Secretary of State will not want people who rubber stamp but people who will challenge and take initiatives without being asked directly so to do.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the proposed amendments to the functions of the National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales—Amendments Nos. 95 and 96—would give the councils a significantly greater degree of formal freedom than we intend. The responsibility for promoting and developing the national curriculum properly rests with the Secretary of State, the LEAs and the schools. The work of the curriculum councils is to provide support and advice in this important endeavour. To say this is not to detract in any way from the significance in the scheme of things of the curriculum councils. Their advice, guidance and support will be absolutely vital to the success of the enterprise we are embarked upon.
In practice, we intend that the Secretary of State and the curriculum councils will work in close partnership in evolving and conducting programmes of research and development concerned with the national curriculum and with the curriculum in schools more generally. The councils will no doubt advise on what they see as the research needs and the relative degrees of priority of those needs. The Secretary of State will take that advice into account in allocating resources and in approving the plans which, under the Bill, will be the basis for the councils' operations.
We do not foresee any difficulty for the councils in operating in this way and it is surely right that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for the resources used for the development of the national curriculum and who carries statutory responsibility for its implementation in accordance with Clause 1, should have formal control of the programme of research and development which will be necessary to underpin its introduction and subsequent maintenance.
Very similar arguments apply in connection with Amendment No. 98, to which I believe the noble Lord also spoke when he moved Amendment No. 95 and discussed also Amendment No. 96. In the light of those considerations, I hope that he and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will feel that their wishes are indeed met.
Lord Peston: My Lords, they are certainly not. It is mistaken to argue that these bodies should be interpreted in precisely the way in which the noble Lord has done. It seems that he has not remotely endeavoured to deal with the point I made and about which I asked him; namely, how can these bodies keep all aspects of the curriculum under review if they are not in a position to carry out research? That is what is meant by "keeping all aspects of the curriculum under review". I shall not dignify the reply of the noble Lord as an argument. I am very unimpressed with the reply and I certainly wish to divide the House on this matter.
11.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 95) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 37.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Peston, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Russell, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

White, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Borthwick, L.

London, Bp.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Renton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Coleraine, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cowley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cox, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Trafford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Truro, Bp.

Dundee, E.

Ullswater, V.

Greenway, L.

Young, B.

Harvington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.47 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 99 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 8, line 12, at end insert ("; and
(ii) to have regard to the requirements of section 1 of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we promised to consider the application to the NCC of the general duties set out in Clause 1 in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, at Committee stage.
It is, of course, our intention that the National Curriculum Council, and indeed the Curriculum Council for Wales and the School Examinations and Assessment Council, should carry out their work with due regard to the important basic principles enshrined in Clause 1. On looking again at the words of the Bill, we considered that it was important to remove any shred of doubt that the councils must act within Clause 1 by introducing the amendment which is now under consideration. It is along the lines of that suggested in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, but applies to all the councils, not just the National Curriculum Council, and imposes a clear duty on the councils to have regard to Clause 1 in all they do. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 101:
Before Schedule 1, insert the following new
schedule:
("SCHEDULE Al
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
The Education Act 1944 (c. 31)
1. The following section shall be substituted for section 26 of the 1944 Act
"Special provisions as to religious education in county schools.
26.—(1) In the case of a county school the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1)(a) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to be included in the schools basic curriculum shall be provision for religious education in accordance with an agreed syllabus adopted for the school or for those pupils.
(2) Religious education given to pupils at such a school in accordance with the provisions so required shall not include any catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular religious denomination.
(3) Subsection (4) below applies where a county secondary school is so situated that arrangements cannot conveniently be made for the withdrawal of pupils from the school in accordance with section (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of that Act to receive religious education elsewhere.
(4) If in any such case the local education authority are satisfied—

(a) that the parents of pupils in attendance at the school desire them to receive religious education in the school in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination; and

(b) that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the provision of such education to those pupils in the school, and for securing that the cost of providing such education to those pupils in the school will not fall upon the authority;

the authority shall, unless they are satisfied that owing to any special circumstances it would be unreasonable to do so, provide facilities for the carrying out of those arrangements."
2.—(1) In section 27 of that Act (special provisions as to religious education in controlled schools), the word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in each place where it occurs in subsections (1), (2), (4) and (5).
(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (6) of that section—
"(6) In the case of a controlled school the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1)(a) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to be included in the school's basic curriculum shall be provision for religious education—

(a) in accordance with any arrangements made under subsection (1) of this section; or

(b) subject to any such arrangements, in accordance with an agreed syllabus adopted for the school or for those pupils."

3.—(1) In section 28 of that Act (special provisions as to religious education in aided schools and in special agreement schools), the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) In the case of an aided or special agreement school the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1)(a) of the Education Reform Act 1988 to be included in the school's basic curriculum shall be provision for religious education—

(a) in accordance with any provision of the trust deed relating to the school or, where provision for that purpose is not made by such a deed, in accordance with the practice observed in the school before it became a voluntary school; or

(b) in accordance with any arrangements under this section.

(1A) Subject to subsection (1C) of this section, the religious education given to pupils at such a school shall be under the control of the governors of the school.
(1B) Where the parents of pupils in attendance at such a school—

(a) desire them to receive religious education in accordance with any agreed syllabus adopted by the local education authority; and

(b) cannot with reasonable convenience cause those pupils to attend any school at which that syllabus is in use; then, unless the authority are satisfied that owing to any special circumstances it would be unreasonable to do so, arrangements shall be made for religious education in accordance with that syllabus to be given to those pupils in the schools during the times set apart for the giving of religious education in the school in accordance with the provision for that purpose included in the school's basic curriculum by virtue of section 2(1)(a) of that Act.

(1C) Those arrangements shall be made by the governors of the school, unless the local education authority are satisfied that the governors are unwilling to make the arrangements, in which case they shall be made by the authority."
(2) The word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in each place where it occurs in subsections (2) to (4) of that section.
4. The word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction"—

(a) in section 29(1) of that Act (preparation, etc., of agreed syllabus);

(b) in each place where it occurs in section 30 of that Act (saving as to position of teachers); and

(c) in section 67(3) of that Act (determination of question as to whether religious education is in accordance with trust deed relation to a voluntary school).

