Lords Sitting of 27 June 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Personal Pension Saving Schemes
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which organisations will be able to offer personal pension saving schemes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the new type of personal pension scheme which can be used as an alternative to the state earnings-related pension scheme becomes available from 1st July. Banks, building societies, friendly societies, insurance companies, and unit trust companies will be able to provide personal pensions.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he satisfied that the DHSS is proposing satisfactory advertising that provides a fair comparison between the institutions regulated by its rules and those that are regulated by other financial regulations?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are consulting at the moment on just that subject. Our concern about the advertising of any type of personal pension scheme has always centred on ensuring that projections of future benefits are not misleading. When the Social Security Act 1986 was going through Parliament the Government made it clear that that was the principal intended use of the power being taken to control pension scheme advertisements. Under the Financial Services Act the advertising rules are designed to embrace a much wider range of products than personal pensions and, as a result, are more wide-ranging. However, I should stress that the present proposals are consultative.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the range of consumer protection available is sufficient to protect those who may be tempted to take PPPs and leave occupational pension schemes? Secondly, is enough advice available for people who are confronted with the labyrinth which now exists in the pensions world in respect of personal private pensions?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as far as concerns general advice, Department of Health and Social Security offices have copies of a booklet entitled New Pensions Choices. That is in broad terms and is not intended to direct applicants to any particular type—or even firm —of insurance. We recognise that the proposed controls are not as extensive as those to which unit-based trust schemes will be subject under the Financial Services Act. We believe that our
1132
approach reflects the different characteristics of the deposit-based personal pension. I repeat that the proposals are consultative and we shall reflect carefully on the comments received before taking further action.

London Underground: Ticket Barriers
2.38 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the ticket barriers now being introduced on the London Underground, and their release mechanism, have been explicitly approved by the fire service, and if not whether that is compatible with the licence under which the Underground is operated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, neither the new ticket barriers on the London Underground nor their release mechanism have been explicitly approved by the fire service. Inspecting officers of railways, representing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, have been consulted during the introduction of these barriers. They are satisfied that arrangements for the emergency opening of the gates are satisfactory. London Underground Limited is statutorily responsible for the safe running of its railway and no question of compatibility with a licence arises.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the answer to this question? As I understand from the press, there is to be an arrangement whereby all the doors can be opened at the press of a single button if there is a crisis or panic. What happens if the fire, for instance, or accident occurs in the circuit which operates that release mechanism?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there will be emergency plungers in the ticket office, in the ticket hall control console and also in some instances in the station's operations room. There will also be a key switch which acts in a similar manner in the pedestal of the disabled persons' gate. Therefore, there will be a number of different places from which these barriers can be opened. The barriers themselves operate on a fail-safe principle in that they are held closed by air pressure operating against a spring. If, therefore, there is a failure in the system they will naturally fall into the open position.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say what guarantee there is—particularly in the light of recent experience—that in the event of a serious emergency by way of fire a competent person will be available to operate the switches?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, switches will be available in the ticket office and in other places. There should always be a competent person available in such a position to operate the emergency switch.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is that a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? The Minister says that there should always be a competent person available. Does he appreciate that we need a guarantee that there will be? In many cases the booking office is closed, so that is one point where no one will be available. Does the noble Lord appreciate that we need a guarantee that trained staff will always be available near one or other of the special releases?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously I shall draw the remarks made by your Lordships to the attention of the appropriate authorities. In general terms, the ticket offices are always manned at the stations concerned. The barriers are being installed only in the central area and not at outlying stations. It is my understanding that ticket offices at those stations are always manned.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the ticket office in the station adjoining the Palace of Westminster is often closed? When he says that there should be a competent person available, can he tell the House what steps are being taken, particularly in the light of recent experience of London Underground, to ensure that there is?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have the details of the steps that will be taken to ensure that there is somebody present but my understanding is that there will always be somebody, if not in the ticket office at least at the ticket hall control console or at one of the other points at which the switch can be operated.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is the Minister aware that London Transport is acutely undermanned at the present time and that in those circumstances the chance would be about 50–50 whether or not there was someone near those switches?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, essentially it is for London Regional Transport to decide on the staffing levels needed to meet its statutory safety duty. One advantage of the new automatic ticketing is that it releases more staff for supervision and patrol on the stations.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do the Government go so far as to endorse the general principle that there is no public safety measure like a trained person or several trained people in the right place all the time?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that must be true.

Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a statement on the progress of the neighbourhood watch schemes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, there are now over 50,000 schemes in England and Wales, covering some 3 million households. The new national crime prevention organisation, Crime Concern, will encourage the formation of new neighbourhood watch schemes and will support those which already exist.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for that excellent Answer. Will he confirm that he is getting the response that he hoped to receive in order to spread this scheme right throughout the country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there has been a remarkable response to this scheme and we hope that it will grow.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, at the risk of striking a slightly discordant note, does the Minister agree that in the present state of knowledge there is some risk of expecting rather too much of these schemes? There have been various rather disconnected pieces of research carried out. Is it proposed to have a rather more elaborate programme of research which would, for the first time so far as I know, provide a scientific evaluation of the impact of these schemes on the commission and detection of crime?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there has been some research done on this subject. One piece of research was carried out by Dr. Trevor Bennett and another undertaken by the University of Southampton. Those researches concerned individual aspects of the schemes. However I can tell the noble Lord that neighbourhood watch schemes have had some considerable effect. Residential burglary is down by 4·5 per cent. on the figures for 1986. In some areas where these schemes have been instituted the difference has been remarkable. For instance, in the West Midlands in October there were 500 schemes and a year later, in October 1987, there were 3,130 schemes; during that period residential burglary went down by 14·1 per cent. In West Mercia in October 1986 there were 142 schemes and a year later those 142 schemes had increased to 1,416 and residential burglary was down by 11·4 per cent. So there has been a considerable improvement.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that some of those figures may call for a little more scientific assessment; for example, to take account of the changes in the pattern of reporting offences to the police?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords, that is perfectly true. I think that any statistic can only give a broad picture, but the figures throughout the country show that neighbourhood watch has proved to be beneficial.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a desirable side effect of neighbourhood watch has been a return to people knowing their neighbours, helping each other in a community spirit, and assisting some elderly people who might have been very alone?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that is perfectly true. The result has been much more cohesion between families and households. As Dr. Trevor Bennett suggested, it has also resulted in a decrease in the fear of household crime, apart from the crime statistics themselves. There is also a reduction in female fear of crime and an improvement in social cohesion, which is important.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, the first neighbourhood watch scheme was probably started by the late Lord Willingdon and Mr. Henry Tiarks, who formed the firm Securicor, with which I was connected until 1970. As the noble Earl will be aware, those companies run wireless patrol schemes. Has the Home Office ever considered that neighbourhood watch schemes might be connected with the patrol schemes, whose patrol cars are in wireless contact with their headquarters all the time? Does he think that that would help or not?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think the problems that face Securicor and those that face neighbourhood watch are basically different. Securicor is a commercial organisation. Neighbourhood watch encourages people in the fraternity to keep a watch for crime and criminals and also to get to know what is happening in their areas.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I pay full tribute to those who formulate those schemes and the volunteers who take part in them, but is it not a fact that in the main they are in the wealthier and better off neighbourhoods? Is there not a very grave concern that in many council estates there are no such schemes and there is no substitution at all for the policeman on patrol?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as usual the noble Lord asks a number of penetrating questions. If these schemes are related to wealthy neighbourhoods then there must be 50,000 wealthy neighbourhoods throughout the country, and that is quite a considerable number. I agree that there is little that gives more confidence to the average person than to see the bobby on the beat. Most police forces have tried to ensure that, among all their responsibilities, that happens. However, for all that, we have tried, and we shall try, to increase yet further the neighbourhood watch schemes.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether there are any signs or statistics relating to the possibility that, because of difficulties of carrying on, the criminals who have so far been burglars are being driven on to the streets as muggers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I suppose it is up to individuals to gather their own information as to what happens to criminals who may have been in one area rather than another. However, I cannot provide the noble Viscount with any statistics which show that because of neighbourhood watch schemes people who would otherwise have committed burglaries have gone on to the open streets.

Hazardous Wastes
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that hazardous wastes are not being shipped to or from the United Kingdom without safe and proper arrangements being made for their disposal.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we are not aware of any exports of waste from the United Kingdom for disposal overseas. The disposal of imported waste is subject to exactly the same controls as waste generated in this country.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that welcome Answer. Can he confirm that a sordid trade has started, aiming to use areas of Africa and South America for irresponsible dumping, and that unless something is done quickly internationally there will be more ships roaming the seas with dangerous cargoes and no valid destination?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was concerned, as I am sure were all noble Lords, when reading about the reports of dumping in African states. I can assure my noble friend, however, that there is an EC directive. The department will shortly be laying the directive before Parliament, hopefully before the Summer Recess. Each member state in the European Community has to be convinced that the third world country has the right disposal facilities before any hazardous waste is sent to that country.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a good deal of concern in this country about the disposal of nuclear waste? The people of this country are asking for far more information about it than is presently available. Can he say whether there is any truth in the Guardian report today that millions of tonnes of waste from New York are to be deposited in the Warrington area, for example? Can he say something about the procedure? Is it the case that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would in each case call in a planning application for the disposal of waste; that is to say, hold a public inquiry?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition started off with concern about nuclear waste. He then went on to the potential import of domestic waste from America, in particular to the Cheshire area. I can tell him that we are due to see Cheshire County Council later this week to discuss the matter. As I understand it, the site is already zoned for tipping purposes. Cheshire County Council has a direct interest in the site.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, why should a vast country such as America wish to send its waste to a small country such as ours?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that we shall discover a little more about that when we have the meeting.
Lord Walston: My Lords, have the Government power at present, or under the EC directive will they have power, to control the export of waste and to ascertain whether or not it is hazardous before it is allowed to leave this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid that I missed the first part of the noble Lord's question. However, at the moment the disposal of hazardous waste is controlled by the consignment notes procedure both for imports and for exports. This will be strengthened by the new directive that I have to lay before Parliament shortly.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the safe and efficient disposal of such wastes is a useful service to be encouraged, provided that its transport is also safely arranged?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is considerable environmental benefit for the transport between countries of hazardous waste. This has been going on throughout Europe for some years. Some of the plants for disposing of hazardous waste are very expensive and not all countries have them. Luckily we in this country are able to benefit the environment by having some of those plants.
Baroness White: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a case for further investigation and consultation with the hazardous waste inspectorate on this matter? As I understand it, in some areas the financial returns for dumping such waste are very low indeed. At the same time it is using up potential sites for our industries. For example, with the concern about build-up of methane gas and so on, this is becoming a very serious problem. It deserves further investigation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect, the noble Baroness may be confusing hazardous and non-hazardous waste. However she may be interested to know that last year we imported about 180,000 tonnes of waste in total. Of that about 53,000 tonnes were special waste, the major part being non-hazardous waste. That is the first time that a very large amount has been imported into this country. Before that it was a fairly negligible amount. However, I can assure her that the total wastes imported were less than a half of 1 per cent. of the total UK waste.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, when the noble Earl meets the Cheshire County Council and asks it why a large country such as the United States exports hazardous waste to a small country such as ours, will be bear in mind the possibility that it may ask him the same? Will he further bear in mind the possibility that the answer may be that in the United States regulations are to a higher standard than ours?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the second point, we have extremely high standards for hazardous and non-hazardous waste.

Business
2.57 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Education Reform Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment the order of commitment of the Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill will be discharged and the Third Reading of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill will be taken.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the House will recall that last Wednesday we had an exchange about the state of business between now and the end of the Session. As a result, the same day the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip announced that an additional day was to be given to the Report stage of the Education Reform Bill. I note today that since the House rose on Thursday, 182 additional amendments to the Bill have been tabled by the Government. Is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that this is a very substantial addition to an already overloaded amendment list in respect of this Bill? Will he be good enough to tell the House why so large a number of amendments has now been tabled? I think that the House deserves an explanation.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I recognise that there is a large number of amendments to be debated on the Marshalled List which we have for today. I would be the first to recognise also the enormous amount of work that the House has put in on this very substantial Bill. In answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps I may point this out. While it is true that of the large number of government amendments tabled 12 are indeed substantive additions, 33 are in fulfilment of commitments which were given at the Committee stage of the Bill. They will be amendments that I hope your Lordships will be pleased to see. I am advised that all the rest are technical, consequential, paving and otherwise minor amendments.
I realise that the total number of amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has quoted sounds very large. However, having given that answer, I think it is clear that taken together this batch of amendments is not that much of an additional burden on the House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is very easy to say, but my experience is that those who are more closely concerned with the processing of the Bill in the House really do need time to consider technical amendments? I think that the noble Lord owes it to the House to explain why this was not mentioned last Wednesday when we were discussing the matter. These issues must have been before his noble friends and well within the knowledge of noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite. Why therefore was the House not informed when we were having a full discussion on the state of business, including the Education Reform Bill?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the critical point is the number of what are called starred amendments, meaning that they were tabled on Friday but were not printed until today. I was most anxious to see the Marshalled List to discover where the starred amendments fell. It is fair to say that when one looks at the Marshalled List, one sees that almost all of them are to be found in the second half of the Marshalled List. In other words, the starred amendments will not be taken today.
I am not trying to suggest either to the noble Lord or to the House that there is not a considerable burden on your Lordships' House in taking this substantial Bill through this Chamber. Nonetheless, bearing in mind the answer which I first gave, I suggest that this batch of amendments needs to be seen in the light of the fact that a large number of amendments have been tabled to fulfil undertakings given and only a small number—in fact a dozen—are substantive amendments.
Baroness White: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that these amendments should at least be dealt with by midnight? Does he not recognise that for some of us walking the streets after midnight is not an occupation that we wish to continue? It seems to me, and I hope it would seem to him, to be an abuse of the general procedures of the House to expect noble Members to sit more than very occasionally after midnight. To conduct business at two o'clock in the morning is not conducive to adequate consideration of business by the relatively small teams concerned, at least on the Opposition side of the House, and that also applies to the next day. So far the handling of this matter has given cause for considerable concern and dissatisfaction.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry to hear what the noble Baroness said in her last few words. This, as I have said, is a very large Bill—
Baroness White: Whose fault is that, my Lords?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I was about to say that this is not the first time your Lordships' House has seen a very long Bill and it is not the first time that your Lordships' House has had to sit late. In fact, I believe that the handling of the Bill both from the Government and from the Opposition and other Front Benches, and indeed from the Back Benches as well, has been exemplary because it is a very large Bill indeed. But to come to the noble Baroness's point, we shall indeed do our best to see that we do not sit too late, but that does mean an effort on behalf of us all.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not want to add to the turmoil, but, to put it mildly, is it not very unfortunate that we have this Bill running concurrently with the Local Government Finance Bill, which is also a very heavy Bill? It is really impossible. I know that this may not be in the hands of the noble Lord, but to have two such Bills at the same time does make life extremely difficult for some of us.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have to admit to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it is indeed in my hands because. together with the Chief Whip, I am responsible for the management of business in your Lordships' House. I shall not try to duck out of that at all. They are two major Bills. The Government wish to see them on the statute book, and that is something we are determined to do.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we recognise that the Government in some part have acceded to the requests which have been made by those who have been critical of the Bill. We understand that perfectly well. Here I register a protest that I believe will be widely supported in the House: that as a result of this the House will not be able to pay attention to the Bill and to certain important parts of it as it should.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, again I am sorry to hear the noble Lord say that. So that there is no misunderstanding, we are talking about a batch of amendments, which the noble Lord mentioned in his first intervention, which sounds very large indeed. The noble Lord had every right to raise that matter, but in looking at the detail one sees that a large number of the amendments fulfil undertakings given in Committee and a very small number—only a dozen—are substantive amendments.
I must just say to the noble Lord that amendments have been put down by other noble Lords and noble Baronesses at short notice which also appear on the Marshalled List. Noble Lords and noble Baronesses have every right to do that; so do the Government. I should like to apologise to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness for amendments which are starred and are therefore later on the Marshalled List than I should have wished to have seen them. But I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that the number of substantive amendments which were tabled last Thursday and Friday is very small.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I really must come back. Every Member of the House appreciates that when the noble Lord talks of 12 substantive amendments, which may take half an hour each to debate, that totals six additional hours. That is the reality with which we are dealing.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that perhaps we must now terminate this exchange. Let us start the business to see how long the amendments take.

Northampton Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Brighton and Preston Cemetery Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Finance Bill
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 to 22,

Schedules 2 to 4,

Clauses 23 to 47,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 48 to 52,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 53 to 56,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 57 and 58,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 59 to 76,

Schedules 10 and 11,

Clauses 77 to 79,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 80 to 147,

Schedule 13,

Clause 148,

Schedule 14,

Clause 149,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 150 to 161,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 162 to 164.

—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill
3.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
In moving this Motion I ask for just two minutes to take notice of a short but effective Bill that has survived the hazards of the Private Member's Bill procedure in another place. It is a Bill of significant value in suppressing the increase of those bestial arranged occasions of dog fights. The law fell short in two important respects and this Bill corrects both of them. The first was that, although the existing law dealt with the participants and with those who organised fights, there was no process against spectators. The Bill provides for the prosecution of spectators, and severe penalties can follow conviction.
The other matter was that there was no hindrance in law against flyposting and other indirect means of advertising or inducements by word of mouth to people to attend these dog fights. That now is outlawed under the Bill; it was an improvement to the Bill that we brought about while most of your Lordships were having supper a short time ago.
The Bill's function is to provide that custodians of animals who are convicted of unnecessary cruelty may be disqualified from having another animal of
1142
any kind for any length of time that a court might decide, whereas the existing law provides only for suspension or disqualification from holding a licence after the second conviction, except in the case of dogs and horses. Cruelty to dogs and horses could be dealt with severely the first time round. As regards all other animals, cruelty could be dealt with only the second time round. Now, under the Bill, offenders can be convicted the first time round and that will improve the law against cruelty to animals.
Secondly, I wish to express the gratitude, congratulations and thanks of numerous Members of your Lordships' House who supported the Bill to the honourable Member for Winchester, John Browne. He singled out the subject for his Private Member's Bill when he was successful in the ballot. He backed a winner. Many people in the other place back losers; happily this is a winner. I congratulate him on singling out this topic for the attention of Parliament. Many Members of both Houses bring forward Bills relating to animal welfare. I do my best to remedy their shortcomings. In those circumstances I am more than grateful to the honourable Member for Winchester for bringing the Bill forward. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Houghton of Solverhy.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to say that I am sure that Members of your Lordships' House will join me in congratulating my noble friend for yet again bringing forward a measure which will protect animals. It will stop a cruel practice which, unfortunately, is increasing at present. We are grateful to him for propelling the Bill successfully through Parliament and we have given it our utmost support.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Education Reform Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 53 [Initiation of procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
[Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 47, line 35, at end insert—
("(2A) In any school where a ballot of parents is to be held by virtue of subsection (1) above, the governing body shall also undertake consultation with parents of pupils attending any primary school from which a significant number of pupils have been drawn in the previous year, and such consultation shall be undertaken in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary of State under this subsection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we appear to be going through the Bill in a curiously hand-to-mouth way, never knowing at the beginning of the day where we shall finish or at what hour of the night or morning. By the luck of the draw it falls to me to open the proceedings today. I do so by moving Amendment No. 237. It is a much shortened, less onerous and more easily acceptable version of what was Amendment No. 211 BB at Committee stage. It was then moved by my noble friend Lord Tordoff on my behalf while I was occupied elsewhere with the even more urgent demands of salmonella.
We are discussing a situation in which a secondary school is about to decide whether to acquire grant-maintained status. I take it that no one will disagree with the statement that the most important factor to be taken into account in making that decision is the effect that it will have on the education—and therefore the future—of the children concerned. But which children? Surely they are the children who will be at school after the choice has been made.
If my youngest child leaves the school before the lengthy process of acquisition has been completed it will make no difference whatever to him or her. Yet, as a parent, I shall have a vote in the ballot. If, on the other hand, I am likely to want to send my child to that school in a year or two's time, because it is one of the secondary schools to which children normally progress from the primary school where my child is a pupil, then the decision concerns me and my child intimately. It is most important to us but I shall have no vote in the ballot.
That is the dilemma to which the amendment draws your Lordships' attention. In considering the matter we decided, with regret, that it would be impossibly difficult to give votes to the parents of feeder primary schools such as I have described. The compilation of the electoral register for such ballots will be difficult and erratic enough, without adding to it such complications. Therefore we fell back on consultation and I suggest that noble Lords must insist on that.
In replying at Committee stage on 12th May [Official Report, col. 1313] the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, opened with these words:
"We recognise that the views of parents of pupils in feeder primaries are relevant to consideration of the question whether a school should become grant-maintained".
That was a clear acceptance by the Government of the validity of the point we are making in this amendment. However, the noble Lord went on to doubt whether,
"the provisions relating to the parental ballot are the most appropriate place for such views to be taken into account".
Maybe not, but in that case what is the most appropriate place?
Having conceded the validity of our concern, the Government have done nothing whatever to meet it. Today we ask either that the Government will accept the amendment or, if they do not like it, promise to come forward with a suitable amendment at Third Reading. Failing that, as an absolute last resort, will the Government undertake that in regulations the Secretary of State will ensure that the views of such
1144
feeder primary parents are ascertained; that they are made known to the voters in the ballot; and that the Secretary of State will give due weight to those views, for or against, in making his final decision? I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to add my support to the amendment. It has been recognised all round the House that it is important that the parents of pupils at primary school—those likely to be in the catchment area of the possible future grant-maintained school—should have some kind of voice in what will happen to the school their children will be attending. In one way it seems to be much more important that they should have a say rather than the parents of children who are about to leave.
We have decided that it is too difficult to involve those parents in a ballot. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has said, we are falling back on consultation. There are plenty of precedents for consultation. I do not believe that it will be at all difficult to establish some kind of scheme by which the opinions of those in the feeder primary schools could be collected. I very much hope that the Government will feel able to give a little on this issue. I strongly support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to add my support to this amendment. I believe that one must bear in mind that a majority of the parents whose children attend a particular school are concerned about the standard of that school. So are the majority of the parents whose children will go to the school. One must bear in mind that only a small minority of parents are public spirited enough to have any concern about a school where their children are not being educated or are not going to be educated. We are speaking here of parents with the highest possible interest and concern. I certainly believe that some sort of consultation should be provided for. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have no doubt that some of the parents of children attending "feeder" primary schools will take an interest in the possibility of a neighbouring secondary school becoming grant-maintained. However, I see no merit in imposing on the governing body of that school the duty to consult those parents, as this amendment requires.
Apart from anything else, in practice it would be difficult to construct regulations prescribing the form such consultation must take; for example, where exactly would the line, if any, be drawn to define which parents should be consulted and which not? And whatever the success in drawing up such distinctions, the administrative burden of the consultation both on the governing body of the school considering grant-maintained status, and possibly on the primary schools concerned as well, would be most unwelcome. And I must add here that the amendment as drafted leaves quite unclear what the implications of the proposed consultation are intended to be.
Such complexity is, in any case, unnecessary. It is most unlikely that local parents would be unaware that a school is applying for grant-maintained status. We all know that from the interest aroused by plans for schools' reorganisation under Sections 12 and 13.

1145
Proposals to acquire grant-maintained status will, as part of the procedure, be published in summary form in the local press. Anyone who wishes will be able to view them in full and comment on the proposals to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Parents of children at local primary schools who have strong views on the issue will therefore be able to make them perfectly clear at this stage, either individually or collectively. The Secretary of State will consider the proposals on their merits, in the light of all the points put to him and the evidence of parental support. For these reasons, I recommend the House to reject this amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, that was one of the most predictable utterances to which I have ever had to listen. The Government accept that we have a point but will do nothing to meet it. To say that anybody can write to the Secretary of State is no answer. Of course anybody can write to the Secretary of State. We can all write to him. However, that is not the way in which parents normally express their opinions.
We are told that this would place an impossible burden on the governing body of the school. The main primary "feeder" schools can easily be identified. Any head teacher knows which they are. One gets in touch with the governing bodies of those primary schools, which call a parents' meeting. They listen, explain and pass on the findings. The parents may be very keen on opting out. I am not saying that they will always be against that. However, their views should be known and it should be impossible to avoid consulting them; that is the point.
We have had the usual sort of knee-jerk automatic resistance which is a practice from which, I believe, the Government should be discouraged.
3.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 237) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 116.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Adrian, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

Amherst, E.

Fitt, L.

Ardwick, L.

Fletcher, L.

Attlee, E.

Flowers, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Galpern, L.

Barnett, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Birk, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Grey, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Grimond, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hampton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hunt, L.

Carter, L.

Jacques, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jay, L.

Dainton, L.

Jeger, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kearton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Leatherland, L.

1146

Listowel, E.

Seear, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Serota, B.

Longford, E.

Stallard, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Thurlow, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Northfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Underhill, L.

Peston, L.

Walston, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wcdderburn of Charlton, L.

Reilly, L.

White, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rochester, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Russell, E.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Scanlon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Auckland, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hood, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hooper, B.

Beloff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bessborough, E.

Killearn, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Kimball, L.

Blake, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Borthwick, L.

Layton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

London, Bp.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brentford, V.

Lovat, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lyell, L.

Broxbourne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cowley, E.

Nelson, E.

Cox, B.

Newcastle, Bp.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

De Freyne, L.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Dudley, B.

Pender, L.

Dundee, E.

Porritt, L.

Effingham, E.

Portland, D.

Elibank, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reigate, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Faithfull, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Selborne, E.

Ferrers, E.

Shannon, E.

Ferrier, L.

Sharples, B.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Strange, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathspey, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gridley, L.

Terrington, L.

Haig, E.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylehone, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Wise, L.

Harvington, L.

Wynford, L.

Headfort, M.

Young, B.

Henley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.31 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 238 to 240 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 48, leave out line 19.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with the grouping containing Amendment No. 232. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 242 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 243:
Page 48, line 42, at end insert—
("(10A) The provisions of this section, and arrangements in section 54 relating to a ballot of parents, shall be applicable from a date five years after any acquisition of grant-maintained status as though they applied to a reacquisition of maintained status.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment appears to have been included in the Marshalled List by mistake as my name is also to Amendment No. 244, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, which is exactly the same. Therefore, I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 244:
Page 48, Line 42, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions of this section, and arrangements in section 54 relating to a ballot of parents, shall be applicable from a date five years after any acquisition of grant-maintained status as though they applied to a reacquisition of maintained status.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment to the effect that after five years there could be re-entry into the maintained system; that is, that a school which had opted out could opt back into the system after five years, with the agreement of the required number of parents.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne said on 12th May, as reported in col. 1318 of Hansard:
"The Government are confident that grant-maintained schools will be successful".
The point was not whether schools would be successful, but that there could be a change in circumstances. Over a period of five years a school might change; the area might change and the people might change. I cited as an example the county of Kent where the Channel Tunnel is being built and where there will be a complete change of population. If the governors of a school feel that they cannot continue to run a school and want to give up altogether the only option is for the school to close, for the Secretary of State to be advised accordingly, and for the school then to reopen.
I believe that it would be wise for a school to be able to opt back into the system not because it has been failing and is not a success but because of changed circumstances, a change in the governors or because the governors feel that they cannot carry the responsibility. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I add my support to this amendment. As the noble Baroness said, circumstances can change dramatically and as the Bill stands there is no possibility, except by closing the school, of doing anything to meet that situation.
1148
What do the Government intend to do if circumstances change to that extent? Would it not be possible after that period to have the opportunity of opting back into the system? Many of the parents might be pleased if that happened. It seems ridiculous not to have that possibility in the Bill. Therefore, I add my strong support to the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this is not a particularly good idea that my noble friend has put forward. The one aspect that will be desirable once a school has decided to opt out is that it should be free of political manoeuvring and thinking and that the governors and staff should be able to get on with the job of running the school. If there are people in the area who regret that the school has moved out of the local authority and people in the local authority who are desperate to get it back, there will be constant politicisation, at least on that issue. I should have thought it unlikely that schools would want to opt back.
My noble friend is right to suggest that a school might want to close. Schools in the private sector sometimes, but not often, close and one might do so in the maintained sector. If a local authority is short of school places and wishes to start up a new school it will presumably be for the authority to decide from scratch whether to have the new school in its place. If this amendment were accepted it would be utterly disastrous for opted-out schools. I should be sorry to see the amendment accepted and I hope that the House will not support it.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I support this amendment for the simple reason that I believe it to be entirely illogical for schools to opt out but never be able to opt back. It may be that five years is not the right period and that it should be longer; but it is illogical, once a school has opted out, for it not to have the right to opt back.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, as one who has been a pure listener, with one exception, throughout the passage of this Bill I feel it would be helpful if the noble Baroness would explain what she means in saying that it is important to keep political influences out of the matter and that it is sufficient to opt out without the ability to opt in again. I fail to see why it should be a political matter. It is possible that the majority of parents will wish to opt in again on purely educational grounds.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to that opinion. I too was taken aback by the introduction of politicisation on this issue. I am not saying that people cannot bring politics into almost anything that one can think of, but my understanding of the grant-maintained proposals is that they were put forward on educational grounds.
We must accept—and even noble Lords opposite must accept—that there is an experimental side to this legislation. It is a new proposal and everybody concerned will be trying to learn from it. My view is that five years is quite a long time as a period for pause, but another view is that it could be longer. I find convincing the notion that there should be

1149
asymmetry here. I should like to hear the case argued for asymmetry, bearing in mind that this is a new departure. Some governors may decide that their educational responsibilities lead them to consider not that they want the school to close but that they want the original decision reconsidered. It would be a pity not to have that facility. I do not deny the intervention from the noble Baroness that politics could be brought into the matter but I was hoping that we were largely discussing this as an education Bill and seeing this as an educational issue. I certainly look forward to the reply from the noble Baroness on this matter.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble Baroness is precluded by the rules of the House from replying to the noble Lord. We are at Report stage and not the Committee stage.
I believe that the word "politicisation" has been misinterpreted. I imagine that what the noble Baroness has in mind is that it will be very undesirable for the issue to continue to be a live one. One does not want parent's meetings taken up every year or so with deciding or undeciding what has been done. It is educational stability of the school rather than politics in any party sense which is at the root of the objection put forward by the noble Baroness.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I do not understand this. If one can go on and on asking for grant-maintained status it seems totally illogical that, having tried it and having found that it does not work in a particular school, one cannot ask for the management to be reversed. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is trying to have it on one side only. One can ask as often as one likes for grant-maintained status, but once one has it, one cannot ask for it to be taken away again.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government have consistently made it clear that they are unwilling to accept an amendment of this kind. The objectives of establishing grant-maintained status, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, are definitely to improve our education system. The intention is to offer more choice and competition in the maintained sector. Any mechanism to opt out might encourage initial applications for grant-maintained status to be undertaken rather too lightly, offering, as it would, the possibility of a change of heart if running the school proved a little too challenging.
Further, any provision for being able to opt back in would diminish the chances of a grant-maintained school becoming well-established. The procedures are quite complex. Once it has been set up, a grant-maintained school, like any other, will need time to prove itself. It would be highly discomforting for all concerned, not least the pupils, if there were the prospect of another change of status after five years, as the amendment suggests, and the possibility of still further to-ing and fro-ing after that.
The Government are confident that grant-maintained schools will be successful and fully accountable to parents; and that parents, in turn, will want them to succeed. As my noble friend said when
1150
introducing the amendment, there are provisions in the Bill permitting the governors of a grant-maintained school to publish proposals for its closure, though the Secretary of State has made it quite clear on a number of occasions that he would not expect any proposals from the governors to close such a school for the first 10 years of its life.
For those reasons and because we discussed similar amendments before, I hope that I have given sufficient explanation of why we see no merit in the amendment and I recommend that it be rejected.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, if five years is too short and since the Secretary of State talked about the possibility of closure at the end of 10 years, would the Government think again about the possibility at the end of 10 years? One is left with the impression that the politicisation comes from the Government Benches.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that what has been made clear by the Secretary of State as regards the procedures for the closure and then, if necessary, the re-opening of a school, may meet the case raised by the noble Baroness and others. It is in this respect that he has referred to a period of 10 years.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and for their support. If a school is keen enough to opt out, then for at least five years it will not want to opt back. I maintain that there will not be politicisation as suggested by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. There will not be edging and pushing and awkward situations arising at the meetings of governors as suggested by my noble friend Lord Beloff. I am suggesting that circumstances may change for reasons which have nothing to do with the success of the school or with politicisation. However, the Government have taken a certain stand and I do not propose to divide the House. I hope that when governors and parents opt out of the system it will be made clear to them that they cannot opt back in again. I believe that they should know where they stand. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, the amendment is in my name also. I am not prepared to withdraw it. I am sorry that I did not make that point clear when I spoke. I am not agreeable to withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether the characteristically constructive suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that if this amendment were withdrawn the Minister might undertake to give sympathetic consideration to an amendment at Third Reading substituting 10 years for five, would meet the case.
Baroness David: My Lords, I agree to that but I understand that the noble Baroness will not agree. She is shaking her head. That happy situation and solution is not available to us. I wish it were.
3.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 244) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 110.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Adrian, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

Kearton, L.

