Education Reform Bill

HL Deb 23 June 1988 vol 498 cc985-1041

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Clause 29 [Preparation and imposition of schemes]:

Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 153:

Page 26, line 11, at end insert— ("(2A) Where a local education authority determines that cases or circumstances make it inadvisable to conform to any guidance given by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (2) above (including, in particular, guidance regarding specified proportions or percentages of the general schools budget or any part of that budget), the authority may submit a reasoned statement of their determination which the Secretary of State shall take into account in considering approval of the scheme.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston provides for a situation where a local education authority decides that in the circumstances that exist it is not possible, or it is inadvisable, to conform to guidance given by the Secretary of State including guidance regarding specified proportions or percentages of budgets and submits a statement that the Secretary of State has to take into account. It is a fairly straightforward, short, easily-understood amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, the noble Lord has expressed concern that the framework set out in the draft guidance issued in April may be too demanding for some LEAs. In particular the amendment is directed at two key elements of that framework. Paragraph 52 of the guidance provides that discretionary exceptions other than school meals should account for no more than 10 per cent. of the LEA's general schools budget initially, and no more than 7 per cent. after three years. Paragraph 56 provides that the total amount of resources allocated on the basis of the number of pupils, weighted by age and subject, should account for at least 80 per cent. of the aggregated schools budget.

It is precisely because the Government wish to establish the views of LEAs on these matters that this guidance has been issued for consultation. That consultation is still in progress and my right honourable friend will take careful account of the responses from LEAs and other bodies. It would not be appropriate to seek to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. But whatever the outcome some framework of guidance will be needed to ensure that there is reasonable consistency across the country. The LEAs are aware of the criteria on which the Secretary of State will base decisions on the approval of schemes. Some guidance is essential on the fundamental issue of the extent of delegation, and the provisions of the Bill and the draft guidance give LEAs extensive discretion as to the items which they consider should be retained centrally.

Similarly, schools must fully realise that in future their funding will depend primarily on their success in attracting parents and pupils to the school. The resource allocation formula under a scheme must be clear so that school, parents, and the community can understand it. That is the aim, which I hope the noble Lord shares, of the draft guidance.

The noble Lord wishes to provide what amounts to a formal channel for objections to the framework set out in the guidance. The Secretary of State will of course take account of representations from LEAs on any aspect of the draft guidance or of their schemes. Indeed, it would be unreasonable for him not to do so. I trust that the noble Lord does not doubt my right honourable friend's intention in this respect.

The amendment does not add any substance to that position but it may well encourage some LEAs, who may be reluctant to delegate responsibility to their schools, to use the noble Lord's procedure to cause delays, and direct their attention to challenging the basic principle of delegation instead of preparing effective schemes. That would run contrary to the interests of both schools and pupils. In those circumstances, perhaps I can prevail upon the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, if I understood correctly what the noble Lord read out, he was saying that there is a draft document for obtaining the views of local education authorities. So be it. I hope that the Secretary of State—I am sure he will—pays attention to the general views and that he will come to a general view of the average position across the country of the various local education authorities.

That, with all respect, has nothing whatever to do with the amendment. The amendment proposes that if a local education authority says that in a particular case, or cases, there are reasons why it wants to avoid the provisions of what will by then be, not draft guidance but substantive guidance, or the authorised version, it shall be able to state why, in this particular school, or this particular situation, the guidance is inappropriate.

It is inevitable that in a country of—what is it?—50 million, there will be cases that are out of the average. In that situation we are asking simply that the Secretary of State should be able to be told that this school in mid-Wales, or wherever it is, has a particular situation or difficulty which means that it does not feel that the guidance is appropriate to the school whereas it might be fine for Camden. That is what we are aiming at. However, in view of the attitude taken in general in the past, and in view of the need to get on, I do not intend to test the opinion of the House. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hoopermoved Amendment No. 154: Page 26, line 15, after ("body") insert ("and the head teacher").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I trust that it will be in order if I speak to Amendments Nos. 155, 161, 163 to 171, and 187. During the discussion in Committee on my noble friend's earlier amendments on this matter, I undertook to look again at the position of head teachers under schemes of financial delegation. As I made clear in Committee, the Government fully recognise the vital role of head teachers in ensuring the success of schemes. Together with the governing body, they will have responsibility for developing a management plan for the school and securing its implementation with the collective support of the staff.

We also accept the point made in the debate that, although the majority of head teachers are likely to be governors, the head has a distinct role in his own right. In recognition of that, I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendments which we have now brought forward and acknowledge at the same time that we do make concessions, listen, and bring forward amendments,

These amendments provide for the head teacher as well as the governing body to be consulted by the LEA in preparing schemes of delegation and for the head as well as the governing body to be involved in the procedure for withdrawal of delegation. These are two vital aspects of a scheme, and we believe that it is right that the head teacher should be directly and explicitly involved. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, the government amendments to which my noble friend has just spoken are indeed good news. When at Committee stage my noble friend Lady Young and I tabled a group of amendments, all concerned with the position of the head teacher of a school operating a delegated budget, we felt that the amendments raised important issues. We were, I am bound to say, a touch disappointed at what seemed to us at the time a somewhat non-committal answer from the Government.

Although my noble friend on the Front Bench said then that she would have another look at the issues, my noble friend Lady Young and I were not satisfied. In consequence we retabled some of our previous amendments, and they appear now as Amendments Nos. 163, 165, 166, 169 and 170. Since tabling those amendments I have received a detailed and extremely helpful letter from my noble friend the Minister. In that letter she gave me the assurance that the Government fully accept, as she has just said, that under the delegated budgets head teachers will have a distinct role in their own right, whether or not they choose to be governors, and that it is right to recognise that in this part of the Bill.

The Minister also satisfied me in that letter on two points which were raised in the previous amendments—first, the fact that the head teacher is protected against personal liability when acting in good faith within the school; and secondly, the head teacher's access to financial information. Those assurances have enabled me to withdraw two of the amendments that I had tabled.

In response to the remaining amendments in the group, my noble friend has, as she has explained, tabled her own amendments to which she has just spoken. I am extremely pleased and grateful, and so is my noble friend Lady Young, to see that these meet most of the points of concern which remained.

Only one issue remains unresolved; that is, the proposal we make in Amendment No. 165 that when in an emergency a local authority decides to suspend the delegation of the school's budget, before the expiry of any period of notice that has been given, the local authority should not only be required to notify the Secretary of State of that suspension but should formally notify the head teacher. I think that I am right when I say that that point is not incorporated in my noble friend's amendment. I wonder whether she has any reason for that or, if not, would reconsider that point to see whether it requires to be met.

That having been said, I should not like to appear in any way ungrateful. Head teachers and teaching staff all over the country, as they embark upon the challenge of financial delegation, will, I am sure, be extremely grateful for those changes which ensure that during various crucial procedures the head teacher will also be kept in the picture.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and her noble friend Lady Young. They are in the unique position of having their amendments accepted by the Government. It may have something to do with where they sit when they are in the House. We have no objection to the amendments.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, happily my noble friend is not in a unique position. The Government have made concessions on a number of occasions, and have introduced amendments as a consequence.

The point which my noble friend raises about notification to the head teacher on emergency suspension is covered by the draft guidance on financial delegation. However, I undertake to clarify that point to her in precise terms.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 155: Page 26, line 16, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 19.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 156:

Page 26, line 27, at end insert— ("(5A) In making any determination under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that adequate and comparable provision is made in the scheme in respect of the clerking of the county and voluntary-aided schools to which it applies, such that reasonable remuneration will be made in relation to each voluntary-aided school for the costs of clerking and other administrative costs, and these costs shall be treated as a maintenance item for the purposes of section 15 of the Education Act 1944.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton and Lord Taylor of Blackburn. The question of the remuneration of school clerks was raised in Committee. I raised it again because I think that I put the case badly. Those seeking an assurance were not happy with the reply. School clerks, as I am sure the House and my noble friend will agree, are the essential core of school management. They play a vital part when recording minutes, advising governors of their statutory and other obligations and providing papers on time. Like so many sides of British life they receive little encouragement or financial support. Their duties and the amount of work required vary between small schools and large schools.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that clerks of voluntary-aided schools will receive proper remuneration for their services. At present there is a gap, because many of the voluntary-aided school clerks serve without remuneration. They are difficult to replace. The gap arises because local education authorities supply clerks to county schools as a statutory duty. They can supply clerks or offer payments to voluntary-aided schools in their discretion. Worry as to whether local education authorities will continue in that role has caused the amendment to be tabled.

At present some clerks of voluntary-aided schools receive a payment of £35 a meeting, which is awarded by the local education authority, whereas in a nearby school the clerk receives nothing. Against that background, and because at least 5 per cent. of voluntary-aided schools currently have no clerk, there is an understandable fear that despite the draft guidance clerks of voluntary-aided schools will in future not receive treatment equal to that received by those of county schools, as they clearly should.

The amendment seeks to give statutory backing to that provision. If that is not acceptable to my noble friend, a clear assurance that costs equal to those of county schools will be fairly met as a maintenance item under Section 15 of the 1944 Act would suffice. It is of course understood that those costs would be included in the school budget, but it is vital that the proper financial allowance is given to such costs so that the clerks' duties can be properly fulfilled. I beg to move.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, one of the results of giving each school its own governing body is that one increases the cost of looking after them and the need for clerking. It is obviously necessary that that clerking should be done properly. It is ludicrous to suggest that the clerk will perform his function for nothing or will do it efficiently for nothing. It is therefore appropriate that clerks should receive some payment. It is also appropriate that the additional cost should not necessarily fall on the education authority as the local taxpayer but should be a matter to be compensated under the grant arrangements from central government. When answering, I hope that the Government will take that point on board.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I support the amendment.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne made clear in Committee, the Government fully share my noble friend Lord Kinnoull's view of the increasingly important role that clerks will have to play in the future. As governors take on more responsibilities, they will place a premium on good advice about their statutory and other responsibilities and on the efficient organisation of their business.

I should point out, however, that the services of the clerk will be only one of the resources at the governors' disposal. As I have already described, my right honourable friend is proposing to make available substantial sums to assist LEAs and schools to implement their schemes of financial delegation. In particular, school governors will have access to advice from the LEA's own advisory unit; to in-school computer-based information; and to the services of school support staff. Most important of all, they will have access to the advice and experience of the head teacher. That will ensure a range of support for governors in the exercise of their new responsibilities.

The specific concern elaborated by my noble friend that county and voluntary schools should be treated equally is met in the guidance on financial delegation. This makes it clear that all maintained schools should be funded on the same basis. A school's allocation will depend mainly on the numbers of its pupils and their ages, so that schools with a similar composition should receive similar budgets. There will be no discrimination between county and voluntary schools. With your Lordships' permission, I will briefly read the relevant section of the guidance. Paragraph 55 states: The formula should allocate resources to all schools covered by the scheme on the same basis, including any delegated provision for administration and school support". Administrative costs delegated by the LEA as the amount of central decision-taking falls will be passed on to voluntary as well as to county schools. Once such provision is delegated it will be up to schools themselves to decide how to spend it.

The administrative costs of all schools fall to be met by the local education authority. Therefore we believe that no amendment to the 1944 Act is needed to ensure that they can be covered by a scheme. Nevertheless the Government will consider carefully the cost of clerking when considering the form of the final draft of the circular, which is at this moment out for consultation. Bearing in mind these assurances, I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have supported the amendment and to my noble friend for her assurance, which I am happy to accept. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.30 p.m.

Clause 30 [Replacement and variation of schemes]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 157: Page 27, line 14, leave out ("Subsection") and insert ("Subsections (4) and").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these two minor amendments are designed to help local authorities introduce their schemes more simply and effectively. Clause 30, introduced at Commons Report stage, allows LEAs to make minor variations to their schemes without needing formal approval by the Secretary of State. This will assist in the development and further refinement of schemes which are likely to take place as authorities and schools gain more experience of delegation. These two further amendments are needed to ensure the effective functioning of this provision. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 158: Page 27, line 25, after ("State") insert ("before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which he receives notification under subsection (7) above of the authority's proposal,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 159: After Clause 30, insert the following new clause.

("Training for Governors, Heads and Deputies.

—(1) The Secretary of State shall as soon as practicable issue guidance, to which a local education authority shall have regard, for the purpose of securing that every governor of a school which is subject to a scheme of financial delegation, and every head and deputy head of such a school shall receive a course of training free of charge which will in the view of the authority enable them effectively to fulfil their responsibilities as a governor.

(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that adequate resources are made available to an authority to cover the cost of the provision of the training referred to in subsection (1) above".).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government have made clear—the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, spoke on the subject in Committee—that they are fully committed to the importance of training governors and providing some resources to do that. The noble Lord outlines various initiatives that the Government have carried out since the 1986 Act, so there is not a great deal between us on the substance.

Our view is that it seems odd for the Government to stop at that point and not write what they clearly agree with and think is of importance on to the face of the Bill. In bringing forward the amendment, we are in effect doing the Government's job for them. Since we last spoke on the matter it is possible that the Government have further consulted, or are planning to consult, local authorities. The Minister may therefore want to tell us about plan initiatives. We look forward to hearing that. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young, who intimated that she would not be present, thought that the amendment would probably fall. I am very glad that it has not done so, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has picked it up.

The training of governors is something that governors themselves will want very much in view of financial delegation, as will head teachers and assistant heads. There is no question of that. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is very keen on this. From her experience she is of the view that if this amendment or a similar amendment could be accepted it would be helpful to all concerned. I support the amendment.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, can the Minister indicate what form the training would take? I think all noble Lords are agreed that training is not only important but also essential. It occurs to me—I have clerked hundreds of governors' meetings from time to time—that the quality of training is fundamental.

At one level it could be done part time and at the other level a national institution—a college of some kind—could be set up specifically for the purpose. Given the turnover of governors, it may be worth considering the idea at some time. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some idea of what the Government have in mind.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, we went over this ground in Committee to some extent. However, I take the opportunity to reiterate that the Government see the training of governors as a vital part of delegation.