5. In section 77 of that Act (inspection of educational establishments)—

(a) the word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in both places where it occurs in subsection (5); and

(b) in subsection (6), for the words "instruction in a voluntary school in accordance with the provisions of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "receiving religious education in a voluntary school in accordance with section (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of the Education Reform Act 1988".

6. In section 114(1) of that Act (interpretation) the word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in the definition of "agreed syllabus".
7.—(1) In Schedule 5 to that Act (procedure for preparing and bringing into operation an agreed syllabus of religious education) the word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in each place where it occurs in paragraphs I, 5, 6 and 9 to 11.
(2) In paragraph 2 (representative committees constituting the conference), for sub-paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
("(a) such Christian and other religious denominations as, in the opinion of the authority will appropriately reflect the principal religious traditions in the area;").
(3) For paragraph 12 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
"Reconsideration of agreed syllabus
12. Whenever a local education authority are of opinion (whether upon representations made to them or otherwise) that any agreed syllabus for the time being adopted by them ought to be reconsidered, the authority shall cause to be convened for that purpose a conference constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule.
13. —(1) The following provisions of this paragraph apply where a local education authority cause such a conference to be convened for the purpose of reconsidering any agreed syllabus, whether under paragraph 12 of this Schedule or under section 7(8) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (obligation of authority to cause such a conference to be convened if required to do so by representative groups on standing advisory council for religious education).
(2) If the conference unanimously recommend that the existing syllabus should continue to be the agreed syllabus, the authority may give effect to the recommendation.
(3) If—

(a) the conference unanimously recommend a new syllabus to be adopted in substitution for the existing syllabus; and

(b) it appears to the authority that the new syllabus complies with section (Religious education required in the basic curriculum: further provisions) (3) of that Act (new agreed syllabus to reflect mainly Christian religious traditions);

the authority may give effect to the recommendation.
(4) If either—

(a) the authority report to the Secretary of State that the conference are unable to reach unanimous agreement; or

(h) it appears to the Secretary of State that the authority have failed to exercise their power under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the conference;

the Secretary of State shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 10 of this Schedule, and paragraph 11 of this Schedule shall apply accordingly."
The Child Care Act 1980 (c. 5)
8. In the Child Care Act 1980 the word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in—

(a) section 39(2)(b) (regulations with respect to facilities for religious education in community homes); and

(b) section 42(5) (determinaton of questions as to religious education to be given in a controlled or assisted community home).

The Education Act 1981 (c. 60)
9. In section 12 of the 1981 Act (approval of special schools), for subsection (4) (provision to be made in regulations as to religious worship and instruction in special schools) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(4) Provision shall be made in the regulations to secure that, so far as practicable, every pupil attending a special school will attend religious worship and receive religious education, or will be withdrawn from attendance at such worship or from receiving such education in accordance with the wishes of his parent.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 101, Amendment No. 101A:
In the proposed substitute section 26 (special provisions are to religious education in county schools) leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench and the right reverend Prelate to reconsider the wording of subsection (2) of the redrafted Section 26 of the Education Act 1944. Noble Lords will find subsection (2) near the top of page 15.
This subsection has a venerable origin, going back to 1870. I do not suggest that we could do without the subsection altogether but I feel that what was considered right in 1870 and again in 1944 may not he quite right in the new circumstances presented to us by the amendments of the right reverend Prelate and of my noble friend.
This amendment is too restrictive. Its context is the teaching of religious education. Everyone agrees that that is to be an academic study and not a matter of indoctrination. However, to say that this academic study shall be carried out without any reference to a catechism or formulary—I understand that in this context formulary primarily means a creed which is distinctive of any religious denomination—is a quite unnecessary prohibition. I suppose that the Apostle's Creed is the most widely used one among the many Christian denominations.
I remember from my Home Office experience that there was an old exercise book which listed all the
890
religious denominations, Christian and others. There were hundreds of them. They had to be listed by the Home Office because to be valid any marriage held by a Christian denomination had to be by a denomination listed in that book. I can assure your Lordships that there are hundreds of denominations. Their practices and creeds perhaps vary slightly. To say that an academic study of the Christian faith cannot take place without reference to a formulary in the sense of a creed seems to be unnecessarily restrictive.
The right reverend Prelate has kindly told me that he will in due course reconsider the wording and consider whether a better form of words more appropriate to the new circumstances can be found. With those few words, I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I do not want to go back to 1870, but when Parliament passed the 1944 Act, Section 26 of which contains these words, it was not thinking of anything other than the Christian faith and was referring to denominations of the Christian faith.
It is quite clear from Amendment No. 77, which we have already accepted, that we are referring to denominations when I personally would use the word "faith". Therefore we are talking about Christianity as a denomination, Mohammedanism as a denomination and Buddhism as a denomination. That is not the word I would have used but that seems to be what we are talking about. Amendment No. 77 refers to "Christianity and other religious denominations". Therefore where I should have preferred the words "Christian and other religious faiths", we have agreed to something different.
If this is included in the new schedule, it seems to me that we shall have terrible difficulty because what I think that Section 26(2) was aimed at is any particular denomination of a religious faith. That is what I think we were aiming at and that is quite easy to achieve. But as it is at the moment there is a potential difficulty. I hope that the Government or the right reverend Prelate can put this right.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I think I can answer this fairly simply. The purpose of this, the original Cooper-Temple clause, was to prevent what in those days was called "denominational teaching" in the sense of one particular Christian Church or denomination at that time. The old cry "No denominational teaching on the rates" was a characteristic of that period. That is the intention behind this, and that intention still remains.
I have been assured by the department that the clause still holds, but I agree that perhaps the point needs to be confirmed. Therefore I hope that the Minister will indicate that the point will be looked into. I do not think that there is any debate about the intention behind the provision, nor is there any intention to remove it or add to it; it is simply a question of interpretation. I hope that that can be looked into and confirmed.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, could I just raise one point in clarification? It might have been covered by