Alport, L.

Kennet, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Attlee, E.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Barnett, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Bottomley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Northfield, L.

Carter, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

Dainton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

David, B.

Porritt, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Reilly, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Russell, E.

Ennals, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Scanlon, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Flowers, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Goodman, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grimond, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Walston, L.

Hunt, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Jacques, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adlington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carnock, L.

Allerton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Arran, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Beloff, L.

Cowley, E.

Belstead, L.

Cox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Blake, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

De Freyne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dudley, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dundee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Effingham, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Elibank, L.

Butterworth, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Caithness, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ferrier, L.

1152

Fortescue, E.

Marley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Merrivale, L.

Gainford, L.

Mersey, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gridley, L.

Munster, E.

Haig, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Nelson, E.

Newcastle, Bp.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Orkney, E.

Harvington, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Headfort, M.

Oxfuird, V.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Hesketh, L.

Portland, D.

Hives, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Reigate, L.

Hood, V.

St. Davids, V.

Hooper, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L

Selborne, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Shannon, E.

Kimball, L.

Sharples, B.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strange, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Layton, L.

London, Bp.

Strathspey, L.

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Lovat, L.

Terrington, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

McFadzean, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trumpington, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Wynford, L.

Manton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.56 p.m.
Clause 54 [Ballot of parents]:
[Amendment No. 245 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 49, line 15, at end insert ("in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State which shall provide—

(a) that no more than one vote be cast in respect of any registered pupil at a school in any ballot;

(b) that the same definition of the person entitled to vote as a parent be applied throughout England and Wales.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an important amendment. We expected that the Government would come forward with an amendment of their own to define a "parent", but they have not. During the Commons stages of the Bill the Government dismissed the Opposition argument that a definition of a "parent" was needed. The Minister of State, Mrs. Rumbold, argued that the definition provided by the Education Act 1944 was sufficient.
Section 114 of the Act gives the following definition:
" 'Parent', in relation to any child or young person, includes a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person".
That provides for a wide interpretation. For example, where a child stays with his or her natural parents at the weekends but stays with grandparents during the week, it would appear that all four would be entitled to a vote in an opting out ballot. The Government have argued that a child who is in care will not be entitled to vote on his or her behalf because it would not be appropriate to suggest that the director of

1153
social services should be part of the parent body for the purpose of the ballot. However, by relying on the definition of "parent" in the 1944 Act, this is precisely what will happen. There appears therefore to be some confusion as to the interpretation of the definition.
During the Committee stage in your Lordships' Chamber an amendment on the definition of "parent" was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. She pointed out that though the definition of "parent" might at first seem obvious,
"a number of people now have not only two natural parents but in divorced families there may be a great many people who claim to be parents. There may also be people who, while not being parents, are the people doing the job of a parent, namely, a grandparent or some official who is looking after the wellbeing of the child". [Official Report, 12/5/88; col. 1325.]
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, rejected the amendment because it would have prevented parents or governors from pursuing an application for grant-maintained status until the Secretary of State had published the definition of "parent" for this purpose in a schedule to the Bill. He said at col. 1325:
"The Government believe that this would be an unnecessary and over-prescriptive provision; but I can reassure the noble Baroness that we intend to provide, in an appropriate manner, all the information and guidance which governors will require to carry out their duties effectively in this context".
He explained that it would be the duty of the governors to ensure that every person known to them to be a parent of a registered pupil at the school would be given the opportunity to vote. He admitted (col. 1326) that:
"Very occasionally a genuine question may arise as to whether a person qualities as a parent of a registered pupil at the school. In such eases it will be for the governing body to reach a decision, taking account of the legal definition of a parent for the purposes of the Education Acts. These define a parent as including a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person, so there may be circumstances where a child has more than two parents.
The natural parents of a child will normally qualify, even where they are divorced and a step-parent or other relative is also exercising parental rights—but sometimes a natural parent may have his or her rights and duties removed by court order.
The burden of proof will be on the person wanting to be recorded on the admissions register as the parent of a particular child. A person who disputed the governing body's decision would have to demonstrate that it was a decision which no reasonable governing body could have taken. All those matters will be discussed in guidance we shall issue to every governor in the country once this Bill has received Royal Assent".
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, commented that that response hardly clarified the situation. She said that she could see nothing but confusion ahead by a refusal at that stage to decide on some definition. The Government must be pressed to explain why it is not considered appropriate to define the term "parent" sufficiently precisely to avoid confusion. Apart from seeking to establish a consistent definition of a parent throughout England and Wales, the amendment seeks also to ensure that only one vote is cast for each registered pupil at a school.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna who proposed an amendment in Committee to limit the voting in this way, pointed out that:
"It seems to us that this is the only way to answer the problem of how the voting is to be done; otherwise there will be unfairness between the multi-child family, the single parent family and the family which is split up and the parents have re-married which may cause all sorts of problems".—[Official Report 12/5/88; col. 1315.]
1154
In response the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, agreed to take the amendment back to see whether there was some way to meet the point.
As the Government do not appear to have brought forward an amendment to allow this change, it is most important to press the matter today. We are now nearly at the end of the Report stage and we must settle the matter. Surely the Government must admit that to allow different pupils different weighting, according to the number of parents who register on their behalf, would be extremely unfair. It seems to me that the fairest thing would be: one child, one vote. That means that the whole thing is child-orientated. That is how I think it should be done. After all, it is the children who matter. The amendment reinforces that view. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should very much like to support the amendment, especially the point that deals with establishing that there shall be one vote for each child, no more no less. I think that is so much more important than the slightly theological point, when is a parent not a parent. If a cluster of people are claiming to be a parent and each is clambering for a vote, surely, as in the French elections, we should let them have a "run-off" as to who is to be the chosen candidate. That is something that they should do in this family where they are all claiming rights to vote for the child.
I do not mind who the parent is or, indeed, which parent it is; but there should not be more than one vote for each child. In other words, each child should be represented by one vote. That is what we are after. Please let us not get ourselves bogged down with arguments about the definition of a parent, if we can agree on that which is really the substance of the amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, uniformity in the teaching approach is not desirable; but I think consistency in administrative questions such as this is a different matter. In something as far-reaching and emotive as opting out one gets a sense of unfairness, as has already been said: for example, if school A decided that each parent could have a separate vote, while school B next-door—perhaps with some of the same parents involved—restricted it to one parent only. I think we should all know where we stand before an operation of this type begins. I am somewhat surprised that this otherwise most prescriptive Bill should be silent on the matter. In my view this amendment deserves support.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I think that there is also a social element in the matter. White middle-class children are much more likely to have two parents together than, for example, the child of an Afro-Caribbean family, where there may be only one parent. I think that that element is a most important one.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am most puzzled about the idea of one vote per child. What happens if the child has two parents and the parents disagree on the matter—which is normal in family life?
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, there are certain legal difficulties involved. I should have thought that the law is quite clear as to who is responsible for a child, except in one direction; namely, the director of social services. If a child is in care under the Children Act 1948, it is the parents' responsibility and not that of the director of social services. On the other hand, if the child is in care under a care order obtained through the courts then the child is the responsibility of the director of social services. Therefore it would be most helpful to have the matter clarified.
Lord Peston: My Lords, while I think that this is a slightly trivial matter, in my experience as a parent I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is entirely right: parents do disagree. However, the whole point of family life is for them to come to an agreement on the matter. We certainly did not run our family on the assumption that we could not come to an agreement about how to bring up our children. In the case of the exercise of this vote, it seems that the noble Baroness. Lady Seear, is entirely right. It takes the most pessimistic view of the nature of the family in this part of our century to argue that parents, even though they disagree, could not come to a conclusion. I hope that we do not base our deliberations on that hypothesis.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the amendment raises two important issues. First, as has been explained, the amendment would require no more than one vote to be cast in respect of each pupil. The number of votes cast would relate to the number of children attending the school and not to the number of parents. As we agreed in Committee, we have thought further about the proposition but I must report that we still do not consider it acceptable. Indeed, the approach seems to be based on a set of assumptions which are, to say the least, debatable.
When we are talking about fairness and unfairness let us take, for example, the case of two households each with two parents, but one having a single child at the school and the other three. The proposers of the amendment would give the first household one vote and the second household three. Is this really fair? Why should it be thought that parents with a single child care only one-third as much about the future of that child's school as those parents who have three?
There is a further problem. The amendments would mean that where there was only one child in a household the husband and wife will have to share a ballot paper. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Beloff pointed this out. Perhaps I may say in response that at the very least such an approach would destroy the secret nature of the ballot, a principle upon the defence of which I should have expected all Members of the House to be united.
Further, the Government's proposals are about enhancing the influence of parents. We believe that the most logical way to reflect the intention in this context is to provide for one parent, one vote. Therefore I hope that the proposers of the amendment will at least join with me in acknowledging that constructing any franchise is a sensitive and tricky business. I suggest that the
1156
Government are in line with their general democratic traditions by providing that the best approach is one parent, one vote.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, does that mean that the Government are encouraging divorce? As I understand it, if people divorce and remarry you then might have a child with three parents. In those circumstances do they get three votes? Further, if you got into the Hollywood scale you could have one child with a whole concertina of parents. Does the noble Baroness not agree that this might be most prejudicial to the single parent, either because the person is not married or because he or she has been widowed?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask her whether she agrees that if a parent or even two parents have two, three or four children in a school, all at different stages, the importance of the decision about whether the school should become a grant-maintained school will be considerably greater for them than if they only have a single child who may be towards the end of his or her educational career in the school? Surely it is perfectly legitimate and acceptable that if you have several children in a school then you would have more than one vote; whereas it is not acceptable where there are four or five parents and step-parents with a single child in a school that all those parents should have a vote. That seems quite illogical.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, before the Minister rises, perhaps I may put this question to her. If there are two households, one consisting of father, mother and child and the other of a widow with three children, is it just that in the first household there should be two votes and that in the second household the widow should have only one vote, although she has three children?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I prefaced my remarks by saying that I was sure that we should all be united—the discussion has proved it—in agreeing that the construction of any franchise is a sensitive and tricky business. I do not think that anything I have said can be construed as advocating divorce so as to increase the possibility of multiple voting rights for parents.
I shall come now to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others about the multiple approach. I said that we are advocating one parent, one vote. There is no doubt that the Bill makes clear provision for that in Clause 54(3) by requiring that every parent be told of his or her entitlement to vote. I cannot accept any suggestion that the issue has been left vague.
Secondly, the amendment provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations defining who is a parent—that is the little argument we had—for the purpose of ballots. The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we do not consider that provision necessary. The Bill requires that governors take all reasonable steps, no less and no more than that, to identify those who are eligible to vote. They will normally do that by ensuring that

1157
their admissions register is up to date and includes the names of every person claiming parental rights in respect of a child at the school.
As the noble Baroness said, the 1944 Act offers a definition of a "parent" which includes the guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child. In a few cases, that could mean that a third or fourth person may have a vote; for example, a stepparent or where the natural parents have divorced and the parent with custody of the only child remarries or where a grandparent is bringing up the child. The governors' responsibility will extend only so far as settling disputes in those rare cases—I believe that they will be rare cases—where the question is raised. The detailed guidance which we intend to issue to governing bodies on this matter will make that point clear.
I see no reason why that action should be thought anything other than sensible and thoughtful. I am convinced that sensible and thoughtful governors will have no difficulty in applying their common sense to the matter. The making of regulations would be an unnecessary step. For the reasons I have outlined, I invite the House to reject the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she make clear what the Government's proposal is? I have not mastered it. I think that she said one parent, one vote was made clear in one subsection of Clause 54. Would she mind repeating what the Government's solution is?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government's solution is one parent, one vote so that the parent with a child or any number of children at a school will have the right to vote. As I have said, it is up to the school governors to keep the register of parents and to notify anyone known to have an entitlement to vote of his or her right to do so.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned Clause 54 something.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, subsection (3).
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that any board of governors would probably find as many different interpretations of how the voting should take place as have your Lordships in the past few minutes? As governors' meetings generally last a long time they would find even greater permutations of the interpretation. That is point one. Secondly, does that not also mean that different governing bodies could come to different decisions? If that is the case, surely the Minister agrees that that could not in any way be acceptable.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord because at the very least he has reminded me of the question on that issue asked by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. I do not believe that there will be a distinction between schools as a result of the guidance that will be issued to governors. There will not be a case such as that referred to by the noble Earl, with the governors of
1158
one school saying one vote per child while the governors of another school say one vote per parent. We have made it clear in the Bill, and in the discussions surrounding the Bill, that it is intended to have one vote per parent.
Lord Jay: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down again, in the relatively simple case where both parents have been divorced and remarried, would there then be four parents all of whom would have a vote, or would that be a case where the governing body would take some sensible and responsible discretionary decision?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is no doubt that in such a case there may be "four parents". I emphasised in my earlier remarks that such cases would be rare and that we rely upon the good sense and common sense of the governors to deal with those problems.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with one in three marriages breaking down, how can the noble Baroness stand there and say such cases will be rare? In addition, there are a number of cases where there are single parents. She is talking as if we still had the two-parent family of 50 years ago.
Baroness David: My Lords, it is no use saying that there will be guidance. The matter is complicated, as has been made abundantly clear from the discussions on the amendment. The governing bodies may not accept the guidance which is offered. It is essential that something about this extremely important matter should be on the face of the Bill. One parent, one vote is not clearly in the Bill. One parent, one vote is not nearly as satisfactory as one child, one vote. It is not fair where there is more than one child in a family. It is the children at whom we must be looking, not the parents. If there are three children, then three votes seems abundantly fair. I think that I must divide the House on this point.
4.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 246) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 115.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dainton, L.

Adrian, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Airedale, L.

David, B.

Amherst, E.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Attlee, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Aylestone, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Barnett, L.

Ennals, L.

Birk, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Blackstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Flowers, L.

Bottomley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Galpern, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Goodman, L.

Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Grey, E.

1159

Grimond, L.

Peston, L.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Reilly, L.

Hughes, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hunt, L.

Rochester, L.

Jacques, L.

Roskill, L.

Jay, L.

Russell, E.

Jeger, B.

Scanlon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Serota, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kearton, L.

Stallard, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Longford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Monson, L.

Underhill, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Walston, L.

Mulley, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Wigoder, L.

Northfield, L.

Wise, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allerton, L.

Headfort, M.

Alport, L.

Henley, L.

Annan, L.

Hesketh, L.

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hood, V.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bessborough, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blake, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Blyth, L.

Kimball, L.

Borthwick, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brookes, L.

Layton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Manton, L.

Carnock, L.

Marley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Merrivale, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Nelson, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Digby, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dundee, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Eccles, V.

Onslow, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orkney, E.

Elibank, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pender, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Porritt, L

Ferrier, L.

Portland, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Reigate, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gridley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Haig, E.

Seebohm, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Selborne, E.

Shannon, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sharples, B.

1160

Skelmersdale, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Strange, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathspey, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sudeley, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Terrington, L.

Wynford, L.

Teviot, L.

Young, B.

Teynham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 247.
Page 49, line 15, at end insert—
("Provided that no vote shall be exercised in respect of a pupil who—

(a) is in the final year of the school, or

(b) who is not in the final year of the school, but who has indicated formally that they intend to leave the school by the end of the academic year in which any ballot may take place.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are still dealing with the vote. This amendment provides that:
"no vote shall be exercised in respect of a pupil who—

(a) is in the final year of the school, or

(b) who is not in the final year of the school, but who has indicated formally that they intend to leave the school by the end of the academic year in which any ballot may take place".

The purpose of this amendment is to exclude parents of pupils who will not be there in the year when the grant-maintained status takes over. During the Committee stage, Amendment No. 211CA proposed by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna was intended to exclude from the vote the parent of a Kaberry of Adel, L. child within one year of the end of statutory education or above the age of statutory education where that parent had no other children at school.
In speaking to the amendment, my noble friend argued:
"Our case is that by the time the ballot has taken place and, let us say, the school opts out, the child will have left school. Therefore it is irrelevant whether or not that parent wishes the school to opt out".—(Official Report, 12/5/88; col 1315.)
In reply, the Minister, Lord Trefgarne, said that he had numerous objections to this and other amendments in the group. Since the noble Lord failed to indicate what his objections were to this reasonable amendment, it would be helpful if the Government could be pressed at this stage to be more explicit.
It is hardly logical for those who have no interest in the change of the school's status to have an equal right to vote on the future of the school. It is particularly illogical and unfair that parents of such pupils should have a vote when the parents of children in the primary schools who will be most affected by the change in school status will not even be consulted. We have just been defeated in trying to get them even to be consulted, and even staff who work in the school and face changes in their employment position will not be given the chance to object. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this seems a most unwise amendment. It means that the parents with the most experience of the working of the school are, for that reason, to be denied a vote. Parents of a child

1161
in his or her final year will have had longer experience of how that school has worked, whether it has worked well or badly, than any other of the parents. Deliberately to exclude them seems very foolish if the object of the exercise is to get a sensible decision, as I hope it is.
Moreover, it will give rise to all sorts of complications. Sometimes a child may be thought to be in his or her final year. The child may fail an examination and decide to stay on a little after the age of 16 in order to have another go at the examinations. Who is to say, in respect of many children, whether they are in their final year at all? This amendment is asking for trouble, it is asking for questions, it is asking for wholly unnecessary difficulties. I hope that it will be rejected.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on this. It seems to me that this whole series of amendments has been designed to make it more difficult to opt out. Parents whose child is in the final year of a school should be entitled to a vote not only for the reasons given by my noble friend but also because they may be people who have always thought that the school should have opted out and have a great interest in the school in so doing. As regards the pupils in the second part of the amendment, those children may be leaving the school for all kinds of perfectly good reasons but again their parents may regret that they are leaving and may wish that they could go on into an opted-out school.
On the point about primary schools, parents need not choose the school that has opted out. They could choose another secondary school in the area. So that point is quite irrelevant. It is very important to recognise why a school would want to opt out in the first place. I think that it will want to opt out if it is dissatisfied with something—probably a change of character that has been asked for by the local education authority which is not desired by parents. Under those circumstances I should have thought that most parents in the school will in any event vote for opting out if that is what they think. To make that more difficult for the two kinds of people covered by this amendment would be grossly unfair and would defeat what is a very valuable proposal in this Bill.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is a strange assumption, is it not, that has been made by both the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that all people in the top form who vote will vote for opting out? It is perfectly possible that they may vote against it. Or, are only people who are for opting out going to be allowed to vote?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I made no such assumption. I merely said that whether they voted for or against, they would have more experience—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I rose before the noble Lord sat down. If the noble Lord can contain himself, perhaps he can look at the manual of procedure and we would get on quicker. I made no suggestion one way or the other. I merely said that we wanted to get the right decision and that those with most experience of a school would be most likely to give the right decision.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I think that this amendment is no less important than Amendment No. 246. with which we have dealt. In fairness—I think fairness is an important issue here—no one should be able to vote for opting out who will not be around to bear the brunt of it or to reap the benefits, whichever way one cares to look at it. I do not believe that the experience of parents is the important issue here. It would be nice if this provision could be more watertight and if the converse could be achieved by including those from primary schools who would be attending the school by the time it became grant-maintained. But I think that one has to accept, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, did in moving Amendment No. 237, that this is fraught with legal difficulties and that a simple exclusion of those who are known to be leaving the school before opting out is the most practical way forward. I hope that your Lordships will agree with the reasoning behind this amendment and support it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I suspect that wherever we draw the line there will be objectors, one side or the other. I wish to start by emphasising to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that parents of primary school pupils, staff at the school and ethers in the community will not be deprived of the right to object. The ballot of parents decides only whether an application for grant-maintained status should go forward. It is the trigger to the process.
Where a child is leaving the school and the parent has no continuing interest, he or she is not being obliged to vote. That, after all, is the voter's privilege as much as which way he chooses to vote. But in many cases the parent will still have a strong and lively affection for the interests of the school and, more important still, as has been said, he or she will have had a child at the school for a considerable time and be an excellent judge of the school's best interests. In those circumstances his or her judgment could be invaluable and should certainly not be excluded in this fashion. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary and I urge the House to reject it.
Baroness David: My Lords, we are getting used to the Government saying "No". I still do not believe that the experience argument carries any weight at all. I think that the fact that the child is leaving is far more important, and that the interests of the parents will be bound to get less, unless of course there are other children of the same family attending that school. In that case the parents will have a vote anyway. As regards parents being able to choose another school, there may not be another school in the neighbourhood if the only secondary school in that neighbourhood decides to opt out. There may be

1163
no other option for the parents. However, I accept that we are not going to win this amendment. Therefore I shall very reluctantly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 49, line 23, at end insert—
("(aa) any statement prepared by the local education authority of its view on the proposal to seek grant-maintained status;
(aab) any statement prepared by the governing body of its view on the proposal, together with any minority statement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are proceeding rather slowly. I regret to say that I believe that this, too, is an important amendment. Therefore, I feel I must argue it at least moderately fully. It is an amendment within the spirit of what the Government have stated in Clause 54 (3)(a) and 5(a)(iii). As I understand it, the essence of the Government's position is that opting out is a very serious decision and that it is right that that decision is taken on the basis of as much information as can reasonably be made available.
Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, emphasised to us in an earlier amendment, if your Lordships have rejected the possibility of opting in, then this decision is even more serious. Clause 54 (3)(a) refers to the consequences of acquisition of grant-maintained status. It is vital to include in that the point that the noble Baroness made—that that means that one cannot opt back in.
As this provision is in the spirit of the Government's own position on rational decision-making on the basis of full information, I hope that we can get a constructive response to it. In essence it follows from what one or two noble Lords said earlier, not excluding the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who raised this question and who really knows about these things and has experience of them. If we follow the logic of what he said, then it is certainly not unreasonable to argue that the local education authority will have some experience and knowledge of these matters. It would be reasonable for a statement from the local education authority of what it thinks will happen to be made available to the parents who are going to vote.
Equally, we must at least assume the possibility that the governing body will not be unanimous in this matter, that there will be more than one view. Again, therefore, it would seem to me that parents should have available to them both, as it were, the majority statement of the governing body and an appropriate minority statement if it exists. Curiously, one of the reasons for that relates to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said in response to the earlier amendment as to why a school would want to opt out. I should like to believe that it would want to opt out for constructive purposes, along the lines of what at least some noble Lords speaking for the Government have suggested. Those speakers have suggested that the schools would opt out because they believed it was a positive move and that they could thus do better.
However, my fear—which I have argued before—is that most opting out will be of a reactive
1164
kind. It will be reactive to any attempt on the part of a local authority to do sensible things within its area. That is the real worry. I have argued before that I think opting out will be a troublemakers' charter. The Government have refused to be persuaded about that. The Government, or rather others, will have to live with that. Whoever is right or whoever is wrong, to increase the information basis for the decision is surely a good thing. Therefore, I strongly commend this amendment to your Lordships.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government acknowledge the value of an informed debate on possible applications for grant-maintained status. We believe that that can only help in making our proposals better understood. But we also believe that campaigning must be kept clearly separate from the formal balloting procedure. To that end parents will receive with their postal ballot papers purely factual information only on the nature of grant-maintained status and on the specific proposal which the governors would make if the ballot authorised them to do so.
It would not be appropriate for them to receive at the same time, as the amendments as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggest, material which argued for or against the proposition, perhaps in some cases in contentious terms, any more than it would be for postal voters in general elections to receive party political material in the same envelope as their ballot papers. In order to avoid any risk, however slight, that the ballot might become embroiled in disputes about libellous material, it would be necessary to call upon the Electoral Reform Society, which would be the group responsible for distributing the ballot papers and accompanying material, to vet each leaflet. That does not seem to be either practicable or desirable.
Having said that, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the local education authority, the governors, any group within the governing body, or any other interested party, from lobbying voters directly, as these amendments imply, with their points of view, so long as they remain within the law. That seems to be the sensible way in which to proceed, I ask the House to reject this particular amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Baroness for her answer. As I understand it, she distinguishes between what she calls campaigning and some other form of information provision. As I now understand it, that distinction will apply to the governing body as well as to everybody else; in the instance we are discussing, they will simply provide information. Campaigning can be separate. The noble Baroness says that, subject to remaining within the law and remaining within the proprieties, there will be no restraint upon that. I will accept that as a reasoned response to my remarks. The prodecure appears to be less biased than that currently in the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. The noble Baroness used the phrase, "So long as they remain within the law". What exactly does the noble Lord think that that is supposed to

1165
mean in terms of the position of governors and possibly the local education authority? I should be very interested to know the answer to that question. Following a discussion on the trade union Bill, with a number of noble Lords opposite I went into the Lobby in defence of a proposition which the noble Baroness is now proposing as a matter of principle.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I assumed that in this case "within the law" meant within the law as defined by this Bill and more generally within the law in the sense of not containing defamatory material and matters of that kind. In particular I assumed that where something called campaigning was involved, the governing body would be as restrained in its ability to campaign within the provisions of this documentation as, for example, a local education authority. I have assumed that that is what the noble Baroness was saying. It is up to her to say whether she is saying that, if she wants to. If she is saying that, I find it moderately reassuring and therefore I propose not to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 49, line 47, at end insert—
("(5A) Where the governing body of any school are under a duty by virtue of section 53 of this Act to secure that a ballot is held in accordance with this section they shall make available to every person employed to work at the school for inspection (at all reasonable times and free of charge) at the school a document containing the information required by subsections (3)(a) and (5) above to be given to parents of registered pupils at the school.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Government are about to say "Yes". The Government have tabled this amendment in response to the undertaking we made at the Committee stage to consider concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others about the need to keep staff properly informed where a school is considering whether to make an application for grant-maintained status. On reflection, we agree that the staff should have access to exactly the same information as parents will receive before they vote in the ballot; namely, a general account of grant-maintained status and the school's specific intentions in respect of the composition of the governing body, proposed date of implementation, and so forth. The amendment therefore requires the governing body to make such information available to staff at the school for inspection, free of charge. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, it is a unique occasion when the Government listen to something said by the Opposition. I welcome this amendment, but I am now going to carp a little. If, as is required by the Bill, something over 1,000 circulars giving all this information must be sent why cannot they be circulated among the staff of the school, who presumably are fewer in number than the parents? Because of the way in which parents seem to be multiplying in this Bill, a large secondary school with 800 or 1,000 children would involve sending circulars to over 2,000 parents, but only one set of documents
1166
will be available for the whole of the teaching and non-teaching staff. There seems to be a slight lack of availability. That is the point I wished to raise; otherwise, I welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 51, line 45, leave out ("and address").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, while the Government are in this amiable mood, I beg to move Amendment No. 250. Clause 55 concerns the proposals that must be published after a school has held the parents' ballot and has decided that it wants to move towards grant-maintained status. Subsection (7)(d) stipulates that in these proposals both the name and address of the person who is the head teacher must be published. Presumably that means the home address.
Openness and accessibility are important in any school. Everyone wants to know who the head is and how he or she can be contacted. That is of even greater interest when a school becomes grant-maintained. The head teacher may well arrange for a place of contact outside school hours. However, I suggest that to insist on the publication of a head teacher's home address is going too far. I understand that head teachers are extremely concerned about this matter.
In the private sector the house where the head teacher lives is usually well known; it is either on the campus or a familiar house in a local street. In the state sector the situation can be very different. The head teacher may live some considerable distance from the school. For various reasons he or she may have deliberately decided to do so. Head teachers can meet rough times. They and their families sometimes have to put up with unpleasant letters, personal abuse, and even bricks through windows. Where there are children, this can be very frightening indeed.
For similar reasons many Members of Parliament do not publish their addresses. Why should head teachers do so? I very much hope that the Government will consider removing this requirement from the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand the anxieties behind this amendment, and we are pleased to be able to allay them. The purpose of requiring that a proposal for grant-maintained status contains the names and addresses of the proposed governors of the grant-maintained school is simply precautionary: it will ensure that they are real people. All that matters is that each governor should give an address where he or she may be contacted if necessary. There is therefore nothing in the Bill which would prevent the head teacher, if he or she wished, from giving the address of the school itself, rather than the home address, and we shall make that clear in the guidance which we shall issue in due course. In the light of this reassurance, I invite my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his reply. I hope that this point will be made clear because as the Bill stands it is not clear at all. If it is not the home address that is referred to, it is peculiar that the provision is in the Bill at all because everybody knows that the head teacher is at the school. It presumably deals with contacting the head teacher inside school hours. I suppose that is why it is in the Bill. As long as it is made absolutely clear somewhere that it is not necessary for the head teacher to publish his or her home address, I think those people who are anxious about this matter will be satisfied. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 250A:
Page 52, line 29, at end insert ("and (where it is not the relevant trustee) the statutory diocesan body responsible for schools;").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I have a feeling that the present amiable mood of the Government is not going to extend a third time. I realise that a great deal of your Lordships' time has already been taken up in discussion of the rights of trustees within procedures for opting out. The purpose of my first two amendments is not to extend their rights in any way but simply to put right an anomaly. I am also speaking, by leave, to Amendments Nos. 309A and 313B.
As was explained to your Lordships last Thursday night as the witching hour of eleven approached, and indeed passed, in the case of most Roman Catholic aided schools the trustee is the diocese, usually in the person of the bishop. Therefore, by giving the trustees certain rights of consultation—which of course we have welcomed—one is bringing the diocese into the consultative process alongside the local education authority, with which it shares certain planning responsibilities.
As regards Church of England aided schools, the diocese is trustee only in a small minority of cases. The comparable body in the Church of England to the Roman Catholic trustees is the diocesan education committee, which is a statutory body. But. by identifying the trustees as the focal point for consultation, the effect in most instances is to include Roman Catholic diocesan authorities and exclude their Church of England counterparts. I cannot believe that this was the Government's intention, and my Amendments Nos. 250A and 309A simply seek to correct this anomaly which exists in the Bill as currently drafted.
The circumstances behind my Amendment No. 313B are slightly different. Here, possibly by an oversight, the trustees, whether diocesan or otherwise, have not been mentioned at all. Surely they ought to be mentioned here because the situation at issue is the possible withdrawal of grant from a church school by the Secretary of State. In that situation the Bill requires that the school governing body must be consulted, and so must the relevant local education authority, but the responsible diocesan body has been given no voice in the matter. That surely cannot be right.
I recognise that I may not have got the wording of these amendments quite right. For example, my use of the word "statutory" in Amendment No. 313B may, I now realise, have the effect of including the Church of England dioceses but excluding the Roman Catholic ones, and that certainly was not my intention. However, I hope that the Government—whom we asked some time ago to suggest an appropriate wording to meet these anomalies—will be prepared to take the matter away and return with it at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, as a Presbyterian involved in this dispute between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, I would support the right reverend Prelate on these amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am not sure whether the right reverend Prelate's amendments are technically correct, and no doubt my noble friend the Minister will tell us, but I am bound to say that his argument seemed to be unanswerable. Surely both churches should be treated alike and in both cases the trustees brought in. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept the spirit of this even if the wording requires further amendment at Third Reading.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the right reverend Prelate has said, and I see the difficulty, but I believe that there are distinctions to be drawn in this case. The diocesan education committees are an important part of the administrative structure of church-provided education. They are essentially planning bodies and do not themselves own or run schools, unlike the local education authority, the governors and trustees.
Clauses 55, 81 and 85 of the Bill give a formal role to these latter parties for the simple reason that they have the most direct interest in a school and in any fundamental changes to it because of their ownership. Diocesan education committees are in a rather different position. They should, of course, be given every opportunity to comment when a school in which they have a general interest is affected in these ways, and I understand that the mechanisms exist where by a Measure of the Church of England can require trustees to consult them. I appreciate the right reverend Prelate's difficulty when certain trustees may not comply, but that is surely an internal matter for the Churches rather than a matter for this House to rule upon.
Amendment No. 250A would make the diocesan education committee a statutory objector. We are not convinced that this is appropriate. But because they have some interest in the school and in wider provision in the area, clearly the diocesan authorities will be more than welcome to comment on, or object to, a proposal, as indeed other interested parties. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State would look at any such expression of opinion very carefully.
We shall take the additional step of ensuring that, when we publish a circular on grant-maintained status, it will contain a reminder to the governors of Church schools that if they are contemplating an