Section 57 of the 1986 Act requires LEAs to make available to governors, free of charge, such training as they consider necessary for the effective discharge of their functions. The information currently available indicates that most LEAs are already providing training for governors. We are doing some research into this. To take this forward, since 1986 a two-year specific grant has been funding pilot projects in 10 LEAs on the development of training strategies and material. In the light of the pilot projects, the Government have taken a number of further steps to secure the development of a coherent and effective training strategy for governors. I hope that this goes some way to answer the noble Lord, Lord Dormand.

First, they are grant-aiding the National Association of Governors and Managers to assist it in its national co-ordinating role. Secondly, they are proposing to support expenditure of almost £5 million in 1989–90 on the training of governors, aimed at ensuring that the governors of all maintained schools are offered appropriate training within a national framework. The level of support envisaged would allow each LEA, for instance, to employ a full-time adviser for the training of governors, as well as providing some ancillary support and materials.

Thirdly—and in some ways most importantly—the Government are actively publicising the role and function of governors in order to attract parents and other members of the community to take up the new opportunities and responsibilities opened up by the Bill. A great deal of interest is being expressed.

The training of governors for their responsibilities under schemes of delegation will be a key part of these initiatives. Paragraphs 69 and 70 of the draft guidance on financial delegation make clear that LEAs will be expected to set out the nature and extent of their training proposals in schemes as submitted to my right honourable friend for approval.

This will be a national requirement applicable to all LEAs; and it is my right honourable friend's intention to ensure that within a flexible timescale all LEAs adopt a consistent approach to providing all school governors with appropriate training in relation to financial delegation. LEAs will need to redirect their existing training programmes to take account of these needs, and the bulk of the specific grant for the training of governors is likely to need to be directed towards supporting them.

Training will need also to cover other groups that will be responsible for making delegation work, including LEA officers and school administrative staff as well as governors and heads. Although as administrators these groups may require less extensive training than may some governors, it is nonetheless essential that they are properly prepared for their role. The funding that my right honourable friend proposes to make available has accordingly taken this into account. I trust that the noble Lord and my noble friend are reassured by what I have said as regards the Government putting into operation a clear and coherent training strategy. Therefore I hope that they will feel able to withdraw this amendment.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I am most reassured by the statement of the noble Baroness. However, I am a trifle puzzled by her logic because I think that she made the case for this amendment infinitely better than I did. It follows therefore that she should have accepted it. But I shall not press that point. I am reassured and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 [Delegation to governing body management of school's budget share]:

Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 160:

Page 27, line 37, at end insert— ("( ) Any governing body to which this section applies shall carry out its functions under the scheme in accordance with existing statutory duties in relation to race and sex discrimination, and any further policies in relation to equal opportunities published by the local education authority.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sure we shall be told that this amendment is, to use the favoured word, otiose, in that it seems somewhat ridiculous to suggest an amendment which requires people to keep what is already the law of the land. There would be some substance in that argument.

However, I think it is worth while making some special reference to responsibilities in relation to race and sex discrimination in view of the excessively publicised and excessively unfortunate instances that have occurred in recent months in relation to race issues in schools, and also because of the fact that although many efforts have been made in schools to get rid of sex discrimination in the education system we know that it still remains. That is not by any means always the case or perhaps normally the case because of the attitude of the schools, but because of built-in cultural prejudices which are very difficult for the schools to eradicate.

The amendment would be otiose but for one argument. I remind your Lordships that local authorities have a responsibility, unlike other employers, specifically to promote good race relations. That requires them not to take reverse discrimination in any sense but positive action to promote good race relations. They should not, as we know from debates recently in your Lordships' House, take such action to promote sex equality but they should take action to remove racial discrimination.

As the schools in many cases are taking over employment responsibilities from local authorities, it is surely appropriate to argue that a similar responsibility should be placed on schools to promote good race relations, as has been the responsibility of local authorities under the Race Relations Act 1976. That is the justification for this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I think we know that, under Clause 119, even if so minded the Secretary of State could not abolish the sex discrimination legislation because of Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and because of Directive 75/117—I quote that from memory. But I am not certain whether the Treaty of Rome covers racial discrimination. If it does not, the Secretary of State, under the terms of Clause 119, can modify any enactment and therefore can just abolish race legislation as regards certain types of schools. It would be quite inappropriate that he should be able to do so.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, I find the motives of the movers of this amendment understandable, but I find the amendment itself very peculiar in the light of what two of the movers have said. They talk about race discrimination, which is covered under existing legislation, and they then state in the amendment: any further policies in relation to equal opportunities published by the local education authority". Equal opportunities in normal discourse now means equal opportunities for both sexes. It does not normally apply to race relations. I wonder whether the movers intended to include the directives of local authorities in respect of race relations. That would be a rather serious step to take, I should have thought, until we have the publication of the Burnage School Report. Some of the comments that have been made on the published parts—or leakages, if noble Lords prefer—suggest that it was the local authorities and not the statutory requirements which may have led that school into an erroneous course of action with the tragic consequences that we know of. It is perhaps a pity that the Secretary of State has not made up his mind to publish the report, but in the absence of that I do not think this amendment should be pressed.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, we touched on this theme in our earlier discussion. As I made clear then, and in Committee, the Government fully support the aim of ensuring equal opportunities in schools, both in relation to educational facilities and in relation to equality of employment opportunities. These are two separate issues which, with your Lordships' permission, I will deal with in turn.

The amendment seeks to ensure that desirable policies on equal access in the curriculum are safeguarded under financial delegation. The example might be given, for instance, of the need to encourage girls as well as boys to undertake applied subjects outside the scope of the national curriculum.

The Government are as clearly and firmly committed to desirable aims such as this as is anyone. For that reason, it will be open to LEAs to include guidelines on such matters as part of their schemes. Indeed, the draft guidance on financial delegation makes clear that LEAs will continue to have overall responsibility for setting the tone of education in their areas through their articulation of policies for the service, including curriculum policy, and through their role in co-ordinating national and local specific grant initiatives in particular areas.

But these guidelines will only apply to schools to the extent that they are part of a scheme as approved by my right honourable friend. For the LEA to be able to impose policies directly on schools as the amendment provides, without the need for approval, would leave it open to LEAs hostile to delegation to fetter schools' discretion with policies that neither the Government nor, I suggest, the proposers of this amendment would consider acceptable.

Moreover, the amendment carries the danger that LEAs will seek to use schemes as a vehicle for restricting the ability of the governing body under the 1986 Act to modify the LEA's curricular policy. The LEA might say that equal opportunities had to be presented through, for instance, a programme of anti-racist education with which the governing body disagreed. The 1986 Act would allow the governors to modify that policy, but with the application of this amendment that would not be possible. That is a step backwards from parental choice and the autonomy of schools.

Turning to staffing matters, governing bodies will of course be bound by the existing law on sex discrimination and race discrimination in selecting a candidate for employment or deciding on a dismissal, as we discussed earlier. So they will not be able to discriminate on grounds of sex or race. But they will not be bound by any extrastatutory policy on sex or race. That would be incompatible with the governors' responsibilities for staffing matters. The existing legislation will ensure that there is no discrimination by governors. It is essential to the aims and to the success of delegation that any decisions beyond that should fall to the governors themselves.

I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, wishes to draw me further on Clause 199, but we shall be coming to that in due course. As I promised earlier, there is a government amendment in relation to that clause. With that, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She knows very well that, despite the position of the law, nothing very effective is being done in a great many areas. The Minister did not comment on my point about the special responsibility of local authorities in relation to the promotion of good race relations. I entirely share the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about the Burnage Report. I too wish that it could be published as soon as possible. However, I do not think that that should enter too much into the decisions about this amendment.

We should decide whether governing bodies will have the same responsibility that is imposed on local authorities positively to promote good race relations. That is where local authorities differ from other employers as regards the 1976 Act. Will that responsibility be carried over to the governing bodies when they are responsible for the running of schools? It would be that which would justify this or a similar amendment. I see the point which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, made about the last part of the amendment concerning the ability positively to promote.

The Minister and the Government accuse us of being extremely suspicious of the motives of the Government. However, the Minister and the Government Benches are remarkably suspicious of local government motives. Whenever we suggest that local authorities should do anything, we are served up the examples of extremely dotty local authorities which have behaved very badly. However, a great many local authorities do not behave in that way.

The point about which I am concerned is that of the special responsibilities of local authorities that are being transferred to governing bodies. If the Minister can reply to that point, I shall withdraw the amendment. I should like the matter to be on the record.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House, as I understand it that particular responsibility will not be transferred to governors. It remains with local authorities.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, that is regrettable. Local authorities have a special responsibility in the matter and the effectiveness of the race relations policy will be diluted by the transfer of the responsibilities of the local authorities to governing bodies. However, I have made my point and it is on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 161 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 32 [Withdrawal of delegation]:

[Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 164: Page 28, line 32, at end insert (";and a copy of the notice shall be given to the head teacher of the school at the same time as the notice is given to the governing body.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 167: Page 29, line 2, after ("concerned") insert ("and the head teacher of the school").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 168: Page 29, line 4, after ("body") insert ("or the head teacher").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 171: Page 29, line 7, after ("concerned") insert ("and the head teacher").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 33 [Schemes: determination of budget shares]:

[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 172A: Page 29, line 39, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 172A is grouped with Amendment No. 173. With the leave of the House, I shall speak to both amendments. The meaning of the amendments is obvious. To take over the remarks of noble Lords on the opposite side of the House yesterday, Amendment No. 173 contains words which I believe are implicit in subsection (3)(b). Unlike noble Lords opposite, I have no objection to making the meaning explicit, if only for the sake of emphasis.

Much more fundamental is Amendment No. 172A, which would replace the word "may" with the word "shall". It is of the essence that in setting up these schemes provision must be made for taking into account such factors, and most notably the one which the Minister has mentioned. I regard the matter as being extremely serious. This is precisely the area where it should be obligatory to take such factors into account. The choice of the word "shall" is the essence of the amendment. That does not dilute my enthusiasm for the explicit statement made by the Minister. I hope that that will enable her to accept my amendment, which achieves the end which we must all have in mind. I beg to move.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, concern has rightly been expressed that facilities for pupils with special educational needs should be safeguarded under schemes of financial delegation. As my noble friend made clear in Committee, the Government fully share that aim. The draft guidance issued by my right honourable friend makes it clear that LEAs will be expected to take account of special needs in their formula for allocating resources between schools.

Nonetheless, the Government recognise the force of the arguments put in Committee that there should be an explicit recognition of the position of special needs on the face of the Bill. This amendment provides this, by specifying special needs as a factor which may be taken into account in the resource allocation formula. Together with the clear requirement set out in the draft guidance, this amendment will ensure that LEAs must provide through their formula for variations in the numbers and provision required for pupils with special needs. I very much hope that the House will welcome that as a further and explicit statement of the Government's aims in this area.

Turning to Amendment No. 172A, as I have already indicated, the requirement set out in the draft guidance will make it a condition for approval of schemes that variations in special needs between schools should be taken into account in the LEA's formula. But it would not be appropriate to translate the provisions of the guidance directly into legislation. The term "special needs" falls to be read with the definition in the Education Act 1981. Although Section 1 of that Act contains a clear definition of a pupil with special educational needs, that definition would not help those locally who would have to decide what particular weightings should be taken into account in respect of individual children with special needs. That will depend on a range of locally-defined indicators. To include a mandatory requirement for these needs to be taken into account in the formula might leave LEAs open to constant challenges that they had not taken special needs into account in a particular case. I do not believe that is in the interests either of schools or of the pupils themselves.

These points apply even more to the mandatory inclusion in the formula of any unspecified "relevant" factor, as is implied by the amendment. Such a provision would lead to pressure on the LEA to take account of each and every minor variation between schools, regardless of its significance. That could lead to elaborate and over-complex formulae, without necessarily adding to the fairness of the scheme.

I hope that the noble Lord will therefore accept that, in this difficult area, the amendment which the Government have put forward is the best way of ensuring that pupils' needs are provided for explicitly and effectively.

Lord Peston

My Lords, for the second time during the course of the Report stage of this Bill the noble Earl has gone over my head. I do not follow him. He used the expressions "will be expected", "will ensure" and "should be". So far as I am concerned, all of those words are as good as "shall". I therefore cannot see where the words occur. If they do not occur in the Bill, how do we know that such matters will be ensured, how do we know that they should be and how do we know that they are expected?

I very much want to accept what the noble Earl has said. Perhaps he is in a position to add something. I do not think that I am being totally obtuse at this hour of the night. However, I feel from some of the things that he has said that there is nothing between us. Perhaps the noble Earl can add to his remarks.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is being obtuse about the matter. However, I hoped that I had made it quite clear that we do not think that the amendment is necessary and that what he is after is already covered.

Lord Peston

My Lords, in that case I am fully prepared to take the noble Earl's view on this matter since he has placed it on record. It is with pleasure that I do not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 173: Page 29, line 41, at end insert ("(including, in particular, the number of registered pupils at a school who have special educational needs and the nature of the special educational provision required to be made for them).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]

9 p.m.

Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 174A: Page 30, line 6, after ("description") insert— ("( ) expenditure on local education authority support services for special educational needs including a schools psychological service, child guidance services, education welfare service, and peripatetic teaching and advisory services;").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not know whether at Report stage one can table a probing amendment, but I believe there is a great deal of confusion over the position with regard to support services for schools which have opted out.

I should like to deal first with the support services provided by education welfare officers. As I understand it, education welfare officers—and I have worked very closely with them—have three roles. First, it is the role of the education welfare officer to see that children attend school. It is their business to enforce the 1944 Act and ensure that every child of school age has the education appropriate to his age, aptitude and special education needs.

Secondly, it is the role of the education welfare officer to monitor the employment of children. If a child wants to do a paper round or to work in the mornings or evenings he has to be registered by the education welfare officer to carry out that work. If he does more work or longer hours than specified it is illegal and it is for the education welfare officer to look into the matter.

Thirdly, he has the role of co-ordinating the work of the education psychologist and the child guidance clinic. He also is responsible for putting together papers in order to make recommendations, for example, for a special school or a residential school and for finding the right school for individual children.