891
the noble Lord opposite. I think that in Committee the right reverend Prelate agreed that there is confusion with regard to the nomenclature of denomination and faith and the bodies on the SACREs where denomination and faith are confused. If this could be systematically cleared up, I think that would save misinterpretation with regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. If "denomination" reads "faith" in this context, it could mean that you would not reach anything distinctive of any faith. But it would not make sense in the context of the bodies of the SACREs.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that "denomination" in the 1944 Act has always been interpreted as covering faith; for example, those of the Jewish faith. In one place we have specifically used the words "Christian denomination" rather than religious denomination. The distinction makes doubly clear that "denomination" is normally to be interpreted as including faith. Nevertheless, I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed and we are certainly willing to look into the matter to be sure that it is completely clear and, if necessary, to clarify the position further.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question before the Minister sits down. Is she aware that the Jewish faith could be said to be divided into various denominations, and the Moslem faith could be said, as we know perhaps from what is going on between Iran and Iraq, to be divided between various denominations? Therefore, to use "denomination" as being equal to faith could be said to be confusing.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am not sure that I said that denomination was equal to faith. I simply said that "denomination" has been interpreted as covering faith, which I think is slightly different.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, I think that it would be more accurate to say that faith being the much wider expression covers many denominations.
I should like to express my deep gratitude to my noble friend for her open-mindedness on this occasion. I am also most grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I am sure that when he used the word "interpretation" he was not merely thinking of ways of interpreting the present words; he was thinking whether the present words might be better expressed.
With those assurances, together with my gratitude to other noble Lords who have spoken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to Amendment No. 101, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 101 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Curriculum and Assessment Councils]:
[Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]
12 midnight
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 190, leave out line 18 and insert ("determine; and
(b) shall pay, or make such payments towards the provision of, such pension to or in respect of any member of the Council as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) If a person ceases to be a member of the Council and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation, the Secretary of State may direct the Council to make to that person a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine.
(3) A determination or direction of the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above requires the approval of the Treasury.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 104 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 106. These are technical amendments, necessary to clarify certain powers of the NCC, SEAC and CCW beyond reasonable doubt and to bring the councils in line with what has already been provided in Schedule 6 for the University Funding Council, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Education Assets Board.
The proposed additions to paragraph 8 of the schedule will ensure that, if necessary, the pension contributions of a member of a council such as a full-time chairman can be maintained and that, should very special circumstances arise, compensation can be paid to a council member who has to cease membership of the council. I should say at once that we do not think it likely that either of these powers will be used in the near future, but we must ensure that the Government and the councils have the necessary authority to meet any contingencies which may arise in the future.
The amendments to paragraph 10(5) of the schedule make it clear beyond possible doubt that the councils can contribute to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme in respect of their employees' service. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 191, line 3, at end insert—
("(6) The Council shall pay to the Treasury, at such times as the Treasury may direct, such sums as the Treasury may determine in respect of the increase attributable to sub-paragraph (5) above in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under that
Act.
(7) Where an employee of the Council is, by reference to that employment, a participant in a scheme under section 1 of that Act and is also a member of the Council the Treasury may determine that his service as such a member shall be treated for the purposes of the scheme as service as an employee of the Council (whether or not any benefits are payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 8 above).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Development work and experiments]:
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 9, line 22, at end insert—
("( (1A) Nothing in this section shall be taken to require direction by the Secretary of State in respect of minor experimentation in curriculum matters as part of the normal professional activities of teachers").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, briefly this is another attempt to get a greater degree—perhaps that is an exaggeration and I had better say to get some degree—of flexibility and freedom of professional action at local level and so that carrying out minor experiments in curriculum matters as part of the normal professional activities of teachers shall not be prohibited. It is highly desirable that teachers, if they are to be encouraged in their professional work and in their sense of being in a profession, should be allowed to make such experiments.
I hope the noble Lord will not say in reply that there is no need for this. There is great need, by having such statements on the face of the Bill, to encourage teachers to feel that they have freedom to take this kind of highly desirable action. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that Clause 11 has been one of the most controversial, because it has been one of the least understood, elements of our provisions. I hope that if I once again explain in some detail the nature and scope of the clause, the noble Baroness will see that this amendment is unnecessary and will feel able to withdraw it.
Clause 11 does not regulate the scope for all curriculum development and experimentation in future. The great majority of this work will continue as now, in schools and LEAs, in colleges and universtity departments of education, to look at alternative ways of meeting commonly agreed, broad curriculum objectives. The only difference will be that increasingly in future these commonly agreed broad objectives will take the shape of national curriculum attainment targets.
Because the national curriculum cannot prescribe teaching methods and materials or curriculum organisation, it is apparent that there will be no need to seek exemption from its provisions in order to experiment as radically as schools may wish in those particular areas.
What is new about Clause 11 is that, where curriculum development work wishes to go beyond the broad framework of objectives set out in the national curriculum orders, it will need to be approved by the Secretary of State. There are two good reasons for this. The first and pragmatic one is that without such regulation, teachers could declare their classes permanent experimental zones and so avoid any obligation to follow the national curriculum. The second reason is that experimental work so major and fundamental that it seeks to establish alternative central objectives for any part of the curriculum needs to be carefully controlled and the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that as a condition of his approval.
Clause 11 is not the stifling provision that it has been unjustly claimed to be. In its operation we shall ensure that it does not become overbureaucratic. Indeed, we envisage that its day-to-day operation may well be in the hands of the National Curriculum Council and not of the Department of Education and Science. The council will certainly have an important role to play in advising the Secretary of State on the appropriate use of his powers under the clause.
894
From all this it will be apparent, I am sure, that the minor experimentation that the amendment seeks to protect is in no danger of falling within the scope of Clause 11. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, I think, and I hope that the noble Baroness on reflection will agree that that is so.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there is a Cabinet split on this matter since the Secretary of State for Wales seems to have a rather different view. In the Welsh Grand Committee last month, the Secretary of State for Wales said:
"My view is that we shall always have a system in which there is considerable freedom at local level and freedom to experiment. I hope that we shall never have a stagnant education system … if certain education authorities have the freedom to experiment with new concepts and ideas that are not imposed by the centre".
There appears to be a major difference between the view that the Minister has just expressed and what the Secretary of State for Wales said.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am afraid that I am totally unconvinced by what the Minister said. He admits that there is a grave misunderstanding, as he calls it—let us hope that he is right in calling it that—about the implications of Clause 11, and that people fear that there will be a degree of regimentation. Given that we have been told this evening that the National Curriculum Council will be comprised of people hand picked by the Secretary of State, this will not give confidence to the professionals, who hope that independent opinions will be given to the Secretary of State. It is all the more important therefore that there should be on the face of the Bill the reassurance that experimentation of this kind is permitted. It can do no harm; it could do good.
At this late hour, I do not propose to divide the House but merely to register once again dissatisfaction at the way in which the Bill has been put together and is being handled. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Exceptions by regulations]:
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 10, line 1, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 111 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 112 and 113. They are all concerned with children for whom the national curriculum is disapplied or modified under Clause 12, which deals with what the Minister termed in Committee, at col. 459 of Hansard, "collective exceptions" as opposed to the individual exceptions of children with statements under Clause 13 and exclusions of a temporary nature under Clause 14.
Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 are virtually probing amendments to ascertain that the regulations cannot in themselves force the exclusion