1169
application to become grant-maintained, it would be appropriate for them to consult the diocesan authority, if different from the trustees. I believe that that should be enough to protect their interests in this respect.
In the case of each of these amendments the Government take the view that the prime role is for others. For example, in the case of the potential closure of a grant-maintained school it is surely right that the consultation procedure should be aimed at those who would be directly affected by such a proposal—namely, the governing body of the school itself; the local education authority, which would take responsibility for the pupils if the school were to close; and, if different, the local education authority from which the cost of running the school is currently being recovered. The diocesan education committee's interest is less central.
We appreciate the concern of' the Churches to give every protection to the particular ethos of their schools and I hope that the House will agree with me that we have done our best to meet those concerns in the Bill as a whole. But in this particular case I have to say that I believe that the right reverend Prelate's original view was right when he said in Committee that the role of the diocesan authorities was primarily "a domestic matter for the Church of England". We believe that that is the correct way forward here, and I invite him to withdraw these amendments.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I must confess that I am disappointed at the response of the Minister. I shall not take up your Lordships' time for very long but I should like to make two points. First, I think that what the noble Baroness said does not reflect the situation on the ground. To compare in our case the local education authority, the governors, and the trustees as if they were all the same is simply not relevant. The trustees in some cases can be, say, a couple of local farmers some distance away, whose ancestors happened to give the land. This is not remotely comparable to the trustees in the Roman Catholic sense. The comparable body there is the diocesan education committee. We have been given many assurances that voluntary schools will not in any way cease to be Church schools should they require grant-maintained status, and I do not find it easy to reconcile that assurance with the line that is being taken here.
Secondly, the noble Baroness was right that I said in Committee that I thought we could deal with this under the Measure which is at present under preparation in the General Synod, but we realised that this would be asking the Church of England to write into that Measure diocesan powers vis-á-vis the Secretary of State as opposed to powers vis-á-vis the governing bodies. It is questionable whether that is a proper procedure.
However, in the light of the noble Baroness's reply it may be that we shall have to think of some way in our Measure to try to secure that the governing bodies are required to consult. It is perhaps interesting to reflect that the original diocesan education committee's Measure in a sense arose for similar reasons to these amendments, to meet this
1170
situation in the Church of England over trusteeship. I do not think that the noble Baroness would expect a synodical measure to impose duties upon the Secretary of' State, which is in effect what we should have to do if we were to achieve my ends.
We shall have to see what we can do through our own measures. I see that the Government are not going to move on this. I shall not seek to divide the House and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 52, line 30, after ("proposals") insert—
("(cc) any teaching or non-teaching member of staff at the school").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and my noble friend Lady Blackstone. This is another amendment to the subsection of Clause 55 relating to who may submit objections. In her response to the right reverend Prelate and in what she said at Committee the Minister suggested that subsection (10) allowed virtually anybody to object and the Secretary of State would take account for their objections. I must say that that is not how I read subsection (1) of this clause. It states:
"Before the end of the period of two months beginning with the publication of the proposals, any of the following may submit objections to the proposals to the Secretary of State—".
The four groups are then listed. Such experience as I have as a lawyer indicates that one has to fit oneself into one of those four groups before one can make an objection of which the Secretary of State will take account. Otherwise the Secretary of State will just brush it aside and say that one does not come within categories (a), (b), (c) or (d), and therefore it is an incompetent thing to do. That seems to me a very clear and almost trite statement of the law.
If the advice which the Minister has received is to the contrary I must say—taking the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, out of context in another case—I most profoundly disagree. I think that we may be in some trouble if people believe what the Government have said and then, when they come before a court, are told that they have no right to make an objection but must fit themselves within Clause 55(10)(a), (b), (c) and (d).
The other matter which I want to raise before coming to the specific question of the teachers and staff is the question of the 10 or more electors referred to in subsection 10(a). Does that mean 10 or more local government electors anywhere in England or Wales so that 10 local government electors in Cumbria can object to a proposal relating to a school in Cornwall? Is that really what it means? I think that the Government need to take this subsection back, look at it more closely and consider what they are saying.
Turning now to the particular, it is on the basis of my interpretation of this clause that I suggest that it is necessary that the staff should be able to make an objection if they feel so minded. By staff I mean either

1171
the teaching or the non-teaching staff. If one interprets "local government electors" as meaning local government electors in the local education authority area, teachers in the school who live outside that area but who want to object would be excluded. That would be the natural meaning of local government electors.
As I read the clause, teachers as teachers or staff as staff cannot object. They should be entitled to object and they should be entitled to object wearing their hats as staff and not having to hide under the pretext of being local government electors. They should be able to write to the Secretary of State saying "we object because we are teachers at the school or staff at the school, and for this reason" and not have to say, "although we are really teachers or other staff we have to pretend to be local government electors". I beg to move.,
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, dealing first with the general point, I must repeat that in practice anyone who wishes to comment or object will be able to do so. Every view expressed will be taken into account. There is no question of anybody being able to challenge the Secretary of State's legal right to consider the objections of people who are not defined as statutory objectors. That perhaps makes the point the other way round. Because the whole process will be subject to any publicity which anyone objecting wishes to give the matter, the Secretary of State will ignore a valid point at his peril.
Turning to the list of statutory objectors to grant-maintained proposals, this is closely modelled on that in the 1980 Act for Section 12 and 13 proposals for school reorganisation or closure, in which, I must say in passing, staff are not included.
In relation to subsection (10) relating to local government objectors, yes, the answer is 10 local government electors anywhere. In practice, of course, they will be in the immediate area of the school which may involve the interests of more than one local authority.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question. Is she seriously suggesting that 10 local government electors could make representations which the Secretary of State will have to consider about a school in Wolverhampton? Is that the effect?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am saying that we have not confined the local government electors to the particular local authority district in which the school concerned is situated because there could be many electors in the surrounding districts who may have an interest. Therefore it would not be appropriate to confine the area in any way.
Turning to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, and his proposals to include members of staff at the school in the list of statutory objectors, I must reaffirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has consistently made it clear that he will consider proposals on their merits and take all relevant factors into account. Since, as I have said, this means that teachers and non-teaching staff in a school may make objections either
1172
individually or collectively, we believe that it is not necessary to include them in the list of statutory objectors.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may ask her to reconsider. Surely she realises that teaching staff and non-teaching staff in a school which is likely to be closed have a direct interest of a kind which is quite different from those of the other categories to which she has referred. They are all important but the interests of the teachers in the closure of a school is of paramount importance to the teachers. Surely in terms of morale—and heaven knows morale in the teaching profession wants a bit of a boost—for that interest to be recognised on the face of the Bill would mean a very great deal. Does she not understand the feelings of teachers at the present time and what it means to people to be recognised in that way? Will she really not reconsider?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House as I have already pointed out, these proposals are based on the arrangements for reorganisation or closure under Sections 12 and 13 of the 1980 Act and we are following that model. I repeat that if the Secretary of State receives letters or representations pointing out that the staff are solidly opposed to grant-maintained status, that would clearly be a most important consideration to be taken into account in coming to his conclusion.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is this not an extraordinary way to legislate? We now seem to have reached a position in which any local government elector anywhere in the kingdom is included in the category of having a statutory right to intervene, whereas apparently those teaching in the very school which is at issue are denied that statutory right and merely given some vague promise. I am sure that the Minister means well but that cannot be the correct way to legislate.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, whatever the origins of this section in previous legislation, I should have thought that, if the intention was that any objection by anybody in England and Wales was to be heard, it would have been perfectly possible to say so. Subsection (10) does not say "anybody may object"; it says "any of the following" may object—and "the following" are four different classes. If one is dealing with a school in, say, the West of Cornwall, apparently so long as one can gather together 10 local government electors in Northumbria, Cumbria or somewhere like that, it meets the case. One can have the trustees, the governing body and the local education authority. How can one have anybody else? If a teacher, a cleaner or anybody else wants to object, how do they fit in?
Say that the next stage is that the Secretary of State makes a decision. He either accedes or not to the proposal and he pays attention to an objection that does not come within (a), (b), (c) or (d). The side which has lost can take judicial review because the Secretary of State has gone outwith his powers by giving attention to a matter to which he should not

1173
have given attention. I did not think that this would be a difficult point but it is a very important point, and I regret that I must seek the opinion of the House.
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 251) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 122.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kearton, L.

Adrian, L.

Kennet, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mountevans, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Carter, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Northfield, L.

Combermere, V.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dainton, L.

Peston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Reilly, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Ennals, L.

Rugby, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Russell, E.

Flowers, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Greenway, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Swann, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Walston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jacques, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Birdwood, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blake, L.

Allerton, L.

Blyth, L.

Alport, L.

Borthwick, L.

Arran, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Bauer, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Brookes, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bellwin, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Belstead, L.

Butterworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Caithness, E.

1174

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McFadzean, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnock, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cathcart, E.

Mancroft, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Manton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Marley, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Crathorne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Denman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Digby, L.

Nelson, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Norfolk, D.

Dundee, E.

Norrie, L.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Elibank, L.

Onslow, E.

Elles, B.

Orkney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrier, L.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gainford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Porritt, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Haig, E.

Reigate, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Halsbury, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hanson, L.

Selborne, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sharples, B.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Strange, B.

Harvington, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Headfort, M.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Henley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hesketh, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hives, L.

Teviot, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Teynham, L.

Hood, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hooper, B.

Trafford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kimball, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Westbury, L.

Layton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Limerick, E.

Wise, L.

Long, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lothian, M.

Wynford, L.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.20 p.m.
[Amendment No. 252 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Provisions supplementary to section 59]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 58, line 9, at end insert—
("(6) Before selecting, or giving any direction as to the selection of, a person to be a foundation governor on the initial governing body of any such school where religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination is given to any such pupils in pursuance of section 27 or 28 of the 1944 Act (religious education at voluntary schools), the Secretary of State shall consult the persons appearing to him to be the appropriate authority of the denomination concerned.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment meets a concern that has been put to us by the Church of England. Foundation governors in grant-maintained schools will be appointed by those named in the school's instrument of government as having that responsibility. In some cases more than one

1175
person or body will be so named, and they will need to make a joint decision on nominations. It will surely be rare for them to fail to reach such a joint decision, but the Bill must foresee every eventuality. Clause 60(5) accordingly requires the Secretary of State in such circumstances to make the necessary appointment or issue directions on how to resolve the matter. The amendment simply ensures that he consults the relevant denominational authorities before taking such action in the case of Church schools. We are confident that he would do that anyway and are glad to offer the assurance which has been sought. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if my memory is right, last week we had a very short discussion on an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the difficulty of the words, "religious denomination", used indiscriminately when they could clearly mean religious faith. I have no objection to the amendment if the words mean denomination rather than faith. However, perhaps before Third Reading the Government could have a look at the places where these words are used and will ensure that they are using the words meaning Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of England or whatever, and not Buddhist, Moslem or Christian. On reading the Bill there appears at various stages to be a muddle as to the meaning.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I apologise for not being present when the Minister was speaking. I welcome this amendment which meets our problem.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Transition to grant-maintained status]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 254:
Page 199, line 14, at end insert—
("(ca) enabling the prospective governing body, at any time before the incorporation date, to exercise the power in section (Wrongful disposals and contracts) (3) or (4) of this Act to repudiate any contract to which that subsection applies;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 254 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 261 to 265 inclusive. These amendments clarify the provisions under which the assets of a school are frozen as soon as it signals its intention to apply for grant-maintained status. The first amendment makes it clear that the freeze does not apply to contracts made before the governing body made its intentions known. The next three amendments pave the way for a new clause explaining that, where the LEA has ignored the freeze, and has disposed of property or entered into a contract without the governors' consent, redress may be sought by the new governing body, provided the application for grant-maintained status is successful. Once the application has been approved and the governors for the grant-maintained school have been named, they may recover from the local authority the value of the property disposed of, or repudiate a wrongful contract. If the application for grant-maintained status is not successful, the school will
1176
remain the LEA's responsibility, and the freeze will end. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 254A:
Page 199, leave out lines 32 and 33.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 254A I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 254B, 265A, 266A, 266B, 267A to 267F inclusive, 268A, 268B and 315A.
These amendments, although formidable in appearance, are predominantly technical. They tidy up and clarify certain aspects of the procedures by which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may pay grant to grant-maintained schools, regulate such payments and recoup the moneys involved from local authorities in accordance with Clauses 71 and 72 of the Bill, and the finance regulations made under those clauses.
In particular, they clarify the definition of expenditure in respect of which my right honourable friend may make capital grants; clarify his power to impose and vary requirements on governing bodies in receipt of grants, and provide for recovery of grant in the case of overpayment.
Amendment No. 315A to Clause 86, clarifies the procedures by which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may make grants to a governing body in liquidation for the purpose of winding up the school, and may impose conditions in respect of such grants. Payments of this kind will assist in securing a smooth transition in those rare cases where a grant-maintained school closes.
These amendments help to ensure that grant-maintained schools will be placed on a sound and equitable financial footing, and will be duly accountable for the public moneys they spend. I commend them to your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 254B:
Page 199, line 36, leave out ("or after") and insert (", at or after the time when").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 200, line 31, leave out ("it") and insert ("the reference in that subsection to the preceding provisions of that section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Proposals for alteration, etc., of schools eligible for grant-maintained status]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 256:
Page 63, line 5, leave out from ("proposals") to ("or") in line 6 and insert ("under section 12 or 13 of that Act in respect of the school are first published for the purposes of that section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 257:
Page 63, line 7, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 10 and insert ("after proposals under section 12 or 13 of that Act in respect of any such school have first been published for the purposes of that section but before those proposals are withdrawn or determined").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 63, line 24, leave Out subsections (6) to (9) and insert—
("(5A) Where proposals under section 12 or 13 of that Act in respect of any school which is eligible for grant-maintained status have first been published for the purposes of that section and have not been withdrawn or determined, the Secretary of State—

(a) may determine a period of suspension in relation to the proposals; and

(b) may from time to time by a further determination extend any period of suspension previously determined under this subsection.

(5B) A determination under subsection (5A) above may be made in relation to all cases to which that subsection applies or in relation to any particular case; and a determination under that subsection which extends the period of suspension previously so determined may be made before or after the expiry of that period.
(5C) Where it is for the local education authority to determine proposals to which a period of suspension determined under subsection (SA) above applies, the proposals shall not be determined until the end of that period; and in such a case section 12(7) of the 1980 Act (which requires the authority to make such a determination within four months after the submission of proposals to the Secretary of State) shall have effect as if for the reference to the submission of the proposals to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the end of that period.
(5D) Where proposals to which a period of suspension determined under that subsection applies require the approval of the Secretary of State, he may suspend his consideration of the proposals—

(a) where proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status for the school are published before the end of the period of suspension, until the end of the period of two months beginning with the date of publication of those proposals; or

(b) in any other case, until the end of the period of suspension.

(5E) Where the Secretary of State makes a determination under subsection (5A) above in relation to proposals under section 12 or 13 of the 1980 Act made in respect of any school, he shall give written notification of the determination—

(a) to the governing body of the school; and

(b) in the case of proposals under section 12 of that Act, to the local education authority.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 63, line 46, leave out ("(7)") and insert ("(5A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 67 [Transfer of property, etc., to governing body of grant-maintained school]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 64, line 32, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I am aware that I am raising a rather technical and tedious matter but it is important that we examine it carefully. The matter on which I seek elucidation is the nature of the financing of the grant-maintained school. This amendment enables me to do so.
The grant-maintained school has been put forward essentially as a school which is largely, if not overwhelmingly, dependent on the local education authority, and is financed by central government. However, it is apparent from a number of statements made by Ministers that that is not the case.
If we consider the debt charges on which the school is based, those debt or loan charges remain as a burden on the local authority and on the local authority taxpayers. It seems to me that that cost, and possibly others of the school, will be borne by
1178
these taxpayers, although they have absolutely no rights or control over the school. The school is a grant-maintained school. The Secretary of State has argued that to a considerable extent he is financing it. But if the debt charges and similar matters—let alone other possible charges—are borne by the local taxpayer, the Secretary of State is not bearing those costs. It is the local ratepayer—I have just realised that in due course it is the local poll charge payer—who will be bearing this burden.
As we have been doing a lot of dividing on amendments, I hasten to add that I am not remotely proposing to divide your Lordships. I am proposing this amendment with a view to being given some elucidation so that it can be made quite clear what central government, by which I mean the general taxpayer, will be paying for in relation to grant-maintained schools and what burden is left with the local authority and whether, in particular, what burden will be left with the local authority and therefore its taxpayers, but with no rights of control or interference. That is the reason for the amendment. It is technical and I appreciate that at this late stage there is a limit to how many technical matters we can investigate, but this in my view is rather important. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, although we recognise the concern behind this amendment, we cannot accept it. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said, the Bill provides that when a school becomes grant-maintained any relevant debt charges remain the responsibility of the local education authority. We are concerned here with debt charges that may have been incurred for capital expenditure or capital improvements which occurred before the school became grant-maintained. It would be both complex and pointless to transfer the funding for such charges from the local education authority to the grant-maintained school concerned. First, the appropriate sum of money would have to be identified; then my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would have to pay an additional grant to the school to meet the payments and, finally, he would have to recover the cost of the grant from the local education authority. There seems to be no case for such a circular exercise especially, as I have said, the governors of the grant-maintained school will have no discretion over the spending of the money.
The approach proposed in the Bill does not lose the local education authority any money and saves it, as well as other parties involved, some unnecessary bureaucracy. For these reasons I recommend your Lordships to reject the amendment if it is pressed.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as I have said I have no intention of pressing the amendment, but I should like to go on record as saying that I am quite unconvinced. The school as it exists is a real asset which belongs to local taxpayers. There can be no doubt about that. It is being taken away from them. If the Secretary of State were that keen he could buy it at its market value, but he is not proposing to buy it from the local taxpayers. He is proposing to take it away from them and leave them with the financing of the interest on the capital involved.

1179
I am not pressing this, but it seems to me that there is a fundamental point that ought to be understood about what is happening. I am glad that the noble Baroness has elucidated the Government's position. I have no intention of dividing the House on this matter; but the exercise did not have to be done in this way and as this is a peculiar form of nationalisation in one way—just taking it from the local sector to the central sector—central government could have paid for it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 [Effect of pending procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status on property disposals]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 261 to 264:
Page 67, line 42, at end insert—
("(6(A) Subsection (6) above does not apply in relation to a disposal which is made in pursuance of a contract entered into, or an option granted, before the procedure mentioned in subsection (I) above was initiated in relation to the school.").
Page 68, line 2, at end insert ("(subject to section (Wrongful disposals and contracts) of this Act)").
Page 68, line 6, leave out subsection (10).
Page 68, line 15, at end insert ("and in section (Wrongful disposals and contracts) of this Act").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 265:
After Clause 69, insert the following new clause:
("Wrongful disposals and contracts.
—. (1) This section applies where in a case of a school to which section 69 of this Act applies—

(a) proposals for the acquisition of grant-maintained status are approved by the Secretary of State; and

(b) the local education authority have made any disposal, or have entered into any contract, in contravention of subsection (6) of that section (referred to below in this section as a wrongful disposal or, as the case may be, a wrongful contract).—

(2) In the case of any wrongful disposal, the governing body of the school shall be entitled to recover from the local education authority concerned the value of the property disposed of.
(3) In the case of a wrongful contract which consists in granting an option to acquire any land or interest in land, the governing body of the school may by notice in writing served on the opiton holder repudiate the option at any time before it is exercised.
(4) In the case of any other wrongful contract, the governing body of the school may by notice in writing served on the other party to the contract repudiate the contract—

(a) in the case of a contract to dispose of any land or to grant or dispose of any interest in land, at any time before the conveyance or grant of the land or any interest in land to which it relates is completed or executed;

(b) in any other case, at any time before the contract is performed.

(5) A repudiation under subsection (3) or (4) above shall have effect as if made by the local education authority concerned.
(6) Without prejudice to any provision made under paragraph 2(ca) of Schedule 3 to this Act, the powers conferred by this section may only be exercised on or after the incorporation date in relation to the school.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Maintenance grants, special purpose grants and capital grants]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 265A:
Page 69, line 4, leave out ("other than expenditure of a capital nature") and insert ("for the purposes of the school").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 68, line 12, at end insert ("and shall not exceed in any year the equivalent amount in real terms allocated to the school by the local education authority in the last financial year in which it was maintained except in respect of support services provided for individual pupils at the grant maintained school by the authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is yet another technical amendment also to do with money, economics and that kind of thing. We are concerned—I admit that I am slightly ambivalent about which direction I am concerned with—about the real funding of the schools. On the one hand we believe that they ought not to be starved of resources, because we are to have these schools whether we like them or not. As noble Lords are aware, I certainly do not like them, but as we are to have them it is in the public interest to see that they carry out their educational activities properly. Therefore we are concerned about ministerial assurances that these schools will have sufficient real resources to meet their needs.
The second point I have in mind to raise under the amendment is one on which I do not intend to divide the House, but I am seeking elucidation. We are concerned with what will be available for additional support services to deal with matters such as special needs. Whether the noble Baroness will be able to give us any information about how that will be funded or some of the principles that will be applied I do not know. I believe it has also been suggested that a school could become grant-maintained and left with certain gaps in provision. Therefore we are interested in financing to meet those gaps.
Briefly, there are two other matters: I have said that I am slightly ambivalent. If we are to have these schools they must be run properly, but equally we do not want them to be over-financed relative to the other schools in the system. The LEA maintained schools must be given every opportunity still to continue to do a good job and to show what a good job they can do. One is interested how that will be brought into some kind of balance.
Lastly, in terms of maintaining the real resources available to schools—since we know well from all kinds of other considerations that we have applied our minds to on local education that local authority schools differ enormously in the real resources available to them—even on almost any other measurement the schools should be much the same. One is interested whether variations across grant-maintained schools in different areas will be maintained and whether there will be room for rationalisation and so on.
I am not putting this forward as an amendment that one wishes necessarily to see carried into the Bill per se. I am putting it forward at this late stage to have some light thrown on the question of real resource allocation to these schools to enable them to do a proper job and to enable them, if they need to expand, to expand properly. One essentially is asking the Secretary of State or his officials whether they have thought all this through yet and whether there is anything that the noble Baroness can tell us on this general topic. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has raised an interesting and important point. When the Minister replies can she expand a little on the financing of the schools? As I understand the position on grant-maintained schools, the Government would pay a grant equal to the amount that would have been paid by the local education authority but would include in it additional money for the support costs which the local education authority would have from its various central services. Therefore the amount of money going to the school would be somewhat larger than that from the local education authority, but that would be because it had increased expenditure.
If I have understood the system correctly, a grant-maintained school should be able to apply for a 100 per cent. capital grant from the Government for something that it required. It would be helpful for us to have all this on the record because one of the points raised in Committee was the importance of grant-maintained schools and indeed all other schools which will have financial delegation and therefore will require more in the way of help in managing their affairs. It is important, particularly in the case of grant-maintained schools, that they should have this extra money for this purpose. I hope that my noble friend can give us those kinds of assurances. It would be helpful to the whole House to have these matters clarified.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can appreciate the purpose behind the amendment. I hoped that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne had provided the House with this reassurance during the Committee stage when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington.
Grant regulations made under Clause 71 will provide that, in the period before the LEA has introduced its scheme of financial delegation, the annual maintenance grant for the grant-maintained school will be calculated by reference to the LEA's previous funding of the school, based on the information which the LEA will provide under what is currently Clause 73. This calculation will be uprated each year in line with increases in the LEA's funding of its own schools and will take account of any changes in the LEA's financial plans. Once the LEA has introduced a scheme of financial delegation, the annual maintenance grant will be derived by applying to the school the formula by which the LEA's funding of its own schools is calculated.
These provisions are not included on the face of the Bill because it may not be possible to prove beyond doubt in all cases that a school would have received exactly the same amount, down to the last penny. Some small degree of flexibility is needed to ensure that we established a system of payments capable of working smoothly and efficiently. We also need to be able to respond to changes in the LEA's own spending policies and priorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggests that we should tie a grant-maintained school to its historic funding levels as a local authority school, with adjustments each year only to keep in line with inflation. But what if the LEA decides after a few years to alter its spending priorities so that schools
1182
with the characteristics of the grant-maintained school receive a larger or smaller share of total resources than before? is the grant-maintained school to remain untouched'? We think not, because that would mean abandoning the intention to put it on all fours with its local authority counterparts. I feel sure that the noble Lord will not seek to put it in a better or worse position.
The arrangements which the Government are proposing will involve the LEA fully in the calculation of the grant-maintained school's grant. Indeed it will be the LEA which provides the financial information on which the calculation is based, including the grant-maintained school's fair share of expenditure on support services. The Secretary of State will have a duty to act reasonably and I do not share the fears of the noble Lord that the grant-maintained school will receive favoured status of any kind.
In the light of these assurances, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that answer, which I shall read with great care. The main point that I was trying to make was that this is a difficult and highly technical matter. The Minister might like to ask her right honourable friend the Secretary of State whether in due course he might consider publishing a long but clear document about the financing of this sector. Assuming that it comes into existence I believe that this sector would benefit from such a document. I shall read what the Minister has just said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 266A and 266B:
Page 69, line 16, at end insert ("of any class or description specified in the regulations").
Page 69, line 18, leave out ("specified in the regulations") and insert ("so specified").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 266A and 266B together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 69, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) Grant regulations shall provide for the payment of special purpose grants to meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs and shall prescribe the circumstances in which such grants are to be payable.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment carries on the debate in respect of Amendment No. 266, although only in one specific area. In view of what the Minister has just said, I believe that she may be able to say something positive in respect of this amendment. However, because she spoke quite fast I should like to move the amendment and hear what she has to say specifically on this point.
This amendment is similar to one that I moved in Committee but it no longer refers to capital grants because I believe that the Minister answered that

1183
point. However, I still believe that there may be a need for a special purpose grant. In committee on 12th May 1988 (at col. 1340 of the Official Report), the Minister explained that under regulations the annual maintenance grant for a grant-maintained school will equate to the funding that it would have received had it remained under LEA control. However, I am worried by what she then said, which was:
"If the LEA's formula for resourcing that school would have included an allowance for special needs pupils, then that allowance will continue when it achieves grant-maintained status.".
It would appear therefore that if an LEA had not previously resourced the school for pupils with special needs before it opted out, the grant-maintained school would not receive funds for this purpose in the future. If that is so, and if a snapshot of the present is to be treated as a blueprint of the future, the grant-maintained school wanting to admit a pupil with special needs for the first time will be at a distinct disadvantage compared with an LEA school.
I realise that for the statemented pupil the LEA money will follow that pupil. However, there will be pupils with special needs and no statements who may need, for example, equipment not covered by capital grants or non-teaching assistance. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that the intention is not to maintain the status quo in that aspect. I look forward to hearing her reply. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. It is intended to ensure that the special purpose grants must take full account of the extra costs incurred in educating pupils with special educational needs. The amendment is designed to ensure that that payment will be made. We believe that there is a need for a precisely-worded power to provide specifically for special educational needs, and that it should appear on the face of the Bill.
I too was puzzled by the Minister's answer to the last amendment. We believe that resources must be provided for future needs. A grant-maintained school may not have been resourced under special educational needs before it became grant maintained. What incentive does it have to take children with special educational needs if the school cannot be sure that, after becoming grant-maintained, the proper resources will be made available?
The power to issue the special purpose grants for pupils with special educational needs should be clearly stated on the face of the Bill. The point which was made on Second Reading and which has occurred throughout the discussions on special educational needs is that if a school changed its status, can one be sure that there is power in the Bill to provide the resources for the children who need them?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we welcome the chance the amendment gives us to reiterate our firm intention that the introduction of grant-maintained schools should not prejudice the integration of children with special educational needs into mainstream schools. The Bill already includes a number of safeguards to ensure that such children
1184
will continue to be admitted to schools which become grant maintained and we are confident that these schools, far from excluding such children, will be more, not less, accountable to the community they serve.
There are further safeguards in the Bill to provide for children with special educational needs who attend grant-maintained schools, and these make this amendment unnecessary. As far as funding is concerned, the regulations to be made under Clause 71 will provide that the annual maintenance grant to a grant-maintained school will equate to the funding which it would have received had it remained within LEA control. The LEA will be required to publish information about the funding it makes available to the schools it maintains, including the funds it provides in respect of pupils with special needs. If the LEA's resourcing of the school in question included an allowance for special needs pupils, then that allowance will continue when it achieves grant-maintained status. Thus additional costs incurred for children with special needs will be taken into account in the same way as they would be for a similar school which continued to be maintained by the same local education authority.
Once a system of financial delegation is in place—and this may cover the worries about future needs of schools—the local education authority will he able to provide for special needs to any school within that formula. Indeed by means of Amendment No. 173, which we discussed earlier in relation to financial delegation, we have strengthened Clause 33 in that respect. Through the application of the formula, grant-maintained schools which cater for children with special needs will receive comparable funding to those within the LEA's control.
We have consistently made it clear that we wish to ensure that grant-maintained schools neither lose nor gain financially in comparison with LEA-maintained schools. That is why the system of resourcing them is intended to parallel the LEA system. Special purpose grants will be payable in respect of the items of expenditure which are covered in LEA-maintained schools by grants such as education support grants and in-service training grants. Provision in schools for children with special educational needs requires constant funding, not the sort of once-off support that special purpose grants are intended to provide. This is why we intend that funding for it should be included in the regular annual grant payable to grant-maintained schools rather than by any other means.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the House will accept that this amendment is unnecessary and that the movers will not feel it necessary to press it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to understand what she has said. If a school which has not had children with special educational needs becomes grant-maintained and thereby incurs extra costs after it becomes grant-maintained, will the grant be increased to allow for the special provision?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it will be possible for a school to do that. Once

1185
the school has become grant-maintained then it may develop. Of course, there are the rules for preserving the ethos and character of the school, which will preserve the schools where special needs are well established. However, there is nothing to prevent a school in the future from taking on children with special needs.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I am not totally happy because she again said that the school which would have received funding, will continue to receive that amount of funding. I am still not absolutely clear that it will receive extra, or how it will know that it could receive extra, when it is considering whether it might take non-statemented pupils with special needs. I hope that she will think again on whether it is necessary to write this need somewhere in the Bill. There have been many worries by parents with children with special needs in the areas of local financial management and grant-maintained schools, that pupils with special needs are more expensive and could lose out. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, earlier mentioned that these were two areas of concern. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 267A, 267B, 267C, 267D, 267E and 267F:
Page 69, line 38, leave out from first ("or) to end of line 40 and insert ("subsection (3)(b) above as expenditure of a capital nature").
Page 69, line 43, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) A governing body to whom any payments in respect of maintenance grant or special purpose grants are made shall comply with such requirements as the Secretary of State may from time to time impose, being requirements—

(a) specified in grant regulations as requirements which may be imposed by the Secretary of State on governing bodies to whom such payments are made; or

(b) determined in accordance with such regulations by the Secretary of State.

(7A) A governing body to whom any payments in respect of capital grant are made shall comply with such requirements determined by the Secretary of State as he may from time to time impose.
(7B) Requirements imposed under subsection (7) or (7A) above—

(a) may he imposed on or at any time after the making of any payment by reference to which they are imposed; and

(b) may at any time be waived or removed or, subject to subsection (7C) below, varied by the Secretary of State.