I am not sure how that will be managed under the Bill. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister who wrote to me on 9th June concerning support services and the question of money. She said in her letter: The precise level of resources allocated to these services from an authority's education budget will, as now, be a matter for the authority itself to decide".

What is the role of the education welfare officer in an opted-out school? Can he go into the school? Does the school have to buy the services of the education welfare officer? If a child is not attending school and the school does nothing about it, whose business is it to take the case to court? Under Circular 2/86 issued on 10th February 1986 the first paragraph states that it is the responsibility of local education officers to provide support services for those children not attending school and where necessary to take court action.

Therefore the position is rather confusing at the moment. What is the position of the opted-out schools where children are contravening the law relating to non-school attendance? Who deals with it?

I should say that I have worked very closely with education welfare officers. They have been my colleagues. They are very concerned, first, as to their own position in the education service and, secondly, about the position concerning children in schools which have opted out.

I should also like to raise the question of the child guidance service. I have been fortunate enough to work in three child guidance clinics of some note. A child guidance clinic has a team of three people—a psychiatrist, a psychologist and a psychiatric social worker. It is an expensive service but it does a great deal of very good work. It is through the child guidance clinic that children are very often recommended for treatment or for schools for maladjusted children, and an enormous number of children who have been abused are referred to child guidance clinics.

The children who are referred to child guidance clinics are very complicated cases. Those cases require very well-trained people and they require the full team. The psychologist and the psychiatrist need the help of the psychiatric social worker just as much as the psychiatric social worker needs the psychiatrist and the psychologist.

When a child who has been abused attends a grant-maintained school which has opted out, what happens in respect of the child guidance service? What is the position with respect to the social workers? At the moment there is confusion in the country about the position of the social workers. I understand that in London the psychiatric social workers are employed by ILEA. Therefore they will in future be employed by the local authorities. Two problems arise from that. First, do opted-out schools have to pay for the child guidance service if they require that service? Secondly, a number of local authority social services departments are very short of social workers. Already local authorities' social services departments are saying that when ILEA goes they will be able to transfer the psychiatric social workers to work in the offices of the social services department, thus depriving the child guidance clinics of their psychiatric social workers. That is a very serious situation.

So I am worried on two counts: how do schools which have opted out obtain the services of a psychiatric social service, and what happens to the psychiatric social workers in the local authorities? I shall now talk only about London. There are complications and difficulties in the rest of the country but we are dealing at the moment only with London.

As regards the support services, there seems to be confusion as to how they are to be funded and how the co-opted schools are to use them, if at all. I have to underline, as I did earlier, that there are legal obligations. There is a legal obligation for children to attend school, and it is the legal duty of the education welfare officer to deal with the matter. I still do not see how this situation will work out.

Obviously I do not intend to put this matter to a vote, because I do not fully understand the situation. For the sake of both the child guidance clinic service in this country and the education welfare officers I wanted to have this issue aired on the Floor of the House so that they would understand their position.

There is also the school psychological service, the peripatetic teaching and the youth service. I am not in a position to speak about the psychological service or the peripatetic teaching, but my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee will speak on those aspects. I beg to move.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, I should like to speak briefly about the psychological service and the peripatetic teaching. At the outset I think I should clear up a slight confusion that has arisen. I believe that we are talking about schools under local financial management and not opted-out schools—or are we not? I am not quite sure whether the situation with the opted-out schools and grant-maintained schools is the same. I think it is not. Anyhow, at the moment we are talking about schools under local financial management.

The psychological service is a very important one in schools. Should a child be in difficulty, he or she can be sent to the service which is offered by trained educational psychologists who will assess the child and discover the area of difficulty. That is what one might call a modern scientific approach. Nowadays we do not wallop children if they do not get on well or send them outside to the playground until the lesson is over. We attempt to find out what is wrong and recommend the right, helpful approach and the appropriate remedial treatment. That is the job of the psychological service. We diagnose first and then prescribe.

In the case of a child who is having difficulty, it is very likely that he or she needs some special help. That help is provided by the peripatetic teaching service—teachers who are specially trained in remedial work who go round schools and offer their help to these children. Nowadays the help that they give to the children is usually in class. They will sit side by side with the child and help with the classwork. They also perform the very important service of advising teachers. When they have an idea of a particular child's problems they will explain those problems to the ordinary teacher of that child and suggest approaches that the classroom teacher can make. Those services are essential.

Another point that I have tried to make many times is that if we want to raise our educational standards we must give our attention to the children who are falling behind. It is a vital part of the problem. If something like 20 per cent. of the country's children are on the way to school failure, they must be helped and they are helped in this way.

We are concerned about schools which have responsibility for their own budgets. We feel that these services should continue to be available and that the expense of them should not form part of the school budget. Otherwise there is a danger that the services will be skipped and the school will say, "We have to make both ends meet. We cannot afford to keep sending children to psychologists or continually bring in specially qualified teachers for them".

The problem is that children who have special educational difficulties are not cost-effective. Schools which all the time are thinking about making both ends meet may feel that they have an unmarketable product. They are labour intensive. I feel that it is very important that the funds which are necessary to provide this service should remain centrally so that schools which are managing their own budgets have that service without having to pay for it. I support the amendment.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I recognise my noble friend's knowledge and experience in this area, as I do that of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. But I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne had made it sufficiently clear in Committee that the Government are fully committed to securing that the support services necessary for the effective delivery of education to pupils with special needs should be preserved under schemes of delegation.

The draft guidance issued makes it clear that schemes will need to make suitable provision for pupils with special needs. Paragraphs 38 to 41 of that guidance provide for local education authorities to have discretion to exclude the costs of specialist support services from delegation where they consider that that will lead to more effective targeting of the needs of individual pupils. That would include the school's psychological service, the peripatetic teachers, and indeed the other services mentioned in the amendment. The local education authority has responsibility to satisfy itself about a pupil's school attendance in its area and that applies irrespective of the type of school which the pupil is attending, whether it be county, voluntary-aided or, in the future, possibly grant-maintained. But of course we return to this aspect when we deal with grant-maintained schools.

The current responsibilities of the Inner London Education Authority, to which my noble friend referred, for providing such support services will be transferred to the individual inner London boroughs following abolition. The draft guidance we have issued on the organisation of education in inner London makes it clear that boroughs should include the organisation of support services in their development plans; and provision for those services will be included in their budgets together with that for other education services.

I hope that with those assurances my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, will be able to withdraw their amendment.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, for having supported the amendment. I thank the Minister for her explanation. The cause of worry is that in the letter which she so kindly wrote to me, she said: The precise level of resources allocated to these services from an authority's education budget will…be a matter for the authority itself to decide". One cannot therefore say absolutely categorically that these services will continue to give the service that is required of them. That is the point that has worried us.

However, we have aired the situation and I am sure that the Minister will take note of what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.15 p.m.

Clause 34 [Schemes: provision for financial delegation]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 175: Page 30, line 16, after ("year") insert ("which falls before the beginning of that year; or (b) falls in accordance with the scheme to be regarded as qualifying for delegation in respect of that year on the assumption that, if a forecast made in accordance with the scheme of the number of registered pupils it will have on a qualifying date in relation to that year which falls within that year proves to be correct, it will satisfy the qualifying condition on that date;").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 175, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 177 and 178.

This is a technical amendment. It makes it clear that LEAs will be able to use either latest actual numbers or forecast pupil numbers in determining whether a primary school qualifies for delegation under the scheme. As currently drafted, Clause 34 allows only actual pupil numbers to be used. However, some LEAs may wish to use forecast pupil numbers as a better indicator of the position of the school over the following year, and the amendments provide that flexibility.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 176: Page 30, line 35, leave out from ("school") to end of line 37 and insert ("is subject to section 35 of this Act in the case of any school to which that section applies")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 176, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 179 to 183 inclusive.

These are technical amendments. As currently drafted, Clause 35 of the Bill allows delegation to be phased in over a three-year period for schools covered by a scheme in its first year. It does not, however, allow delegation to be phased in for a qualifying school which comes into the scheme in its second or third year of operation. This could lead to a school covered by the scheme in 1990–91 receiving a delegated budget from April 1993, while a school coming into the scheme in 1991–92 would have to receive its delegated budget immediately.

The amendments correct that by allowing phasing for any school coming into the scheme within an initial period of three years. All qualifying schools will then be required to receive delegated budgets from April 1993 at the latest. The amendments will provide greater flexibility for LEAs and schools in the key initial period of schemes. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

My Lords, one point arises here which I hope is worth a minute of your Lordships' time. I am referring to the provision of a budget for a financial year. That is not a year under which a school operates. This is a difficulty which is familiar in some parts of the academic world. It is likely to become more serious when the size of a school's enrolment is likely to vary considerably from one part of the financial year to another. This is a possible cause of budgetary instability, anxiety and confusion. I should welcome some assurance that the point has come to the Government's attention.

The Earl of Arran

Yes, my Lords. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is quite right. Indeed, that fact has come to the Government's attention.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 177 and 178: Page 30, line 48, after ("condition") insert ("or, in the case of a school to which that requirement applies by virtue of any povision made under subsection (2)(b) above, either fails to reach or falls below that number"). Page 31, line 11, leave out ("if it satisfies the qualifying condition on a qualifying date in relation to") and insert ("in respect or).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 35 [Initial implementation of delegation requirements under schemes]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 179 to 183:

Page 31, line 39, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) The delegation requirement under a scheme shall not apply in relation to any school which comes within the scheme in any financial year falling within the scheme's initial period until a date specified in the scheme. (1A) For the purpose of this section, a scheme's initial period (subject to any order made under subsection (3) below) is the period of three years beginning with the date on which the scheme comes into force.").

Page 31, line 46, after ("school") insert ("and in relation to schools coming within the scheme in different financial years or at different times within the same financial year,").

Page 32, line I, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 3 and insert ("beginning of the financial year next following the end of the scheme's initial period").

Page 32, line 8, leave out from ("extend") to ("until") in line 9 and insert ("any scheme's initial period").

Page 32, line 10, at end insert— ("(3A) For the purposes of this section, a school—

1. (a) comes within a scheme in any financial year if that financial year is the first financial year in which the school is required to be covered by the scheme; and
2. (b) comes within the scheme at the beginning of that year if it is then a school required to be so covered and otherwise at the time within that year when it first becomes such a school.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 37 [Publication of schemes and financial statements, etc.]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 184: Page 32, line 42, at end insert— ("(bb) such particulars as may be prescribed of amounts deducted in respect of—

1. (i) excepted heads or items of expenditure; or
2. (ii) excluded expenditure under the scheme; in arriving at the amount specified in the statement by virtue of paragraph (b) above;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 185 and 186:

Page 33, line 4, after ("number") insert— ("(ee) in the case of each such school, the planned expenditure per pupil arising from the division by the initial pupil number of so much of the authority's excluded expenditure under the scheme (as so determined) as is appropriated by the authority for meeting expenditure for the purposes of the school; (ef) in the case of each such school, the amount of any expenditure of a capital nature planned for the purposes of the school;").

Page 33, line 19, leave out ("each school required to be covered by the scheme") and insert ("all schools required to be covered by the scheme; and, (b) expenditure so incurred which was incurred, or is treated by the authority as having been incurred, for the purposes of each such school;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 187 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 188: Page 33, line 31, leave out from ("school") to end of line 33.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 38 [Financial delegation to governing bodies of special schools]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 189: Leave out Clause 38 and insert the following new clause:

("Application of schemes to special schools.

—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for requiring or authorising schemes—

1. (a) to cover special schools maintained by local education authorities; and
2. (b) to include provision. in the case of any such school which by virtue of any regulations made under paragraph (a) above is required or authorised to be covered by a scheme, for the delegation by the authority concerned of the management of the school's budget share for any financial year to the governing body of the school.

(2) Regulations under this section—

1. (a) may make in any provision of this Chapter such amendments as appear to the Secretary of State to be required in consequence of any provision made in those regulations by virtue of subsection (1) above; and
1006
2. (b) may provide that any scheme shall have effect with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate in consequence of any provision so made.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to ensure that LEAs have the flexibility, where they wish, to include special schools as part of their schemes. The existing Clause 38 provides for the Secretary of State to require delegation to special schools by regulations. But as my right honourable friend has made clear in his draft guidance, he does not intend to make such regulations until there is more experience of voluntary delegation by LEAs. It is therefore desirable that LEAs should have the freedom, where they consider it appropriate, to extend delegation voluntarily to special schools.

The provisions will allow individual special schools to be treated differently, in recognition of their widely different needs and characteristics. It would be open to LEAs under the regulations to decide which individual special schools, if any, should be included in the scheme. The regulations would also serve to disapply requirements of this chapter which would not be appropriate for special schools. In particular, my right honourable friend envisages that the application of the resource allocation formula will need to be different for special schools, to take account of the specific nature of their needs.

These provisions are permissive. Regulations made under them will only be made after more experience of delegation and extensive consultation. I hope the House will support the aim of providing more flexibility, and accept the amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.30 p.m.

Clause 39 [Staff employed by the local education authority]:

[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 191: Page 34, line 11, at end insert ("except in relation to the appointment or dismissal of a head teacher under subsection (2A) below").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 192, 196, 197 and 204. The amendment is predicated on the importance of the head teacher, which I believe we all agree on. If we did not, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, would certainly remind us—as she has already—about that. There is no argument about the role of the head teacher.

What divides us—it relates to something that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, raised earlier—is our attitude to local financial management and whether it ought to take place, as he has argued (I take it that this is the Government's view) á outrance, so to speak, that it is recognised as a risky strategy. In a sense, the Government are saying that they are willing to take the risks. What I argued earlier apropos another type of amendment was that I believed that in one or two cases the Government should exercise caution. This approaches the same notion of caution from another direction.

I should like to repeat a point that I made earlier. It is that we favour local financial management. We believe that it has a democratic role and that it has a constructive role within education. That is not the issue between us. The point is whether the á outrance principle ought to apply. I am bound to say that I am less than convinced.

The decision on the head teacher is crucial. Moreover, it is not a short-period decision. The head teacher one has is the head teacher one will have for a long period of time, despite all that has been said about other procedures one may deal with. Anyone with any experience of education knows that the person one appoints will be there for a long time; at least at their option and not necessarily yours. It is a vital and long-run decision in every way.