895
of a particular child from the national curriculum but will in every case and in every circumstance allow the school to make the decision.
The Minister suggested in Committee, at col. 458, that the regulations could apply, for example, to children with mobility or language problems or exceptionally gifted children, so it is a wide group. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the regulations will allow schools to deal flexibly with children covered by the words "cases or circumstances" rather than insist, for example, that a child whose English falls below a certain standard must be excluded from parts of the national curriculum.
Even if the Minister can give that assurance, Amendment No. 113 remains essential to ensure that the parents have the right to be consulted, involved in decisions and, if necessary, to appeal. As the Bill stands, the only safeguard that a parent of a child excluded under Clause 12 has is the right to complain to the local education authority through the complaints procedure set up under Clause 18. Unless there is a formal obligation to inform parents, many of them will not be aware of what is happening and certainly will not be aware of their right to complain under Clause 18. Clause 14, dealing with temporary exclusions, gives parents the right to information and appeal. The government amendment to Clause 13 looks as if there may be some move with regard to statemented children. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of the amendments to Clause 13.
The children excluded under Clause 12 now being discussed will be by far the largest group. I feel that their parents should have the right to be informed, to be told what alternative education is to be provided and to be told of their right to appeal to the governing body. This is what Amendment No. 113 would achieve.
I turn back to Amendment No. 111, which is a bit of an anticlimax as it is mainly exploratory. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment on three counts. First of all, it is the background and one of the beliefs underlying this Bill that there should be parental responsibility. I think it is very important in this area that parents should be consulted. Secondly, those of us who have dealt with children with special educational needs know that there are some teachers who are absolutely excellent with the children but who in certain cases have become over-involved. This always happens in the area of the handicapped, as I think the noble Baroness would agree. Therefore just to rely entirely on the teacher without it being a teacher-parent decision is very unwise: the wrong thing could be done. Thirdly, for the sake of the child, I believe there has to be consultation with the parent, because the child must feel part of the family. On these three counts, therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, these amendments, as we now understand, have two aims. The first is to substitute "may" for "shall" in two places in Clause 12 and so make the following of Clause 12
896
regulations optional rather than obligatory. I believe that those changes are unnecessary, indeed, undesirable. They seek to introduce an element of choice and discretion in dealing with pupils who may be covered by the "cases or circumstances" which are to be set out in the regulations.
I accept that there is a case for judgment and discretion; but that will properly be exercised at the point where the people concerned with the education of the child—the parents, the teachers and perhaps the governors—decide whether the "cases and circumstances" set out in the regulations apply to the individual child. In other words, it is for the Secretary of State to say, in the light of full consultation, that if the circumstances are such that all or some provisions of the national curriculum would be inappropriate, those provisions shall not apply, or shall be modified. But it is for local decision whether those circumstances apply to any individual child, as it is for local decision how and at what speed a pupil is introduced to the various attainment targets which the national curriculum will prescribe.
Turning now to the other part of the amendment, I should like to take this opportunity to explain what may be a misunderstanding about the application of Clauses 12 and 14. Clause 14 deals with exemptions for individual pupils and a decision taken by an individual head teacher based on his perception of the needs (not necessarily special educational needs) of an individual child.
Clause 12 is rather different. It is designed to apply to those children in whose "cases and circumstances" the provisions of the national curriculum should be modified or disapplied. The disquiet which your Lordships feel should be allayed by the way in which we propose to arrive at the regulations determining "cases and circumstances". Certainly, I have made abundantly clear that we are not reverting to a pre-1981 Act revival of "categories of handicap". What we shall have is a recognition of those cases and circumstances in which, for example, the foreign language requirement may be modified or lifted in the case of children with poor communication skills or a very limited command of English. Another group might be the gifted children who have achieved good GCSE grades in a foundation subject well before the age of 16 and wish to move on to further studies.
It may reassure your Lordships if I say that, before the Secretary of State makes regulations under Clause 12, he will have to refer his proposal to the National Curriculum Council who will have to consult outside interests and then advise him. He will then have to publish his regulations in draft and allow one month for representations. Only after that process will he be able to make the regulations, which will then be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament. That is the effect of Clause 15.
I know that some noble Lords are associated with, and active in, groups whose interests may need to be represented in the consultations. I would urge them to make their voices heard so that the regulations are as appropriate as we can make them from the first draft. But to say that there should be wide consultation on this, as on other aspects of the