(7C) The power of the Secretary of State to vary such a requirement—

(a) does not apply to a requirement imposed under subsection (7)(a) above; and

(b) is subject, in the case of a requirement imposed under subsection (7)(b) above, to the provisions of the regulations with respect to the determination of the requirements that may be so imposed in the case of payments in respect of the grants in question.

(7D) The requirements—

(a) which may be specified in or authorised by grant regulations as requirements which may be imposed on governing bodies to whom payments are made in respect of special purpose grants; or

(b) which may he imposed by the Secretary of State on a governing body to whom payments in respect of capital grant are made;

1186
include in particular requirements with respect to the repayment, in whole or in part, of payments made in respect of those grants if any other requirement imposed under subsection (7) or (7A) above by reference to payments of such grants (whether imposed before, at or after the time when the payments subject to the repayment requirement are made) is not complied with.").
Page 70, line 16, leave out subsection (8).
Page 70, line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) any requirements imposed by the Secretary of State under subsection (7) or (7A) above:").
Page 70, line 29, leave out ("purpose of the exercise of their functions in relation to the conduct") and insert ("purposes").
After Clause 71, insert the following new clause:
("Grants: further provisions.
.—(1)) the times at which, and the manner in which, payments are made in respect of—

(a) maintenance grant for any grant-maintained school in respect of any financial year;

(b) special purpose grants; and

(c) capital grants;

shall be such as may be determined from time to time by the Secretary of State.
(2) Payments in respect of maintenence grant for any such school in respect of any financial year may be made, before any amount has been determined in accordance with grant regulations as the amount of such grant payable for that year in respect of that school, by reference to an estimate of the amount which will be so payable made by the Secretary of State.
(3) Where in respect of any financial year any over-payment of maintenance grant is made to the governing body of such a school a sum equal to the amount of that over-payment shall be recoverable from the governing body by the Secretary of State.
(4) Where any sum is payable by the governing body of such a school to the Secretary of State—

(a) in respect of any over-payment of maintenance grant in respect of any financial year; or

(b) by way of repayment of special purpose grant or capital grant (whether by virtue of any such requirement as is mentioned in section 71(7D) of this Act or otherwise);

the Secretary of State may (without prejudice to any other mode of recovery) recover the whole or any part of that sum by deducting it from any grant payable by him to the governing body.
(5) References in this section, in relation to any such school, to an over-payment of maintenance grant in respect of any financial year are references to any amount by which the aggregate amount of any payments in respect of maintenance grant made to the governing body of the school in respect of that year exceeds the amount finally determined in accordance with grant regulations as the amount of maintenance grant payable for that year in respect of the school.").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 267A, 267B, 267C, 267D, 267E and 267F en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I should say that if Amendment No. 268 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 268A.
Clause 72: [Recovery from local funds of sums in respect of maintenance grant]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 70, line 31, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may make an apology for yet another financing amendment on which I am seeking elucidation.
It seems to me that Clause 72 brings out more clearly than I was able to argue earlier that, to some extent, to define a grant-maintained school as an

1187
independent school, or even to say that it is a publicly financed school with the financing coming from the Secretary of State, are misleading statements. It is not in any sense an independent school in the way in which that word is used in the private sector. It also becomes more and more apparent that the financing remains with the local taxpayer and what is really happening in terms of financing and ownership is quite cosmetic.
Perhaps I may set that on one side, important though it is and I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say about it. However, there are one or two other technical matters which follow from previous amendments, not least the one which has just been discussed, which I should like to raise. This subject is so complex that I find myself understanding it less and less the more we debate it.
We have referred to schools with special needs, but there are many other reasons that a school might need individual finance. I should like some comment from the noble Baroness on the subject. Perhaps noble Lords will forgive this rather crude language, but let us assume that a local education authority has a "best" school which opts out and becomes grant-maintained and there are other more difficult schools. As a matter of policy it decides to put into the difficult or not so good schools a disproportionate quantum of real resources to deal with specific problems. Does the concept of fairness imply that that same extra quantum of resources has to be carried over to the grant-maintained school, or will the local education authority be able to argue to the Secretary of State that, as it is using funds for these specific purposes which do not apply to the grant-maintained schools—this is the converse of the special needs case—therefore the Secretary of State should not "precept", if I may use that word, away from it those additional sums? If we had the time, that would be simply the first step of a whole series of questions concerning the nature of the financing of these schools. However, I am trying to bring out the need for elucidation. It may well be that all noble Lords understand this matter except me.
I certainly do not understand this matter. I referred earlier to the need for the Secretary of State to produce a document which might throw some light on these matters. I have no intention of going into my more acerbic mode by attacking the noble Baroness if she is unable to deal with all the relevant questions. I hope to persuade her and other noble Lords that this is an enormously complicated area on which we need a great deal more information. It is a pity that we are so short of time that we cannot go into the matter fully. That is the reason for the amendment, which I shall not, in due course, press. However, it is an amendment which we can use as a peg on which we can base some rational response. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in proposing to remove from the Bill that subsection which allows the Secretary of State to recover from the LEA the money which that authority would have spent on a grant-maintained school if that school had not opted out, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggests that it is
1188
unreasonable to expect local authorities to pay for schools which are no longer under their control.
However, the LEA will not be robbed of funds which it does not have for this purpose, nor should other schools be deprived as a result of this grant recovery mechanism. The LEA will be entitled to receive rate or revenue support grant which takes account of all the pupils resident in its area who are attending maintained schools, including grant-maintained schools. The cost to the Government of funding any grant-maintained school in the area will then be recovered from the LEA because the running of the school will no longer be a burden which the LEA has to bear. This grant recovery will normally be effected through deductions from rate or revenue support grants, or from other grants payable by central government to local authorities.
The Government's intention is that the financial effects of opting out should be broadly neutral—for the school, for the national taxpayer and for the local ratepayer.
Perhaps I may turn to a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The local education authority formula can include weightings for special factors. If the grant-maintained school does not have the problems for which those weightings allow, it will not receive funding for them. As I said, we intend the financial position to be broadly neutral. I agree that this whole area of financing can be complex, but I hope that with the assurances I have given the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I take absolutely the point that she has just made. It is entirely right that the local authorities should not go on receiving funding for schools that no longer belong to them. However, my noble friend will have to look again at the clause to which Amendment No. 206 related. On that amendment my noble friend said that a local authority must continue to pay the cost of borrowing in relation to a school which no longer belongs to it. That could be a large sum for a long time. The two answers given by my noble friend conflict. I know that we are not now discussing the previous amendment, but it connects with what she just said and I think my noble friend will find that there is considerable illogicality.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I also thank the Minister for her answer which I found to be genuinely helpful. However, it brings out my main point—with which she agrees—of how difficult is all this. It would be as well at some point if we could discover what it all amounts to.
I feel that about the whole Bill. I am hoping that by the time we reach the end of our deliberations I will understand it. Of course, it would have been better if I could have understood it before we began our deliberations; but that cannot be helped. I still do not propose to place myself on the line in the sense of being willing to be subjected to an assessment test on the Bill. But, with those thanks to the noble Baroness, I hope that the words uttered by several noble Lords will be noted by the Secretary of State. I am sure that

1189
they will. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 268A and 268B:
Page 70, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 71 and insert ("in respect of the maintenance grant payable for that year to the governing body of a grant-maintained school.
(2) Subject to subsection (3B) below, sums recoverable by virtue of subsection (1) above in respect of any school for any financial year—

(a) shall be of such amounts; and

(b) shall fall due on such date or dates;

as may he determined by the Secretary of State.
(3) The total amount so recoverable shall be such as may be determined (and from time to time revised) in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section (referred to below in this section as recoupment regulations).
(3A) Subject to any provision made by such regulations by virtue of subsection (3C) below, recoupment regulations shall provide for the total amount so recoverable to be determined by reference to any amount determined under grant regulations as the amount of the maintenance grant payable in respect of the school and the financial year in question (as from time to time revised).
(3B) The amount of any sum so recoverable shall be determined—

(a) where before the determination of the amount of that sum any amount has been determined under recoupment regulations as the total amount recoverable by virtue of subsection (1) above in respect of the school and financial year in question, by reference to any amount so determined as the total amount so recoverable; and

(b) in any other case, by reference to any amount estimated by the Secretary of State as the amount which will initially be so determined as the total amount so recoverable;

which the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to adopt for the time being as a basis for determining the amounts of sums so recoverable.
(3C) Recoupment regulations may provide for reducing any amount which would otherwise fall to be determined under the regulations as the total amount recoverable from any authority by virtue of subsection (1) above in respect of any school for any financial year by reference to any excess amounts recovered under this section in respect of any previous financial year.
(3D) For the purposes of subsection (3C) above an excess amount is recovered under this section in respect of any financial year if the aggregate amount of the sums recovered under this section for that year from the former maintaining authority for any grant-maintained school—

(a) in respect of any school in respect of which sums are recoverable from the authority under this section; or

(b) where there is more than one such school, in respect of both or all of those schools;

exceeds the total amount recoverable under this section in accordance with recoupment regulations in respect of that school or (as the case may be) in respect of both or all of those schools for that year.").
Divide Clause 72 into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (5) inclusive (Recovery from local funds of sums in respect of maintenance grant); and the second consisting of subsections (6) to (11) inclusive (Provisions consequential on section 72).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 73 [Financial statements by local education authorities]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 269:
Leave out Clause 73.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [General provisions as to religious education]:
[Amendment No. 271 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 270:
Leave out Clause 75.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, although this amendment forms part of the package linked with Amendment No. 3 and I could therefore simply move it formally, I feel that it needs a little explanation. In the Bill as currently printed your Lordships will note that Clause 75 reproduces a great deal of Section 25 of the 1944 Education Act and applies it to grant-maintained schools. It has now been decided that it would be better to reproduce that material from the 1944 Act in a way which applies to all the schools covered by the Bill. This suggestion was put to your Lordships in Amendment No. 67 and agreed. That makes Clause 75 redundant. Therefore, I invite your Lordships to leave it out. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Religious education in former county schools]:
Lord Thorneycroft Lord Thorneycroft moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 75, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to find myself in agreement with my noble friend on the Front Bench because I think we all accept that subsection (2) should be left out. There are only two points I wish briefly to make. The Bill as it now stands states that the act of worship shall not be,
"distinctive of any particular religious denomination".
We raised this point in Committee. I think it is generally agreed that nobody could intend those words. Presumably, what was intended is,
"any particular Christian denomination".
That is not particularly Methodist, Anglican, or Catholic. I thank my noble friend for meeting that point.
I express the hope that the Churches are reasonably liberal in this respect because there are many places where a Catholic priest, a Methodist or an Anglican conducts the religious worship. It works perfectly happily and no one has any objection to it. I hope that it can continue.
That is my first point. The second point relates to subsection (2)(a) of Amendment No. 273 tabled by my noble friend which states,
"shall in the main reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief in ways appropriate to the age, aptitude and family background of the pupils involved".
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said, these phrases have moved about. They started in Clause 75(2) as,
"The arrangements for the collective worship in a school required by subsection (1) above may, in respect of each school day, provide for a single act of worship for all pupils or for separate acts of worship for pupils in different age groups or in different school groups".
The Government and the right reverend Prelate agreed that there might be separate acts of worship. There was then an amendment related to Clause 75—the clause we have just abolished but which is now Amendment No. 273 tabled by my noble friend which states,
"shall in the main reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief in ways appropriate to the age, aptitude and family background of the pupils involved".

1191
Therefore, we can have separate acts of worship for different groups in the school, for different ages or for pupils with different aptitudes. However, I ask the Government and the right reverend Prelate to consider different faiths. It seems to me odd to be prepared to have a separate act of worship for pupils of different ages, aptitudes and family backgrounds but not for different faiths. I shall not argue the case in detail because the right reverend Prelate has kindly said that he will speak on the matter. I know that he will have discussions with the Chief Rabbi, who is closely involved, on the subject. I do not know whether there is any significance in the amendment now being in the name of my noble friend rather than that of the right reverend Prelate, but I hope that we can meet, as arranged, with the right reverend Prelate and perhaps also with a member of the Government, as it is now a government amendment, to discuss this quietly together. I express the hope that the Chief Rabbi, who is deeply concerned with this matter, will be brought into those conversations. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly support my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, especially on the need to provide for people of different faiths other than the Christian faith. I add just a few comments which relate to the handling of this matter from now on. The Government and the right reverend Prelate have tabled scores of amendments dealing with religion, and other matters have been tabled by the Government too. We welcome the right reverend Prelate's amendments and even more his willingness to consider whether they can be improved in order to meet the points which have been made.
Quite frankly, these scores of amendments on various matters have involved a great feat of scissors and paste on the part of somebody. I do not claim to have mastered the effect of all of them. A vast proportion of them have been taken on the nod and that shows great restraint by noble Lords on both sides of your Lordships' House. Together the amendments contain many complex provisions and some, strangely enough, overlap which was clear from what was said by my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft.
Perhaps I may give two examples. Amendment No. 273 comes next and overlaps Amendment No. 272 so I suppose it is in order to mention it. The effect of subsection (2) of my noble friend's Amendment No. 273 repeats subsection (2) of Amendment No. 69 tabled by the right reverend Prelate. I realise that one refers to "maintained schools" and the other to "grant-maintained schools". It appeared that both the Government and the right reverend Prelate had the aim of bringing religious matters together as far as possible, but when the Bill left Committee they were widely separated. It is strange to find that that has not been done. That can be said to be just a matter of structure and drafting.
Perhaps I may give another example of repetition. Amendment No. 273, subsection (2B), repeats Section 26(2) of the 1944 Act mentioned in Amendment No. 101. Those are two examples of repetition which may be avoided even at this late stage by the draftsman being asked to do a little
1192
restructuring though time is short. There are other examples but I shall not burden your Lordships with them.
A good deal depends upon when the Bill is reprinted. The present intention of the Government is to have the Third Reading on Tuesday of next week. If we do not see the Bill by Thursday morning — I believe it is unlikely that we shall because it will be asking an awful lot of the Government's printers—we and the right reverend Prelate, will be at a disadvantage. When we receive the whole Bill with all these amendments embodied, we shall need to read it again as we had to before the Second Reading. When it is reprinted I reckon that the Bill will have increased to 260 pages.
When we have seen the Bill, and preferably after we have seen any amendments tabled by the Government or by the right reverend Prelate, we shall need to draft our amendments. It might be a waste of your Lordships' time if we draft our amendments for Third Reading before we have seen what the Government and the right reverend Prelate are doing. In view of these factors I have mentioned, I hope briefly enough, it would be much better if we did not rush these considerations. It is the most important education Bill for 44 years and it makes some pretty radical changes in the system. Would it not be better to have a few more days to get it right and for Third Reading not to take place as soon as Tuesday week?
Lord McNair: My Lords, perhaps I may support what the noble Lord said. As far as I know, on Thursday of next week our amendments will be considered in another place. When is the Bill to be reprinted for that to take place?
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I believe it will be appropriate if I said a few words at this stage about the Moslem attitude to religious education because hitherto it has not been mentioned in detail. I can say with due humility that I am as close to Moslem thinking as any Member of your Lordships' House and I have heard several views on the subject.
I wish to emphasise that the Moslem community in Britain is a very large one, as many of your Lordships will be aware—1½ million to 2 million—which means more Moslems than Methodists. They wish to be co-operative, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London will agree. As your Lordships know, the Moslems accept both Judaism and Christianity. They are both regarded as people of the Book. I was told the other day that a Moslem who does not accept Jesus will not be called a Moslem. Perhaps I may quote briefly one of the Suras from the Koran, No. 285:
"We make no distinction [they say] beween one and another of His Apostles".
As your Lordships are aware, the Moslems regard Jesus as one of their prophets. I have said before, and I emphasise again, that the Moslems wish to be cooperative but they are not wholly happy about the Bill as it stands at the moment. I hope that there will be some flexibility.

1193
The Moslem community warmly welcomes the proposal for a conference this week which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned. I hope at that conference that we shall evolve some degree of flexibility which will take account of the Moslem desire to have their children educated appropriately as Moslems. They do not like the idea of opting out because they feel that that may lead to a vacuum. One thing they wish to avoid above everything else is a vacuum. That is why, as I said at the beginning, they feel that Christianity is better than no religion at all.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I see that the Leader of the House is in his place. I should like to support the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton on the proposed timing of the further stages of this Bill because that timing is highly relevant to this amendment and to the one which the noble Baroness is about to move. If my noble friend Lord Renton is well informed—he generally is—it is apparently the intention to take the Third Reading on Tuesday of next week. I suggest most earnestly to my noble friend the Leader of the House that that will cause very considerable difficulty. I do not need to stress to him, because he knows it, that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation for many years. It is 44 years since we had an education Bill and many of us who have been taking part hope it will be another 44 years before there is another.
It is of immense importance to get the Bill right. If we are to finish the Report stage on Tuesday, and on present form we have been finishing not exactly early in the day, that means that it will be extremely difficult to get the Bill reprinted during that week and before the Third Reading is taken. I do not say anything is impossible for the government printer. It will be extremely difficult for your Lordships to put forward amendments at Third Reading and to study before the Bill is taken those amendments which it is hoped that the Government will put forward.
I know that, particularly at this time of year, and perhaps especially this year, the government programme is a very difficult one and there is a natural objection to doing anything which disturbs it. However, I appeal to my noble friend the Leader of the House to appreciate the very great importance of getting the Bill right. I suggest to him that our chances of getting it right will be at any rate considerably diminished if, as is apparently proposed, it is to be rushed in its final stages. I am not asking my noble friend to answer now but I am asking him to think most seriously about it; and those of your Lordships who have supported the Government through these long debates have perhaps special grounds for making this appeal to him.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, in view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, I hope I may be forgiven if I make again a point which I made in an earlier debate. I do so because it is an important point and I was quite unable to get the Government to understand it at the time.
I knew a school at which five-sixths of the boys were Christian and the rest were Jewish. They solved the problem by having two acts of collective
1194
Worship—for the Christian boys in one part of the building and for the Jewish boys in another. When those were over they met together for what one might call the secular aspects of morning assembly. That seemed to be a sensible and civilised way of dealing with the matter. It was not divisive in the school as both communities knew that they were of a different faith. They respected the difference and that was that. What is extraordinary is that, under Clause 97 of the Bill as it now stands and Amendment No. 69 which we have now adopted, this arrangement would be illegal. Both of those provisions say that one can have separate acts of collective worship for children of different age groups, for children of different groups for some other teaching purpose but not for different groups by faith. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft: why not have a different act of worship for children of a different faith?
I cannot see the objection to it. I hope that we shall not let the Bill go through with it being made illegal. It is my strong feeling that if we do that nobody will pay any attention, and a good many schools which have this problem and deal with it in this way will carry on doing so. That is not a satisfactory way of arranging things. We have a chance now of making this arrangement legal. It could be done in Amendment No. 337 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. If I understand it correctly, subsection (5) of the amendment would produce exactly this result. I earnestly ask the Government to make this arrangement.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, in this respect although I would emphasise that flexibility is absolutely essential. I do not believe that separate assemblies are correct as they can be divisive, but I should like the Minister to answer a question when she comes to reply to Amendment No. 273. It centres around the words "in the main".
Let us suppose that in a hypothetical school the religious affiliation of the students was predominantly Christian but that there was a small but significant proportion of children from other faiths. For the sake of example let us say that they were mainly Hindu. That is a perfectly possible situation. What would be the attitude to a request from this minority group that they celebrate in assembly the Hindu festival of Divali and that other children be invited to attend if they so wished? The school had in the past held assemblies which reflected the broad traditions of Christian belief and this request was perhaps an exception. One assumes that the teachers were qualified in the subject which had been well taught. Would the noble Baroness wish to discourage or encourage plans for assemblies of this nature? In my view this kind of assembly would be perfectly proper; and in terms of a flexible interpretation of the wording of the Act, it would be legal. It would be perfectly proper, as opposed to segregated assemblies which could be seen to be divisive. I should be most interested to hear the noble Baroness's views when she replies to Amendment No. 273.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, referred to Amendment No. 337 which stands in my name, perhaps I may just assure the House that I shall not move that amendment this evening because of pressures of time. May I say briefly that I hope that the substance of the amendment will be met satisfactorily in discussions which we are looking forward to having with the right reverend Prelate later this week, and that an amendment to meet these valid points will be agreed and forthcoming for Third Reading. For example, the problem might be met by putting in a phrase "appropriate not only to pupils' age and family background but also other faiths". I am conscious of the fact that we shall have these discussions and I hope very much that we shall have an agreement by Third Reading.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I should like strongly to support what the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said about the difficulty of the Bill and the importance of getting it right. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, the same phrases arise again and again in the Bill. On one or two occasions I have raised the problem about denominations and faiths. Amendment No. 273 says,
"distinctive of any particular religious denomination".
I should like to suggest consideration of the words,
"any denomination of a religious faith".
That would make it clearer, if that is what the Government intend; otherwise, one will have a muddle, which all of us want to avoid, between denominations and faiths.
We are discussing Amendment No. 272 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and it would be unfortunate if we were to go back into the debate which I thought we had last week.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, over the matter of timing. As I have said before, we would have much preferred the whole question of what one might call the religious settlement to have been worked out before the Bill came to the House; but that was not to be. We have had to do what we can in the circumstances before us. We have done our best in very difficult circumstances. Since last week we have been working extremely hard in our consultations.
I should like to say just two things. First, I can assure all those who have spoken this afternoon that the points which were made are being considered most carefully and account will be taken of them. Secondly, we are well ahead with a document which will be available to those who are coming to meet us on Wednesday. That document will both clarify our intentions and make evident the overall effect of the amendments in a way which I agree is difficult to see because of the way they have had to be dealt with. I ask your Lordships to accept the assurances as they are not only given in good faith but are based on a considerable amount of work undertaken in the past few days.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, can be tell us whether when we come to the meeting on Wednesday he will be able to
1196
give us an idea of what amendments he is proposing to his own amendment?
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that I hope to be in a position to do so—perhaps I may add, after consultation with the Government.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I rather think that the last statement made by the right reverend Prelate covers the position. Although we have debated the matter at some length and agreed to many amendments, I am sure that those noble Lords who still have anxieties in this respect will be reassured by the open-minded attitude of the right reverend Prelate and also, I hope, of the Government. We shall do whatever is possible further to allay any doubts which may arise.
As reference has been made to the subsequent amendment tabled in my name, I must say that since we have previously debated that amendment, I had not, in fact, intended to speak to it in any detail but merely formally to move it. On that note I hope that my noble friend will feel able not to press his amendment further at this stage.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may just be clear about what the noble Baroness has just said. Although we are most reassured to hear what the right reverend Prelate has said about the discussions he will have next Wednesday, the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised this important matter with the noble Baroness. As many other substantial issues are being dealt with during the Report stage of the Bill, will the noble Baroness indicate whether the Government will insist on having the Third Reading of the Bill on Tuesday of next week?
If we are to receive a print at the very earliest on Thursday—as I understand is the position—or possibly on Friday, it seems to me most unfortunate that we shall have an opportunity to consider the terms of the amendments put forward on Third Reading only at a very late stage indeed on what is the biggest education Bill for 44 years. Indeed, that point has already been made by the noble Lord opposite. Is it not possible for the Government to move slightly on the issue? I am not asking them to make any major concession in this regard, but perhaps they could move the Bill back a little so that the House can have a much more orderly debate on Third Reading. Indeed I suspect that that is the view of many noble Lords on both sides of the House.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is putting the same point to me as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I shall certainly look at the interval. However, I must make one thing clear. There has been talk about rushing the Bill through; that is not the case. The interval between the end of the Report stage tomorrow and the day which has been put down for Third Reading recognises what is supposed to be the intervals between Report and Third Reading stages. I make no secret of the fact that the Government have a very full timetable and therefore to alter a timetable is much easier said than done. The timetable has already been booked in the diaries of many people, and I also have to admit that it is most

1197
important from the Government's point of view to get their business through.
It would therefore be wrong of me to conceal from the House that it would be easy to respond to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Nonetheless, I shall look at the interval but, as I say, this could be a difficult matter. Indeed, what might be suitable for some people, might be unsuitable for others.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he would agree that, although a week between the Report and Third Reading stages is customary, when we have legislation of such length with a vast number of complex amendments which alter the whole structure of the Bill—some controversial and many leading to requests for further improvement—the one-week rule does not cover the situation.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, obviously my noble friend feels deeply about this point. Although I do not think it will be especially helpful to the House if I repeat what I said previously, nonetheless I shall do so—in the space of one sentence. In putting forward their programme on this point, as my noble friend rightly said, the Government are observing the customary intervals. Although changes in those intervals might suit some Members of the House, they may well not suit others.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, I should like to make it absolutely plain to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that any conversations we have with the right reverend Prelate will have nothing to do with the date of the Third Reading of the Bill. Indeed, he has enough problems on his hands without having to take that one on board.
I say to the noble Baroness, yes, we are impressed in two respects: First, by the religious tolerance shown in almost every speech which has been made in the House this afternoon and the desire to do something sensible and helpful about other faiths; secondly, by the understanding and compassion of the right reverend Prelate in his willingness to take all those matters fully into account, so that they can be weighed before the discussions take place.
As regards the issue of time, I think that it would greatly help the timing if we could reach agreement at those discussions on some arrangements which were generally tolerable to the whole House. I very much hope that that will be so.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his sympathy. Indeed, I think that I may perhaps deserve it more than he realises in that next Tuesday is not only the Third Reading of the Bill, but it is also a session of the General Synod of the Church of England on a particular and constant problem.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 273 to 286:
Page 75, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In the case of a school to which this section applies the collective worship required by section (Collective worship) of this Act—

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

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

(2A) In the case of such a school the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1)(a) of this Act to be included in the school's basic curriculum shall be provision for religious education in accordance with the appropriate agreed syllabus.
(2B) Religious education given to pupils at such a school in accordance with the provision so required shall not include any catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular religious denomination.").
Page 75, line 14, leave out ("(2)(b)" and insert ("(2A)").
Page 75, line 19, leave out from ("worship") to ("shall") in line 20 and insert ("in a school to which this section applies required by section (Collective worship) of this Act").
Page 75, line 22, at beginning insert ("Subsection (5A) below applies").
Page 75, line 24, leave out from ("section") to ("the") in line 25 and insert ("(Exceptions. special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of this Act to receive religious education elsewhere.
(5A) if in any such case").
Page 75, line 28, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Page 75, line 31, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Page 75, line 32, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Page 75, line 35, leave out ("so to do") and insert ("to do so").
Page 75, line 42, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Page 75, line 44, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Clause 77, page 76, line 4, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Page 76, line 12, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Page 76, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 16 and insert—
("In the case of a school to which this section applies the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1)(a) of this Act to be included in the school's basic curriculum shall be provision for religious education—

(a) in accordance with any arrangements made under subsection (2) above; or

(b) subject to any such arrangements,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 287 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 288 to 308:
Page 76, line 24, leave out subsection (5).
Page 76, line 33, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Clause 78, page 76, line 39, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) In the case of a school to which this section applies the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1(a) of this Act to be included in the school's basic curriculum shall be provision for religious education—

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

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

Page 77, line I, leave out second ("the") and insert ("such a school").
Page 77, line 2, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Page 77, line 9, leave out ("so to do") and insert ("to do so").
Page 77, line 10, leave Out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Page 77, line 12, leave out ("instruction in the school") and insert ("education in the school in accordance with the provision for that purpose included in the school's basic curriculum by virtue of section 2(1)(a) of this Act.").
Page 77, line 19, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Clause 79, page 77, line 22, after ("(2)") insert (":(2B)").
Page 77, line 23, leave out from first ("the") to ("in") in line 24 and insert ("required provision for religious education should be provision for religious education").
Page 77, line 27, at end insert—
("(aa) the required provision for religious education shall (subject to subsection (2) below) be provision for religious education either in accordance with the tenets of that religious denomination or in accordance with any arrangements made under section 78(4) of this Act (as applied by paragraph (a) below:").
Page 77, line 28, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").
Page 77, line 34, leave out from first ("the") to ("otherwise") in line 35 and insert ("required provision for religious education should be provision for religious education").
Page 77, line 39, after ("76(2)") insert ("to (2B)").
Page 77, line 44, leave out ("76(2)(b)") and insert ("76(2A)").
Page 78, line 9, at end insert—
("(4) In this section "the required provision for religious education", in relation a school, means the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1)(a) of this Act to be included in the school's basic curriculum.").
Clause 80, page 78, line 19, leave out ("76(2) (b)") and insert ("76(2A)").
Page 78, line 28, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Page 78, line 30, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
Page 78, line 41, leave out ("the proposals") and insert ("any proposals such as are").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move these amendments en bloc
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 81 [Change of character or enlargement of grant-maintained school]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 309:
Page 79, line 3, at end insert—
("Provided that no proposals may be published which include provision for—

(a) the charging of fees for educational services other than as provided in sections 99–04 of this Act, or

(b) the introduction of any system of selection in admissions, whether by ability or otherwise").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, yet again I find myself opening my speech with the statement that this is an extremely important amendment. It is certainly extremely important to noble Lords on this side of the House. The provisions of the Bill refer to the powers of the Secretary of State as regards the possibility of significant change in the character or enlargement of the school premises, and so on. We accept that once a school is set up it cannot be frozen, so to speak, in that state for ever and ever. The grant-maintained schools, inasmuch as we do not agree with them, must have some chance to change, to move forward and to respond to circumstances. Nonetheless, it is our view—as shown by earlier amendments that I moved concerning their financing—that such schools are still within the public domain. Indeed we have stressed that they have various aspects which indicate that they are in
1200
the public domain—not just their financing but other aspects as well. For example, all the questions relating to special needs indicate that fact.
In connection with such schools, there are no matters more fundamental so far as this side of the House is concerned than the two that have been raised in the Bill; namely, the charging of fees (other than the technical sense of Clauses 99 to 104) and the introduction of selection in admission procedures in a form that we mention in the amendment.
I am as aware as any one of your Lordships of the pressures of the timetable. I do not want suddenly to start us on a great debate about free education, comprehensive schools and all that; but I do not hesitate to make my commitment to both free education and comprehensive schools totally clear. Given the other burdens on us, it would not be appropriate to get that kind of debate going.
I want essentially to get the Government to put in the Bill what they have said; namely, that they are not introducing opting-out so as to introduce charging or to abolish free schooling, and they are not introducing opting-out and grant-maintained status so as to introduce selection and what used to be called the grammar school. The Government have said that. Our view is—and it may be that we are merely being neurotic; it is occasionally right to be suspiciously neurotic on certain matters—that since the Government have said that, in introducing grant-maintained schools, their intention is not to achieve those two ends, the best way to make that intention clear and to reassure those of us who are about as fundamentally concerned with this issue as with any other is to write it on the face of the Bill. I have not on the whole taken part in any of the debates on religion, but those noble Lords who have been concerned with religion should know that a noble Lord such as myself is as deeply concerned and perhaps even more concerned, about free schooling as he is about religion. If religion can be written into the Bill in the form in which it is, I cannot see why free schooling cannot be written into the Bill. That is the basis of the amendment.
I wish that we had more time because there are many dimensions to this subject worth exploring. What one should charge for is worth exploring. I am aware of the time limitation and aware of and sympathetic to the points made a little earlier on time and pressure. I do not want to prolong the debate; but in not prolonging the debate, I do not want noble Lords to underestimate how important we believe the content of the amendment to be, and how much we look forward to some positive and constructive response. It is probably too much on past record to say that I expect the Government to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I fully understand the strong feelings that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has about free schooling. The views that he holds and expresses are probably widely held in the House and elsewhere, but I am unhappy about the second part of his amendment—the exclusion of any possibility of an opted-out school going in for selection. As the noble Lord and most of your Lordships will recall, that is a long-standing