The question which arises is this. Is it obvious that the governors of the local financially-managed school, many of whom are inexperienced (and we recognise that because we have discussed the training aspects) should take that decision on their own? My view is twofold. First, it is not obvious that they should. Secondly, I am convinced that it is risky. I am aware that the noble Earl has already said that is a risk he is willing to take; but I utter a word of caution.

We have tabled the amendment in this form—namely, that the way to reduce the risk would be to see local authority involvement—because it appears to be obvious. I have thought over the subject to see whether there is any other way in which advice or help can be given to the governors which would minimise the risk I have in mind. Almost everything else I can think of appears to be even more bureaucratic and I cannot find another way. Therefore I commend the amendments to your Lordships.

I may be accused of slight cowardice in not adopting the Government's position on this matter, but I do not believe that I am mistaken in wanting to hesitate. I believe that these are important amendments and I look forward to hearing a reasoned response. I have already had the response that the Government like total local financial management, full stop. I am not looking forward to hearing that response but to hearing more about the matter. I am interested to hear what noble Lords think of the amendment.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has admirably covered the main point in arguing for continued LEA involvement in appointing heads. I can only confirm from my own experience the wisdom of what he said. Interviewing is a skilled and difficult business. It is also one of the most important ingredients in the life of a school because the wellbeing of generations of children can depend upon it; make no mistake about that.

In recent years it has come very much under the spotlight in education. There have been research projects reviewing existing practice and looking for better ways of selecting senior staff. LEAs have been building up expertise in the field for some time; governing bodies have not. How could they when the appointment of a head teacher comes perhaps once in the lifetime of the average governor? The chief education officer can play his part at the interview but it needs much more than that. The proposal is not to outnumber the governors but to complement what they have to offer. They will still retain the last word.

Experienced outsiders can sometimes see better than insiders what a school needs at a particular moment. They will have seen other schools at work. Governors will not so easily appreciate how things could or should be different. There is often a temptation to take a local view and go along with internal pressures when something a little less comfortable is needed for the long-term good of the school. County councillors will probably have encountered candidates at other interviews and will already have the measure of some of them; governors will not.

Speaking for myself, there are few activities that I have found so stimulating and rewarding as taking part in interviews for heads of schools. There are few activities where I have been more conscious of the need for experience and practice. Let us not throw away the fund of expertise in this crucial area. Much professionalism is being thrown out of the window or, at best, marginalised by this Bill for the so-called raising of standards. Let that not happen here of all places. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in asking your Lordships to support the amendment.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, we fully accept that the selection of the head teacher of a school is a very important matter. Nothing is mote important to a school than the quality of the head. The relationship between the head teacher and the governing body is crucial to the success of the school, and will be even more so under financial delegation with the increased independence which that brings. A high level of respect and trust will be needed if the governors and the head are to be able to fulfil their important responsibilities. We therefore believe that it is appropriate that for schools with financial delegation the governors, as a body, should select the head. The amendments will mean continuing the type of arrangements required under the 1986 Act, and that I recognise. We feel that these arrangements are unsuitable for schools after the arrival of financial delegation.

Interviewing is a skilled and difficult business and in that I agree fully with the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. In making their selection, governors will have the benefit of professional advice. They will have the advice of the CEO or his representative available at all stages in the process. Indeed the CEO will have a statutory duty to provide advice, with the governors being under a statutory duty to consider that advice. The CEO or his representative will have a right to be present throughout the proceedings. In addition the LEA nominees who are represented on the governing body as a result of the 1986 Act will have an opportunity to express their views.

The governing bodies of aided schools have always selected their own head teachers. We believe that the governing bodies of county, controlled and special agreement schools with financial delegation should also be able to select the head. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will feel able to withdraw these amendments.

Lord Peston

My Lords, with regret I am not convinced. We disagree fundamentally on this. I feel that we could do with a walk through the Division Lobbies. Therefore, I wish to press my amendment.

9.33 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 191) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 57.

DIVISION NO. 3
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Nicol, B. [Teller.]
Blackstone, B.	Peston, L.
Cobbold, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Dean of Beswick, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Russell, E.
Fitt, L.	Seear, B.
Goodman, L.	Serota, B.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Tordoff, L.
Longford, E.	Underhill, L.
McNair, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ampthill, L.	Borthwick, L.
Arran, E.	Broadbridge, L.
Auckland, L.	Brookeborough, V.
Balfour, E.	Brougham and Vaux, L.
Beaverbrook, L.	Caithness, E.
Beloff, L.	Cameron of Lochbroom, L.
Belstead, L.	Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Blatch, B.	Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.	Mersey, V.
Carrick, E.	Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Mountgarret, V.
Cox, B.	Rankeillour, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Reay, L.
Donegall, M.	Redesdale, L.
Donoughmore, E.	Renton, L.
Dundee, E.	Rootes, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Faithfull, B.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Ferrers, E.	Skelmersdale, L.
Harvington, L.	Strange, B.
Henley, L.	Sudeley, L.
Hives, L.	Swinfen, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L.	Swinton, E.
Hooper, B.	Teviot, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Trafford, L.
Joseph, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Long, V. [Teller.]	Tryon, L.
Lothian, M.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9.40 p.m.

[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 193: Page 34, line 14, at end insert ("and").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 193, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 194, 208, 215, 119, 180 and 27. This group of amendments may appear to be complicated. The aim, however, is simple and straightforward. It is to ensure that the governors of newly-established schools have the same freedom as those of established schools to determine the education needs and priorities of their schools. Indeed, this may be even more important for new schools, since decisions taken at this early stage will determine the school's character for the foreseeable future. This will be particularly vital for decisions about the school's most vital resources; namely its head teacher and staff.

It is important that where a school is not yet open to pupils but has premises and is incurring expenditure the temporary governing body should have access to a delegated budget to meet that expenditure. The amendments will allow LEAs to phase in delegation to new schools in recognition of the fact that temporary governing bodies are unlikely to incur expenditure from the date of the LEA's reorganisation proposal.

For staffing, however, different considerations apply. The process of appointing staff, particularly the head teacher, may begin as soon as a proposal is approved. It is important that the temporary governing body should have delegated powers over staffing from that date. The new schedule therefore provides that any school which is to receive a delegated budget under the scheme should receive delegated powers over staffing as soon as a temporary governing body is constituted for it.

I hope that your Lordships will accept the intention behind these amendments of extending delegation as early as possible to new schools. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by the numbers in the group of amendments that were read out. I thought that this group included Amendments Nos. 193, 194, 208 and 215. The noble Earl read out Amendments Nos. 119, 180 and 27. I know that the Government do not believe that we are going fast enough, but I did not realise that we were going backwards. Can I take it that we are discussing only the four amendments and not the others?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, yes, we can.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, it seems slightly strange that the Government have only woken up at Report stage in the second House to which this Bill has gone to the fact that occasionally a new school is opened. So be it. I find it interesting that the appointment of staff by the new temporary governors is to take immediate effect. That is within the logic of the proposals of the Government. However, it is very strange that the temporary governors are not to be allowed responsibility for buying the books and pencils because that may be too much for them (and not because they are not allowed to manage the budget) but they are to choose the staff, including the head teacher. That is an odd way of doing it. I do not wish to delay the House. In principle we have no objection to these proposals but it seems that logic has flown slightly out of the window.

9.45 p.m.

Earl Russell

My Lords, before the House is asked to say "Content" to these amendments, may we be told why they were not in the Bill when it was first published?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, they are purely tidying-up amendments to make quite sure that the Bill is as comprehensive as possible.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I accept that they are tidying-up amendments. May we know why the Bill was not tidy?

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 194: Page 34, line 17, leave out from ("(5)") to end of line 24.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 195 to 198 not moved.]

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton)

My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 199 I must point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 200.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 199: Page 34, line 35, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 199 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 209 and 213. These again are technical tidying-up amendments. The first two delete two subsections which are superseded by the provisions proposed in the third amendment. Together their effect is to make clear our intentions on the question of the payment of compensation to staff who leave a school either through early retirement, because they are dismissed, or because they agree to resign. The amendments make that clear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, in this group of amendments there is Amendment No. 200, which will disappear if Amendment No. 199 is agreed to. This debate reflects a discussion we had in Committee when it was argued that the word "costs" did not include the question of part of the costs. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who agreed to take it away and look at it. I may be wrong as to who agreed to take it away, but somebody on the Government Front Bench did so. I am pleased, ever. though it was unacknowledged, that my amendment has in fact appeared in Amendment No. 213, because it refers to "part of those costs". I am grateful that on one occasion the Government have taken some account of what I have said. It is a pity that they did not notice that they were doing so.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, we did indeed, and I am only too happy to notice that the noble Lord is sufficiently alert to realise that we had responded to the concern expressed both by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble Lord at a previous stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]

Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 201:

Page 34, line 42, at end insert— ("(4A) Costs incurred by the local education authority concerned which arise from a determination or judgment under provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 concerning any member of staff of any such school shall not be met from the school's budget share for any financial year unless the authority have good reason for deducting those costs, or any part of those costs, from that share.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment arises from a long discussion we had earlier. Whether or not it was fully taken on board by the Government I do not know. The amendment seeks to ensure that where an offence under the Equal Pay Act leads to a cost, that cost should be borne by the local authority and should not be taken out of the money of the school. As we have said repeatedly, the local authority is the legal employer, and therefore it would be quite unfair that any fine or damages arising under the Act should be charged against the money of the school and not against the local authority which is the employer. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I trust that the House will accept that the reasons I gave while discussing Amendment No. 214 earlier this evening are the same in respect of this amendment and therefore the explanation applies equally here.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what she has said. However, I am not sure whether she has accepted the amendment.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, no; I have not.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, very well. In those circumstances I shall not take the matter to a vote. But I must say that I am not in the least surprised as this is standard form, is it not? Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 202: Page 35, line 5, leave out subsection (6).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 202 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 211 and 221. These amendments are largely technical. They are designed to make it clear that in cases where the articles of government of a school conflict with the requirements of a scheme, the scheme takes precedence. Since the articles are the main working documents used by governors, the amendments require a statement specifying the nature and extent of any inconsistency to be included within them. Similar provisions are already made by Clause 39(6) and Clause 40(12) in relation to staffing, and these amendments complement them. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]

Schedule 2 [Appointment and dismissal of school staff, etc.,]:

[Amendments 204 to 207 not moved.]

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 208: After Schedule 2 insert the following new schedule:

("SCHEDULE 2A

NEW SCHOOLS

New county and voluntary schools: general

1.—(1) This paragraph applies to any new school other than one which will be a special school.

(2) For the purposes of the application (in accordance with the following provisions of this Schedule) of any provisions of Chapter III of Part I of this Act and Schedule 2 to this Act in relation to such schools—

1. (a) references to a school conducted by a governing body shall be read as including references to a new school which has a temporary governing body (and other references to the governing body of a school shall be read as including references to the temporary governing body of a new school);
2. (b) references to a county or voluntary school maintained by a local education authority (or to county or voluntary schools) shall be read as including references to a new school which on implementation of the relevant proposal will be a county or voluntary school so maintained; and
3. (c) references to a voluntary school of any particular category shall be read as including references to a new school which on implementation of the relevant proposal will be a voluntary school of that category.

Application of schemes in relation to new schools

2.—(1) For the purposes of that Chapter, a new school to which paragraph I above applies is required to be covered in any financial year by a scheme made under section 28 of this Act by a local education authority if it has a temporary governing body during the whole or any part of that year; but the provisions of that Chapter apply in the case of such school subject to the modifications provided for below in this paragraph.

(2) Where a school required to be covered by a scheme in any financial year is a new school during the whole or any part of that year, the provision required by section 33(3)(a) of this Act shall not apply in relation to the determination of the school's budget share for that year so far as that share falls in accordance with the scheme to be treated as referable to planned expenditure by the authority concerned for the purposes of the school in respect of any period falling before the implementation of the relevant proposal.

(3) Accordingly, in the case of any school to which subparagraph (2) above applies—

1. (a) paragraph (d) of subsection (4) of section 37 of this Act shall apply as if it referred to such part (if any) of the school's budget share for the year in question as falls to be determined in accordance with the provision required by section 33(3)(a);
2. (b) paragraph (e) of that subsection shall apply as if it referred to the expenditure (if any) on excepted services planned by the authority concerned for the purposes of the school in respect of any period falling within the financial year in question and after the implementation of the relevant proposal; and
3. (c) paragraph (ee) of that subsection shall apply as if it referred to so much (if any) of the authority's excluded expenditure under the scheme as is appropriated by the authority for meeting expenditure for the purposes of the school in respect of any such period.

(4) Sub-paragraph (2) above shall not be taken as prejudicing the inclusion in the allocation formula under a scheme by virtue of section 33(3)(6) of this Act of provision taking into account in relation to a new school any forecast made in accordance with the scheme of the number of registered pupils it will have on implementation of the relevant proposal.

(5) The delegation requirement under a scheme shall not apply in relation to a new school which is a secondary school, other than a school to which section 35 of this Act applies, until such date as may be determined by or under the scheme.

(6) In the case of a new school which is a primary school, section 34(2)(b) of this Act shall apply as if for references to a qualifying date in relation to the financial year in question which falls within that year there were substituted references to the date of implementation of the relevant proposal.

(7) Section 35 of this Act shall have effect, in relation to any new school to which it applies, with the omission of paragraph (a) of subsection (2).

(8) Section 37(9) of this Act shall not apply in relation to the temporary governing body of a new school.

(9) Paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (which requires the local education authority to consult the temporary governing body of a new school and the head teacher about their proposed expenditure on books, equipment and stationery) shall not apply where the new school has a delegated budget.

New special schools

3.—(1) In sections (Application of schemes to special schools) and (Financial statements in respect of schools not covered by statements under section 37) of this Act—

(a) any reference—

1. (i) to special schools maintained by local education authorities;
2. (ii) to a special school maintained by such an authority; and
3. (iii) to special schools;

shall be read as including a reference to any new school proposed to be established by a local education authority which will be a special school and which has a temporary governing body; and

(b) any reference to the governing body of a special school shall be read as including a reference to the temporary governing body of such a new school.