897
national curriculum, is not to agree that the application of the national curriculum should in the case of each individual pupil be subject to a parental right of appeal.
The judgment about how a pupil is treated within the national curriculum framework is part of the head teacher's general responsibility. He must apply the arrangements reasonably and responsibly, and if he fails to do so there is a general remedy in the complaints machinery to be established under Clause 18. Only where he steps outside that framework in the way allowed in Clause 14 or through the mechanism of the statement of special need is it necessary to allow a specific right of appeal. I hope that these arguments will be regarded as compelling and that the amendments will not he pressed.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for his reply. His response to the first two amendments is fairly satisfactory as regards the decision about the children being a local one. His explanation of the way in which the regulations are to be made was also satisfactory. I am, however, much less happy with his explanations of why he cannot allow the parents of this batch of children information about what is going on or that they should be told of their right of appeal—indeed that they have a right of appeal to the governing body.
The Minister has said that there will be a right of appeal covering children with statements. The 18 per cent. of children may well fall within the terms of Clause 13. But children without statements will not have a right of appeal. They will have only the general right of appeal. It would have to be a very clued-up and persistent parent who found that he had this right of appeal and was able to proceed with the complaints procedure set out in Clause 18. I shall return to that amendment very shortly. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my probing amendment, Amendment No. 111.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 10, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under this section shall in particular provide that where all or some of the provisions of the National Curriculum are deemed not to apply to a particular pupil under this section, the parent of the pupil shall be informed in writing by the head teacher of the effect of the regulations and of the provision that it is proposed will be made for the pupil, and of his right to appeal to the governing body, if he does not agree with the application of the regulations to the pupil, or with the provision it is proposed to make for the pupil.
( ) On any such appeal the governing body may—

(a) confirm the head teacher's action; or

(b) direct the head teacher to take such action authorised by the regulations as they consider appropriate in the circumstances;

and it shall be the duty of the head teacher to comply with any directions of the governing body under paragraph (b)
above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already just spoken to this. Unless I get a snicket of give from the Minister, I am afraid I shall have to divide the House. I see that the Minister is not even looking at me. I beg to move.
12.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 113) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 30.

DIVISION NO. 7

CONTENTS

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Hastings, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ingleby, V.

Russell, E.

Kinloss, Ly. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Harvington, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Borthwick, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Renton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Coleraine, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cowley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cox, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Trafford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.26 a.m.
Clause 13 [Pupils with statements of special educational needs]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 114 to 116.
Page 10, line 4, at beginning insert ("The special educational provision for any pupil specified in").
Page 10, line 4, leave out ("a pupil's") and insert ("his").
Page 10, line 5, leave out from ("may") to ("with") in line 8 and insert ("include provision—

(a) excluding the application of the provisions of the National Curriculum; or

(b) applying those provisions").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 116. These are minor technical drafting amendments which I can explain if your Lordships require.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 118:
Page 10, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) Where a local education authority propose to direct under this section that the provisions of the National Curriculum shall not apply, or shall apply with modifications to a child who has a statement, they shall first serve on the parent of the pupil concerned—

(a) a copy of the statement as they propose to amend it, including such attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements as are considered suitable for the pupil; and

(b) notice in writing of the parent's right to appeal under section 8(1) of the 1981 Act against the special educational provision set out in the statement as amended to include the local education authority's direction.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could help me. I think that his drafting amendment has rendered part of this amendment redundant. As there is some confusion I shall not move the amendment at this stage if I can reserve my right to bring it back at a later stage if the confusion is not cleared up.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Temporary exceptions for individual pupils]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 121:
>Page 10, line 22, at end insert—
("(2) Where a head teacher proposes to give a direction under regulations made under this section he shall first where practicable consult the parent of the pupil concerned.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 121 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 122. They both deal with children who will be the subject of exclusions of a temporary nature under Clause 14.
Amendment No. 121 obliges the head to consult parents before excluding individual children from all or part of the national curriculum, but only if practicable. The purpose is to meet a point made by the Minister in Committee (reported at col. 460 of the Official Report of 3rd May) that heads might have to act quickly to meet an acute short-term problem. I feel that such occasions will be very rare and that there should normally be consultation on such important decisions whenever practicable in accordance with the concept of partnership with parents.
Amendment No. 122 indicates that the head shall seek other specialist advice before deciding to exclude a pupil from the national curriculum if he considers it desirable. There is no compulsion, but writing this possibility into primary legislation will encourage consultation. Furthermore it will provide reasonable grounds for complaint when pupils are excluded without adequate advice being sought. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that I am replying not only to Amendment No. 121 but also to Amendment No. 122 to which the noble Baroness also spoke.
900
I appreciate the concerns that we all have to increase the safeguards in the interests of a child whose head teacher proposes his temporary withdrawal from the national curriculum. We are faced here with the need to balance the head teacher's requirement to deal promptly with a situation and the child's right to ensure that he or she receives every consideration in a period of temporary problems.
We are faced here with the need to balance the head teacher's requirement to deal promptly with a situation, and the child's right to ensure that he or she receives every consideration in a period of temporary problems. I remind your Lordships that Clause 14 deals with temporary withdrawals for individual pupils. By no means all those children will have special educational needs.
The first of the two amendments here appears to relate to the kinds of professional advice which would be required under the 1981 Act if the child were to undergo assessment of special educational needs. In the case of such a child, we are making provision under Clause 14(4)(c)(ii) and for him, therefore, prior recourse to professional advice will not be necessary. Indeed, it would delay the procedures, and in the meantime leave that child to face the difficulties which the provisions of the full national curriculum might be causing him. Even where the child is not suspected of having SEN, it may be entirely appropriate for the school to call in some outside advice in identifying his problems and seeking solutions. Indeed, many do so at present. What we must allow the school to achieve, and what this amendment would prevent, is to lift or modify the national curriculum requirements as a matter of some urgency where the child is, for whatever reason, experiencing serious problems. This amendment would not enable the head teacher to do that.
Secondly, the amendment seeks to ensure prior parental consultation. I believe that we really must make the provision sufficiently flexible to allow our head teachers to act quickly. I appreciate that the words "unless impracticable" go some way to ensuring that the head teacher has some flexibility, but I wonder how valuable that get-out clause would be.
I feel I really must say this to your Lordships: the Government have been asked to put more trust in the professional judgment of all head teachers. Let us now give them sufficient room to manoeuvre and to run their schools in the best interests of the children. In that spirit, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him for clarification. He said that the head teacher must be able to move quickly. Why quickly? In a situation like this, there needs to be a considered judgment. One of the important matters is that the head teacher should seek other advice, particularly about the child's home. Perhaps I may just cite the case of one severely deaf child. It was thought by the school that the child should be educated in a deaf class in one of the schools. This was decided on without knowing that the child was an illegitimate child, and that there were