1201
controversy. I was involved in it when I was in another place, because I had the honour to be the Member for the other place for the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames which, as some of your Lordships may know, possessed and possesses some of the best selective schools in the country—the Tiffin schools. Your Lordships may recall they still operate a system of selection and still, partly as a result of that, obtain a remarkable number of Oxbridge entries and scholarships.
I am glad to recall that we succeeded in defeating the efforts of Mrs. Shirley Williams—I think that she is Mrs. somebody else now—who attempted to abolish them, and the schools continue and prosper. I do not see why where a school has opted-out, we should write into the Bill a prohibition on an opted-out school adopting the selection process if those controlling it think fit.
One wants a broader view on the matter. There is a great deal to be said for the point—and many of us feel this at least as strongly as the noble Lord feels about fee paying—that to exclude the possibility of creation of more selective schools would be a serious and damaging matter. For reasons of time, I do not want to open up the whole subject. Any of your Lordships who have experience of contact with such schools know that they perform an extremely good service in helping to educate, often from the humblest of homes, the brightest of our children. If it is any consolation to noble Lords opposite, they will of course be aware that in Soviet Russia, the system of selective entry is being extended.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there is no possibility that grant-maintained schools will be able to charge fees. Clause 99 explicitly prohibits charging in respect of admission to any maintained school and, in respect of the provision of education at the school, other than in the limited circumstances set out in Chapter V. Grant-maintained schools will be able to charge for exactly the same things as local authority maintained schools can charge: no more, no less; and there is no possibility of them publishing proposals to do anything else. I hope that that sets the noble Lord's mind at rest on this important matter.
I turn now to the more complex issue of a change in the mode of selection. It will be possible for the governors of a grant-maintained school to publish proposals under Clause 81 for a change in the school's admissions arrangements. They could, for example, apply for the school to become coeducational; to change its age range; to go comprehensive; or to become selective. If the governors were to seek to do any of those things, all interested parties would be able to object to or comment on the proposal to the Secretary of State. He would take all relevant factors into account in reaching his decision.
I believe that this approach will ensure that the views of the wider community will be properly heard, just as they are in the case of Section 12 or 13 proposals for changing the character of local
1202
authority maintained schools. I certainly do not accept, any more than my noble friend does, that grant-maintained schools, alone of all maintained schools, should be completely forbidden from responding to the needs and wishes of the local community if it is their clear wish to return to selection.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. It might help me to clarify my mind. Is she saying that if a grant-maintained school which was comprehensive wished to become selective, it would be subject to the precise procedures mutatis mutandis that a local education authority would have to go through to convert the same comprehensive into a selective school? Is that her answer?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am saying that the right is the same although the procedures may be slightly different, but probably on a mutatis mutandis basis. I would not expect that change to happen any more than it does currently in the local authority sector, and certainly not in the early days.
It is widely recognised that stability is very important to a successful school, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that he would not normally expect to consider any proposal by a grant-maintained school for a change of character for at least five years after the school becomes grant-maintained.
The noble Lord's amendments suggest to me that his confidence in the comprehensive principle is faltering. I should have thought that if the parents and community governors at a grant-maintained school were proud of its progress as a comprehensive, they would be unlikely to propose changes which would radically alter its nature and keep out many of the pupils from the community it serves. On that basis, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am tempted to respond, rise to the fly of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and get us started on a comprehensives debate. Suffice it to say that I do not remotely accept that selective education is other than damaging both for the pupils in the school and for all other pupils in the area in which the selection takes place. I do not regard entrance to Oxbridge as my criterion for educational success. It is not one that I hope increases in currency as a result of this legislation. If one does regard it as such, I point out that many of us have children who went to Oxbridge and also to comprehensive schools. It is worth bearing that in mind. As I say, I must stick to my rules. I am not going to have a debate on comprehensives.
I am a little worried about the noble Baroness's reply. If she has the time, she might like to write to me to say whether something equivalent to the Section 12 and 13 procedures would apply in rare cases. I think I would accept a written reply from her on that. Given that and the need to speed up, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 309A not moved.]
Clause 82 [Approval of school premises on change of character or enlargement]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 310:
Page 80, line 13, leave out ("such") and insert—

("(a) particulars of the access provision made or to be made with respect to the premises or proposed premises of the school indicating the extent to which the provision conforms with the minimum requirements of the Design Note so far as they are relevant to school premises; and

(b) such other").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendment No. 310 together with Amendment No. 312. The Government have made it consistently clear that their proposals for grant-maintained schools pose no threat to children with special educational needs. Where the governing body of a grant-maintained school publishes proposals for a significant change of character to the school or an enlargement of its premises under Clause 81, it will be required to include details of how this would affect provision for pupils with special educational needs. Additionally, where the governors have published such proposals, the Secretary of State is empowered under Clause 82 to ask for any information he wishes about the premises or proposed premises of the school.
In Committee on 16th May the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), suggested further safeguards for those with special needs in such circumstances. We undertook to consider her concerns and we are confident that Amendment No. 310 will now satisfy them. It requires the governors of a grant-maintained school who have published proposals under Clause 81 to submit to the Secretary of State information on the extent to which the proposed premises would meet the minimum requirements of Design Note 18 on access to educational buildings for physically disabled people. The amendment will signal to governors the kind of detailed information they will be expected to provide in such circumstances. It affords further reassurance and additional security for all those with special needs who will be users of grant-maintained schools. On those grounds, I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to welcome these two amendments most warmly. The noble Earl's confidence is not misplaced; the amendments achieve exactly what I was trying to achieve when I moved my amendment in Committee. They do it rather more fully and rather better. I am most grateful.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may say too that I am extremely pleased that the Government have made a concession on this important matter. I think that I supported the noble Baroness when she moved her amendment and I am delighted that the Government have seen the light about this.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 311 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 312:
Page 80, line 14, at end insert—
("(1A) In subsection (1)(a) above—
"access provision", in relation to school premises, means provision as to the means of access both to and within the premises; and
1204
"the Design Note" means Design Note 18" Access for Disabled People to Educational Buildings" published in 1984 on behalf of the Secretary of State, or any document replacing that Note prescribed by regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Discontinuance by governing body]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 313:
Page 80, line 29, at end insert ("including proposals published by the local education authority, on grounds of the inadequate size of the school, as part of a scheme of local reorganisation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to allow local education authorities to propose the closure of grant-maintained schools as part of a reorganisation proposal for the authority. As the Bill is currently drafted, the local authority in which the grant-maintained school is sited cannot propose the closure of that school even though it is responsible for its funding. Yet the LEA is expected, and indeed it is its duty, to plan the effective provision of education for its authority as a whole. This could prove difficult if even one school in a small authority were to acquire grant-maintained status.
Over a period of years the Government have been urging authorities to improve planning in order to reduce wastage, to provide more efficient and effective education and to cope with falling rolls. In 1986 the Audit Commission published a report, Towards Better Management of Secondary Education, urging the need to close schools in order to respond to falling rolls. The commission took the view that:
"An increasing number of schools are too small to be educationally viable. Smaller schools are more expensive to staff if they are to deliver the same curriculum, especially as they fall below four forms of entry".
Because LEAs are responsible for education throughout their authority, they are able to plan the most effective way of delivering education. They can therefore make the difficult decision to close a school which is too small to function effectively. In contrast, the governing body of a grant-maintained school which is responsible for only one school is likely to be extremely reluctant to close the school, regardless of how effectively it is delivering education.
The view of such a body will be biased rather than impartial. This amendment would allow the LEA to consider the future of a grant-maintained school as part of its reorganisation plans. It would be difficult for an LEA to plan its future provision satisfactorily if there is some uncertainty about the future of a grant-maintained school within its area about which it had no say. If its plans were made on the assumption that the school would remain open and the governing body of that school subsequently applied for the closure of the school, then the number of places available within the LEA as a whole might prove inadequate.
If on the other hand the LEA made allowance for the closure of the grant-maintained school and the school did not close, there would be an excessive number of spare places in the LEA schools. The present wording of the Bill demands that the LEA plans provision but takes away its means of doing so. The LEA has this overall responsibility which I think

1205
will be more difficult unless this amendment is received, as I hope it will he, by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this amendment is not acceptable to the Government. It would be clearly inappropriate for a local education authority which exercised no control over a grant-maintained school to have the power to initiate its demise. That decision is a fundamental and crucial one and it should rest with those who are responsible for the school and know it best—that is to say, the governing body and the Secretary of State.
It may be argued that no governing body will ever wish to close its own school, however strong the economic or educational arguments to do so. But that is not necessarily true. I expect that the parents themselves would exert strong pressure to that effect if they felt that the school was no longer capable of meeting their children's needs. But in any case Clause 85(3) provides a clear safeguard in such circumstances. The Secretary of State can terminate grant to a grant-maintained school where:
"The number of registered pupils at the school is too small for sufficient and suitable instruction to be provided for them at reasonable cost".
In doing so, he will no doubt take due account of the implications of his decision for the wider educational provision of the area and it will be open to the local education authority to seek to influence his thinking in this respect. The authority will of course be consulted about the date of any such closure of the school in this context in order to achieve the minimum disruption to the education of pupils.
I believe that these mechanisms are sufficient to ensure that a failing grant-maintained school—of which I must say I do not expect there to be many—is not able to damage wider educational provision in the area by lingering on unjustifiably. I therefore urge the House to reject this amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry, naturally, to hear the remarks of the noble Baroness, because the amendment included in its wording,
"the inadequate size of the school",
and the purpose was only to allow local education authorities to propose the closure. The Secretary of State will have the power, but he may not consult the local education authority about what he is going to do and he may not know all the problems which the local education authority is facing.
As with so many parts of the Bill this provision is anti helping local education authorities which have such a difficult task. The establishment of grant-maintained schools will, of course, make their task infinitely more difficult. However, I shall not press the amendment, but I regret very much that the Government again do not seem to have seen the point of what we are trying to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this might be an appropriate moment at which to break for dinner. I
1206
beg to move that further consideration on Report on this Bill be now adjourned and that we do not return to it before 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill
7.3 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Compulsory Wearing of rear seat belts by children]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("vehicle") to ("on") in line 10 and insert ("first used on or after 1 April 1987").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, reminded us in Committee on this Bill, the right honourable gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer told another place on 23rd January 1980 when speaking to seat belt amendments at the Committee stage of a transport Bill then going through, that the intention was not to require compulsory wearing where there was not compulsory fitting. He said that he could not believe that if any Minister of Transport brought forward regulations on any other basis the House would give its approval to them.
That seemed to most of us self-evident in our parliamentary democracy, yet there are disturbing signs that the present Minister of Transport may be thinking—I do not say he is thinking—of reversing this widely accepted policy. This despite the fact that most people would consider it unthinkable that parents who had voluntarily, at their own expense, in a public-spirited way, fitted rear seat belts to pre-1987 cars should be hauled up in court, with all the attendant adverse publicity, and fined if they did not strap their children into the rear seats of their cars on every single occasion, whatever the circumstances. However, other parents who had never bothered to fit rear seat belts would remain perfectly free to drive their children round unbelted in the rear of their cars in perpetuity, or at any rate for as long as they continued to own a pre-April 1987 car. Most people in this country would, I suggest, consider such a policy totally unfair and totally unworthy of this Government.
As noble Lords will recognise, Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are alternatives. Amendment No. 1 to which

1207
I am speaking now, although it would do no more than bring the law regarding rear seat belts for children into line with the law on front seat belts for children, is slightly more rigid than Amendment No. 2 which would permit compulsory wearing whenever compulsory fitting is required. In other words, Amendment No. 2 represents a considerable compromise with the views of the supporters of the Bill. I hope that that willingness to compromise does not go unrecognised.
If for any reason the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, or the Government indicate a positive preference for Amendment No. 1 over Amendment No. 2, I shall, of course, persist with it. But if they do not—and I suspect that they will show a slight preference for the second amendment as it is somewhat more flexible and would permit the Minister to introduce new regulations—I shall probably withdraw it and agree to a compromise amendment, which is Amendment No. 2. I await with interest what noble Lords have to say. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I confess I had expected that these two amendments would be moved together. I am not absolutely clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was speaking to both amendments, but I imagine that he was. Therefore the debate will cover both. Perhaps other noble Lords will wish to speak as they have their names down on the Marshalled List. I can only speak once so I must answer the whole debate now as well as I can.
I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, relied on. A statement was made in Committee in 1980, not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer but by the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Nevertheless, he was a junior Minister of Transport at the time so the noble Lord has a fair peg on which to hang his argument. What was said was that it was unthinkable that Ministers would make the wearing of rear set belts compulsory before the actual fitting of the seat belts had been made compulsory. That was a fair point.
One must see the statment that was made in the light of the changing perspective of Government generally, and especially in the light of the rapidly changing perspective on transport. First, the Government made it compulsory to have front seat belts. Now it is a matter of choice as regards what should be done about rear seat belts. The Government might have proposed that rear seat belts should be compulsory for adults and children. Or it may be decided that rear seat belts should be worn by all children sitting in the hack. There are various alternatives. However, the point was very well made by the Minister in debates in another place that the perspective does change. That is really the point that I put to the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
As the Minister saw the position in 1980—eight years ago— the next step would have been to make the actual fitting of seat belts compulsory before making it compulsory for them to be worn. This Bill gradually makes compulsory the wearing of rear seat belts as they are fitted or have been fitted— compulsorily since 1987 and voluntarily before that.
1208
That is how the Minister saw the position at the time. I do not think that his statement binds future governments. The particular approach that has been decided upon is that it should be compulsory for seat belts to be worn by children in the rear of cars if the seat belt is there. To accept the noble Lord's amendment would mean excluding something like 2 million seat belts which are already fitted in the rear of motor cars. Everyone knows that for some years a large range of motor cars have been fitted with rear seat belts as standard; Volvos, Volkswagens, Fiats, Mazdas, Toyotas, Saabs, BMWs and Mercedes, for instance. In addition, many private car owners have fitted rear seat belts because they felt it sensible for the protection of their family.
The noble Lord makes the point that a parent may forget to fasten a seat belt which has been fitted compulsorily and is then apprehended by the police. This seems to be a remote possibility. The concept of a caring parent being penalised is so outside the spirit of the Bill that I do not think it is a sufficiently strong peg on which the noble Lord can hang an argument. The amendment would require ruling out the application of something like 2 million seat belts. The object of the Bill is to give children the protection of a rear seat belt insofar as there are seat belts there.
We are contemplating a measure which we know will give additional protection to children and which will save lives and prevent injuries. To exclude from the measure such a large number of seat belts which could achieve that is utterly impracticable. I should like to say to noble Lords that despite the ministerial statement eight years ago, we should not feel ourselves bound by that statement. We should take the practical view. We have a chance of including in the measure the existing seat belts. We should take advantage of that, knowing that by doing so we are going to give protection to millions of children who would not otherwise have it. I hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded that there is a very strong argument for taking the Bill as it stands and not proceeding with his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, I should like to advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to. I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 2.
Lord Underhill: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in his opposition to Amendment No. 1. I have handled a number of transport Bills from this Dispatch Box; I can appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, desires to be flexible in order to achieve something. However, this flexibility is carrying things a little too far. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, moved an amendment at the Committee stage, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to defer regulations until compulsory seat belts for all vehicles were a condition of their being on the road. Now the noble Lord wishes to limit the proposal merely to cars manufactured since April 1987. That is carrying flexibility a long, long way.
What is the value of securing this amendment if the House should approve it'? Surely the only consequence would be that a number of children who

1209
at present would be covered by the provisions in the Bill would no longer be covered. That is not an advantage to parents or to anyone else. Therefore I oppose the amendment.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise for arriving late. I did my best to make arrangements to be present for the beginning of this business; unfortunately those arrangements went awry. Therefore, I hope that I shall not repeat what has already been said.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, rightly said that I moved an amendment in Committee. We were told that it was far too draconian. Now, when the noble Lord, Lord Monson, advances a much more modest amendment, we are accused of displaying excessive flexibility. There have been references by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to the remarks of the then Minister of Transport, now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in another place eight years ago. He expressed very clearly, I would submit to your Lordships, the absurdity and impropriety of passing legislation of this sort unless amended along the lines of the amendment.
I feel that we are entitled to hear an explanation from my noble friend on the Front Bench of precisely why Her Majesty's Government appear to be taking a totally different view today from the one they were taking eight years ago. The statement eight years ago was extremely categorical. I am bound to say that it seemed to me to make a very great deal of sense. It would be helpful if my noble friend could explain what has persuaded the Government that what appeared to be very good sense eight years ago no longer appears to be so.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is entitled to a reply from the Government Front Bench on this matter. However, I should say to him that eight years is a long time ago. Times have changed. Compulsory seat-belt wearing has come into force since that time. And it has proved to be very popular. I would point out that when front seat-belt wearing was made compulsory, the use went up almost overnight from about 35 per cent. to 95 per cent. It has remained at that level. We are only talking in this Bill about making children wear seat belts compulsorily where they are fitted. As far as I know, we have no intention at this stage of making adults wear rear seat belts. That is a matter that would have to be debated in any case.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, quoted my right honourable friend the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as having said he could not believe that the House would give approval to a measure of this sort where regulations were not in existence. Another place has given approval to these measures. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that most people would find this unfair. I know that one does not like to quote public opinion polls too often because they are not always accurate. But when one gets a figure of 92 per cent. of people in favour of this particular measure, one has to take some notice.
1210
If the Government have changed their minds since the introduction of the compulsory wearing of front seat belts in 1980, I think that governments are entitled to change their minds every now and again—once in every eight years or so. I am not ashamed to get up and say so.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is quite right in saying that any government have a right to perform a U-turn if they so wish. The Government are at perfect liberty to reverse the policy laid down by a former Minister of Transport, the right honourable gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I apologise for having confused the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I was not aware of doing so hut, if I did, it was probably a Freudian slip, occasioned by my knowledge that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on at least one occasion voted against seat belt compulsion.
What the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has failed to recognise, in talking about 2 million cars already having been fitted with rear seat belts—and I think that the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Brabazon, also do not appreciate this—is that there were probably a similar number of cars fitted with front seat belts prior to 1965, and yet there is no obligation upon children in pre-1965 cars to wear seat belts in those cars even where they had been fitted.
However, as I said at the beginning, I think that this is perhaps a slightly rigid amendment from the point of view of both the Government and the sponsors of the Bill. Amendment No. 2 is more flexible and would go some way in the direction sought by the sponsors of this Bill, in that it gives the Minister power to make new regulations, if he so wishes, requiring rear seat belts to be fitted to cars where they are not already fitted. Therefore, I shall reserve most of my words for Amendment No. 2, and I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("is fitted any seat belt") and insert ("any seat belt is required by regulation to be fitted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief. The arguments have essentially been advanced on the previous amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, this amendment allows much greater flexibility, and would enable the Government to regulate in the future in a way in which Amendment No. 1 in Lord Monson's name would not make possible. Therefore, I suggest that this may be more acceptable to my noble friend than Amendment No. 1.
If it falls foul of the critique of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for excessive flexibility, I must plead guilty, but it seems to me that this is perhaps the best amendment to meet the case that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and other noble Lords have made this evening. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that on this occasion I am not accusing him of undue flexibility. Having looked carefully at the wording of the amendment and of the

1211
Bill itself, I would support the amendment were it not for the fact that the provisions for exceptions are made in Clause 1(3). Therefore we have already in the Bill that regulations will be made which will provide all the exceptions possible. It seems to me that the wording that is now desired is unnecessary, being covered by the provision for regulations to provide for the exceptions.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I believe firmly that the sort of inconsistency we are being asked to accept is totally wrong, given that legislation is meant to be based, however tenuously, on morality. I have already spoken about the wrong-headedness of penalising parents who have been thoughtful and public-spirited enough to go to the trouble of installing seat belts at their own expense, whereas those who do not display such virtues can get away with keeping their children in the rear without seat belts for as long as they wish, and totally without any risk to themselves.
What must be emphasised is that there is no comparable existing obligation to put children into seat belts in the front of a car, which, after all, is a much more dangerous place, except where those belts have had to be fitted by regulation; that is to say, post 1st January 1965. There are many vintage and classic cars first registered prior to January 1965 in which seat belts were fitted, whether by the manufacturers themselves or by one or other of the owners of those cars, and which remain fitted in those cars—I happen to own one of them—and yet there is no legal obligation upon either an adult or a child to use those belts.
Your Lordships will surely appreciate the illogicality of having a relatively permissive, liberal law for a child who happens to be seated in the much more dangerous front seat and another, much stricter, law in respect of a child sitting in the much less dangerous back seat. This is an illogicality that cannot be defended. It is the supporters of the amendment who are conservative in every sense of the word and consistent in this matter in that they are following the existing law as it stands. It is the opponents who are being somewhat rash and radical and who are breaking entirely new and untried ground. For that reason I urge the House to support this amendment.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. This amendment is one which the Government and the sponsors could perhaps accept. It helps to get rid of a few of the anomalies in what I believe to be a potentially unsatisfactory piece of legislation. It makes the Bill more flexible, and it would be of help to those parents and those of us in the community who are going to have to put this legislation into practice if it should become law. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment if only for the reason that in the Bill as at present drafted if any person does not want the children in the back to be using their seat belts, all he has to do is to remove them from the back of the car.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I am a trifle uneasy about our proceedings this evening. The essence of amendments on Third Reading is to sandpaper, by drafting amendments, any rough edges that have been left following Committee stage and Report of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are not drafting amendments. They are rehashing stuff we have been over at Second Reading and Committee. We did not have a Report stage because the Bill was reported unamended. Amendment No. 1 is out, but Amendment No. 2 is still in, and I am doubtful whether it is in order from the standpoint of the traditions of how we proceed on Third Reading.
Amendment No. 3 is an entirely different matter because this is a drafting amendment. If the Bill would be improved by inserting the word "thereover" after "Parliamentary control" to make sure what it is that parliamentary control is exercised over, that would be a proper Third Reading amendment, but I do not think that the rest of the amendments listed here are proper for Third Reading because they alter the character of the Bill, and that is not something that Third Reading amendments are for. I hope that I shall have the support of the noble Viscount.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I recognise that this is a less restrictive amendment than Amendment No. 1 but of course it is directed to the same purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had the argument right, that Clause 1(3) provides for regulations. A great deal of our debate has concerned what those regulations will deal with. It is obvious that there are many aspects of rear seat belt wearing by children which will have to be catered for.
We had lengthy debates, which noble Lords have noted, with regard to the problems of the school run, which will obviously continue, and how that should be dealt with. It is difficult to see just how many of these matters will be dealt with, but obviously the right way of approaching it is by having extensive consultations with all the interested parties in order to get the regulations exactly right, and to get the exemptions, which clearly will be necessary to accommodate various practical conditions, completely right too.
To write in these particular words is quite unnecessary. Regulations are provided for. The Minister has undertaken, both here and elsewhere, that those regulations will be comprehensive. We shall come to another amendment on which we can talk a little more about that subject, but it is not necessary to change Clause 1 in this fashion. I advise the House not to accept the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, perhaps I could respond first of all to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. His experience of your Lordships' House is infinitely greater and far longer than mine. I can only say humbly that I have attended a number of Third Reading discussions of Bills in this House in which I recollect that amendments were tabled which seemed to go quite a long way wide of drafting. I can even think of occasions when almost the same amendment has been introduced on Third Reading as had already

1213
been rejected at Committee and which was carried on Third Reading. I bow, of course, to the noble Earl's much greater knowledge and experience of your Lordships' House. However, I have noticed that on occasion things do not quite work out in the way he stated.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Nugent said in reply to the amendment. I also listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had to say. I may be being very dense, but one thing I do not see in subsection (3) is any provision by regulation specifically requiring that a seat belt be fitted. All sorts of other things are required but not, so far as I can see, that a seat belt be fitted. That, of course, is a rather fundamental point. I freely confess that I do not see how the purpose of this amendment could remotely be supersumed in the existing Clause 3.
However, I have listened to what my noble friend has said. I still think that the nature of the volte face which the Government have made in their own position is bizarre. I still think that what we are trying to achieve has buried in it an inherent contradiction. However, in the light of my noble friend's resistance I shall not myself seek to press the amendment, although I cannot speak for the other sponsors. As far as I am concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 28, after ("control") insert ("thereover").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to correct an error in the Bill. The explanatory marginal note to Section 199 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 reads:
"Exercise of regulation-making powers and parliamentary control thereover".
The word "thereover" obviously has accidentally been omitted from the Bill as it stands thereby making something of a nonsense of Clause 1(2). The words "parliamentary control" standing in isolation make no sense at all—control of what? The amendment would rectify that omission. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this amendment, I submit, is unnecessary. There is no need to add "thereover" to the existing wording in the Bill. Clause 1(2) in the Bill follows the wording in the relevant passage of Section 27 of the Transport Act 1981 dealing with adult seat belts, in which Section 27(3) reads:
"In Section 199 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 (exercise of regulation-making powers and Parliamentary control)".
It is a copy of that provision and I submit that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the fact that the word "thereover" was also accidentally omitted from the 1981 Act—which obviously it was—does not alter the position at all. Two wrongs do not make a right. The Government have by and large accepted the drafting
1214
amendments to a variety of Bills which I happen to have proposed over the past few years. I cannot understand their inconsistency in not accepting this one. I emphasise that the word definitely appears in the 1972 Act, notwithstanding that it was omitted from the 1981 Act. What other noble Lords do is up to them, but I cannot connive at badly drafted legislation going on to the Statute Book. Therefore I shall not be withdrawing this amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
("; and
(c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) The following additional provisions apply to regulations made under section 33C of this Act—

(a) when the Secretary of State proposes to make the first regulations under that section he shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement explaining his proposals; and

(b) no draft of those first regulations shall be laid before Parliament for approval under subsection (4) above until after the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the statement was laid (or, if the statement was laid on different days, with the later of the two days).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure adequate parliamentary control over the regulations stemming from the Bill. On 13th June, speaking in the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill, at col. 33 of Hansard the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, complained that the Bill represented:
"skeletal legislation with even more than usual provision for everything to be done by regulation".
If the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, was right in describing the Local Government Finance Bill as skeletal—and I am sure that he was right in so describing it—then this Bill is positively amoeboid. It is vital, therefore, that both Houses of Parliament are given an opportunity to have a say in the drafting of the regulations before they reach their final form by which time it would be too late for anything realistically to be done, whatever might be done in theory.
Fortunately, an excellent precedent exists in Section 27(3) of the Transport Act 1981. That is the section for which none other than the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was responsible. This amendment is taken verbatim from the noble Lord's Section 27, with one exception, namely that the three-year trial provisions in the 1981 Act are omitted. Although we believe that a three-year trial period will in practice prove all too necessary, we have omitted it in deference to objections raised in another place, thereby showing ourselves willing, as always, to meet our opponents halfway.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will doubtless argue that while these provisions were contained in Section 27 of the Transport Act 1981, they do not appear in Section 28 which covers front seat belt wearing by children. That would be perfectly true, but there are two answers to that point. Section 28 regulations came out at approximately, if not precisely, the same time as Section 27 regulations. Members of

1215
Parliament therefore had a chance to consider them both at once, even if not in a formal sense. Secondly, Section 28 contained no new issues of principle or practice as compared with Section 27. This Bill does both.
So far as concerns new issues of principle, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, speaking for the Government on the 1981 measure, agreed that rear seat belt compulsion would be wrong in principle as it would eliminate any avenue of escape for those passengers who felt uncomfortable with seat belts, felt trapped by them or had any other valid objections to them. That policy is now for the first time to be reversed.
So far as concerns new issues of practice, the Bill introduces a great many new complications that do not feature in relation to front seat belt wearing by children. There is the legal position of parents who voluntarily fitted seat belts, about which we spoke just now in relation to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. There is the question of the school run, the dilemma concerning nursing mothers and the problem of children asleep in the back of a car or the rear part of an estate car because of illness or exhaustion. It is vital that Members of both Houses of Parliament should be able to have some say in the framing of these regulations. This amendment would ensure that. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, which also stands in my name. I am hound to say that I think it is rather an important amendment because I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the range of delegated power which it is proposed to give to the department under Clause 1(3) of this Bill is absolutely staggering. We are in what I call "King Lear" territory—"They shall be the terrors of the earth".
We have been told time and again that the great advantage of the Bill is that all kinds of representations can be listened to and arguments heard. The noble Lords, Lords Cobbold, Monson and Kilbracken, will be able to offer their three ha'porth of wisdom or more and then, at the end, in its own wisdom the Ministry of Transport will devise the regulations. As we have been assured, they will then come before us by way of affirmative resolution.
We have almost no indication in this Bill of what might be the scope and shape of those regulations. I should have thought that this proposition—the essence of which, as I understand it, is that the Secretary of State, having completed the processes of negotiation and discussion, will then lay before both Houses of Parliament a Green or presumably a White Paper, setting out precisely the nature of the regulations that he proposes to introduce and the reasons for them—goes a very long way to assuage our anxieties about the scale of delegated legislation involved in the Bill.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, fairly pointed out, it is taken holus-bolus from the legislation which my noble friend Lord Nugent introduced some years ago. I should therefore like to think that it is what I believe is nowadays known in the jargon as user friendly to my noble friend.
1216
However, the wording will not be unfamiliar and the purposes will be precisely those which he advocated in advancing the earlier legislation. So I hope that in this instance my noble friend will be prepared to accept that this will be a material improvement to the drafting of the Bill and is not designed to delay its implementation. In some previous instances my noble friend has argued that the effective amendments that we have moved would be calculated to delay the implementation of legislation or drastically curtail its scope. Neither of those considerations can apply in this case.
All that we are suggesting and—it seems to me that it is not at all an unreasonable proposition since it is one which my noble friend himself espoused on an earlier occasion—is that when the negotiations have been completed the Secretary of State should not just lay before both Houses of Parliament under an affirmative resolution procedure the regulations that he has decided upon, which will then of course not be capable of amendment (capable of rejection, yes, but not capable of amendment), but instead he shall set out the reasoned purposes which have led him to choose the regulations which, at the end of the day he has chosen. That seems to me to be a considerable improvement, so I warmly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I may just briefly intervene in this debate. I know that during the passage of this Bill a number of noble Lords have made known their concern about how its provisions will apply in practice. Similar concerns were expressed in another place. I recognise that the Bill does no more than sketch the outline by establishing the principle of compulsory wearing and I can understand the concern about how the detail will be filled in. I say to my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne that during the course of the debates at Second Reading and in Committee stage in your Lordships' House we discussed quite a number of details.
However, my right honourable friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic gave an assurance in another place that the Government would produce a consultation document. During the Bill's passage in this Chamber I have been at pains to assure noble Lords that we would consult them. During the Committee stage I gave an assurance that we would specifically include in the consultation process those noble Lords who have expressed an interest in, and have some misgivings about, how the law will operate. I also give an undertaking that the consultation document will be deposited in the Library of this House and will be available to all your Lordships.
Following consultation about the draft regulations, both Houses will have the opportunity, as the Bill now drafted requires, to debate those regulations fully. I can assure your Lordships that we shall not rush any of the regulations-making process. We shall proceed step by step. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Monson: My Lords, to a certain extent I am