(2) References in section (Financial statements in respect of schools not covered by statements under section 37) of this Act to a local education authority who maintains one or more special schools shall be read as including references to a local education authority who by virtue of paragraph 28 of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act are under a duty to defray the expenses there mentioned in relation to the temporary governing body of one or more new schools such as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above.

Staff

4.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, section 39 or (as the case may be) section 40 of this Act shall apply to a new school which on implementation of the relevant proposal will be a school of a category to which that section applies not only at any time when (by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Schedule) it has a delegated budget but also at any time when it has a temporary governing body and either—

1. (a) the delegation requirement under the scheme will apply to the school on or before the implementation of the relevant proposal; or
2. (b) the authority propose to exercise any power under the scheme to delegate the management of the school's budget share for any financial year by making such a delegation—
1. (i) to the temporary governing body of the school on implementation of that proposal; or
2. (ii) to the governing body of the school on implementation of that proposal.

(2) The provisions of sections 39 and 40 and Schedule 2 to this Act shall apply, in the case of a new school, for the purposes only of—

1. (a) the appointment of staff at the school; and
2. (b) the taking of such steps with respect to any other matters referred to in those provisions as may be appropriate in preparation for the conduct of the school following implementation of the relevant proposal.

(3) In the case of a new school which is a proposed county, controlled or aided school, no appointments of staff for the school shall be made by the local education authority before the constitution of a temporary governing body for the school.

(4) None of the provisions of paragraphs 21 to 25, 26(1) and (2) and 30(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (provisions as to appointment of staff at new schools and related information to be given to temporary governing bodies) shall have effect in relation to a new school to which section 39 of this Act for the time being applies.

(5) Paragraphs 20 and 30(3) of that Schedule shall not have effect in relation to a new school to which section 40 of this Act for the time being applies.

(6) Neither section 39(5) nor section 40(12) of this Act shall apply in the case of a new school; but it shall be the duty of the local education authority concerned to incorporate—

1. (a) the statement mentioned in section 39(5) in the articles of government for a new school to which section 39 applies which will be a county or controlled school; and
2. (b) the statement mentioned in section 40(12) in the articles of government for a new school to which section 40 applies which will be an aided school.

Financial delegation and statements apart from schemes

5. Section 43 of this Act shall not apply in relation to a new school.

6. Section (Financial statements in respect of schools not covered by statements under section 37) (9) of this Act shall not apply in relation to a new school.

Supplementary

7.—(1) Section 44(2B) of this Act shall not apply in the case of a new school.

(2) If the articles of government of a new county or voluntary school contain any provision to which section 44(2A) of this Act would apply during any period when the school had a delegated budget, they shall also include in relation to any such provision the statement required by section 44(2C) of this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 40 [Staff at aided schools]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 209: Page 36, line 17, leave out subsection (11).

Earl Russell

My Lords, before we are asked to say "Content", may we be told why the amendment is necessary?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, we have discussed the matter during a debate on a previous amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, the next amendment (No. 210) is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.

Following is the amendment: ("(11A) Costs incurred by the local education authority concerned which arise from a determination or judgement under provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 concerning any member of staff of any such school shall not be met from the school's budget share for any financial year unless the authority have good reason for deducting those costs, or any part of those costs, from that share.").

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I do not know who it is who puts these things together, but this is exactly the same amendment as Amendment 201 which I moved earlier in the proceedings and which the noble Baroness rejected. Therefore I cannot imagine why it appears again as Amendment No. 210 on page 18 of the Marshalled List. I cannot withdraw the amendment, because I am unable to move it.

Noble Lords

Not moved!

Baroness Seear

My Lords, that may be so. However, may I ask how it can happen that I have the same amendment tabled in my name put down under Nos. 201 and 210?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall draw her concern to the attention of those who are responsible for preparing the Marshalled List; more than that we cannot do.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, may I take it therefore that Amendment No. 210 is not moved?

Baroness Seear

My Lords, no; it is not. [Amendment No. 210 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 211: Page 36, line 33, leave out subsection (13).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 212:

After Clause 41, insert the following new clause: (" Appointments normally restricted to qualified teachers.

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no person shall be appointed to fill a vacancy in any teaching post at a school to which section 39 of this Act for the time being applies unless he is a qualified teacher.

(2) The governing body of a school to which section 39 of this Act for the time being applies may, in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 2 of this Act, recommend a person who is not a qualified teacher for appointment to fill a vacancy in any teaching post only if the local education authority have given written consent as regards that vacancy that such a recommendation may be made.

(3) Where no suitable qualified teacher is available for appointment, an unqualified person with special qualifications or experience may be appointed to fill a vacancy in a teaching post otherwise subject to Schedule 2 of this Act where—

1. (i) consent has been given in accordance with subsection (2) above;
2. (ii) the governing body recommends that person for appointment:
3. (iii) the local education authority are satisfied as to his special qualifications or, as the case may be, experience; and
4. (iv) the local education authority are satisfied with the proposed arrangements for his further training and supervision.

(4) For the purposes of this section, "qualified teacher" means a person who has been notified in writing, by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, that he is a qualified teacher.

(5) Transitional provisions in force at the time of the passing of this Act regarding cases and circumstances in which unqualified teachers may be employed in schools shall not be affected by the provisions of this section.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment reflects our deep concern about the quality of the new schools which depends, in our view, to a large extent on the quality of the teachers. We are all aware that the programme laid down by the Government calls for a level and range of teachers who simply do not exist at present. We are therefore deeply concerned that, in the pressure to get the scheme under way, teachers with inadequate qualifications are going to be introduced into the schools and that this will mean that the scheme gets off to a bad start.

We argued on a previous amendment that the schools should not be required to introduce programmes until sufficient qualified teachers are available. We would much rather that there was delay in the implementation of the scheme than that unsuitable people should be appointed. Once they are appointed it is difficult to get rid of them, and the quality of the new aids at schools will be seriously affected if inadequately qualified people are appointed. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

My Lords, this is a matter of quite widespread concern in the teaching profession and in educational circles generally. I beg the government Front Bench to pay attention to the amendment and to think about it. There is a potential conflict between free market theory and the existence of an organised profession. There is a tendency in some, but not all, government circles to view professions as no more than restrictive practices. When it gets to that point, then the philosophy becomes anti-academic.

This area of anti-professionalism is one where we have received some sympathy and some understanding from the government Front Bench in the course of these debates. I hope that this may prove another such occasion.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, there is common ground between the Government and the noble Baroness on this amendment that there will need to be close co-operation between local education authorities and governors of schools with financial delegation in operating the proposed arrangements for licensing. After all, if the local education authority is to make a persuasive recommendation to the Secretary of State it will need to agree with the school governors on both the qualities of the teacher who is being recommended for a licence—or, in some cases, for immediate qualified teachers status—and the training he may require.

However, the wording of subsection (2) of Amendment No. 212 implies that the LEA should have to decide in advance whether a vacancy cannot be filled by a teacher who does not possess qualified teacher status. The Government believe this would import an unnecessary and undesirable inflexibility. For this reason, although, as I said, we understand the reason behind the amendment, we are not able to accept it.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in view of her partial and unusual agreement to some of the amendment may I ask whether before Third Reading she will look at its purpose and see whether the Government can produce something to give some encouragement to, and relieve the anxiety of, those who are deeply worried that unsuitably qualified people are going to be used? It is widely known, and there is common agreement between us, that we have not got the teachers to do the jobs that are asked to be done under this Bill.

It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could for once say that she accepts the substance of the amendment—there are elements of it that she does not like, which I can fully understand—and that the Government will look at it before Third Reading and try to get something in the Bill. It would be a great reassurance to many people if this could be done.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House may I say that I shall certainly look at this without commitment before the next stage of the Bill. This is a situation where the proposals of the Government are set out in a consultation document and are subject to that process. I think there is little likelihood that we shall be able to introduce anything on the face of the Bill.

10 p.m.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, am I permitted to make any further comment, this being a Report stage? If not, I shall simply say that I wish to withdraw the amendment. Whether or not I am permitted to speak, I have wanted to say many times during the debate that circulars and advices are not the same as having a provision on the face of the Bill. They do not give anything like the same satisfaction or reassurance to the profession. I beg the noble Baroness to think about what she said once again. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42 [Staffing: supplementary]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 213:

Page 37, line 10, at end insert— ("(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be for the governing body of any such school to determine—

1. (a) whether any payment should be made by the local education authority concerned in respect of the dismissal, or for the purpose of securing the resignation, of any member of the staff of the school; and
2. (b) the amount of any such payment.

(3) Subsection (2) above does not apply in relation to any payment which the authority are required to make—]

1. (a) by virtue of any contract other than one made in contemplation of the impending dismissal or resignation of the member of staff concerned; or
2. (b) under any statutory provision.

(4) The local education authority concerned—

1. (a) shall take such steps as may be required for giving effect to any determination of the governing body of any such school under subsection (2) above; and
1019
2. (b) shall not make, or agree to make, any payment to which that subsection applies in respect of the dismissal, or for the purpose of securing the resignation, of any member of the staff of any such school otherwise than in accordance with any such determination.

(5) Costs incurred by the local education authority concerned in respect of the dismissal or premature retirement, or for the purpose of securing the resignation, of any member of the staff of any such school shall not be met from the school's budget share for any financial year except in so far as the authority have good reason for deducting those costs, or any part of those costs, from that share.

(6) The fact that the authority have a policy precluding dismissal of their employees by reason of redundancy is not be regarded as a good reason for the purposes of subsection (5) above.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill)

My Lords, amendment proposed: Page 37, line 10, at end insert words as printed on the Marshalled List.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, there are two amendments to Amendment No. 213 to be called. We should not approve Amendment No. 213 before we have discussed the amendments.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely accurate in as much as I was anticipating that the noble Baroness would wish to speak to her amendment. I call Amendment No. 213A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 213, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, the same applies. It is an amendment to Amendment No. 213. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 213A.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, if the noble Baroness is not going to move the amendment I should like to move it and speak to it.

Lord Morton of Shuna moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 213, Amendment No. 213A: In subsection (2), line 1, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (2A) and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the point of the amendment is to add to the factors contained in Amendment No. 213 which must be taken into account before the governing body can determine redundancy. Amendment No. 213B is the substantive amendment. It requires the governing body to consider advice from the chief education officer as to the procedure that should be adopted and any guidelines that may be recommended. They are entirely essential, because if one looks at subsection (2) of Amendment No. 213 which has been moved by the Minister, one has the ridiculous situation that the local education authority has to make a payment for redundancy on the decision of the governing body without having any say in whether the teacher is redundant.

One could have the position that in school A the teacher is redundant but there is a vacancy in school B. The governing body of school A may decide to take the local education authority's money and make a vast redundancy payment when there is a suitable vacancy for that teacher at school B in the same education authority's area. That may cause difficulties in the ratepayers' or poll taxpayers' minds for the education authority. This is a matter that might be considered further. There is a good deal of merit in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. I hope that she may agree that it was worth wasting your Lordships' time for a few minutes to raise the difficulty and take account of it. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I can only assume that the noble Lord has been moving Amendment No. 213A which is on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The amendment reads: In subsection (2), line 1, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (2A) and")". The Question is that this amendment, as an amendment to Amendment No. 213, be agreed to.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I should have thought that it is the custom of the House that if someone speaks to an amendment the Government have some chance to answer, which they have not yet had. I had intended to say that I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 213A and 213B together.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, if it would clarify the slight confusion that appears to have arisen, government Amendment No. 213 which I have moved provides for the governors to decide upon the level of compensation paid to a member of staff in return for his agreement to resign. Amendment No. 213B, together with the paving Amendment No. 213A, would require governors, before deciding how much compensation to offer, to seek and consider the advice of the chief education officer on two points. I imagine that in most cases the member of staff would consult his union representative before agreeing to any compensation that was offered. I emphasise, however, that there is no need to require a particular procedure for this consultation because we are dealing here with someone who is leaving school voluntarily. When a governing body is contemplating a voluntary severance, we would expect it to seek the advice of the chief education officer.

The Bill specifies that the local authority may deduct part of, or all, the costs of compensation from the school budget if it has good reason. Governors will be conscious of this provision. It will be very much in their interest to establish the LEA's views on particular compensation proposals. No doubt LEAs will want to give general advice on such issues to governing bodies anyway in advance of any specific cases arising.

We therefore believe that in this case it is unnecessary to build in a statutory requirement for governors to seek advice from the chief education officer. I hope that this view will be shared by the House.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, as I understood it the Minister said clearly that the Government would seek the advice of the local education officer on the question of redundancy. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who, I think, has not been present during consideration of the Bill before tonight, appears to be trying to direct it from a sedentary position.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the noble Lord is speaking out of order, if he does not mind my saying so. The Procedure Committee has made it clear that after the Minister has replied another speech is generally not considered appropriate.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I am sorry. I am putting a question to the Minister, and I disregard what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said. I think that I am making a very fundamental and important point before the Minister sits down.

The Minister in her discourse said that the board of governors would seek the advice of the local education officer regarding the question of terms of redundancy. In a Bill as wide ranging as this—affecting all facets of education—I should have thought that there must be some regard to national agreements concerning the conditions of employment of teachers. Is the Minister saying literally that we are completely tearing that up? If so, there will be different redundancy payments all over the country. Do I take it that the Minister is not answering? If not, why? Is it that the noble Baroness cannot, or that she refuses to?

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, the point of the amendment is not so much the question of redundancy payments and whether the recipient thinks them enough, but whether too much may be going out from the local authority and the need for the local education authority to be consulted. I find it difficult therefore to see why the Minister tells me that the redundant teacher, if I may describe him or her, would have union advice. I have no doubt that that is so. I was making the point that the amendment provides that the LEA, which may well have to pick up the can, should have an input and be able to make sure that not too much is paid out.

Having heard what the Minister said, I am far from satisfied. If this was a different Bill, perhaps we would get more response. Unfortunately, we are not getting it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I have now had a chance to look at Standing Orders. I was totally right in what I said.

Noble Lords

Order!

[Amendments Nos. 213B and 214 not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 213 agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 215: After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:

(" New Schools.