901
three other illegitimate children in the family and that the mother was quite unable to help that child at home. Without that information the teacher made the wrong decision to keep the child at school. That child is now 16 and cannot communicate at all. I feel very strongly that other advice and psychological and educational advice must be sought—not in all cases, I admit, but in a number of cases—so that a wrong decision is not made.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I fear that I had sat down when my noble friend rose, nonetheless, if I have your Lordships' permission to speak again, perhaps I may say that there is of course nothing to prevent head teachers taking appropriate advice if there is time for them to do so, and I dare say that, in the kind of circumstances pointed to by my noble friend, that is what would happen. We want to give them the necessary flexibility, and I fear that these amendments would not assist in that desirable aim.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I sort of thank the Minister for that reply. I do not find it very encouraging. On the first count about acting quickly, I should have thought that the phrase "unless impracticable" would cover the rare circumstances in which a teacher would have to act quickly. I cannot see that "if desirable" does not give him some leeway. If the clause says that, if he considers it desirable, he shall consult specialist advice, no one is compelling him. I merely think that it would be extremely useful to have this possibility in the Bill. It would be useful as grounds for appeal when there was some question as to whether the child had been excluded without adequate advice being sought. Anyway, I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept either of these mild, but I think rather useful, amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 11. line 14, at end insert ("(whether initially or on a review of any statement of his special educational needs the authority are for the time being required under section 7 of the 1981 Act to maintain).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment which lies before your Lordships is simply a refinement of, and an addition to, the provision at present standing in Clause 14(4)(c)(ii). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Procedure for making certain orders: England]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 123A:
Page 12, line 13. after ("bodies") insert ("parents,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, while I have no great wish to delay your Lordships at this late hour, the topic of this amendment is of great significance. I must say at least a few words on it.
The amendment refers to consulting parents. My first response, when looking at the sentences in the Bill, is that there may have been a slip of the word processor and that parents were intended to be in
902
there. After all, a great deal of the philosophy that lies behind the Bill concerns the enormous importance of parents. Anybody who is aware of any educational research over the last 50 years, or uses their common sense, is fully aware of the intrinsic role of parents in terms of educational achievement and educational success. It looks rather odd that in discussing who will be consulted, parents are left out.
I do not believe that we can play the usual game in this case of looking at Clause 15(3)(b) and include parents under "any other persons". I do not think anyone can legitimately argue that point.
I should have thought that one would wish to consult parents and parental organisations almost ahead of any of the other bodies that are referred to here, and to emphasise that one wants to know their views. I should have thought that one would go to enormous lengths to send out to parents' organisations—which are largely the best way of distribution—large numbers of copies of the consultative document, and to make it abundantly clear that the department is extremely keen to know the views of parents individually and of the organisations that represent them.
Having had some experience of Whitehall, I know that it can be a frightful nuisance to have such views. But the point of consultation is to have to put up with the frightful nuisance of people saying, "We do want to be consulted and what we want to do is the following peculiar thing." That is important. I should like to hear the Minister's argument in response to that.
I am an ardent consumerist. I would probably go further. It would seem to me to be wholly desirable that consumer bodies generally should be encouraged to take part in this consultative process. I have in mind the National Consumer Council and the Consumers' Association, both of which on occasions have shown considerable interest in education. It is a pity—although it is not exactly germane to my amendment—that they too have not been mentioned on the face of the Bill. My main pressure is to recognise explicity the need—almost an anxiety—on the part of the Department of Education and Science to consult parents. That is the purpose of the amendment. My other purpose, apart from pressing the amendment, is to hear the Minister's reply on this matter.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course we expect that the National Curriculum Council will use its discretion to include parents' groups in its consultations. We also expect that it will wish to include employers' organisations and representatives of minority cultures and other relevant interest groups, including conceivably the ones referred to by the noble Lord. The list in Clause 15—those whom the National Curriculum Council is duty bound to consult—is not intended to be comprehensive. It covers those on whom the national curriculum will impose new duties and responsibilities; that is, LEAs, governing bodies and teachers, who therefore should have a formal right to be consulted. But the freedom of the National Curriculum Council to go beyond those groups is not constrained, nor should we want it to be. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: My Lords, at this late hour it is the nearest I shall get to reassurance. I should have preferred a more positive statement, but I certainly do not intend to wax heavily on that now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Provision of information]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 13, line 40, at end insert—
("(2A) The publication of the results of assessment of pupils shall be prescribed under subsection (1) only where such results are—

(a) adjusted to reflect socio-economic factors on a standard basis specified by the Secretary of State;

(b) accompanied by a range of performance indicators (including attendance, punctuality and overall contribution to the life of the school) related to the individual pupil; and