1217
reassured by what the noble Lord says, but he is a little imprecise about the degree of consultation with those noble Lords and Members of another place who are unhappy about the Bill. I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, he will give us a positive assurance that all Members of this House and all Members of another place who have expressed doubts or reservations about this Bill or certain aspects of it will be definitively consulted, as all other interested parties are to be consulted, some weeks before the final regulations are drafted. It is no good if that consultation takes place merely a few days beforehand. We need time to study them.
If it is the case that we shall have not an excessive but a reasonable length of time to consider the regulations that are to be made, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that I can help the noble Lord on that matter. I said that we would not rush this process—we would not rush any of the processes—and that we should proceed step by step. I shall undertake to make certain that noble Lords who have taken part in these debates are aware of the consultation document that is placed in the Library of the House for all noble Lords, and that the consultation process will take place in good time.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am reasonably happy with what the noble Lord has said and, that being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation.
The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for compensation to be paid to children who can be shown to have suffered injury in consequence of the provisions of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope I can manage to reassure my noble friend Lord Halsbury. I took what one might describe as top level advice about these amendments and was assured that it was perfectly in order to move them as they covered matters which had not been definitively decided at the last stage of the Bill. In fact there was the right to have a Report stage, notwithstanding the fact that the Bill had been reported without amendments, but we decided not to insist upon it because we did not wish to be accused of impeding the progress of the Bill.
This amendment is one which I moved and then withdrew at the Committee stage, reserving the right to bring it back, which I am now doing. The more I re-read in Hansard the objections made by the noble Lords, Lord Nugent and Lord Brabazon, at Committee stage, the more illogical those arguments appear to be. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, claimed (as is reported at col. 583) that the:
"direction of the amendment is exactly the reverse to that of the Bill".
Frankly I have to say to him that such is not the case. The amendment simply provides that where the good intentions of this Bill—and I have never denied that the intentions behind the Bill were good—result in
1218
occasional adverse side effects, as is hound to happen from time to time, the Secretary of State may (not must but may) arrange for those relatively few people who are adversely affected to be compensated.
There are plenty of precedents for arrangements of that kind. One thinks of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 and of the recent proposals to compensate those British ex-servicemen who suffered illness as a result of being made to witness the testing of atomic bombs in Australia almost 40 years ago.
If nobody is ever injured as a consequence of wearing a seat belt—as the Transport and Road Research Laboratory has claimed—then no compensation need ever be paid. Indeed, no compensation need ever be paid however many are injured because in this House we cannot commit the Secretary of State to expenditure of moneys because that would infringe Commons privilege. However, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, when speaking to earlier seat belt legislation, has already conceded that occasionally people are killed or injured by seat belts.
However, we do not need to rely on the noble Lord's assertion or on press reports of deaths and injuries so caused. A report entitled The Medical Effects of Seat Belt Legislation in the United Kingdom prepared for the DHSS by Mr. Rutherford in 1985 revealed a 40 per cent. increase in major brain injuries since compulsion, together with a marked increase in sprains of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, together with fractures of the sternum. In 1986 a team of eminent surgeons at the University Hospital in Nottingham wrote that,
"the position of the heart between the sternum and the vertebral column makes it vulnerable to injury by seat belts … it is apparent that victims of road traffic accidents who wear seat belts do sustain myocardial contusions".
The report went on to say,
"although … most patients recover with no ill-effect, some patients … suffer serious complications".
It is pointed out that some of these complications became evident as late as 17 years after the accident which produced them. The report concluded by stating:
"Following the legislation regarding seat belts, it is logical to expect an increase in the incidence of myocardial contusion".
Let us face facts. Parents can refuse against the best medical advice permission for their children to be operated on. Parents can legally refuse permission for their children to be vaccinated against fatal disease in the face of expert medical and other advice. However, if this Bill goes through unamended, they will—quite irrationally and illogically—not be permitted to challenge expert advice in the matter of seat belt wearing. This makes it all the more important that compensation be provided on the relatively few occasions when the experts' compulsorily imposed opinion turns out to be counter productive. The Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979, as subsequently amended, provides for payments of up to £20,000, and such payments have been made to approximately 830 claimants since the Act came into force. I suggest that seat-belt damaged children are morally entitled to similar payments. I beg to move.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to myocardial contusions in these

1219
cases. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether the wearing of the seat belt saved the life of a person in an accident where such bruising took place?
Lord Monson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may have done on some occasions but these contusions can occur not only in accident situations but on hard braking when no accident takes place. That is the problem with such incidents.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, we are going around the same course again that we debated on the Committee stage. Although the noble Lord is technically within the custom of the House—because he previously withdrew the amendment—in practice we are simply repeating the debate that we had before.
I make this point. The noble Lord refers to Mr. Rutherford, a surgeon, and relies on his figures. Of all the surgeons who are in favour of seat belts, undoubtedly Mr. Rutherford leads them. He believes in seat belts absolutely. He gave me massive support at the time when I was campaigning for front seat belts.
The noble Lord opposite raised the subject of other injuries. They will undoubtedly have arisen in cases where seat belts have probably saved the person's life. Therefore even if one suffers some considerable injury it may still be worth it in order to have one's life saved.
That is the fact of the matter. Seat belts have now proved themselves as a result of the compulsory wearing of front seat belts. We think it worth the while of the nation to protect children sitting in the back of a motor vehicle by requiring them to wear seat belts, where they are fitted, because that will save lives and will save injuries also. It would therefore be a move in the wrong direction to put in a compensation clause of the kind that the noble Lord wants. I feel that he has taken Mr. Rutherford's figures out of context. I shall most certainly send a copy of Hansard to Mr. Rutherford so that he can see how he has been quoted. Nobody would be more alarmed than he if his figures or work were quoted as showing that the fitting and the compulsory wearing of seat belts was not going to be to the advantage of human beings. Of course they are.
I ask the noble Lord to recognise that his amendment is still unacceptable. Perhaps this time he will withdraw it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, is quite right. We have been around this circuit on more than one occasion, and I recall the circuit. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will withdraw his amendment because we shall not arrive anywhere.
However, what he might have done, and what my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford might do, is to urge upon the seat belt manufacturers to make improvements. So far as I am aware there have been no major changes in driver or passenger restraint systems in modern motor cars for the last 10 years. I believe that it is there that we could look for
1220
improvement and for the reduction of injury, if there is such, by virtue of the wearing of the belt.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, perhaps I may draw attention to the impossibility of adjudicating in a case of this kind. The only just compensation would be compensation for the injury received from wearing a seat belt, as opposed to the purely hypothetical alternative injury that might have been received as a result of not wearing a seat belt. The latter is absolutely unascertainable. I do not see how any judge could come to a conclusion as to what the difference between these two quantities might be.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, in this instance I cannot support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I was not wholly convinced by the arguments against it advanced by my noble friend Lord Nugent. They seemed to amount to the proposition that one should not be paid compensation even if it can be demonstrated that something that is designed for one's good has done one injury. I am not sure about that, but I am deeply doubtful about the wisdom of spreading ever wider the scales of compensation for what I would call the "happenstances" of life, of which I believe there are already far too many. The generality of consumers are liable to suffer from the burden of meeting the costs which arise from such compensation claims satisfied in the courts. Therefore on those much wider grounds I cannot support the new clause put forward by the noble Lord.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am not denying that the Rutherford Report endorsed seat belt compulsion. Nor have I ever denied that on balance seat belts save lives overall. The operative phrase is "on balance". Seat belt compulsion may save lives just as vaccination saves lives, overall, but there are occasionally adverse side-effects from vaccination just as there are adverse side-effects from seat belt wearing.
If compensation is to be given in one instance, it seems to me only right that it should be given in the other. I cannot see any excuse for the two not to run hand in hand. For that reason, no matter what other noble Lords may say, I cannot withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
8 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
Lord Monson: My Lords, I suspect that almost every one of us has over the years driven our children, our children's friends, our nephews and our nieces for tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of miles in the back seats of our various cars without any harm befalling them whatsoever, as indeed our fathers and grandfathers did before us. I can only deplore this attempt to subordinate the good sense and the good faith of parents to a complex bureaucracy and to the heavy hand of the criminal law.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I confess that I share a good many of the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Nugent on the skill, the charm and the courtesy with which, as all of us who know him would expect, he has moved this measure through your Lordships' House.
I must confess nevertheless that it still seems to me to be most dubious and doubtful legislation. Basically what we are asked to believe is that by the passage of this legislation parents will be induced to behave in a way in which otherwise they might not behave. There is no suggestion that the legislation is legally enforceable, because clearly it is not, but it will have an inducement on other people's conduct.
I leave your Lordships with the thought that in due course, as I understand it, we are to have before us legislation which will similarly make it illegal to hang onto a video recording for more than 28 days in the home unless it has been erased. It seems to me that the same principles apply there. The notion is that we are to be induced, I suppose, to behave in a particular way in the privacy of our own homes or in the privacy of our cars. I must say to my noble friend and your Lordships that this does not seem to me to be a very clear form of legislation.
I believe that we shall live to regret the kind of precedents which we create by the passage of legislation such as this.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I briefly but sincerely congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, on introducing yet another important piece of legislation dealing with seat belt wearing. If it were not for the exceptions and regulations I might be critical of certain aspects myself. But I believe the regulations are there, and the possibility of exceptions. We have had assurances from the Minister.
I should also like to congratulate Mr. Steven Day, a Member in another place, who first introduced the Bill. I am certain, as with the compulsory front seat belt wearing, that we shall find that within a short space of time after the introduction of this new Bill it will be widely appreciated that we have done something useful and have assisted in saving the lives of a large number of children.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should briefly like to congratulate my noble friend on having piloted the Bill through the House. I believe that it will save lives and give a dramatic boost to the wearing of rear seat belts by children. As I said earlier when front seat belt wearing was made compulsory, the wearing rates went up from 35 per cent. to 95 per cent. almost overnight. If my noble friend's Bill achieves the same kind of result, we shall all be proud to have taken part in the debates on it.
On Question, Bill passed.

Education Reform Bill
8.4 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 85 [Withdrawal of grant by Secretary of State]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 313A:
Page 81. line 37, leave out ("five") and insert ("seven").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 85 sets out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might stop paying grants to a maintained school. I accept that the clause has to allow for the possibility, however remote, that a grant-maintained school may not be successful, in which case the Secretary of State would have a duty to tell it to improve or to close its doors. But I am more concerned about the possibility that some future Secretary of State might decide as a matter of policy to close down a perfectly good grant-maintained school against which no complaints have been made.
The Bill as it stands requires the Secretary of State to give at least five years' notice of his intention to cease to maintain the school, after consultation with the governing body and the relevant local authority interests. I do not believe that this is long enough. It would, for example, not guarantee that an 11 year-old could complete his or her sixth form education at that school. We must protect these pupils and I therefore propose that the period of notice should be at least seven years. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend has raised an important issue in tabling this amendment, and we are grateful to her for that. Perhaps I may set out the Government's thinking on the matter in a little more detail.
Clause 85(2) currently prohibits my right honourable friend the Secretary of State from ceasing to maintain a grant-maintained school on general policy grounds without giving at least five years' notice. The five-year period was chosen originally to ensure that a pupil who had just entered the first form at a grant-maintained school would be able to complete his or her education there without disruption until the statutory school leaving age.
After careful consideration, however, we have been persuaded that the notice required of my right honourable friend should be extended from five to seven years. I need hardly point out to noble Lords that this will provide an important safeguard for pupils and parents against any sudden changes in government. The amendment will ensure that a first-year pupil at a grant-maintained school will have the certain prospect of being able to continue his or her education at that school into the sixth form. Noble Lords will, I believe, agree with me that this is a matter on which parents are rightly entitled to seek reassurance when contemplating where to send their children to school.
This is a sound and prudent provision, and I commend my noble friend's amendment to the House.
Baroness David: My Lords, I presume from what the noble Earl has said that this is a government inspired amendment.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, indeed the noble Baroness is correct. This is a government inspired, and also an approved, amendment.
8.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 313A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 33.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Auckland, L.

Joseph, L.

Barber, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beloff, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Limerick, E.

Blatch, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brookes, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nelson, E.

Cowley, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cox, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Crathorne, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Dighy, L.

Rugby, L.

Dundee, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Eccles, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sandford, L.

Elles, B.

Sharples, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Strange, B.

Fortescue, E.

Swinfen, L.

Goodman, L.

Swinton, E.

Grantchester, L.

Trafford, L.

Grcenway, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Haig, E.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Vinson, L.

Hives, L.

Wynford, L.

Home of the Hirsel L.

Young, B.

Hooper, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Morton of Shuna, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Nicol, B.

Briggs, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cobbold, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Russell, E.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grimond, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly
8.17 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 3113B:
Page 81, line 41, leave out ("and") and insert ("(iii) the statutory diocesan body responsible for schools in the diocese in which the school is situated; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, I beg to move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 314:
Page 82, lint 9, at end insert—

("(d) that the school premises or any parts thereof are unsuitable for a school;

(e) that the accommodation provided at the school premises is inadequate or unsuitable having regard to the number, ages and sex of the pupils attending the school;

(f) that efficient and suitable instruction is not being provided at the school having regard to the ages and sex of the pupils attending thereat;

(g) that the headteacher of the school or any other teacher employed therein is not a proper person to be the headteacher of a school or to be a teacher in any school, as the case may be.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment—if I could have the attention of the Government Front Bench. You are listening? Good!
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say that I try to listen to noble Lords on the other side of the House whenever I can.
Baroness David: My Lords, when I notice that Members of the Government Front Bench are talking to each other and not listening to me I believe that it is quite justifiable to say so.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it happens so rarely that I think that the noble Baroness need not have picked on it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I shall not continue the conversation but I shall watch with care.
The aim of the amendment is to extend the grounds on which the Secretary of State can cease to maintain a grant-maintained school to include the grounds on which independent schools can be closed. For the benefit of the House I shall read out the amendment. It states:
"that the school premises or any parts thereof are unsuitable for a school;. that the accommodation provided at the school premises is inadequate or unsuitable having regard to the number, ages and sex of the pupils attending the school;…that efficient and suitable instruction is not being provided at the school having regard to the ages and sex of the pupils attending thereat; … that the headteacher of the school or any other teacher employed therein is not a proper person to be the headteacher of a school or to be a teacher in any school, as the case may be.".
Those are the conditions under which, under Section 71 of the 1944 Education Act, the Secretary of State can issue a notice of complaint to an independent school and deregister it—that means, in effect, to close it—if the terms of the notice of complaint are not complied with within a specified period. It is hard to think of any reason why grant-maintained schools should not be subject to the same requirements. Even if their premises are bound to be suitable when they transfer from being LEA-maintained to grant-maintained they could become unsuitable with the passage of time. Do the Government believe that these points are already covered? Is there any reason not to spell them out explicitly, as this amendment does? I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Secretary of State may cease to maintain a grant-maintained school on the following grounds. The first is where the number of pupils has dropped to a level where it is impossible to provide them with a full and balanced curriculum at a reasonable cost. Grant-maintained schools will be no less vulnerable then LEA-maintained schools to the effects of demographic change. If a school is badly affected by population shifts, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State needs to be able to take the same sort of action as an LEA would in similar circumstances.
The second factor which would lead my right honourable friend to consider closing down a grant-maintained school would be the school's failure over a significant period to comply with the requirements which Chapter 1 of this Bill will impose upon it. Parents will have the right to complain if the school is failing to deliver the national curriculum or to comply with any other duties imposed by Chapter 1 And a steady stream of such complaints would certainly alert my right honourable friend to the possible need for remedial action.
Third, my right honourable friend may serve notice of his intention to cease to maintain any grant-maintained school which appears to be persistently guilty of other breaches of its duties whether imposed by this Bill or by, or under, other legislation. This could cover cases of financial mismanagment where the governing body was ignoring the requirements of the grant regulations. It could cover a failure to observe directions from my right honourable friend under the teachers regulations. It would cover a failure to comply with requirements regarding school premises. It is in fact a very broad power indeed. We make no apology for that. If a body of people are receiving public money in order to provide a service for the public, it is right that the continuation of that funding should depend upon a satisfactory delivery of that service.
The intention behind this amendment may be to impose more stringent tests on the governors of a grant-maintained school, but I must say that in fact it would have the opposite effect. Clause 85 already imposes far more exacting requirements than are placed upon independent schools by the 1944 Act. And that is only right, given that grant-maintained schools will be part of public provision. I therefore recommend the amendment be rejected.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am surprised, if the Government believe that their restrictions are so strong, that they are not willing to accept those proposed in the amendments. However, I am not going to fight the issue at this time of night knowing the pressure of time. Therefore, rather reluctantly, I accept the Minister's response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 [Winding up]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 315:
Page 83, line 28, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Education Assets Board").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to replace the Secretary of State with the Education Assets Board as the body responsible for the winding up and disposal of property of a grant-maintained school.
The Bill allows for the creation of the Education Assets Board which is an expert body appointed for the purpose of receiving and passing on property to new institutions. No doubt in time this body will acquire great independent expertise in the financial property issues associated with grant-maintained status. However, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to be responsible for the winding up and disposal of a grant-maintained school's assets should it be closed.
In Committee, I asked why this should be the case and the noble Baroness replied:
"I regret that I cannot give the noble Baroness a clear answer on that matter at this moment. Perhaps I may write to her". [Official Report, 16/5/88; col. 24.]
I cannot find an answer in my files. If it has been mislaid, I apologise. However, even if I had had an answer which I have mislaid (although I suspect there has not been an answer) I believe it would be helpful if the Minister would clarify the matter for the benefit of the House as a whole. I beg to move.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is right that my noble friend has not yet had an opportunity to write to her on this matter. Therefore, I shall endeavour to clarify the matter to the satisfaction of the noble Baroness.
I take it that the intention here is to ensure that if such a school closes, its assets are disposed of fairly and appropriately. But I do not think that the amendment is necessary in order to achieve this. The Government believe that the Bill as drafted already provides quite adequately for the smooth and equitable transfer of assets.
I am prepared to concede that Clauses 86 to 91 are not the most readily accessible section of the Bill. But their complexity serves an important purpose. It ensures that if a grant-maintained school closes, all interested parties should ultimately find themselves as close as possible to the position they would have been in if the school had not become grant-maintained in the first place. There are detailed provisions to ensure that the former maintaining LEA, the Secretary of State, the voluntary body if' there is one, and any other benefactor of the school should be fairly compensated for any property they originally owned which passed to the school or for any expenditure they incurred in respect of the school either by the return of the property or by receiving an appropriate sum of money. And where it is important to ensure that the sums in question are determined fairly and impartially, Clause 179 makes clear that the advice of the board must be obtained.
The clauses dealing with the winding-up of a grant-maintained school do, however, go wider than the disposal of property and assets. In addition to covering such matters, winding-up orders may deal with, for example, administrative questions concerning the conduct of the school by the governing body during the period of winding up, the

1227
termination of contracts and other related matters. These are all intended to ensure that the school's affairs are brought to a smooth and orderly close with the minimum of disruption to all concerned.
This sort of function is well outside the remit and expertise which the Education Assets Board will have. The board's task is essentially one of making valuations and securing appropriate transfers of property and other assets. As they stand, the winding-up provisions will draw upon the board's expertise in that area. But the Government believe that since the Secretary of State will be ultimately accountable for all the decisions about the winding-up of a school, it is right that he should also be responsible for them. This amendment would transfer that responsibility to a body which is not intended to have the experience or skills to discharge it.
I trust that I have explained the effect of these provisions to the satisfaction of the noble Baroness who will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his reassurance. I find these two clauses completely incomprehensible. I am glad that the noble Lord admits that they are, at least, difficult to understand. Is he saying that the effect of the clauses, if a grant-maintained school were to go out of existence, is to restore as far as possible the status quo ante in terms of ownership of assets and that from the legal advice which the department has received the noble Lord is assured that that is the case? I ask that because I am totally unable to follow the matter. Therefore, one requires an expert opinion. Can the noble Lord assure us that the department has had that expert opinion, given the principle which he stated? We would obviously wish that to be the case?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with the permission of the House, the first position is exactly the one for which the noble Lord looks. Secondly, it is not normally the practice, as the noble Lord will be aware, to discuss the detailed advice available to government. But the Government are satisfied, in the light of all available advice, that the position is as I have described it.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister goes at great pace. I am sorry that I did not receive the letter. It would have been much easier to understand given the fast speed at which the Minister is reading.
As many noble Lords, particularly on his own side, have said that they reserve their position and are expecting to come back at Third Reading—that will be a very interesting day and probably a long one—I shall withdraw this amendment; but I reserve my position. I shall read what the Minister said. I hope that I shall not have to come back at Third Reading but I shall do so if I am not satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 315A:
Page 84, line 30, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
("(4) the Secretary of State may make grants to a governing body in liquidation for the purpose of—
1228

(a) discharging any liabilities of that governing body (other than section 105 loan liabilities); and

(b) meeting any costs incurred by that governing body for the purposes of the winding up under this section.

(5) The Secretary of State may impose on a governing body to whom any such payment is made such requirements as he may from time to time determine (whether before, at or after the time when the payment in question is made).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Disposal of school property]:
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 316:
Page 85, line 35, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (6A) below,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 317 to 321 and Amendment No. 324. I must make it clear that these amendments do not relate to grant-maintained schools which were previously voluntary schools. They cover the usual case of a county school where some or all of the property is held, usually by the local education authority, on trust for the purposes of the school. If such a school becomes a grant-maintained school, this property will generally be vested in the governing body. These provisions would come into force on the discontinuance of any such school: they permit such property to be dissociated from any other property of the school, and for winding-up to provide for it to be disposed of as appropriate in the light of the terms of the trust.
We believe that it is desirable to make this provision, but in practice it is most unlikely that it will ever been needed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 317 to 320:
Page 85, line 47, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (6A) below,").
Page 86, line 30, leave out ("subsection (7)") and insert ("subsections (6A) and (7) below").
Page 86, line 32, at end insert—
("(6A) Subsections (1 ), (2) and (6) above shall not apply to any school property which is held by persons on trust for the purposes of the grant-maintained school concerned; but an order under section 86 of this Act may vest the whole or any part of any property excluded from the application of subsection (1), (2) or (6) above by virtue of this subsection in such local education authority or other person as may be specified in the order.
(6B) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that any school property to be vested in a local education authority by an order made by virtue of subsection (6A) above—

(a) was wholly or mainly provided at the expense of a local education authority or a former authority; or

(b) will be held by the authority for the purposes of a county or voluntary school proposed to be established on the premises of the grant-maintained school concerned;

the order may vest the property in the authority beneficially.
(6C) Subject to subsection (6B) above, an order made by virtue of subsection (6A) above shall vest the school property in the local education authority or other person concerned on trust for such purposes as may be specified in the order.").
Page 86, line 42, after ("above") insert ("by virtue of subsection (7) above").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 89 [Discharge, transfer and termination of liabilities, etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 321:
Page 89. line 15, after ("school") insert—
("(ia) are vested beneficially in such an authority by an order made by virtue of section 87(6A) and (6B) of this Act;").
On Question. amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 [Capital expenditure: former voluntary schools]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 322 and 323:
Page 91, line 1, leave out ("in respect of the governing body of the school").
Page 91, line 4, leave out ("those persons or their successors") and insert ("the persons from whom the school premises were acquired"):
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 91 [Capital expenditure: former county schools]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 324:
Page 92, line 27, leave out ("vest in a local education authority") and insert—

("(i) are vested beneficially in a local education authority by an order made by virtue of section 87(6A) and (6B) of this Act; or

(ii) vest in such an authority").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [Provision of benefits and services for pupils by local education authorities]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 325:
Page 93, line 11. at end insert ("where that grant maintained school is the nearest practicable school which the pupil could attend").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment and I do not intend to divide the House. I wish to clarify that LEAs will not be responsible for transport costs except where a grant-maintained school is the nearest available school, which I think is the present position for LEA schools.
It is not entirely clear—and we endeavoured to raise this matter in Committee—whether a local authority would be responsible for the transport costs of pupils attending a grant-maintained school which is not the nearest school to their homes. If LEAs are to be responsible for all transport costs, that could add significantly to their overall costs and cause difficulties.
It would be of assistance to have a statement from the Minister indicating that LEAs will be responsible for transport costs only where pupils are attending the nearest grant-maintained school. I hope that we shall have a satisfactory response from the Minister.
I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I appreciate the intention of the noble Baroness that local authorities should not be required to meet the travelling costs of pupils attending grant-maintained schools at some distance from their homes. But I suggest that the amendment she proposes is too restrictive and could prove unfair to some families.
The Bill provides that in making arrangements for the provision of free or subsidised transport the LEA must treat pupils at grant-maintained schools no less favourably than pupils at schools which they maintain themselves. Often the LEA's policy may be
1230
to provide assistance only where the school which the pupil is attending is the nearest appropriate school. Sometimes, however, assistance may be offered in other circumstances—for example, where the parents wish the child to attend a church school rather than the nearest county school. If it is the local authority's policy to provide help in these circumstances, we believe it would be unfair to deprive the family of such assistance should the school become grant maintained.
We are providing for parity of treatment. not for more favoured status for pupils at grant maintained schools. I hope that is the assurance sought by the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he saying that Church schools are the equivalent of grant-maintained schools? I find that somewhat odd.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may have your Lordships' permission to speak again, no, I did not intend to say that. I was simply drawing the parallel that in some circumstances local authorities provide, for example, travel assistance to pupils attending such schools. We would not want the discretion of the local authority in that way to be fettered.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not put "the nearest appropriate school" in my amendment. I will look at what the Minister said and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93 [Application of proceeds of disposal of premises]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 326:
Page 93, line 34, after ("shall") insert (". in a case where any interest in the new site has vested in any trustees of the school,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [Variation of trust deeds relating to grant-maintained schools, etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 327 and 328:
Page 95, line 3, at end insert ("or").
Page 95, line 6, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 10.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 329:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to compile reports on absent pupils.
.—(1) Head teachers of all maintained schools shall prepare a report of all those pupils who are registered at the school and who have been absent, for any reason, at any time, during the four weeks prior to the preparation of the report.
(2) The report required in subsection (1) above shall—

(a) be prepared every four weeks during term time,

(b) report all pre-registration absences,

(c) report reasons for absence where known,

(d) report absences for days, or parts of a day, of pupils who have absented themselves after morning registration.

(3) The head teacher shall submit each four weekly report immediately to the chairman of governors of the school, who shall—

(a) consult with the local authority education and social services departments concerning any persistent absentees, and

1231

(b) take whatever action seems to him appropriate to secure attendance at school of persistent absentees, and

(c) submit the head teacher's reports of absentees, and of action taken by him, to the next appropriate meetings of the governing body.

(d) in the case of chairman of governors of local authority maintained school, submit, at the end of each school term, the head teachers' reports of absentees to the chief education officer of the school's maintaining local authority.

(e) in the case of grant maintained schools, submit at the end of each school term the head teachers' reports of absentees to the Secretary of State.

(4) Each local education authority shall submit a report to the Secretary of State of absentees from school, which report shall—

(a) be submitted on or before 1 September in each year, and cover absentees for the previous school year.

(b) be a compilation of the individual reports for all schools maintained by that authority.

(5) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual report showing pre- and post-registration truancy amongst pupils at maintained schools, what measures have been taken to secure attendance of pupils at school, and what further names are to be taken to secure such attendance.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment, or one very like it, was moved by my noble friend Lady Young in Committee on 16th May when I was away. She moved the amendment on my behalf and I am deeply grateful to her for moving it so ably. Having read Hansard, I see that it was supported on all sides of the Committee.
We have all been speaking about this Education Reform Bill, but a proportion of our children do not attend schools. What is more, some of the subjects from which they are absent are the very subjects which the Government want them to study. As was said in Committee by my noble friend Lady Young, there are two types of truants. First, there are those who stay away from school, probably for social or family reasons. Secondly, there are those who go to school and register but, having registered, decide that they do not like the subject being taught so they go down to the cloakroom to change into a T-shirt and go out to a coffee bar. In the afternoon they go back to the school, register and if they do not like the subject they do the same again.
I do not think that a proper register is kept of such truancy. About three years ago I telephoned the Department of Education and requested the truancy figures. It was not possible to have them. I then telephoned several local authorities which said that truancy figures were kept by the head teachers. I telephoned a number of head teachers who said that it was almost impossible to keep them.
Next, I asked a friend of mine in Scotland to telephone Strathclyde council, which also said that it did not keep truancy figures. Therefore, although there has been some research, we do not know the truancy situation. Some small pieces of research have been carried out, in particular in a Camden school in London, where the truancy rate is high— particularly for children who register but do not attend school.
It is important that the governors of a school should know what is happening in their school. It is important that the education officer should know, that the Minister should know and that Westminster knows. If they do not carry out research they cannot possibly know. Without research we do not know what is the situation and how to deal with it.
There are various groups dealing with those who do not attend school. There are the voluntary organisations; an outstanding organisation called Outreach, the Oxford Youth Works Association, Dr. Barnardo's and a number of others. There are also the education welfare officers. I am bound to say that under ILEA a number of schools have not been visited by the education welfare officer since before Christmas. Therefore, if the head teacher knows that children have been away there is nobody available to deal with the situation. Head teachers and teachers know that some parents are aware that their children are not attending school. Some parents subscribe to what their children are doing and some do not.
I have again tabled this very long amendment. I am deeply grateful to my noble friend the Minister because I wrote to her on the situation on 19th June and she very kindly saw me. She said that the Government could not accept this long amendment partly because it would give so much work to the teachers. My contention is that the teachers should know anyway which children are in school and which are not. This is really an administrative matter and the records could be kept by administrators. The information could be put on a computer at some point in time so that the country would know exactly what is the position. However good our education is and however much we wish our children to be educated, if they are not in school they cannot be educated.
My noble friend the Minister suggested that we should reconsider the situation and look at the Education Act (No. 2) 1986. She suggested that head teachers should report to parents' meetings the situation as regards truancy in the school. The only difficulty is that, having made a great number of inquiries, I find that the parents who attend the meetings at schools are the very ones whose children go to school. The parents who do not send their children to school on no account attend such meetings. It was found by various research workers I asked to look into this matter that this measure would not be effective.
This is a very far-reaching and wide amendment because it concerns two Ministries: the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Social Security. Very often the children who do not attend school at all frequently have social problems which need to be dealt with on a social basis. Those children who absent themselves from classes are really the responsibility of the education department and the school. I contend that this is an area about which very little is known because the question has not been faced up to by the Department of Education. There is a need for a strategy. It is difficult to try to put a strategy into a Bill.
Listening to my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, 1 hoped that I could go with my noble friend the Minister—I am sure that she would be generous enough to allow me to see her again—to see the Secretary of State in order that a strategy may be worked out as to how this problem may be dealt with by the two Ministries and how it should be written into the Bill. I feel that this is a very important amendment. I recognise that it cannot go into the Bill as it is, although I believe the intentions