.—(1) Schedule (New schools) to this Act has effect for the purpose of applying the provisions of this Chapter and Schedule 2 to this Act in relation to new schools which have temporary governing bodies.

(2) In this section and in Schedule (New schools) to this Act— "new school" and "relevant proposal" have the same meanings respectively as in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (where "new school" covers both a school proposed to be established which will on implementation of the relevant proposal be maintained by a local education authority and a school which will be so maintained on the implementation in relation to an existing school of the relevant proposal); and temporary governing body" means a temporary governing body constituted for a new school under an arrangement made under section 12 of that Act (excluding such a governing body who fall by virtue of paragraph 3(5) of that Schedule to be treated as if they were the governing body constituted under the provisions of that Act that apply following the implementation of the relevant proposal).").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 43 [Financial statements and required financial delegation apart from schemes]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 216: Page 37, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 29.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 217:

Page 37, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 38 and insert— ("(4A) Before making any regulations for the purposes of subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 218: After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:

("Financial statements in respect of schools not covered by statements under section 37.

.—(1) Every local education authority shall prepare a statement under subsection (5) below in respect of any financial year before the first financial year in respect of which the authority are required to prepare a statement under section 37 of this Act (including the financial year current at the time when this section comes into force).

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, every local education authority who maintain one or more special schools during the whole or any part of any financial year after the last financial year to which subsection (1) above applies shall prepare a statement under subsection (5) below in respect of that financial year.

(3) Subsection (2) above shall not apply in relation to such an authority in respect of any financial year in respect of which the authority are required to prepare a statement under section 37 of this Act which, by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section (Application of schemes to special schools) of this Act, is required to include information with respect to the special school or schools concerned.

(4) The schools required to be covered by a statement prepared by a local education authority under subsection (5) below in respect of any financial year are—

1. (a) in the case of a statement required by subsection (1) above, any county, voluntary or special school maintained by the authority during the whole or any part of that year; and
2. (b) in the case of a statement required by subsection (2) above, any special school so maintained.

(5) The statement shall give the following particulars with respect to the financial provision initially planned by the authority in respect of the financial year to which the statement relates for the schools required to be covered by the statement—

1. (a) the initial amount appropriated for meeting expenditure in that year in respect of all such schools;
2. (b) the amount remaining (referred to below in this section as the general expenditure amount) after deducting from the amount specified in the statement by virtue of paragraph (a) above the aggregate amount of the initial amounts so appropriated in respect of—
1. (i) expenditure of a capital nature;
2. (ii) expenditure in respect of capital loan charges; and
3. (iii) expenditure of such other descriptions as may be prescribed;
3. (c) such particulars as may be prescribed of amounts so deducted;
4. (d) in the case of each such school, the share of—
   1. (i) the general expenditure amount; and
   2. (ii) such of the amounts so deducted by virtue of paragraph (b)(iii) above as may be prescribed;
   which is appropriated by the authority for meeting expenditure for the purposes of the school;
5. (e) in the case of each such school, the amount of any expenditure of a capital nature initially planned for the purposes of the school;
6. (f) such particulars of the basis on which the authority determine the share of each such school for the purposes of the information required to be included in the statement under paragraph (d) above as may be prescribed; and
7. (g) such further information with respect to the financial provision initially planned by the authority for the schools required to be covered by the statement as may be prescribed.

(6) After the end of each financial year in respect of which a local education authority are required to prepare a statement under subsection (5) above the authority shall prepare a statement containing such information with respect to—

1. (a) expenditure actually incurred in that year for the purposes of all schools required to be covered by the statement under subsection (5); and
2. (b) expenditure so incurred which was incurred, or is treated by the authority as having been incurred, for the purposes of each such school;

as may he prescribed.

(7) Each statement prepared under this section in respect of any financial year shall be prepared in such form, and published in such manner and at such times, as may be prescribed.

(8) The authority shall furnish the governing body of any school required to be covered by a statement prepared under subsection (5) above in respect of any financial year with a copy of each statement prepared by the authority under this section relating to that year.

(9) A governing body to whom a copy of any such statement is furnished under subsection (8) above shall secure that a copy of the statement is available for inspection (at all reasonable times and free of charge) at the school.

(10) Where only one school is required to be covered by a statement prepared under subsection (5) above—

1. (a) references in this section to all schools required to be so covered shall be read as references to the school in question;
2. (b) that subsection shall apply with the omission of paragraphs (d) to (f); and
3. (c) subsection (6) above shall apply with the omission of paragraph (b).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 44 [Interpretation of Chapter III and supplementary provisions]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 219 to 223:

Page 38, line 13, after ("Chapter") insert ("— expenditure of a capital nature" means, in relation to a local education authority, expenditure treated by that authority as expenditure of a capital nature; and").

Page 38, line 41, after ("38(2)") insert— ("(gg) references, in relation to a scheme, to excluded expenditure under the scheme shall be read in accordance with subsection (6)(c) or that section;").

Page 38, line 43, at end insert— ("(2A) During any period when a school has a delegated budget under any scheme any provisions of the articles of government of the school which are inconsistent with the operation during that period of any provisions of this Chapter or of the scheme shall be of no effect to the extent of that inconsistency. This subsection does not apply to any provision of the articles of government such as is referred to in section 39(2)(b) or 40(2)(b) of this Act (in relation to which provision corresponding to that made by subsection (2B) and (2C) below is made by sections 39(5) and 40(12) respectively). (2B) Within the period of five years beginning with the date on which the financial year begins in which any school first has a delegated budget under a scheme, it shall be the duty of the local education authority concerned, if the articles of government of the school contain any provision to which subsection (2A) above applies, to amend the articles so as to include in relation to that provision or (as the case may be) in relation to each such provision contained in the articles the statement required by subsection (2C) below. (2C) The statement shall specify—

1. (a) the provision or provisions of the articles in question;
2. (b) the provision of this Chapter or of the scheme (the "overriding provision") with the operation of which any provision of the articles specified under paragraph (a) above is inconsistent; and
3. (c) the extent of the inconsistency;

and shall indicate that, during any period when the school has a delegated budget, any provision of the articles so specified is superseded by the overriding provision to the extent that it is inconsistent with it. (2D) Any amendment of the articles of government of a school required by section 39(5) or 40(12) of this Act or by subsection (2B) above shall be made by order under section 1 of the 1986 Act; but section 2 of that Act shall not apply in relation to any order made under section I by virtue of this subsection.").

Page 38, line 44, leave out subsection (3).

Page 39, line 4, at end insert— ("(4A) section 29 of the 1986 Act (which requires provisions to be contained in articles of government of schools with respect to financial statements and financial delegation and is superseded by the provisions of this Chapter), and any provision included in the articles of government of any school by virtue of that section, shall cease to have effect. (4B) In section 30(2)(h) of that Act (financial statement to be included in governors' annual report to parents), for subparagraphs (i) and (ii) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraphs—

1. ("(i) reproducing or summarising any financial statement of which a copy has been furnished to the governing body by the authority under section 37 or (Financial statements in respect of schools not covered by statements under section 37) of the Education Reform Act 1988 since the last governors' report was prepared;
2. (ii) indicating, in general terms, how any sum made available to the governing body by the authority in respect of the school's budget share within the meaning of Chapter III of Part I of that Act or under section 43 of that Act in the period covered by the report was used;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 45 [Duty of Secretary of State to maintain certain schools]:

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 224: Page 39, line 31, after ("voluntary") insert ("or maintained special").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 224. Amendments Nos. 225 to 227 go with it. Their purpose is to enable special schools to opt out if they have 100 or more pupils. Under subsection (7) of Clause 45, as we propose to amend it, the Secretary of State would have power to reduce below 100 the number of pupils to make opting out possible, or to provide for all special schools to be eligible for opting out just as he has power already in that clause to enable all primary schools to opt out.

If in principle opting out is sensible, as the Government believe and as we believe, it is hard to understand why parents of children at special schools should be deprived of the opportunity to vote for it. I know of one such school where the governors and head teacher would like the parents to be given that opportunity.

In Committee my noble friend Lady Hooper gave five reasons against special schools opting out when my noble friend Lady Cox moved another amendment (in somewhat different terms to those I am using) enabling them to do so. We have carefully studied the reasons given by my noble friend Lady Hooper, but we are not persuaded by them. The first reason that she gave was that there were not enough special schools in any area to make greater parental choice the outcome of opting out. But that is not so. In London, for example, there are many special schools; and it is accepted that when ILEA is abolished the boroughs will continue to have admissions to those special schools from other boroughs.

But even if parental choice were not always increased by opting out, surely it might be necessary to avoid a special school from withering away or closing down? I have been told of one special school which, three years ago, had 120 pupils. Next year it will have only 50. That may be the case because the parents have not been told about the school as they should have been, or because the local authority has not exercised its responsibilities properly under the 1981 Act in making its statements of special needs. At any rate, that is a situation which opting out might cure.

Secondly, my noble friend said that grant maintained status would not be compatible with the local education authority's responsibility for making statements of special needs under the 1981 Act. If I may say so, she is wrongly advised. Under the 1981 Act, a local education authority, which must specify the school in its statement, has power to specify an independent school, and frequently does so. It may even, under Section 4 of that Act, decide not to specify any school at all when making the statement of needs. Therefore, a fortiori, it would be in order for it to specify a grant maintained school—a school that had opted out.

Thirdly, my noble friend said that most special schools are small. She is right. However, when she says, as she did at col. 1251 of the Official Report of 12th May, that: It would not make sense for a tiny special school to be eligible while…a rather larger primary school next door was not", we beg to disagree with her. She is not comparing like with like. Even if she were, I trust that she would not wish to ignore the wishes of the parents and governors of smaller schools. The important point is that in our amendments we are saying that only those special schools with 100 or more pupils will be eligible unless the Secretary of State makes an order reducing that number. Therefore, we have met her objection.

Fourthly, my noble friend said, with some justification, that special schools and their unit costs vary widely. She said that budgeting would be difficult but it would not be impossible, surely. Primary school budgets also vary widely. However, the Government are ready for that. Why make heavy weather for special schools? In any case, the information required as a basis for budgeting is already available because under the 1986 Act governors have to obtain and publish the overall cost of running the school. I should have thought that that disposes of any difficulty about budgeting.

Fifthly, my noble friend's final point was valid on 12th May. We have now covered that by limiting our amendments to maintained special schools. Therefore, of the five points she has made, two have been covered by our amendments and the rest have been answered—I trust satisfactorily and suitably. It would be a grave mistake to deprive the parents of children in special schools of the opportunity of opting out.

Baroness Cox

My Lords, in supporting the amendment let me say that I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give a sympathetic reply this time. The answers given at Committee stage, as my noble friend Lord Renton has explained so lucidly, were not really good reasons why special schools should be denied that freedom which is available to other schools to choose to opt out if they so wish.

In Committee my noble friend the Minister argued that the provision for special schools to opt out would not lead to greater choice. My noble friend has dealt with that point but I should like to emphasise one very important aspect; namely, that the opportunity for special schools to opt out could be absolutely vital for them as a lifeline in some cases where they could be under threat of closure for policy reasons. Indeed these amendments have been welcomed by the Campaign for Choice in Special Education, the aims of which are supported by some 12,000 parents and teachers who work with children with special needs in the London area, and which launched a very successful campaign against the adoption of the Fish Report which proposed closing nearly all special schools.

Moving from the specific to the general, I should like to highlight a very important general principle concerning the philosophy of integration compared with the philosophy of specialist provision. While for many children with special needs the policy of integration with mainstream schooling may be highly desirable and also very successful, there may be other children with special needs who would benefit from the more protected environment with specialist staff and the facilities at a special school. There is a real danger that in the future some authorities may go for a virtually total integrationist policy. Indeed Leeds is committed to the eventual closure of all special schools.

Perhaps I may just emphasise that the provision to opt out could be a lifeline in future for schools, parents and pupils with special needs. It seems a most strange and unacceptable anomaly to exclude them from that provision.

One other argument put by my noble friend the Minister in Committee was that there could be problems for special schools taking on the responsibility associated with grant-maintained status. That is not a convincing argument. It might indeed be a challenge but it is not insuperable. If they were to feel that those problems were insuperable there would be no need for them to apply to opt out.

I shall conclude by pointing out one other very serious consideration. The Bill as it now stands does not even allow for the eventual provision for opting out at some time in the future. There is an asymmetry between the provision in the Bill for other schools, such as primary schools and small schools which are not being given the opportunity to opt out now but could be given that opportunity at some time in the future. For some reason the Bill as it now stands seems to be denying special schools that freedom for ever. There is no provision for special schools to be able to consider having that freedom at any time in the future.

It seems an unjustifiable and undesirable discrimination against those schools which provide such an invaluable service. I hope that the Minister will take the amendments seriously.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lady Cox, as she has said, moved a similar amendment to the ones before us which proposed making all special schools eligible for grant-maintained status. We put forward clear reasons at the time why we found that proposal unacceptable. I am afraid that we find no more compelling the present suggestion that a maintained special school of over 100 pupils should have the right to seek grant-maintained status.

First, the aim of our proposals for grant-maintained schools is to give parents and the community more of a say in the way their school is run. Most schools serve a relatively compact area, and the increased links which grant-maintained status will foster should be of considerable benefit to the school and to the community. We also intend that our proposals should increase the choice of types of school available to parents within the maintained sector.

Special schools are in these respects in a different position from ordinary schools. They often serve a much wider area, so that there is no discernible community with which they could establish close links. That is not to say, of course, that they do not encourage close parental involvement: many do, to mutual benefit. But they could not look to their locality for the sort of support that grant-maintained schools will need. And as far as parental choice is concerned, it is inevitable, because special schools by definition cater for special needs, that the scope for offering choice is going to be limited. Very often there is only one school of the appropriate type and in the right place for a pupil with special needs. Whether that school is grant-maintained, LEA-maintained or non-maintained will not be relevant. To admit special schools to grant-maintained status would not, therefore, increase choice in any way.