(c) accompanied by a statement from the local education authority as to the overall performance of the school in relation to its intake, on the basis of statistical guidelines issued by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an important amendment and I fear that I shall take about five minutes to move it. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for taking a little time. In the Written Answer published on 7th June the Secretary of State set out the Government's formal response to the TGAT report. As I said earlier today, the statement was highly significant in a number of respects, not least in its failure to comment at all on the issue of whether raw examination or assessment results provide a suitable basis for the comparison of schools or the summative assessment of pupils.
As is quite well known, a number of education experts, including some in the Department of Education and Science, have been working for some years on trying to find a fair basis for the comparison of examination results between schools. A number of studies have been published, notably by researchers at Sheffield University, who have devised the most sophisticated system so far.
The basis of the argument for statistical weighting of examination results is that there is a very high correlation between social need and poor performance in public examinations. That is a well-known fact that has been established for many years, but without such adjustments both parents and policy-makers are likely to make judgments which will perpetuate disadvantage rather than looking at the real value of the school in relation to its intake.
The amendment seeks a further requirement that the publication of weighted results should be accompanied by performance indicators setting out the wider aspects of an individual's performance and the overall performance of the school. There was a DES announcement last month that set out the results of work to date within the department on performance indicators. Apparently the department is drawing up guidelines with the intention of listing factors which indicate the quality of school performance; so factors such as teacher turnover, pupil attendance, how often children volunteer to take part in sporting or cultural activities are all being considered. I am sure your Lordships will agree that these are important factors as well as examination results and test performance.
There has been no explanation of how this developing work in relation to the performance of schools will be put alongside the publication of assessment results under the national assessment. It must surely stand to reason that the publication of crude examination results, school by school, will amount to an oversimple yardstick that is bound to be widely publicised in local areas. Attempts to broaden the debate and to point out the wider performance of schools and their pupils are likely to be lost, if I may say so, in an increasingly market-oriented environment. If the work on performance indicators is to succeed, it must be fostered and encouraged at the early stages and have a proper place in the development of the national assessment schemes.
The third requirement of the amendment takes this proposal a stage further and calls on the Secretary of State to draw up statistical guidelines which would enable local authorities to assess the overall performance of the school in relation to its precise intake. This is equivalent to the notion of value added in assessing the degree to which a school has secured progress for its pupils. It is perhaps progress that matters more than anything else. The purpose of such statements will be to try to identify schools which, while their performance may not seem particularly remarkable in terms of actual results, are succeeding in bringing their pupils much further than might otherwise be expected, given their social background, their educational disadvantage or other problems. In the absence of such an approach there is a substantial risk that schools in areas of high deprivation may be pushed into a spiral of decline due to their apparently—I stress the word "apparently"—poor performance.
I should like to remind the Minister of what was said at the Committee stage:
"it is not the Government's intention to create league tables in any event".—[Official Report, 3/5/88; col. 501.1
That statement was repeated more than once. It is wholly unclear from the terms of the Bill how wide publication and league tables will be prevented. The Secretary of State's statement on 7th June was that:
"aggregated results at the ages of 11, 14 and 16 should be [published] so that the wider public can make informed judgments about attainment in a school or LEA".
Such information is grist to the mill for local newspapers and the normal passing on of information among parents.
The Minister's statement made in Committee appears to be in conflict with what the Secretary of State said on 7th June. It is hardly credible that lists of local schools with crude totals of assessment grades will not be widely available in local areas and form an important element in shaping local judgments as to which are the good, mediocre and bad schools. Therefore there is a real danger that league tables will occur. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent such a development, and surely common sense suggests that it will take place.
The amendment proposes that results should be published but in a form that allows for weighting for social factors. Since publication will in my view inevitably lead to the creation of league tables, the

905
amendment proposes that any such tables should be based on information which is fair and comparable on a statistical basis. The comparison of results from schools which draw pupils from a very wide range of social backgrounds is wholly unfair and must be discouraged.
In Committee the Minister stated that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent authorities continuing publication of exams weighted for social factors, and a few do so already. That is true, but it does not meet the argument that such results will be ignored if other figures are more immediately available. I should also like to know what will happen in the authorities which do not publish weighted figures of this kind. The Government's position appears to be contradictory.
It would be useful if Ministers could clarify whether the position has changed since their more detailed consideration of the TGAT report or whether it is still possible that the Government will at least bring forward guidance to provide for both social statements and for the weighting of social factors.
I shall sit down in a moment, but I should like to point out that a further and final issue concerns the relationship of the publication of results with the Government's stated aim of introducing records of achievement at age 16. It would be useful if Ministers could explain the relationship of an approach based on showing the rounded achievement of the pupil, which we all favour, with the publication of overall test scores, which will have the inevitable effect of labelling schools and the pupils who are educated in them. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke of the value of pupil profiles, but the publication of raw examination results can hardly assist in the objectives which she put forward. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Baroness is suggesting an extremely sophisticated system such as TGAT did not propose. Indeed, the task group considered and rejected her first proposal—that results should be adjusted to reflect socio-economic factors on a standard basis—on two grounds. First, no one has yet arrived at a generally accepted formula for calculating the effects of such factors on academic performance; and, secondly, adjusted figures, by scaling up the scores of pupils with low attainment in areas of socio-economic deprivation, could conceal large numbers of pupils who are under-achievers and could also conceal the need for additional resources to be made available to these schools.
The noble Baroness also suggests that results should be accompanied by a range of performance indicators related to the individual pupil and by a statement from the local education authority about the overall performance of the school in relation to its intake on the basis of statistical guidelines issued by the Secretary of State. I have to say that, while we have initiated some work in the field of performance indicators—so far only on a whole school basis not related to individual pupils—that work is not yet sufficiently advanced to allow us to specify
906
performance indicators, or, if used, statistical guidelines, in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, suggests.
We shall come in a moment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which deals with a similar topic. The noble Lord is shaking his head so I am reassured to see that we may not have the benefit of his moving that amendment this evening. I hope that I have been able to explain the shortcomings in the amendment of the noble Baroness; namely, that there is not the mechanism to put what she plans into proper effect. Accordingly, I hope that she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not agree with very much of what he said. While I recognise that there are of course difficulties in setting up a system of this kind, a great deal of work has already been done. Some local education authorities, of which the ILEA is one, have already established a scheme of weighting for social factors which is much fairer to individual schools that happen to have a very high proportion of socially deprived pupils. It gives far better information about the quality and performance of those schools and, indeed, schools with a high proportion of socially advantaged pupils which simply publish crude examination results.
I am very surprised that the noble Lord does not accept that or that he cannot seem to understand the point being made. If one publishes crude results, one will have a very crude interpretation of those results. On the performance indicators, I was glad that he confirmed that work is going on in this area and I hope that it will continue and will eventually be introduced even if it is not yet ready for introduction.
Although I am not satisfied with the reply, I have no intention of pressing my amendment at this time of night. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 14, line 22, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seems to show up a certain contradiction in the Government's position. In this area, and indeed in others, the Government should be congratulated on their view that more information is better in this sort of public sector activity, rather than less. I believe it is good that the Secretary of State will, through regulations, oblige LEAs, governing bodies and head teachers to make available a whole range of information in documentary form. I wholly approve of that.
I also wholly approve of the fact that LEAs and governing bodies may also be obliged to make available copies of their curriculum policy documents, annual reports of governing bodies, and so on. I understand that the Government have been consistent in their view on this, and that goes back to the 1980 and 1986 Acts. Therefore nothing I say suggests that the Government have set out along the wrong path; quite the contrary.
What puzzles me about this amendment is subsection (6), which states:
"Regulations under this section may authorise local education authorities … to make a charge … for any documents".
As an economist I have no objection to charging. I like charging. It seems to me that in most cases charging is the appropriate allocative mechanism. But in this case charging is absolutely preposterous. The only effect of charging would be to deter the acquisition of such documents. There appears to be no other reason for charging. If it is to deter, that contradicts the Government's policy. Even if there is only a danger of deterring, it contradicts the Government's policy. Therefore, given the desirability of openness in this respect, and the desirability of encouraging openness, it seems that the Government have somehow got this wrong.
It is possible that since the word "may" appears rather than "must" we are discussing a fall-back position in extremis occasionally to charge for a very expensive document that far too many people are demanding. Even on that I would err on the other side. However, if it is not meant to be hardly, if ever, used, the noble Lord should go back to the Secretary of State and say that so much of this aspect of his policy is right that it would be foolhardy to ruin it by retaining subsection (6). I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is no intention under Clause 17 of restricting access to information to those who are able and willing to pay. There can be no charge for inspecting any of the information made available under the new regulations and while exact details must be the subject of consultation we should expect that the information would certainly be available in each school and some of it perhaps in other places such as public libraries.
However, the information which may be covered by the regulations is not confined to brief summary curriculum information as is now found in the school prospectus or statement of curriculum policy. We may well wish to consider—again subject to consultation—giving parents access to detailed schemes of work, for example, which would run to many pages for any one subject or age group. We shall certainly want to give parents the right to see any syllabus their children are following. If parents wish to have copies of this information to keep for themselves, as they should have the right to do if they ask, it would be an unacceptable burden on the school to have to meet the cost of copying it as many times as it is requested.
We do not want schools to deny parents their own copies on grounds of cost. But without a specific power to charge, schools could not legally make additional copies and ask parents to pay. There will be no question of obliging them to charge, but we should like to leave schools free to respond to a demand for copies which they would otherwise have to resist as too expensive to meet. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister. That certainly is nearer to a reassurance than anything I have heard since 3.30, or so, this afternoon. We are
908
in agreement that it is most important to encourage parents to become involved and to acquaint themselves with the documentation. At least that takes us somewhere. I am more reassured than I have been. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Complaints and enforcement]:
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 14, line 32, after second ("schools") insert ("and organisations representing Head Teachers").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 128. Clause 18 as it stands requires local authorities to set up procedures for dealing with certain complaints about the actions, or proposed actions, of local authorities or of governors in relation to schools.
Government Amendment No. 129, which I assume my noble friend is about to move, seeks to improve the clause, but it still does not remedy one important omission—that it is possible for a local authority to draw up complaints arrangements and seek the Secretary of State's approval of those arrangements without taking any account of the views of head teachers. This seems quite wrong and I understand it is of considerable concern to head teachers themselves. For example, complaints may be about the way in which the curriculum is being handled in a school or in an authority or how religious worship is being handled. In the process, head teachers or members of their staffs, may well be complained about. Such complaints can be extremely delicate matters for head teachers to handle.
Surely, when the arrangements are set up by the local authority it should be obligatory upon it to consult with and take account of the perspective of the head teachers and their collective view as to whether the scheme will work. It should be necessary for the Secretary of State, before accepting the arrangements, to make sure that consultation has in fact taken place. I hope that my noble friend will take this point extremely seriously. It appears to be a glaring omission. If he cannot accept the amendment at this stage, I hope he will read what I have said and perhaps bring back an amendment to remedy the situation on Third Reading. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I rise with slight trepidation because I wish to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. My fear is that, in doing so, I may ruin it for her rather than the reverse. Nonetheless, it seems that her argument is cogent and compelling. One is rather puzzled because the head teachers are the people with the most knowledge and experience in this area. In the new regime that we are moving into we shall have governing bodies which are inexperienced. I am not against them being consulted, but it does not seem that the Bill addresses itself to the people who can be of the most help, who are the head teachers.

