Education Reform Bill

HL Deb 22 June 1988 vol 498 cc832-910

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Clause 5 [Courses leading to external qualifications]:

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.

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 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 moved Amendment No. 66: Leave out Clause 6.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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—

1. (a) from attendance at religious worship in the school;
2. (b) from receiving religious education given in the school in accordance with the school's basic curriculum; or
3. (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—

1. (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;
2. (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
3. (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—

1. (a) in relation to a county or voluntary school, the local education authority; and
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 education authority and the governing body to exercise their functions with a view to securing, and the duty of the head teacher to secure—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) that the National Curriculum as subsisting at the beginning of that year is implemented; and
2. (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 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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) in the case of a county school, by the head teacher after consultation with the governing body; and
2. (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—

1. (a) an aided or special agreement school; or
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

hurlow

ds, 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 76: Page 5, line 5, leave out from ("particular") to ("for") in line 6 and insert ("—

1. (a) the application of section (Collective worship) (3) of this Act in relation to individual schools; and
2. (b) methods of teaching, the choice of materials and the provision of training").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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". 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) in accordance with any arrangements made under subsection (1) of this section; or
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) desire them to receive religious education in accordance with any agreed syllabus adopted by the local education authority; and
2. (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"—

1. (a) in section 29(1) of that Act (preparation, etc., of agreed syllabus);
2. (b) in each place where it occurs in section 30 of that Act (saving as to position of teachers); and
3. (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)—

1. (a) the word "education" shall be substituted for the word "instruction" in both places where it occurs in subsection (5); and
2. (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—

1. (a) the conference unanimously recommend a new syllabus to be adopted in substitution for the existing syllabus; and
2. (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—

1. (a) the authority report to the Secretary of State that the conference are unable to reach unanimous agreement; or
2. (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—

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

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) 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 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 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 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) 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—

1. (a) confirm the head teacher's action; or
2. (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 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—

1. (a) excluding the application of the provisions of the National Curriculum; or
2. (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) 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—

1. (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
2. (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) 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) adjusted to reflect socio-economic factors on a standard basis specified by the Secretary of State;
2. (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
3. (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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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—

1. (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 —
1. (i) any provision of this Chapter; or
2. (ii) any other enactment relating to the curriculum for, or religious worship in, maintained schools other than grant-maintained schools; or
2. (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 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.