Special schools rely to a large extent on specialist services which the local education authority provides. Under the 1981 Act LEAs, for their part, are charged with the responsibilities for making statements of special educational needs and for determining the school which a statemented child should attend. It would not be compatible with those responsibilities if the special school for the area in which the child lived was not under the control of the local education authority. In such circumstances the local education authority might even have difficulty placing the child in a suitable school.

It has been suggested that special schools should be able to seek grant-maintained status when threatened with closure. I feel I must make two points clear on that issue. First, in general, it is not intended that grant-maintained status should be a means of reprieve for a school which is proposed for closure as part of a properly considered and formulated set of rationalisation proposals put forward by a local authority. Local authorities will still need to deal with the problem of falling rolls, and my right honourable friend will continue to approve such proposals where they make sense educationally and in terms of the prudent use of resources.

Secondly, in relation to special schools, my right honourable friend approves proposals for closure only when he is satisfied that there is no longer a need for the school and that appropriate alternative provision is available for the children remaining in the school. Special schools are not immune to the problems created by falling rolls.

In conclusion, may I reassure my noble friends that we have considered the case of maintained special schools with great care; but we do not believe that making such schools eligible for grant-maintained status would be in the best interests of those whom they serve. Nor do we think it would be practicable. I hope that my noble friends will be reassured by what I have said.

Lord Renton

My Lords, in the presence of my noble friend the Chief Whip perhaps I may say that I hope he is impressed by the fact that this very important principle has been discussed in only 15 minutes so far. I shall take merely a moment or two longer. I am very disappointed by the reply of my noble friend although I thank him for the trouble he has taken. I find that he has dressed up the same arguments or most of the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Hooper at Committee stage but he has done so in more subfusc clothing. I am very disappointed indeed that he does not even suggest—as I hinted he might—that there should be power taken in the Bill to exempt special schools from the prohibition of opting out.

I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Cox who, in a most powerful plea, said that this move should be a lifeline for those special schools which were not being run properly. I should like to emphasise that if it is not done in this Bill it may not be done for many years to come. By not doing it, we are missing a vital opportunity.

We shall come back to this matter again at Third Reading. Meanwhile I hope that my noble friend will take note of what my noble friend Lady Cox and I have said in this debate. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 225 to 227 not moved.]

Clause 50 [Powers of the governing body]:

[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]

10.30 p.m.

Clause 51 [Articles of government]:

Baroness Serota moved Amendment No. 229: Page 45, line 34, after ("arrangements") insert ("to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Local Administration").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 229 and will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 230. The purpose of both these amendments is to ensure that parents and pupils do not lose important rights that Parliament gave them in the Education Act 1980 if their schools decide to opt out of local authority control.

At present under that Act parents can make a complaint to a local ombudsman of maladministration causing injustice if they are dissatisfied with the way in which the local education authority has administered its admissions or exclusions procedures. The local ombudsmen receive a number of such complaints each year. There were some 67 in England last year. In one case, for example, the local authority found that parents had not been informed of their right of appeal. In another case, an appeal committee had taken a decision without sufficient evidence or guidance.

Just as importantly, many local education authorities have improved their complaints procedures following an ombudsman investigation into an individual complaint, thus preventing injustice occurring from future such cases.

However, when a school becomes grant maintained, under this Bill it will become responsible for its own admissions and exclusions procedures including appeals, and parents will lose this important safeguard of being able to make a complaint to an independent ombudsman if the matter cannot be settled satisfactorily at the local level.

I hope that in the Minister's reply to this amendment he will not argue that since the schools will no longer be part of local government, it would not be appropriate to make them subject to the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman as they are now. Apart from what 1 regard as the very important principle of not removing an existing right established by Parliament as recently as 1980, there are, to my certain knowledge, at least two important statutory precedents for retaining the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman when the authorities concerned are no longer part of local government as a result of legislative changes.

In the first case, I well recall (and certain other noble Lords present tonight may also do so) the very gracious way in which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, then the Minister for Local Government, conceded this principle in the light of the consensus expressed on all sides of the Chamber during the Committee stage of the Water Bill in February 1983. I shall not detain the House at this late hour by quoting from Hansard. The Committee stage took place on 24th February and the noble Lord can check columns 899 and 900 if he so wishes.

The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on that occasion readily agreed that the new water authorities, although removed from local government by the Bill, would remain within the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman, thus enabling citizens to retain their right to an independent investigation of any complaint that could not be settled satisfactorily locally.

Then, as recently as the 15th of this month, the Government have tabled an amendment to the Housing Bill in another place which will, as I understand it, bring the new housing action trusts within the jurisdiction of the local commissioners. Therefore, all tenants within a housing action area will be able to ask the local ombudsman to investigate a complaint about, for example, a housing or environmental health matter even though these services will no longer be the responsibility of the local authorities in those areas. I hope therefore that the Minister will follow both these precedents established in legislation by his own Government and accept Amendments Nos. 229 and 230. A very important principle is at stake; namely, that we should not deprive parents of their existing rights if their schools decide to opt out under this Bill.

Lord Peston

My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lady Serota on this amendment, I do not have to remind your Lordships of her great knowledge and wide experience of the subject. It seems to me that your Lordships would be wise to heed her advice and accept the first two amendments.

I shall add a word or two on the third grouped amendment. It is reminiscent of the one I moved yesterday concerning the range to which the complaints procedures, whatever they may be, might apply. The House will recall that I welcomed, not entirely grudgingly, the concessions that the Government made yesterday. But I inquired why they were restricted to the narrower range of the curriculum. Without detaining the House, I remind your Lordships that the same point applies today. If we take parental and pupil rights seriously then we should take them seriously across the whole range of activities in a school and the complaints procedures would pertain to that whole range.

I was tired last night, so I did not pursue it. I am tired tonight, so I shall not pursue it endlessly, but it seems to follow logically that the Government ought to adopt the wider view, but, more particularly, they ought to adopt the view taken by my noble friend Lady Scrota.

Earl Russell

My Lords, it is a point of some importance that rights should not be taken away by inadvertence. I hope that when the Minister answers he will either accept the amendment or else explain that it was the Government's intention to take rights away and tell us why he thinks that is a good thing.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I start by saying that the Government, every noble Lord who has spoken and the noble Baroness are at one in wishing that grant-maintained schools be duly accountable to parents, to the wider community and to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Indeed, such accountability is essential if grant-maintained schools are to carry out responsibly and well, the purposes for which they will have been established. But I do not accept that these amendments are necessary in order to achieve our purpose.

In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, proposed an amendment which, he said, was intended: to ensure that the parents of children at grant-maintained schools retain the right to complain to ombudsmen about admissions and exclusion procedures". On that occasion the amendment sought to provide for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to have jurisdiction in such matters.

The present amendments are put forward with the same purpose but refer to the Commissioner for Local Administration, or the local ombudsman as he or she is sometimes called. With all respect, however, and I know that the noble Baroness has infinitely greater experience on these matters than I do, I suggest that these amendments have the same flaw as the earlier ones: that is, they seek to put the ombudsman figure where he cannot and should not properly be.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in fact put his finger on the weakness in the argument when in Committee he said: Parents who wish to complain about a decision of a local education authority or voluntary school governing body about the admission of a pupil to, or the exclusion of a pupil from a school have a right to complain to the local government ombudsman". That is not quite the whole truth. The point here is that the right to complain to the ombudsman relates only to alleged cases of maladministration in the way a case has been handled by a local authority appeals committee or in the way the case was presented by LEA officers or members. The local ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over admissions to. voluntary aided schools or over appeals committees set up by the governors of such schools, because in these cases the arrangements are made by the school governors themselves under their articles of government, and are not part of local government administration.

It is clear, I think, that in grant-maintained schools appeals arrangements will be made by the governors, and that such schools therefore fall into the second of the two categories I have referred to. Indeed, since the very purpose of grant-maintained schools is that they should function outside the local education authority's control, it is surely obvious that the Commissioner for Local Administration's writ should not run here.

It will be for the Secretary of State to monitor the adherence of grant-maintained school governing bodies to their articles of government. He will be assisted in doing so by the right the Government have extended to parents of prospective and existing grant-maintained school pupils to complain or appeal to him under Sections 68 or 99 of the 1944 Act. But I must emphasise that none of this means that the ombudsman has no place at all in these matters, as has been suggested. As with voluntary-aided and special agreement schools, the Government fully intend that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration should be free to play his part at the right time and in the right way.

If aggrieved parties believe that there has been maladministration on the Secretary of State's part in dealing with appeals or complaints, they will be able to write to their M. P. seeking the intervention of the ombudsman. He will investigate alleged maladministration on the Government's part, just as the Commissioner for Local Administration does in respect of local government. Surely that is the right way to proceed. I hope that the House will agree with me.

I should now like to turn to Amendment No. 231. If the noble Baroness agrees, I shall not deploy all the arguments which we deployed in Committee on the same point. I simply say that there are a variety of other ways in which dissatisfaction can be expressed and perhaps redress obtained. We do not think it right to increase the arrangements in the way that the amendment proposes. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press that amendment.

Baroness Serota

My Lords, the House will not be surprised to hear that I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's reply. That is because he failed completely to answer the points that I made in relation to the way in which the Government have dealt with other services which have been removed from local authority control, just as this Bill removes schools which decide to opt out of local government control. As regards his phrase: "the writ should not run here", I should like to know whose dictum that is. Is it to be Parliament's dictum in the light of the precedents that I have already quoted?

With regard to the procedures as at present envisaged, I should like to say that I am fully conversant with the Section 68 procedure whereby parents can appeal to the Department of Education and Science. I am equally aware that that procedure is quite different from that of the individual investigation of complaint by one of the local commissioners. As I understand it, those appeals are based simply on written representations. The local commissioner sees the individual complainant, officers of the local authority and any other people who may wish to come forward.

The crucial distinction between an ombudsman service and any other investigative service is that, above all, Parliament gives it access to the source material. It can look at the records and at the way in which the appeals procedure has been operated. I agree with the noble Lord that it is concerned with injustice causing maladministration. I intend my amendment to go no further than that. However, I also gave two examples resulting from ombudsman investigations where the procedures followed by the local authority were faulty. That is what we are talking about.

With regard to the role of the Parliamentary Commission in the systems envisaged, again I am fully aware that the Parliamentary Commissioner has a duty placed on him by legislation to investigate any complaint about the Department of Education and Science and the way in which it has dealt with appeals procedures. This is no substitute for the individual parent being able to go to a more accessible—if one likes, a more user-friendly—service in his locality with all the facilities that the local ombudsman service has developed since 1974. 1 hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill the Government will take note of what I have said, will check the examples I have cited and which they produced in legislation and come back with a more acceptable suggestion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 not moved.]

10.45 p.m.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 232: Page 46, line 11, leave out ("or complaints").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 232, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 241, 255, 322, 323, 326 to 328 inclusive, 330 to 332 inclusive, 435 and 436. These amendments are purely technical. I beg to move.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, these may be technical amendments but perhaps we might have an explanation of some of them. Amendment No. 232 removes the requirement, in the articles of government of a grant maintained school, which requires the governing body to publish annually details of the procedure relating to complaints by parents. In view of the fact that this afternoon we have passed a government amendment extending the range of complaints procedure in other schools, why is it necessary that the complaints procedure is being diminished in grant maintained schools? There seems to be an entirely different approach being adopted for different types of school. No doubt the Minister will be able to explain why that is so.

Amendment No. 241 removes the provision whereby a request submitted by 20 per cent. of the parents is treated as having been sent to a chairman if it has been sent by post. What is the significance of the removal of that? Does it mean that one may not send such a request by post? What does it mean? Is there a deep significance attached to this? Do the 20 per cent. of parents have to deliver the requests by hand? What is going on?

Amendment No. 323 alters the provisions regarding claiming back by the Secretary of State capital sums on grant maintained schools which have gone into liquidation. What is the purpose of that and what does it involve? I believe that the House is entitled to an explanation on the record of why these very important changes are being made.

Amendments Nos. 327 and 328, dealing with the power to alter a trustee, seem to me to limit—and it is very unusual for the Secretary of State to do so—the Secretary of State's power to alter a trustee. The purpose of this seems to me (although I may be wrong) to give the Secretary of State no power to alter a trustee in order to remove grant maintained status from a school but only to give that status. Is that right? What happens when the school wants to close? Is it impossible to close? Perhaps the noble Earl will give us an explanation.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, in the interests of time and clarification, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord.

Earl Russell

My Lords, this is a matter of some concern to the House in general as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. We have here a considerable addition to the Bill at a very late stage. I believe that we are entitled to ask for an explanation.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I assure the House that there is no dark or sinister motive behind these amendments. My noble friend has undertaken to write to the noble Lord, Lord Morton, and I shall ensure that a copy also goes to the noble Earl.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, with the leave of the House, if the Government are to adopt that attitude, would it not be better that they ceased to require any Members of your Lordships' House to be present and just passed it all through by correspondence, if necessary?

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 233 and 234 not moved.]

Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 235:

Clause 53 [Initiation of procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status]: Page 47, line 28, after ("passed") insert ("and if the school is a voluntary school the trustees do not give notice within twenty-eight days of the second resolution that they object to a ballot").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 236, 238, 239 and 242. These are important amendments requiring the consent and not just consultation with trustees of voluntary schools. They go to the root of the existing dual system of county schools and voluntary aided schools. As it stands, the Bill treats the two types of school as if they were equal; whereas they are different and they have diverse origins and separate, although complementary, objectives.

The situation is made rather more serious because the Government have refused my invitation to publish the criteria which the Secretary of State might use in deciding whether or not to accept an application by a voluntary school for grant-aided status. I have also asked whether the consent of the Charity Commissioners would be required before the Secretary of State can modify the trust deed of a voluntary school without the prior agreement of the trustee. But, unfortunately, there again the answer was no.

Your Lordships will therefore see that considerations of law and the administration of trusts are involved as well as purely educational issues. It is as if the beneficiaries of a charity were to be given the right to decide how they should be administered regardless of the views of the trustees.

I suggest that this part of the Bill goes against the spirit of the 1944 Butler Act. That Act ensured that trustees of voluntary schools would be treated as free and equal partners with the local education authorities. This Bill fails to make sufficient distinction and if unamended will leave the trustees with responsibility but with inadequate power. The trustees may have to negotiate with separate sources of finance and administration in respect of a secondary school and its contributory primaries.