1233
in the amendment are right. I shall be interested to hear what other noble Lords have to say. I beg to move.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I put my name down to speak to this amendment because I have done a certain amount of research, first, with the school which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, mentioned, and also with a certain professor at Southampton University. It is perfectly clear to me, looking at it not so much from the education side but from my experience in the social services, that something has to be done.
The EWOs who used to be called attendance officers when I first came to know them, changed their names to EWOs and thought that they were welfare officers. They now call themselves education welfare workers. However, it does not change their role at all. The fact is that the welfare services in schools are still entirely inadequate, as they were 20 years ago when I reported. It is a difficult matter to incorporate into this Bill because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, it concerns two departments very closely and seriously.
I shall be interested to know what the Minister has to say about this because something has to be done. There is no doubt that at certain schools at any one moment during any one day, there may be 30 per cent. of the pupils away. This makes a nonsense of our present school and education system. The children will not be educated properly. I said during a previous debate on this question that the two subjects which pupils cut most are French and mathematics. They are two core subjects. This absenteeism is not due to bad teachers but because the subjects are very difficult ones. Something has to be done about the matter now.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I wish to support the spirit of this amendment. I do not know what are the technicalities of it or what is the attitude of my noble friend. In Scotland we have a slightly more robust approach to the matter. We have a great problem with truancy but we have the availability of the sheriff's court which is where the parents appear if their children perpetually absent themselves from school. That is a great help. I do not believe that sheriffs' courts can be introduced into England for this purpose. I believe that the points made by my noble friend and from the Cross Benches are extremely important, but whether this Bill can be the vehicle for implementing these measures, I do not know.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I too should like to say from these Benches how seriously we take this whole question. There is something farcical about all of us sitting here night after night bringing in new education procedures if the children are not around to experience them. My impression of the national curriculum with history, geography and all the other old friends on the list, is that the truancy rate will increase rather than decrease.
Even if this amendment cannot be accepted this question is an extremely urgent one. We all know of
1234
cases involving disastrous results. I speak from personal experience, and I am sure that everyone in the Chamber knows of cases where children have simply not been at school. I have always considered that one simple change would make a good deal of difference. When we were at school we stayed in the classroom and the teacher came to us. Nowadays the teacher stays in the classroom and the children come to him or her. Any child with anything in him gets his mark for the first lesson and, as the pupils are moving from class to class, he slips out of the back door and is not seen again. If something can be done about that it would be a great help.
Lord Briggs: My Lords, I very much approve of the intention behind this amendment. It seems a rather complicated way of achieving the purpose. However, there are very considerable differences in the truancy rates in different schools and in different parts of the country. For that reason I do not believe that it would be adequate to allow simply a system of local reporting or dealing with individual schools. I believe the idea of having an annual report which gives a survey of the extent of truancy and the differences in other areas, would be most useful. I believe it should be possible to incorporate some such element as that into any proposals. The idea of breaking down the issue into individual areas and schools does not enable one to understand the full extent of the problem.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I hope the Government will be able to introduce a measure of this kind. Unless we have before us the figures and the information which will come from such action, no one will ever know (a) what is the extent of truancy and (b) what the trends are and whether the situation is getting worse or better. Most people believe truancy is getting worse, but they do not have any figures to show how far the problem is worsening.
The related question concerns the number of homeless teenagers in the country. The figure has been put as high as 100,000 and it is increasing. The problem escapes attention largely because no figures have been collected. To quite a large extent the homeless children are the same as the truants to which attention is being drawn.
It seems that subsection (4) of the amendment may be the one that is finally accepted. If a duty was laid upon a local education authority to make an annual report it would have to take the necessary steps with the schools to provide the facts upon which the report will be made. This may be done in different ways in different places, but at least the duty would clearly be upon the LEA. I hope that something can be done.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, in speaking extremely briefly in support of the amendment, perhaps I may suggest that among the people given the information concerning the truancy rates for each school should be not only the parents of the pupils who are already at the school but intending parents—in other words, those coming up to the stage of choosing schools for their children—as it may well be a factor influencing their choice of school. Perhaps that will be taken into account in any formulation that is eventually agreed.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, in view of the support from all around the House it seems inconceivable that the noble Baroness will not take the amendment away and consider it sympathetically. So much of the Government's advocacy of the Bill has been in support of parents and governors. Good parents on governing bodies of schools would require this to be done. It must be right to have central direction of this kind of statistical material not merely for the benefit of a particular school or for the benefit of the parents of a child who has been absent but because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, this matter goes far wider than the educational aspects of the amendment. There is also the social aspect. If a child is in trouble the case conference will want to know whether a child and members of its peer group have been absenting themselves from school and whether parents know of their children absenting themselves. This statistical material is essential for social as well as educational purposes. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to come back at Third Reading with something which satisfies the demand from all sides of the House.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not think that anybody from these Benches has yet spoken in support of the amendment, but we support the idea behind it very strongly. I went with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, to see the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, when he was Secretary of State. We were worried about the role of the education welfare officers at that time. Regular reports are important.
When I was a member of an education committee we set up a special group to try to prevent parents from being taken to court when their children did not attend school. A great deal of the time the parents were holding the children at home to look after younger children or whatever. It is a complicated social problem and we need to know much more about it. Whether on the lines of this amendment or in some other way, I hope we can do something in the Bill to try to resolve this extremely serious problem.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, from time to time—indeed, quite frequently—the Secretary of State makes speeches in which he refers to truancy, which we all recognise to be a matter of great concern, and quotes statistics. I am rather puzzled that the Secretary of State makes speeches of this kind when there is no central record and a great variation in local records of the way in which truancy arises. Perhaps the Minister will refer to that aspect of the matter when she comes to reply.
I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, to be talking about two types of truancy; first, normal truancy where the child does not go to school at all; and secondly—a problem which has increased considerably in recent years—where youngsters come to school, are registered and then go on to coffee bars or something like that—and perhaps not just coffee these days, from what one hears. The solution, particularly to the latter problem and perhaps also to the first one, is the employment of more education welfare officers.
I do not see how we can get children into school unless someone goes to the places which are known to be most frequented—whether coffee bars, bars or
1236
whatever they are. I do not see how we can get over that problem unless local authorities—presumably with the support of the Secretary of State and the Department of Education—provide more resources. That means more money and certainly more training to put more education welfare officers on the ground to deal with the problem.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to prolong the debate but it is an important matter. Will the Minister confirm in her reply that it is the case and will be the case after the Bill becomes law that schooling between the ages of five and 16 is compulsory? If that is the case, will she explain the department's response to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that an amendment of this kind would place too great a burden on teachers? I think that is what the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I simply said that the keeping of records was putting a great burden on teachers.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I find that very puzzling. If schooling is compulsory I should have thought that the first charge on the available time and ability of teachers would be the keeping of the appropriate records of attendance. I should have thought that everything else would come after that. Will the Minister say something about that?
I am slightly in a minority in responding to the amendment, in the sense that I am not only sympathetic to it but I actually think that it is an extremely good amendment. I am entirely in agreement that the Government might come back with one of their own, although I should be interested to see whether they could produce a better amendment than this one, which seems to cover exactly the ground that we had in mind, with a view both to keeping the appropriate data and to giving rise to actions that might lead to an improvement in circumstances. I not only support the spirit of the amendment but I support the amendment itself.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said at the Committee stage, the Government fully understand the concerns which underlie the amendment and which are felt on all sides of the House. Truancy is a very serious matter. That is why, in DES Circular 2/86, we said that the essential function of local education authorities' education welfare services should be the promotion of regular school attendance. That is why Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools is currently examining best practice in securing good attendance levels, after which the department intends to issue to LEAs and schools another circular which will be informed by HMI's work. In addition, HMI regularly examines attendance records during school inspections; and, as I have said before, we expect that the introduction of GCSE courses and the national curriculum, with other initiatives such as TVEI and school-industry contacts, should improve pupil's motivation and thus help to remove the root cause of truancy.
The existing legislative framework places school attendance as a local responsibility. Parents must ensure that their children receive full-time education—it is the law of the land—and LEAs must ensure that parents fulfil that duty. School governors

1237
are responsible for ensuring that an attendance register is kept. and for providing the LEA with a return on any pupil who does not attend regularly or who has been absent continuously for two weeks and is not sick. In addition, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 requires school governors to give to all parents of registered pupils an annual report on the steps they have taken in the discharge of their functions, and those functions include the school attendance responsibilities.
I have to say that I cannot see that the proposed new clause would in practice improve the working of this system of local responsibility. It does not address the causes of truancy. Its requirements would impose a new burden on head teachers and LEAs. Its subsection (2)(c) asks only that head teachers report reasons for absence "where known". That is perhaps in recognition of the very real technical difficulty of differentiating between categories of non-attendance. Yet subsection (5) would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report, based fundamentally on the head teachers' reports, which would purport to show pre-registration truancy and post-registration truancy, as distinct from non-attendance.
There is no quick and easy solution to the problem. The Government do not underestimate its seriousness. The response to individual cases of truancy will continue to be for local determination. However, as I have explained, through the introduction of new courses and of the national curriculum, and through the work of HMI, we shall continue to help schools to deal with the causes of truancy. In those circumstances we do not believe that the amendment is necessary and I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down may I ask her whether her faith—it is only faith, and we get accounts of her faith rather often—in the new scheme, TVEl, and so on, has been proved correct and that there has been a cut in truancy? It must be said that we have had the TVEI scheme for some time and I should like to know whether there are any facts that indicate that there has been a drop in truancy since its introduction. I think it would be more to the point if we were to be given some facts, rather than statements of belief.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am unable to quote precisely on the subject of TVEI. However, I know that in its reports HMI has stated that the GCSE courses have improved pupil motivation and, indeed, the school industry contacts have similarly improved pupil motivation and attendance.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House at what age the GCSE courses start, because truancy begins from about the age of eight onwards. The measures mentioned by my noble friend do not come into the life of a child at school until he or she reaches the age of 11 or 12 at the earliest.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must say that I also referred to the
1238
introduction of the national curriculum which we expect to affect children's motivation all the way through their school career.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to thank all Members of the House who have spoken in support of the amendment. First, I believe that it is a very serious matter with far-reaching effects; it not only concerns education. It means that the children who play truant do not establish a way of work and therefore, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, they ultimately become homeless, without work.
Secondly, the delinquency figures show that many delinquents started as non-school attenders. As I said, I think it is a serious problem. Further, I must say to my noble friend the Minister that, although the structures are there at the moment, they are not working. Circular 2/86 was a had circular when it was brought out and indeed it has proved to be an ineffectual one.
Thirdly, I think that the HMIs are a splendid body of people. However, they will never be able to see what the problem is throughout the whole country without the required statistics. Obviously I understand that the amendment is a very long one but I hope that I may, with the help of my noble friend the Minister, be able to bring forward another amendment at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. Therefore, in those circumstancs, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am most disappointed in the answer of the noble Baroness. She has had great support from all sides of the House. It must be said that Third Reading is a very late stage at which to bring forward anything new. I do not think that there is any hope of getting anything unless we make a stand now. Therefore, if the noble Baroness is not prepared to divide the House on the matter, then I am. I believe that it is the privilege of any Member of the House so to do.
9.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 329) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 61.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Faithfull, B.

Adrian, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Alport, L.

Grey, E.

Beloff, L.

Grimond, L.

Birk, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Blackstone, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Blatch, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blyth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Briggs, L.

London, Bp.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cobbold, L.

Monson, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cox, B.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

1239

Russell, E.

Thurlow, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Tordoff, L.

Seear, B.

Underhill, L.

Seebohm, L. [Teller.]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Sherfield, L.

Wynford, L.

Swann, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Barber, L.

Joseph, L.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brookes, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Munster, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cowley, E.

Pender, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Dundee, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Eccles, V.

Sandford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sharples, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strange, B.

Fortescue, E.

Swinfen, L.

Goodman, L.

Swinton, E.

Greenway, L.

Trafford, L.

Haig, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Vinson, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.10 p.m.
Clause 86 [Interpretation of Chapter IV]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 330 to 332:
Page 97, line 4, at end insert ("or any other local education authority").
Page 97, line 5, at end insert ("or authority").
Page 98, line 6, leave out ("8") and insert ("9").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 97 [Collective worship at schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 333 to 335 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 336:
Leave out Clause 97.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 337 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 338 to 341 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 342:
After Clause 97 insert the following new clause:
("Local education authorities' duty in respect of special education.
. In the 1981 Act the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4) of section 2—
"(4)(a) It shall be the duty of every local education authority—

(i) to prepare and publish within twelve months of the coming into force of this Act a scheme for ensuring that
1240
special educational provision is made for any children for whom they are responsible who may have special education needs;

(ii) to ensure that such scheme provides for such children to be educated in ordinary schools or further education provision wherever practicable;

(iii) to ensure that such scheme is regularly reviewed and kept up to date so as to take account of changing circumstances;

(iv) to submit such scheme to the Secretary of State for his approval on first preparation and from time to time as it is revised.

(b) The Secretary of State shall have a duty, after consultation with all relevant interests, to issue guidance to local education authorities setting out the matters to which they shall have regard in drawing up schemes for ensuring that special educational provision is made for any child for whom they are responsible who may have special educational needs, and establishing standards of good practice for local education authorities to follow." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment, and in doing so I should like to refer to the list of groupings of amendments which shows that the amendment has already been debated. I do not know how that came into the list of groupings because to the best of my knowledge the amendment has not been debated. Although the amendment deals with special educational needs, I do not believe that this proposal was mentioned on Second Reading or in Committee, which I, alas, could not attend, or at previous sittings on Report. The amendment is concerned with special educational needs, a subject which has been much discussed in Committee and on Report, and the Government have made a large number of concessions, which I freely acknowledge with gratitude. That has been the case not only in this Bill. I should especially like to thank the Department of Employment for the sensitivity with which it has considered the needs of those about whom we are talking when they leave school and enter into training. I am most hopeful that the flexibility and responsibility of the Department of Education and Science will be reflected in the response from the Minister to the amendments on special educational needs, particularly this amendment. I believe the amendment is essential if provision for special educational needs is to be made on a national basis, uniformly delivered.
I do not believe it is necessary to go into detail about the amendment. Its concept is simplicity itself, and I believe that it conforms to the general purposes of the Bill. If noble Lords will be good enough to examine the new clause, they will see that it is divided into two parts. The first provides that it shall be the duty of every local education authority to prepare and publish a scheme for ensuring that special educational provision is made for any child for whom it is responsible. I believe that this is a fundamental responsibility which must rest with local education authorities. It should therefore be statutory and described as a duty.
Incidentally, I am quite sure that I speak for the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who I believe, is not here today. The amendment, to which the noble Baroness has put her name implements the spirit of her report.
Secondly, LEAs must ensure that such schemes provide for the children to be educated in ordinary schools or have access to further education provision

1241
wherever practicable. Thirdly, the amendment provides that such schemes shall be regularly reviewed and kept up to date. This must be a sensible provision. Fourthly, so that the Secretary of State can have an overview of what LEAs are doing, the new clause provides that they shall submit their schemes to the Secretary of State for his approval on first preparation and from time to time. That is the first limb of the amendment. It places the duty where it must lie locally—on the local education authority.
The second limb is also, I submit, in accordance with the general philosophy of the Bill. The amendment lays the duty on the Secretary of State, after due consultation, to issue guidance to local education authorities, setting out the matters to which they shall have regard. This is an important power for the Secretary of State which I commend to the Minister who is to reply. It is very much in accordance with the general provisions of this Bill that the Secretary of State should have this central power and should be able to issue guidance. All local authorities should expect to have central guidance, and I think it quite right that they shall have regard to such separate guidance.
The guidance is for two purposes: first, to help the LEAs in the drawing up of their schemes, and secondly—and I place very great emphasis on this—to establish standards of good practice. I believe that codes of conduct of this sort from central government are now one of the most satisfactory features of modern, good practice. I thoroughly commend it in this case.
An earlier amendment was not moved because I was not here. I believe that it should not have been moved because it is really consequential on this amendment. It was whether or not this should apply to grant-maintained schools. Quite frankly, I think that is another question, something to which we should perhaps return on Third Reading. I am only glancing at it now.
I do not claim that this amendment is perfect. I believe that it is elegant and precise; it does what is essential, but it may be that more could be done. For instance, the amendment could impose a duty on LEAs to co-operate with each other, which is obviously highly desirable. I think that there is a subsequent amendment, perhaps in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to that effect. If it is thought desirable, an extra subsection could be added to that effect.
I think I have said enough to show that this framework for the delivery of special education is necessary. It is provided in this amendment by the LEAs. It is subject to central guidance. I hope very much that it has the approval of the Minister and the House. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am very glad from this side of the House to support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has said, it is intended to widen and improve Section 2(4) of the 1981 Act. I remind your Lordships that that merely stated:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority to keep under review the arrangements made by them for special educational provision".
1242
It is clear with the complexity of the Bill that we now have in front of us that that section needs improving and widening. It needs extending and improving to set out precisely the duty of local education authorities to draw up schemes for special educational provision and to publish them.
The overall co-ordinating function of the LEA is certainly not made easier by the Bill because, as we all recognise, in special education there is a complex and interacting network of facilities. Schemes must be regularly reviewed as special educational need is continually changing. Children with special educational needs require a range of facilities—some at home, some at school, some which are centrally provided, some which are provided in specialist stand-alone units and some in specialist units attached to ordinary schools. The sheer complexity of provision requires co-ordination which can only be carried out by local education authorities. The amendment sets out the duties of the LEAs in this respect. For that reason I hope that the Government will accept it.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment and to make two points. First, the 1981 Act has been in being for seven years but it has not been implemented throughout the country. It would not be necessary to move such an amendment if it were not for the fact that the Act is not being implemented throughout the country.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, would have liked to have been here and would have supported the amendment. It is based on her report. She wanted the House to know that she supported the amendment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can quite understand why the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has moved this amendment and why it has had the support that it has. However, I recall the 1981 Act very clearly because I was then the Minister in the Department of Education and Science and I took the Act through your Lordships' House. I am not at all clear whether this amendment will help the Act. My noble friend Lady Faithfull says that the Act has not been fully implemented. In fact it created a framework which was going to move towards a set of circumstances. Therefore, I am not surprised to hear that it has not been fully implemented in every authority.
I suspect that one reason for that is the advances of medical science which have meant that in a sense more handicapped children are managing better in society, and therefore the need is greater and the problem in a sense gets larger. That is a success story for the National Health Service, but it creates in its wake a number of problems. I do not see that it is possible in this Bill, which is about something slightly different, to do now what I think the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is suggesting, which is to make a major advance and lay a duty on every local education authority to bring forward a framework for delivery of special education as laid down in legislation. That marks a considerable advance on the 1981 Act.

1243
As regards the second part of the amendment, I should have thought that the Secretary of State could issue guidance without it being written into the Bill. That might well be something which it would be very suitable for him to do, but it does not need to be written onto the face of the Bill. It seems to me that this particular amendment, having made a point, will not be implemented unless local authorities have the staff and a great many other facilities which they may not have. They are moving towards the full implementation of what was always wanted in the 1981 Act. But as regards the second part of the amendment, I should have thought that that provision could be met without it being written onto the face of the Bill. I hope that the point having been made, the amendment can be withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, local education authorities already have a duty to keep schemes of special education under review. The Government do not think it would be helpful to require local education authorities to submit schemes for approval along the lines of the proposed amendment. We believe that there should be flexibility for local education authorities to adjust their provision according to changing circumstances. This subject has been debated. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, as he indicated that he might when presenting it. If, on reading the record in the light of what my noble friend has said and what was said in the previous debates, the noble Lord feels it necessary to bring this matter forward again at Third Reading, we would understand.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Baroness is being as accommodating as she can be in the circumstances. I would not dream of pressing this amendment. On the other hand, I would be very much happier if it was she who came back on Third Reading rather than I and hope that she will consider doing so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked whether this amendment will help the 1981 Act. It was certainly the intention that it would. Whether or not it does is a matter which the Government can perhaps tell us. However, the Minister is not in a position to tell us this evening. The noble Baroness. Lady Young, said that this is a major advance on the 1981 Act. Perhaps it is, but it is not isolated in so being.
As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, I am exceedingly grateful to the Department of Employment for the very long way they have gone to meet the demands of those in need of special education when it comes to leaving school and going into training. We discussed this matter when the Social Security Bill was before the House. We got very little comfort by way of ministerial reply. However I am very happy to say that since that date the voluntary societies have been in constant consultation with the Department of Employment. The department has come up with a very remarkable flexible response to the educational needs of those who will not be at the same standard at school-leaving age as other people and so will therefore need to remain at school for longer than normal people.
1244
If the Department of Employment has managed to be so responsive to pressure in regard to training I very much hope that the Department of Education will be as responsive to the demands of the Committee and Report stages in this House for special educational need. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will take back to the Secretary of State the fact that a special education provision cannot be properly delivered unless a framework such as I have proposed is devised.
That is very much the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, representing her committee. I hope that that message will get through. Perhaps the Government can come back on Third Reading with a satisfactory answer. Having said that, with the leave of the House I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Kinloss Lady Kinloss moved Amendment No. 343:
After Clause 97 insert the following new clause:
("Governing bodies representation of special educational needs
. After section 6 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, at the end there shall be added the following section—
"The instrument of government for any county, controlled or maintained special school shall provide for it to be the duty of the governors concerned, in co-opting any person to be a member of the governing body (otherwise than as a foundation governor)—
(a) to have regard—

(i) to the extent to which they and the other governors have special knowledge of and concern for the provision for children with special educational needs and the desirability that a governor has a disability: and

(ii) to any representations made to the governing body as to the desirability of increasing the connection between the governing body and organisations representing the interests of children with special educational needs; and

(b) where it appears to them that no governor of the school has a special knowledge of and concern for children with special educational needs, or that it is desirable to increase the number of governors who have special knowledge of and concern for the provision for children with special educational needs to co-opt a person who appears to them to have special knowledge of and concern for the provision for children with special educational needs.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, Amendment No. 343 is self-explanatory. If there is no member on the governing body who has special knowledge or concern for the people with special educational needs, the governors should agree to co-opt such a person to be a member of the governing body. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this amendment. If not, perhaps the noble Baroness will come back on Third Reading with a government amendment on these lines. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's amendment, which seems eminently reasonable.
Lord Carter: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support this amendment. It is intended to ensure that there will be someone with a special knowledge of special educational needs on governing bodies who can bring the views of organisations and individuals regarding disability problems to the attention of the governing body. Ideally that should be somebody who has actually experienced special education as a consumer.
Appropriate methods of provision are developed when people are sensitive to, and knowledgeable

1245
about, the needs and aspirations of disabled children. This can best come about when someone with experience of disability, and who understands the requirements of special education, is in a position to influence that provision. The amendment makes it a duty for the school instrument of government to provide for the appointment or co-option of appropriate people to governing bodies, and for that reason meets a real need.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. Other amendments to the same effect have been scattered through the Bill. I believe that this is one of the most important places where it should be provided that the governing bodies should have the expertise that is required. I cannot believe that it could be opposed on any ground other than perhaps that the governing bodies already have such powers or duties, but if they do not already have such powers or duties I think they ought to be provided.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not know what my noble friend's attitude to this amendment is going to be. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has just said that the governing bodies must have the expertise. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that is not what governors are there for. They are there to consider the whole of the needs of the school; they do not necessarily have any particular special expertise. Pedagogical expertise should be within the staff.
Certainly governors must equate themselves with what people who have a special interest in this area are thinking, but it is a mistake to limit it to the idea that you cannot get what you want without having somebody who has special knowledge. We often have this kind of debate. My experience is that on such a body as governors—and my experience is slightly different from that already related—and indeed on an education committee, the easiest thing of all is to get commitment to education for children with special needs. Everybody wants to provide it. There is no problem from the point of view of the weight of the argument.
It is a pity to have somebody as a governor with the idea that they have this kind of special role when you do not have special roles for other things. It is not the right approach, and I rather hope that my noble friend will not accept this particular way of achieving the objective.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I recognise the genuine intent of this amendment. Following the implementation of the Education Act 1981 which enacted many of the recommendations of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, many more children with special educational needs are being educated in ordinary schools. They form an important part of the life of the school and it is right that schools should be responsive to their needs. It therefore follows that those who are appointed and elected to govern schools should also be conscious of and alert to their responsibilities to these children.
However, school governors have a very wide range of responsibilities. They are appointed for their
1246
general qualities and not for their specialist capabilities or interests. It is true that governing bodies contain representatives of the local education authority and the teachers, but the specialist knowledge in running the school rests with the head and his teaching staff, and the local education authority's administrative and professional staff.
The Government do not close their mind to the need for governors who are knowledgeable and sympathetic and who may have first-hand experience of the needs of special educational-needs children. Indeed the training to be provided for governors will take this into account and we will promote good practice, but this amendment would unduly restrict the freedom that governors have in co-opting people who, in their judgment, would be best fitted to help govern the schools. I trust that the noble Lady may feel able to withdraw her amendment. Failing that, I must ask the House to reject it.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her full and lengthy reply. I am sorry that she feels she cannot accept the amendment. I still hope that she may think of coming back at Third Reading with an amendment that would fit the bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98: [Agreements for establishment, etc., of city technology colleges]:
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley moved Amendment No. 343A:
Page 98, line 44, after ("college") insert ("or City Arts and Technology College').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was the late C. P. Snow, in a famous Cambridge lecture, who drew attention to the gulf in our society between science and the arts. My amendment is a small bridge across that gulf.
Of course the arts are justified on their own account. They represent some of the highest spiritual values in our society. In many ways they perform for society the role that religion played in the past. They put us in touch with a higher order of values. They have a prophetic role in showing us what is happening in society and where we are going.
Quite apart from that high justification for supporting the arts there are a number of subsidiary ways in which the arts are of benefit to society. The arts, for example, benefit our balance of payments. One of the principal reasons given by tourists for visiting this country is to take part in our arts life. In a recent survey two-thirds of those asked gave that as a reason for their visit. We have great exports of books and plays. If you go to Broadway you will find that most of the successes there originate in this country.
However, I wish to rest my argument tonight on a related but different point—the way in which the arts help to promote employment. It is an important fact that the arts world is providing a growing number of jobs, especially for young people. Central to that fact is the increasing incorporation of technology throughout the arts. That is why I should be grateful if my noble friend would consider carefully the amendment I am now proposing.
I warmly welcome the city technology colleges programme. It is something which 1 know is close to the heart of the Secretary of State, and it is an exciting initiative which will do much to provide new opportunities for young people in disadvantaged urban areas. I am sure that it will be a great success. But there is a gap in the programme which would, at any rate to a small extent, he remedied by my amendment.
This amendment would establish a new institution—a city arts and technology college—which would specifically acknowledge the importance of technology in the arts. It is an offshoot of an idea which I also support—a school for the performing arts—in which the curriculum of drama, dance and music in a specialised way would proceed in parallel with an all-round general education. I think that that is a marvellous idea, but unfortunately it has not as yet made very much progress.
A city arts and technology college, in order to come under the CTC umbrella, would have to differ somewhat from the original SPA concept. Students at such a college would have the opportunity to study a curriculum which emphasises the technological and practical aspects of, for example, the performing arts. Within the framework of a broad curriculum this would also provide an excellent vocational training as preparations for sectors of employment which are growing fast.
For example, there are jobs in new types of music: the area of composition and production is one in which we are among the world's leaders but which in fact is fiercely competitive. There is the film industry, in which our set designers and actors are renowned throughout the world but in which the field of computer-aided special effects is now dominated by the United States. There is computer-aided graphics design, which is increasingly irreplaceable in the worlds of film, television and music. There are satellite and cable television, which are complementary to the existing information technology emphasis in CTCs. There is also set and stage design, one example of which that immediately comes to mind is the revolving stage at the National Theatre, which has added so much to the quality of its great productions.
Within a broad curriculum students in such an institution no doubt would also have the opportunity to pursue talents in dance, music and drama performance. This amendment would at least push the door open, which is important because it will encourage a wider enjoyment of the arts and involvement in them by young people.
CTCs are quite rightly targeted at urban areas where young people face many and serious disadvantages. Enjoyment of the arts has a crucial role to play in improving their lives and the life of their communities. Recently I opened an exhibition of contemporary sculpture in the new Tate of the North in Liverpool. It was immensely encouraging to see how many young people thronged that institution, giving it life, taking an interest in it and learning from it. I imagine that the college that I am proposing would have a catchment area rather wider than that envisaged for a CTC. Indeed it might provide a focus
1248
nationally. It might also wish to link up with an existing CTC, providing specialist units, for example, at post-16.
This evening I am attempting to sketch out only the broad outlines of a proposal. Clearly a great deal of thought will have to be given to the details. I should very much welcome the ideas of noble Lords in this House and I hope that my noble friend the Minister, and indeed sponsors, will play a part in putting flesh on this skeletal concept. I believe that a city arts and technology college offers an exciting prospect. Children of all abilities would be given the chance to become familiar with the arts and with how modern technology can and must be part of the performing arts. The arts and entertainment industry is a field of development and expansion in this country. This amendment will help to further that development by providing a new and innovative type of college.
Great oaks from little acorns grow. This is a fairly small acorn but it has immense potential within it. I was privileged to be the Minister who introduced into the other place a measure setting up the National Heritage Memorial Fund. That has grown and exceeded all expectations. I believe that if we could start in this modest way in the field of technology, linking up the arts and technology in a practical way, we could be starting something of very great importance for the future. I hope that my noble friend will be forthcoming in her reply to my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I should like very briefly to support this "acorn". I am not sure that I quite follow the noble Lord's ingenious and, I think, subtle linking of the arts to technology but it has the advantage of bringing it within the scope of this part of the Bill.
However, I wholly agree with the noble Lord that the arts are central to our civilisation. They are not merely a fringe activity. I also believe that the arts colleges have contributed enormously to Britain since the war and indeed to the very high standing of many of the British arts and that this development should be reflected in the schools. This is a merely permissive clause. As I understand it, the clause simply says that the Secretary of State may enter into an agreement with anyone who proposes such a college. It would seem to be unnecessary to exclude such colleges from the Bill. If they were merely colleges that, for instance, taught the history of art, I should have thought that they could have been founded under subsection (2)(c) of the Bill. However, if, as I understand from the speech of the mover, they are to be involved in the teaching and practice of the living arts, then this amendment is necessary. I very much hope that the Government will favour it.
I agree that such a college must be linked to a broad curriculum. No doubt, since the Bill says so, it must have some connection with science and technology. However, my reasons for supporting the amendment are that I believe that the practice of living arts of all kinds is extremely important and should certainly not be excluded from this part of the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, like many noble Lords, I welcome the city technology colleges as means of providing centres of excellence in particular subjects. However, like many other people I also regret that they are limited to the science and technology areas.
There is precedent for this kind of exciting initiative, for example, in the United States. It is the interesting and very successful development of magnet schools affording a variety of themes of which music, art and drama are among the most popular. These have been extremely successful educationally, but they are also socially effective. They have done a great deal to reduce truancy, to encourage young people from all the ethnic minority groups, and to reverse white flight from the inner city areas.
I should very much like to support the general principle in this amendment of extending education opportunity for children of particular abilities, enthusiasms and talents. I should have thought that it was entirely consistent with the principles of choice and provision of educational excellence which is at the heart of this Bill.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I do not wish to throw cold water on the amendment. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord. Quite a number of authorities have colleges of the kind that he is advocating this evening. In my authority in Lancashire, in my town of Blackburn, we have a college that began its days as a technical college. It is now a general college comprising arts, technology. music, business studies and combining academic work across the whole field from 11 years to 18 years. It then continues with further education, and that is excellent.
I accept the important principle that man cannot live by bread alone. We already have such colleges. I am sure that if local authorities were encouraged they would go further. However, everything suggested in this amendment already exists in colleges under a number of progressive local authorities in this country.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, interesting as one finds the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, I think the House should realise that it is suggesting yet another type of school. To put forward at the Report stage of a Bill of this kind a suggestion that was not tabled either at Second Reading or at the Committee stage puts Members of this House at something of a disadvantage.
The speech that we have just heard suggested that there is some confusion somewhere about the use of the word "college". I always thought that CTCs were not colleges in the sense in which the word is normally used, which would comprise pupils largely of an older age group. They are particular kinds of schools. It is suggested that industry, in co-operation with the Government, might make this kind of experiment possible. But to think that at Report stage, at 9.50 p.m., the House of Lords should invent a new kind of school—no one has suggested that this would be a partnership—is asking rather a lot.
1250
I very much hope, as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, which means technology, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that it is not immediately apparent why this subject appears in the Bill. On the other hand, it was heartwarming to hear the splendid speech of the noble Lord, every word of which was music in my ears. I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to adopt a slightly more generous view in this matter. We have been listening for many hours to a rather arid, though desperately necessary, discussion on technical matters and to have a distraction of this kind is immensely welcome.
If I may say so, the Government have no very distinguished record in relation to the arts. They now have an opportunity of accepting an amendment that will cost nothing, necessarily involves nothing and hopefully may involve something, and I strongly recommend that we adopt the amendment. There is nothing to be lost by adopting it. If it is suggested that these colleges already exist then there is nothing to be lost by a further statement that there are to be more of them more amply endowed. On that footing I urge the House to accept the amendment and to forget the rather narrow legalistic view that on the whole at 9.50 tonight it might be the wrong moment to talk about it. It is an exceptionally happy moment to speak about it. Almost any moment is a happy moment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in vigorously opposing the amendment I find myself in agreement with an occasional opponent and in disagreement with noble Lords with whom I should prefer to be in agreement. Vigorous opposition to it may be the greatest service I can give to the noble Lord.
I remind noble Lords that we are discussing independent schools using public money. This is not costless. If there is public money available I know where I should like to see it spent, and it is not here. We ought to be clear. If it is such a good idea I should like to see the private sector finance such schools and I should like to hear that industry is willing to do that. I see no reason why this should be a burden on the state at a time when there are many more pressing needs than this within the state system.
I add my support to my noble friend Lord Taylor. The state system is doing the best it can in this area and in many ways it is doing an outstanding service. It is preposterous to suggest that there is a gap which suddenly needs to be filled. I speak strongly against the amendment now that I have understood it, because as it was tabled it was simply a name.
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was entirely right. What the noble Lord, Lord St. John, has not given us is all the other amendments that we ought to have had that go with this one. I should have liked to have seen them so that I could explore them. I believe that the noble Lord misunderstands the nature of CTCs. There is no specification in the Bill that the CTCs are directed at the disadvantaged. It is not a fact that the urban areas correspond to disadvantaged. There is no reason to believe that, a priori, setting up such a school—we have already discussed such schools in detail—will be