909
We on our side strongly support this amendment and the line that the noble Baroness has taken, which is that, if the noble Lord in his reply is unable to agree at this moment, he might wish at the very least to reflect upon the matter and come back to it, because we shall have at least one more chance to deal with the issue.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am very happy to reflect upon this matter. I do so without offering a commitment to my noble friend of any kind, but I will ensure that the matter is considered further. If there is any amplification or clarification that we think it right to make, we shall seek a further opportunity to do so.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his support. Evidently, that did not spoil the impact of my remarks and I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, if Amendment No. 129 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 130.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 14, leave out lines 35 to 45 and insert ("is to the effect that the authority, or the governing body of any county or voluntary school maintained by the authority or of any special school so maintained which is not established in hospital—

(a) have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed on them by or under —

(i) any provision of this Chapter; or

(ii) any other enactment relating to the curriculum for, or religious worship in, maintained schools other than grant-maintained schools; or

(b) have failed to discharge any such duty.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sure that we can expect a general welcome for this government amendment, which meets and extends commitments that we made in Committee to widen the scope of the new complaints machinery to be established under Clause 18 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope it may be agreeable that I speak on this amendment because my own amendment will fall, since I assume that a government amendment moved at this time of night is likely to be accepted. I am glad to see the move that the Government are making to deal with complaints. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, made a promise to go in that direction and we believe it to be a step in the right direction. In saying that I prefer Amendment No. 130, essentially what I am arguing is that one could go quite a little further.
One hopes that our school system will not be dominated by complaints and troublemaking. On the other hand, in so far as a complaints procedure is important—and to refer again to consumerism—there must be a method of dealing with the fact that one does not have what one thought one was getting and what one was told one would get. I fail to see why
910
the whole range of activities covered by the school should not be included in the complaints procedure. The Government's amendment does not go that far. In particular, as I understand it—I am perfectly willing to be told that I am wrong—non-curricular matters to do with school rules, discipline and extracurricular activities are not covered. I certainly believe that they ought to be.
I fully accept that the Government have made some movement. I do not quite understand why they have not gone the whole way. They could not possibly have done that in order to annoy those on this side of the House. There must be a reason and I look forward to hearing, as I hope our last activity this evening, what the reason is.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we have made some concessions on this point and that is as far as we are prepared to go on this amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, it is not very often that we can say thank you, even with reservations. I should not like to let this opportunity pass without saying that we are grateful for what the Government have done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Brighton and Preston Cemetery Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at seven minutes past one o'clock.