Another weakness of the Bill is that it fails to distinguish beween the minority of cases where a religious order is the trustee and the majority of cases where the Roman Catholic bishop or his diocesan trustees hold that position. The difference is important because the bishop has a jurisdiction and theological position which is quite different from that of a religious order. Nevertheless, in both cases the schools in question are Catholic by virtue of recognition as such by the bishop. Such schools are part of the life of the whole local church within the diocese where the bishop is the focus of unity and authority. He has oversight, and the school community of parents, children and teachers are in communion with him. The Bill puts this important relationship at risk. The amendments in this group provide for the trustee to be informed of governors' resolutions and parents' requests. They allow ballots to proceed provided that the trustee does not object.

Finally, Amendment No. 242 requires the trustee to state his objections in writing. As I understand it, this makes it necessary for objections to be reasonable if they are to be sustained. The noble Baroness, if she is replying, may be able to confirm that such objections in writing would be subject to judicial review. This would be an important safeguard obliging the trustee to act responsibly.

We are talking about significant numbers since Catholic schools probably represent over half of the voluntary schools eligible for grant-maintained status. Some voices have maintained that there is nothing here to worry about. Her Majesty's Government, however, recognised that there was a problem by moving in Committee an amendment providing that the trustees should be consulted instead of merely being informed. This was an improvement, but I am advised that it failed to cover a ballot on the initiative of the requisite number of parents.

The government amendment does not go quite far enough: consultation and the right to object to the Secretary of State are by themselves not sufficient. We have to remember that the parents of pupils in voluntary schools have already opted out of the county system. They have chosen to take part in an alternative system. This system has a particular ethos. It operates as a system supplying support services to individual schools. Furthermore, it co-ordinates the work of its schools and reconciles conflicting interests between schools. Even though a Catholic grant-maintained school may retain its religious ethos, there is reasonable anxiety that its overall character may be changed. Open admission may compound these risks. There would be a real loss, I suggest, if effective schools which are now socially comprehensive should cease to be so. The trustees should be free to take account of social justice and the equality of all in the eyes of God before giving consent to new proposals. It would be a thousand pities if, because of the drafting of this Bill, schools that should have closed were kept open and others that should have continued were obliged to cease.

In conclusion, it is gravely over-simplifying matters to suggest that the bishops are trying to hang on to power for unworthy reasons. Neither is it a matter of conflict between the heirarchy and the free judgment of an educated and responsible laity. What these amendments seek to promote is the working together in the Catholic sector of the whole people of God gathered around their bishops as was seen to good advantage at the time of the National Pastoral Congress of 1980. Equally strongly, we desire the continued co-operation of the two parts of the dual system in which the trustees can play a real part.

Therefore, it is on legal, constitutional, theological and practical grounds that I commend these amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Lord Harvington

My Lords, I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in moving these amendments. They are necessary in order to do justice to the position of the trustees of voluntary schools to whom the schools belong. The Bill provides no more than this. First, that trustees may object to a proposal to change the status of their school—a right which is also given to members of the public. Secondly, the trustees should be consulted by governors where the initiative for change comes from the governors rather than from the parents.

My noble friend the Minister wrote a very full and interesting letter to us saying that she felt that what the Government were doing was of no detriment at all to the position of the Catholic schools. However, I noticed in the second paragraph on the second page, that she states that the Government have amended the Bill to ensure that the trustees of a Catholic school have a central role in the procedures that grant-maintained status can be achieved. "Central" is hardly the word.

It is much truer to say that it has a peripheral role. The trustees are kept out of the final decisions that the Secretary of State has to make. This is quite insufficient and the trustees should be able to decide whether the application for grant-maintained status should go ahead. The amendments provide this but also require trustees, where they exercise this power, to give a statement in writing of their reasons. The amendment is particularly important for the Catholic Church, since usually the diocese is the trustee. This means that the trustee of a school is at the same time responsible for a number of schools and for their co-ordination in that particular diocese.

It was said at Committee stage that if a voluntary school becomes grant-maintained, the only change it undergoes is in the source of its funding, since not only education but religious character will continue. I find it difficult to believe that there will not be other changes over a period of time, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton mentioned, parental expectations will take shape. This makes it all the more important that the trustee should be able to decide whether a school should seek to embark on this new status.

Perhaps I may say what the position of the trustee of a Catholic voluntary school usually is. Normally, he is the bishop of the diocese which includes the school or it may be a religious order. These are a minority. Catholics in general have a particular faith and trust in their bishop who is acknowledged as the teaching head of the diocese in which they and their families live. In the majority of cases of "opting out" there will be general agreement among parents, governors and the trustee. But there is a real possibility—do I observe the Government Chief Whip to be taking exception to what I am saying?

11 p.m.

Lord Denham

My Lords, we are getting rather late in the day. I am looking at the clock; that is all.

Lord Harvington

My Lords, I too am looking at the clock. I suppose it might be two years since I last had the privilege to address the House. Perhaps I may be left in peace for three minutes.

A minority of governors can bring very hard pressure on the rest of the body when it comes to opting out. The same can apply to parents. It is the bishops who can discern the right way forward in these cases. Then there is also the fact that we may not always have as benign a Secretary of State to deal with as we have now. I can think of many people in another place under whom I would not like to operate voluntary schools.

Perhaps I may give your Lordships an actual example of what could happen and did happen in the case of the Cardinal Vaughan School. The foundation governors were not in agreement with the trustee who had appointed them over the establishment of a new sixth form college. That college was necessary for the adequate provision of Catholic education in central London and was supported by many parents of the other schools involved. A long time was taken to bring matters to a head.

In the end the trustee decided to press ahead with his proposals and therefore dismissed the opposing foundation governors, whereupon the foundation governors took the trustee to court, hoping to set aside the trustee's decision, and lost their case. That is what the amendments seek to deal with so that the trustee, wherever in England or Wales his diocese is, can join the foundation governors and the rest to settle the opting out question without using the drastic method that I have described. That should be possible and that is what we seek.

I know that the point has been made on behalf of the Bill's present provisions that parents and governors in voluntary schools should have the same rights as those in county schools. I think that this argument illustrates what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has called the root of the trouble; namely, the failure to distinguish properly between the positions of county and voluntary schools. Parents who send their children to Roman Catholic schools have already exercised a major choice. Neither the status of the school nor the position of the parents is the same. By seeking to treat them in the same way, the Bill does less than justice to trustees. I support the noble Lord.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, I speak under the shadow of the Chief Whip's watchfulness, but I have not previously spoken during this Report stage. I propose to speak for only one minute now and so I hope I shall not be ruled out of order. This matter is of great importance to the 10 million or so Catholics in this country. If the Chief Whip says that we should be coming to an end now, it is quite impossible to discuss the matter properly.

Lord Denham

My Lords, I have not suggested for one moment that the noble Earl should not be heard. I hope that he will make his speech, and we are looking forward to hearing it.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, the noble Lord will not have to wait very long for the termination.

I venture to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that this matter cannot be discussed under these conditions of tension and therefore we must return to it at the Third Reading. I sit down, having expressed the hope that the noble Lord will undertake to raise the matter by suitable amendments at Third Reading.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I support the amendments, whether now or at Third Reading.

The Duke of Norfolk

My Lords, I know that the amendment has already been spoken to for a little too long, but I am always brief, and give myself five minutes at the very most.

This matter has been blown up out of all proportion to its importance. We well know that the Catholic laity play a great part in the life of the Catholic Church in this country. Perhaps I may just mention that the Catholic laity obtained Catholic emancipation in 1829 and that in 1860 the universities of Oxford and Cambridge allowed Catholics to go there. However, it was not until 1890 that the Catholic hierarchy allowed us to go. So much for the help of the Catholic hierarchy in the education of Catholics in this country! It is a small point but a most important one. I speak for the Catholic laity with great feeling.

We know that this is all muddled up with the Cardinal Vaughan School, and so on. However, I should like to ask the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Harvington and also the noble Earl, Lord Longford—who have prepared speeches, with long briefings, of which I have seen details—whether they are really sure that they are right in supporting the hierarchy in this non-religious subject against the laity?

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, I do not know how on earth the noble Duke has persuaded himself that he speaks for the laity. When I asked him who elected him as leader of the Catholics the other day, he said, "I did". Well, that is a good joke. However, the truth is that he does not represent the laity in the official sense any more than I do. Indeed, it is a title of honour. He has no right to speak for the millions of Catholics most of whom, in any case, happen to vote Labour.

The Duke of Norfolk

My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl. In no way am I the leader of the Catholic laity. I happen to be the senior Catholic from the point of view of this kind of organisation in this country; but in no way do I speak for the Catholic laity. I speak as a Catholic layman. That is all—no more, no less. I speak as someone who was educated by the Catholics at Ampleforth, Oxford, and so on. I do not speak for the Catholic laity, any more than other noble Lords, presumably, are speaking for the Catholic hierarchy.

Indeed, I object over and over again to the sadness I feel that Cardinal Hume is not here; he will not come here. It is a great pity that he does not. Therefore some of we Catholics must fill the gap. I say again, in no way am I speaking as leader of the Catholic laity. I never have been; and I never will be.

The issue is perfectly simple. I have about two more minutes to go. The dual system so successfully established by the 1944 Butler Act is not revoked or injured if there is a decision to return to the grant-maintained status of funding by the DES. That is what we are talking about. For many schools such funding was the system up until 1977 when Shirley Williams took the Catholic voluntary schools out of the voluntary system of the DES and put them into the LEAs. The question is whether they should go back to opting-out by resolutions of the laity to a system of direct-grant by the DES. If any Catholic school wants to come back to the funding of the DES, by vote of a majority of the laity, I do not think that any harm will be done.

Further, I understand that the Catholic bishops have agreed that they will not be opposed to such a grant-maintained system. That was the system before and they would not mind it happening again. The whole matter has been clouded and mudded by the issue concerning the Cardinal Vaughan School. It was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, (the speaker for the Government in this connection) that if a problem arose where the Cardinal Vaughan School was interfering with a sixth-form college, then Mr. Baker would veto the thing quietly in his own way so as not to harm anyone. The suggestion that we must vote for this amendment is disgraceful. I speak as a Catholic layman, one of 5 million Catholics; not the 10 million as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I think he exaggerated somewhat. I have had many people writing to me to support the independence of the laity from the hierarchy who are by no means always right.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I agree about the importance to our education system of voluntary schools in general, especially Church schools. However, despite what has been previously said, clearly some of your Lordships remain concerned about what grant-maintained status would mean for a Church school. The Government have listened to those concerns, and I believe that they have taken all reasonable steps to meet them. I see no reason why all those connected with the life and work of Church schools should not have the same opportunity, if they wish, to enjoy the benefits of grant-maintained status as do those of any other maintained school. The right approach is not, surely, to deny governors and parents that opportunity but to ensure that those who choose to take it up do not, in the process, risk losing any of the benefits of being a Church school, and that is what the Government have done.

We have introduced amendments, and I believe that we now have it about right and that the interests of the Church are fully safeguarded under our proposals. I hope that on reflection the movers of these amendments may agree with me. For clarification I shall explain the situation in terms of Catholic schools, but everything I say of course applies mutatis mutandisto other denominational schools.

The Government have now secured beyond doubt that a Catholic Church school which becomes grant-maintained will remain a Catholic school. It will continue to provide religious education in accordance with the Catholic faith and, if the governors so desire, it will be allowed to give preference in its admissions policy to children from Catholic backgrounds. In every case, the trustees of the school—the bishop, or representatives of the hierarchy, or members of religious orders—will appoint the foundation governors of the school who will form the majority on the governing body.

There is no question, therefore, that the school could be lost to Catholic educational provision in the area; it will continue to serve much the same community as before, and rightly so. And, of course, there will be absolutely nothing to prevent the diocese from proposing to the governors of Catholic grant-maintained schools and of Catholic aided schools that they should work together on particular issues or particular occasions for the benefit of the Catholic community in the area as a whole.

Nor is the ownership of the school property at risk if a Church school becomes grant-maintained. Assets will change hands only where ownership previously rested with the local authority. Property belonging to the trustees will remain in their ownership and under their control. In this way investment by the Catholic community in the education of its children will be duly protected.

My noble friend Lord Harvington questioned my assertion that the trustees of a voluntary school will have a central role in the procedures by which grant-maintained status may be achieved, but they do. If the governors of such a school pass a resolution to ballot the parents on an application for grant-maintained status, they must consult the trustees and meet again to consider their views before that resolution can be confirmed.

Where a petition from parents initiates the ballot, the governors are obliged not to hold it until the trustees have had time to make known their views to the voters. And in those cases, which I would expect to be unusual, where parents and governors press on with an application against the stated wishes of the trustees, amendments have been introduced and the Bill now provides for the latter to have a statutory right to object to the proposal. The Secretary of State will give such an objection full weight when he is considering the proposal. He would be at risk of challenge in the courts should he fail to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a particular point on the question of judicial review. I should say that I acknowledge the emphasis which he has placed on requiring the trustees to give reasons if they seek to prevent a ballot taking place, and I confirm that if this were a requirement it is probable that such reasons would be open to challenge by way of judicial review. But I do not see that it helps the parents much to know that they could always try to persuade a court that the trustees had given reasons which no reasonable person could have advanced, or that they had in some way acted improperly. Our view is that the parents should not in any case be prevented from voting to apply for grant-maintained status since the trustees' interests are so well protected. If the trustees have really good reasons for opposing an application these will weigh with the Secretary of State when he considers that application. His decisions are open to challenge in the courts.

I strongly believe that the safeguards that I have outlined make it clear that any voluntary school contemplating an application for grant-maintained status is at no risk whatever of losing its denominational character, property and assets. The functions of the trustees in relation to the trust property will be in no way affected. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and his co-sponsors will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for her reply and for sending me an advance copy of a letter she was circulating to your Lordships. I am a little disappointed that she was unable to go a little further than what was contained in the letter. However, it is late and I do not propose to delay your Lordships or divided your Lordships' House. I reserve the right to come back to this matter on Third Reading, but I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.