1251
aimed particularly at the disadvantaged and there is every reason to believe that they will not.
I also comment on the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and her quoting of American evidence. The American evidence does not support what she says. The American evidence shows that these schools cream off pupils from other schools, leaving those schools in worse circumstances. I have examined that evidence in some detail, as have other experts in social sciences. It is quite misleading to suggest that these American schools have achieved what the noble Baroness says. I must make that point as well.
Nothing of this has to do with a view on the arts as such. It is most misleading to suggest that those of us who are devoted to the appropriate balance of the arts, science and technology should see this as the entrée to that balance. I might add—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, pointed this out—that subsection (2)(c) refers to a "broad curriculum with an emphasis". If we are to have these schools in due course your Lordships will hear me waxing even more strongly against them—they can encompass the provision of a due weight to the arts and to the performing arts and so on.
I am sorry to speak so strongly against the amendment because I believe that it is proposed in a good spirit in terms of a certain view of the curriculum. We debated certain aspects of the curriculum when we were allowed to do so earlier. However, I must say that we are strongly opposed to the amendment.
Again I remind noble Lords that in this respect we are discussing the use of public money to set up independent schools. Many noble Lords believe that to be quite unjustified in any event. I shall remind noble Lords of that fact again when I speak to a subsequent amendment.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to ask him a question. Does he believe that it is wrong for public money to be spent on training children in the arts? His speech sounded like that, and I believe that he is doing his party a great disservice.
Lord Peston: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I said that I strongly believed that public money should be used for that purpose. However, I must remind the noble Lord that in this country we have a large system of maintained schools in which such money is used for those purposes. If more money is available that is where I should like to see it spent.
Nothing that I have said—and nothing that my noble friend has said—is to be regarded as a view on the arts. Our view is in respect of the city technology colleges and it is about those that I was arguing. My view on the arts does not differ at all from that of the noble Lord.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, regrettably I also feel unable to support the amendment for the reasons given by my noble friend. However, I should like to point out most strongly that I support the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley. Of course it is highly desirable that more children and young people should have a better understanding and
1252
appreciation of the arts. Of course it is extremely important that more young people should be trained for the increasing number of jobs available in the arts industry, some of a highly technical nature. There is no disagreement with his "ends", we have a problem about his "means". I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that the link between technology and the arts is a little artificial.
I should like to add to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Peston. I believe that we should be working to ensure that all children in all secondary schools have an appreciation of the arts, rather than that a tiny number of children in a small number of what will almost certainly be elite institutions have such an appreciation. I believe that that would damage the arts rather than be advantageous from the point of view of their development.
I am afraid to say that some of the proposals put forward by the Government in regard to the national curriculum will not help in that objective. That applies particularly in relation to both dance and drama. I support strongly the view that there should be more opportunity for dance in our schools.
We have difficulty in supporting the amendment for a second reason; it concerns the employment objectives. I do not believe that it is appropriate to provide the kind of training referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St. John, in secondary schools for 11 to 18 year-olds. That is what CTCs are. Such training is appropriate in colleges of further education for 16 to 19 year-olds. In a positive spirit I suggest that we must examine the possibility of providing public money to support some colleges of further education having a specialist role with respect to education and training in the performing arts. That is rather than that we should invent yet another category of secondary school.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff (it is not very often that we are able to agree), that soon we shall have so many different types of secondary school that no one will know whether they are coming or going. What is a school? What are its financial, legal or other statuses? What is it meant to be concentrating on and specialising in, and for whom? Therefore, I believe that it is right to think about the objectives of this amendment but to come up with a very different kind of answer as to how to achieve them.
10 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches do not like the CTCs. We have made that quite clear, and I hope that will relieve the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. However, if we are to have them we would rather have them as colleges of art and technology than as purely colleges of technology. We would rather not do it this way at all, but to include the arts as described so appetisingly by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, would, in our view, greatly improve them if we have to have them.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that to call them "colleges" is extremely misleading. Our terminology is muddled enough without calling something a college when it is a school and there are also colleges for another age group. However, I feel I should clarify where we on these Benches stand.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I do not like the city technology colleges. They are too grand, too big, and they will be too narrowly specialist. However, if one does not like them I do not believe that one should go so far as some noble Lords have and, in effect, reject the idea of specialist schools.
The virtue of the CTCs—and it is a virtue—is that they will be able to specialise and not be bound by the national curriculum. Surely there is scope—and this is why I welcome the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley—for other kinds of specialist schools which are linked in with LEAs and other schools in the district.
There is scope for specialisation in music, dance, drama and the visual arts. We have had many examples of that; for example, the Chethams School in Manchester and the arts school which existed in Manchester where very fine work was done by specialist schools which fed back into the ordinary schools in the districts concerned. That is something which has, unfortunately, been lost in this Bill. Therefore, it is good to hear that there is a new vein of thought being injected even at this very later stage—and it is now one minute past ten.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for moving such a thought provoking amendment. This is certainly a very attractive variation on the original CTC idea. It would have much that was common with the CTC programme. For example, the IT emphasis in CTCs stands four square with contemporary developments in the arts such as satellite television. As my noble friend has explained somewhat ingeniously, my noble friend intends that such an institution would provide a national resource for teaching in the technological and practical aspects of the performing and creative arts.
Such an institution might fall naturally within the umbrella of the CTC programme. This would particularly be the case if, like CTCs, such an institution developed close links with industry. What my noble friend has said about the growth of employment opportunities in arts related industries certainly implies this would be the case.
I hope my noble friend will understand when I say that his amendment needs further thought. As is the case with CTCs, the Secretary of State would have to be satisfied that sponsors from industry would come forward and that proposals, especially in their financial details, were feasible. I would, anyway, like to take advice to check that the amendment as drafted has the desired effect.
Nevertheless, my noble friend is right when he stresses the importance of the arts in enhancing the quality of life in our communities and the importance of the entertainment industry in providing new job opportunities. We shall therefore give careful consideration to what he has said. I hope he will be satisfied with this and agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for what she has said. I do not know whether to be gratified or dismayed by the
1254
explosive reaction which my little amendment has caused; not at this late hour because, by recent standards, this is rather an early hour.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the night is yet young!
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I did not expect to stir the dying embers of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, into flame! However it is something to have achieved that. I have been assailed on both sides. On one side I have been assailed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, for stating the obvious and for repeating what is already in practice and already there. On the other side, my noble friend Lord Beloff attacks me for introducing a revolutionary idea at a late stage of the Bill. Well, who is to judge between those two Titans? I draw the conclusion that perhaps if they are both united in opposing my amendment it is probably more or less right. Other conclusions are certainly open to noble Lords to draw for themselves.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, whom I greatly admire and who has made such valuable contributions to this debate, that it is difficult to find a new idea. I have been looking all my life for a new idea. I have never found one. There is always someone who has thought of it first. However, shall continue this quest in a spirit of optimism and hope.
I am sorry that an ideological element seems to have come into our discussions on this matter. In my approach to the arts, I am basically a simple creature. I take every opportunity to support the arts. If one can do something good for the arts it does not matter (perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond) how narrow is the aperture through which one has to move provided something good comes for the arts. There have been great Ministers for the arts. I think particularly of the success of the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, and her wonderful contribution to the arts with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in that famous partnership—the greatest partnership in the history of arts politics in this country. She was a totally convinced and ardent Socialist. Nobody was more convinced, but when she rose to speak of the arts all that was forgotten and it was the arts that came first. It was in that spirit that I moved my amendment. It is in that spirit that I make whatever contribution I can in this House to the arts.
My noble friend Lady Hooper was encouraging in what she said. I thought her performance was extremely skilful. It gave encouragement to everyone and offence to none. It was most persuasive. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I am most willing to withdraw my amendment. I look forward to the transformation scene later on when, having looked at the details of my proposal, my noble friend will perhaps come forward with an amendment which I am sure will have much greater technical merit than my modest amendment. I look forward to the reactions that such an amendment will arouse on all sides of the House, whether the hour be early or late.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 344:
Page 99, line 2, at end insert ("up to an amount not exceeding 10 per cent. of the revenue or capital cost of the school in any year").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, after that very agreeable diversion I am afraid that we must come back to the nitty-gritty of the Bill, which may not perhaps be so much to the liking of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and others. I should like to point out that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, took 33 minutes—a Government-side amendment—so I hope that will be noted by the Government Whips and by the Leader of the House.
We now come to Amendments Nos. 344, 345, 346 and, although I had asked that Amendment No. 347 should be taken separately, out of consideration for the House I will seek to deal with it at the same time. These amendments are about city technology colleges. At the Committee stage because we were so rushed, we did not have time to pay particular attention to the clauses dealing with them. I believe I made a very brief comment on clause stand part. We wish to discuss matters a little further at this stage. Amendment No. 344 suggests that,
"up to an amount not exceeding 10 per cent. of the revenue or capital cost of the school in any year"
shall be spent by the Government on these colleges. Amendment No. 345 inserts:
"The cost of the establishment and maintenance of any school to which this section applies shall, to the extent that it is not covered by payments from the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(b) above. be met from private sponsorship".
Amendment No. 346 inserts:
"Before entering into an agreement under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the likely impact of establishing a city technology college on the educational arrangements within the area and on the continuity of such arrangements for pupils currently attending a school, any part of the site or premises of which it is intended to use for the purposes of establishing the city technology college."
What we wish to discover is the funding intended for the colleges and how they will be funded. The purpose of Amendment No. 347 is to find out what will happen if it is proposed that the colleges are put in an area where a school is at present and a new school is not to be set up. The amendments taken together are to establish the maximum funding levels by the Government for the CTCs and to ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the education provision of the whole authority in considering the possibility of a CTC being established. They are also to introduce safeguards in the case of a CTC being established on the site of a county or voluntary school.
We have learned a good deal in recent weeks about what is going on. There has been publicity showing fundamental changes from the original proposals for CTCs. These are raising serious concerns. In its proposal document City Technology Colleges: A New Choice of School which was published by the DES in 1986, the Government proposed setting up a network of 20 CTCs in a number of urban areas to,
"provide a broadly-based secondary education with a strong technological element thereby offering a wider choice of secondary school to parents in certain cities and assure a preparation for adult and working life to their children".
The proposals did not indicate that the CTCs would be established to replace secondary schools thereby causing their closure. As regards funding the document states:
"The Secretary of State will expect promoters to meet the costs of building and equipment or to contribute a substantial part of those costs. The Secretary of State will pay the CTCs' running costs in accordance with the number of pupils, at a level of assistance per pupil comparable with what is provided by LEAs for maintained schools serving similar catchment areas. The promoters will own (or lease) the CTCs, and run them. They will be responsible for employing teachers and other staff. Their grant from the Secretary of State will be paid on conditions agreed with him".
The reality of CTCs differs from the original proposals in several significant ways. My honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Education, Mr. Jack Straw, has on several occasions in recent weeks challenged the Secretary of State on the Government's financial contribution to CTCs. An article in The Times Educational Supplement on 17th June revealed that the Treasury was funding CTCs to the extent of £200 million with only £20.6 million in sponsorship from industrialists. In other words, 90 per cent. of the funding of CTCs appears to be coming from the Government whereas the original proposals suggested that the majority of funding was to come from industrial sponsors. The aim of Amendment No. 344 is to ensure that 90 per cent. of the funding of CTCs is private sponsorship, rather than the reverse. Perhaps the Minister will tell us exactly how much the Government are providing and what proportion that is of the total amount spent and intended to be spent.
The second serious issue concerns the schools which are being selected as potential sites for CTCs. The Times Educational Supplement article once again reveals a change of plan. Mr. Cyril Taylor, chairman of the CTC Trust, admitted that the original plans for refurbishing and equipping redundant schools on green field sites were doomed to fail because the costs of refurbishing and equipping such schools had been "woefully underestimated"—those are his words—by the DES. The aim was now to buy up schools in use and phase in the CTCs over a period of up to six years. However, there are already difficulties with this plan in relation to the proposal to establish a CTC at Riverside School, Thamesmead in Bexley, because legal advice indicates that the plans could be overturned by a court because of lack of statutory consultation.
The inadequacy of the consultations is largely a result of the promoters of the CTC not having produced specific proposals, notably on funding. The legal advice also points out that pupils currently at the school would need to be able to choose between continuing with their present curriculum or adopting a CTC curriculum. A similar proposal for two voluntary controlled schools in Lewisham—the Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham Schools (one for boys and one for girls) has been made by the chairman of the governing bodies of the schools, that they should be converted into CTCs, sponsored by the Haberdashers' Company. Mr. Bostock is part of the Haberdashers' Company.
At the governors' meeting at which the proposal was discussed, eight of the 17 governors opposed the proposal. The announcement about the CTC

1257
proposals was made by the chairman of the governors at a meeting on 22nd April, without prior notice to parents. He proposed that a decision in principle to proceed with the proposal should be made at a governors' meeting to be held on 20th May and that the formal notice to close the schools in their present form should be given by July of this year. Three parents' meetings were held in the week before the governors' meeting, and a press release put out after the governors' meeting indicated that parents did not wish the governors to make a decision at their meeting in favour of establishing a CTC and closing the schools.
The procedure intended to be used to close the schools is set out in Section 14 of the Education Act 1944. It has been suggested that use of Section 14 will make it easier for the school to be closed. I should like to ask the Minister specifically whether this is the case.
The aim of the amendments is to ensure, first, that there is a proper procedure before any school, whether voluntary or county, is closed with the intention of being replaced by a CTC. This is designed to prevent the kind of situation which is currently occurring at the Haberdashers' Aske's Schools. The amendment is also designed to prevent transitional funding during the period prior to the closure of the school to prepare it to become a city technology college. Such funding would not be appropriate because the main source of funding as indicated in the original proposals for CTCs is intended to be from industry rather than the public purse. Is it still the Secretary of State's and the Government's intention that funding for CTCs should largely be provided by industry?
Amendment No. 346 is designed to ensure that consideration is given to the education of the LEA as a whole, before agreement is given for the establishment of a CTC. In the case of the Haberdashers' Aske's Schools, since they are currently part of the local authority as voluntary controlled schools, their closure and establishment as CTCs will have a significant effect on the LEA. As is pointed out in a statement by a group of parents, drafted by Brain Embury in May, this scheme involves:
"a takeover of existing schools which already have an excellent record".
This does not seem to fit in with the original intention of the CTCs, and does not seem designed to improve the overall quality of the education provision in the area involved.
The amendments raise a series of serious questions in relation to the issue of CTCs; namely, their funding and the way in which they fit in with the LEA institutions. There are many questions here to which I hope the Minister will be able to reply. I apologise if I have mixed too many amendments together, but I thought that it might be helpful in the interests of time to group them together. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady David. We have seen the Government's original objectives being frustrated. Their policies as regards CTCs can be
1258
pronounced as something of a failure. First, there has been little support from industrial companies of any stature; secondly, the cost of providing such schools has been grossly underestimated. Perhaps if the DES officials had consulted with a few senior local government officers they might have come up with rather more accurate estimates of what it costs to build schools in urban areas these days. Thirdly, no sites—or very few—have become available in inner-city areas. As a result we have seen the Government changing their policies literally week by week.
We now hear that about £200 million worth of public money, including large amounts of capital, will be spent on such institutions. I must ask whether this is value for money in a context where, as we know, there are many existing schools in urban areas which are very run down and which require more money to maintain them more adequately than has been the case in the past. Schools are being proposed for places like Solihull, Bexley and Croydon. These are hardly inner-city areas, which I understand was the original intention behind the proposals.
Fourthly, we are seeing existing schools being considered for transformation into city technology colleges, including some very successful schools; for example, the Haberdashers' Aske's schools in Lewisham. However, I am not sure whether changing schools, such as those in Lewisham, into CTCs will do much to improve the overall standard of education. I understand it was the Government's intention to do so when putting forward their proposals in regard to this area of education.
The amendments are designed to avoid further disproportionate spending of public money on a small number of private institutions by preventing transitional funding to existing schools before they become CTCs. They are also designed to ensure that we look at the effects of the CTC on the whole area. If the institutions are simply going to make life more difficult for the surrounding schools, again it seems to me that the Government's objectives will hardly be achieved; they will merely he frustrated by perhaps improving standards in one school only to damage standards in all the surrounding schools. Surely therefore it is reasonable to ask the Secretary of State to take such factors into account and to have that on the face of the Bill.
Finally, there are some unsavoury things going on in certain existing schools which are splitting staff and parents. If the Government have decided to ditch their original proposals for new institutions because of the problems they are having in funding and in identifying sites, then it is vital that we have proper procedures of consultation and legally above-board processes for changing the status of the existing secondary schools.
I can say that at least using existing schools will not lead us into the bizarre situation of the Government establishing new schools in areas where there are already too many places—which was what the original proposals entailed, because of falling rolls in many inner-city areas. However, I think that it is vital that both parents and pupils in the existing schools must be protected. They may not want to become city technology colleges or attend institutions that

1259
specialise in science and technology. Indeed, there will be many existing pupils in such schools who would rather have a more broad and balanced curriculum. There may also be some pupils in the schools who wish to specialise in the arts and social sciences. How is that to happen if they are to be turned into something different without the proper procedures and notices of closure which must be established when there are changes in government policy with regard to city technology colleges?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, to anyone who has served at the Treasury there is a certain ironic pleasure in hearing noble Baronesses on the Benches opposite becoming so critical of public expenditure and urging restraint in public spending.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is an experience which has all the charm of novelty. I believe that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. There was nothing in what I said which suggested that we do not support public expenditure, but public expenditure used for sensible causes. I am concerned about obtaining value for money in education. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will agree that it is not value for money to build new secondary schools where there are already too many school places.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness has only said at several times greater length what I was saying; that is, she and her noble friend on the Front Bench were criticising public expenditure and urging restraint in public expenditure. I said it rather more briefly. As I say, it is a refreshing experience to hear that comment from the Benches opposite. Of course the truth of the matter is that noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite do not like the idea of the city technology colleges. They do not appreciate their importance, whereas to me, and possibly to other noble Lords, they are one of the most encouraging aspects of the Government's education policy, because the intention is to develop those organisations to train people for what is our enormously important need—people trained in the technologies and processes which will help our industry to continue to expand and develop.
If one contrasts what happens in this country with what is happening with our European neighbours, it is one of the causes of apprehension that we pay insufficient attention to that need. It is therefore gratifying to some of us to see the development of the city technology colleges. I hope that the Government will go strongly ahead with them. Although by temperament I am always inclined, like the noble Baroness, to urge restraint in public expenditure, I believe that this is an especially good area in which it should take place.
I have one point to make on Amendment No. 345. It is extraordinary to seek to put into a statute a
1260
provision that certain expenditure shall be met by private sponsorship. That is a wholly nugatory and ineffective provision. Nothing in any statute can compel, in an enforceable way, private sponsorship. It is absolute nonsense to seek to put such a provision into the Bill.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, was right. I was finding the Report stage of the Bill a chore but the subject of city technology colleges has brought me fully awake again. I shall start by saying a word on public expenditure in response to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. When I was a junior economist in the Treasury, when he was Chief Secretary, this type of nonsense would never have got off the ground. I was amazed to hear what he just said. This proposal would have been regarded as a demonstrable waste of public money. It would not have got above the level of an under-secretary, let alone seen the light of day. It involves expenditure where it is unnecessary; it involves capital expenditure, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone has said, where it is unnecessary; and it involves raising costs per pupil where it is unnecessary, for no ends that anyone can see except for the Government's rather minor doctrinaire ends.
If I were in a more mischievous mood, I would guess that there are papers in the Treasury at this moment demonstrating exactly what I have said. The Treasury has not declined in its economic expertise. It still knows how to do this kind of work. So it seems to me that my noble friend Lady Blackstone is entirely right. Nonetheless, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is right; we are opposed to these colleges. I have said it once and I say it again. I think these colleges are anathema. They are immensely damaging to education. It is good to be able to disagree with noble Lords on occasion, making it clear where we stand and where they stand.
The most important point I wish to make relates to remarks made by noble Lords opposite, in particular those speaking for the Government. I wonder whether they realise the damage they are doing to their portrayal of the Bill, in particular by remarks they have made on consultation and in regard to grant-maintained schools and openness of information. One has had experience already in respect of the Haberdashers' Aske's School and the Riverside development. We have not heard any word from the government side condemning what appears to be a disregard of parental interest, a disregard of parental choice and an unwillingness to consult and to provide information. I always wish to be one of those who want to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, but we have worries when we find that they are willing to countenance, without a word of criticism, what is happening in these two cases, when on other grounds which they themselves put forward they should be among the foremost critics.
My last point relates to industrial sponsorship. Here too I am afraid I reveal strong views and wax eloquent. I wish to ask the Government whether they draw the line anywhere in terms of what firms are

1261
acceptable as sponsors. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, is not in his place, but I understood that when discussing the arts he was more or less saying that he would take money from anybody. I wonder whether that is the Government's view, and whether a tobacco company sponsoring a city technical college is acceptable to the Government or whether a drinks company sponsoring a city technical college is acceptable to them. I shall not make the list any longer, but I could give them one or two other examples. It would be of interest for us to know whether the Government have views on that matter or are simply neutral and do not care whether our children would be in schools sponsored by a tobacco or drinks firm. I should be most interested to hear the response to that question.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the past. Your Lordships will remember that in the 1944 Act there were to be three kinds of secondary school: grammar schools, secondary moderns and technical schools. Why did the technical schools fail? I had a great deal to do with that subject in my day and I was unable to persuade the bulk of local authorities that there was any necessity to have a secondary school primarily to teach technology and so on. We were in advance of our time. We thought even then that there ought to be special schools for this purpose, but the majority of the people who were in charge of educational planning thought otherwise. Now in a sense the need is far greater. The advance of technology all round the world is tremendous. If we do not keep up with technology we shall lag behind.
If there is a depressed area in an inner city where on the whole the schools are of a rather low class, reasonable experience tells us not to follow the socialist doctrine of trying to raise the level for everybody; it tells us that we must create some plums at the top of the tree. There must be some schools which are outstanding which will attract people to the neighbourhood and which will greatly help it to develop new industry etc. I think the city technical colleges are an excellent idea and the more we can get private money to help finance them, the better. We need industry to take a very important part in what kind of education it wants in order to compete with Europe and the Japanese. We are not thinking about that nearly enough.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I wish to add my general support to these amendments really on the ground that when one hears of funds becoming available and money being proposed, my heart bleeds to think that it is not to be used on the system as it is. Many schools in the country are desperate for money; indeed I sometimes feel that if the education service could have been left alone, but properly funded, a great deal of this Bill would have been unnecessary. That to my mind is what is needed, not new ideas, not a gimmick a minute, but the proper funding of what already exists. I wish to offer the support of our Benches to these amendments in general.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I had not meant to intervene on this amendment, but I am drawn to my feet by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. When he referred to the education system providing for some plums at the top of the tree, will he agree that the point was put much more elegantly in the past, I believe by his noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, when he implied that the secondary modern schools and the technical schools were for the hewers of wood and the drawers of water?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the first two of these amendments, Amendments Nos. 344 and 345, seek fundamentally to change how CTCs are funded. From the outset of the programme the Government have made it clear that they will share the capital costs of CTCs with sponsors and that they will meet all normal running costs. The CTC initiative has attracted an unprecedented response to an education initiative; more than £20 million has already been pledged by industry. That is a mark of the confidence that the business community has in the CTC programme. We have no doubt that considerably more money will be raised.
Nevertheless, the cost of providing new premises or adapting existing ones for CTCs is a high one. The circumstances of each CTC are very different and depend very much on the nature of the sites acquired. We shall look carefully at each individual proposal and the capital costs involved, but because of these varying circumstances it would be quite impossible to limit the amount of the Government's capital contribution to a particular proportion. To do so would delay progress significantly. It may also lead to the loss of these very large sums of money being pledged by the private sector.
As regards recurrent costs, there is no case for radical change at this stage. Our intention in launching this programme has been to provide schools which will show by force of example what can be done to combat under-achievement and under-expectation in urban areas while also improving the choice available to parents. In these circumstances it is entirely right that the full costs should be met by the Government.
The effect of Amendment No. 346 would be to require the Secretary of State to look carefully at the impact of a city technology college on other educational provision. I can assure noble Lords that such careful consideration already takes place.
We have encouraged CTC sponsors to establish close contact with local education authorities. They have been pleased to do so, although the response of local education authorities has not I have to say always been as positive. We shall certainly emphasise the need for continuing close contact with local education authorities to exchange views on matters of mutual interest.
On Amendment No. 347, the House will I am sure understand that I cannot comment now on the details of any statutory proposal which might as a result fall to the Secretary of State to decide. The noble Baroness in introducing this amendment emphasised that she wished to provide additional safeguards for those in maintained schools which may be subject to

1263
such an approach. The closure of maintained schools is governed by Section 12 of the Education Act 1980. This lays down that local education authorities have to publish proposals if they wish to close a maintained school. If a voluntary school is concerned or, in the case of a county school there are statutory objections, the Secretary of State would decide on such proposals. The procedures also allow those concerned to make their views known to the Secretary of State. Your Lordships will know that the Secretary of State looks very carefully at the merits of any proposal which falls to him. There is already a careful consideration of each case and this proposed clause would add nothing to that.
This amendment is based on a misunderstanding of the statutory provision. Local education authorities do not themselves have the power to establish CTCs, which are independent schools established by charitable trusts. Where local education authorities have been approached by CTC sponsors, this is a factor which the local education authorities will wish to take into account in considering what proposals to publish. However, these cases are very few. It is much more likely that where CTCs are established in former maintained school premises, those schools will have been closed for some time. This is certainly the case as far as the Kingshurst and Teesside CTCs are concerned.
It is entirely for local education authorities to decide which proposals they wish to publish in respect of maintained schools. Quite properly, they are continually looking at their provision. It is by no means certain that a CTC will be a possibility when decisions to seek a school's closure are taken. It would be ludicrous therefore to impose further and time-consuming requirements on local education authorities because at some stage CTC promoters might wish to purchase from them their disused premises. Similarly, it would be quite wrong to delay artificially the establishment of a CTC in such premises by forbidding the Secretary of State to make payments towards running costs before a three-year period is over. I cannot see that there would be an advantage to anyone in this case.
I should also like to say a word about voluntary schools. The governors of voluntary schools may, under the provisions of Section 14 of the 1944 Education Act, discontinue their schools, having given two years' notice of their intention. The provisions of Section 14 lay down, however, that the Secretary of State's leave to issue such notice is required if he or the local education authority has incurred expenditure on the school's premises other than on repairs. The provisions of Section 14 do not lay down any requirements that the governors consult those concerned. However, they have to issue two years' notice, and this clause would simply extend that by a year. No obvious advantages would arise from such an extension. I therefore urge your Lordships to reject this amendment and the three other amendments.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may follow up the funding aspect. She said just now that £20 million has
1264
been contributed by industry. That is the figure that I gave; I said that there had been £20.6 million in sponsorship from industrialists. I also said that the Treasury appears to be funding them by £200 million. I do not know whether the noble Baroness will confirm or deny that fact. I wanted to point out that in the original document which promoted these colleges, the Secretary of State said that he would expect promoters to meet the costs of building and equipment or to contribute a substantial part of those costs. It seems that that is not happening. I should like to hear a further comment on that matter from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot confirm or deny the figure to be provided by the Treasury because it has not been finalised. I cannot remember what the second point was.
Baroness David: My Lords, it was that the figures are £20 million by industry and £200 million by the Treasury, which is exactly the opposite of what was proposed by the Secretary of State in his pronouncement in 1986.
Baroness Hooper: I apologise, my Lords. What is proving interesting with the CTCs that are most advanced is that, although the original sponsors who came forward pledged a large amount of money, once local industry is aware of the progress being made with these CTCs, it is coming forward, and pledges and funding from local industry is increasing. I am happy to say that it is a good picture all round.
Baroness David: My Lords, it does not seem to me that the evidence quite bears out what the noble Baroness has said. The most recent news we have is of the Middlesbrough CTC in Cleveland. This is the one that has had some money from British American Tobacco, which has caused people to raise their eyebrows in several areas.
I understand that Cleveland had £3.6 million to spend on capital expenditure. It has 238 schools in its county, and that is the amount that it had to spend on them last year. BAT has apparently given £1.5 million towards the CTC. The taxpayer is being expected to spend £4.5 million. The taxpayers are paying far more for the CTC in Cleveland than is being paid towards the capital spending on 238 other schools. That is what we do not like about the CTCs. They are getting a disproportionate amount of Treasury money—taxpayers' money. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, that we should prefer that this privileged position was not given to the CTCs when, as we think, the schools which most people are going to are being so parsimoniously and unfairly treated.
Of course we want more technicians and more technologists, but we have some very good further education colleges which take people from the age of 16 and give them excellent technical training. If they are funded properly they can do a great deal of the job that these are supposed to be doing. Obviously

1265
the Government have not had a great success with them. They have failed to get the industrialists to fund them in to the extent they hoped, and I suppose to save their face they are having to produce the money themselves from the Treasury. I am surprised that they get it, but apparently they are doing so at the moment.
The point of our first amendment is really just to say what the Government said originally, that about 10 per cent. of the revenue or capital cost should be the total amount that has to come from the Government or from the taxpayer, and that if one must have these things, the rest should come from industry. However, that is not happening. I am not at all satisfied with the answers that we have had, and I shall divide the House on my first amendment which says that:
"up to an amount not exceeding 10 per cent. of the revenue or capital cost of the school in any year"
should come from the Government.
10.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 344) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 62.

DIVISION NO. 7

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Blackstone, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Carter, L.

Rochester, L.

David, B.

Russell, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sherfield, L.

Swann, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

White, B.

Peston, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Eden of Winton, L

Ailesbury, M.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ampthill, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Arran, E.

Faithfull, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Grantchester, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Blatch, B.

Haig, E.

Blyth, L.

Halsbury, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harvington, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hesketh, L.

Briggs, L.

Hives, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Butterworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Caithness, E.

Kimball, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cowley, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cox, B.

Nelson, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Norfolk, D.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denman, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Sandford, L.

Eccles, V.

Selborne, E.

1266

Selkirk, E.

Trafford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Swinton, E.

Trumpington, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Wynford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.55 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 345 and 346 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 346A:
Page 99, line 23, leave out ("five") and insert ("seven").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have proposed this amendment to Clause 98 in order to benefit those children who will attend the City Technology College. Having discussed this amendment with my noble friend the Minister and I think secured his sympathy, I hope that he will accept the amendment. I hope too that should she do so, the noble Baroness, Lady David, will not deem that grounds to divide the House.
Clause 98(4) provides guaranteed funding for a minimum of five years so long as the city technology college complies with the terms of the funding agreement. However, should any future government exercise their power to terminate funding to a city technology college, it would make sense to extend the period from five to a minimum of seven years. Whatever is one's view about the development of city technology colleges, it is important that any young person attending one should be afforded the opportunity to complete the full seven years. My amendment would ensure that any student could continue his or her education to the age of 18. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is a slightly awkward question that I wish to put. I had understood, perhaps incorrectly, that no Parliament could bind its successors, so how can this amendment work?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for moving this amendment to Clause 98, which the Government are pleased to accept. The purpose is to ensure that in the event of a change of government policy any student could continue his or her education in a CTC at least until the statutory minimum school-leaving age. CTCs are new types of institution outside the LEA system. This is a necessary safeguard therefore for students considering taking up CTC places. It is also a safeguard for those in industry who are coming forward to establish and run CTCs.
My noble friend's amendment will extend the minimum period of guaranteed payments to seven years. The extension would ensure that any student could continue his or her education in a CTC up to the age of 18.
We believe that this is a sensible change. Successful CTC applications are required to show commitment to continuing education or training post-16. Given that students in CTCs are required to make such a commitment, it is entirely reasonable that their

1267
education in a CTC should also be safeguarded post-16. This amendment therefore balances pupil and parent commitment with a firm commitment from the Government. We are pleased to accept it and I commend it to the House.
Baroness David: My Lords, I made my comment about the government planted amendment in the same clause last time. I shall not bother to divide the House this time, but I wonder why the Government did not bother to put down this amendment themselves.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 346B:
Page 99, line 24, leave out ("five") and insert ("seven").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 347 not moved.]
Lord Young of Dartington Lord Young of Dartington moved Amendment No. 347A:
After Clause 98, insert the following new clause:
(" Voluntary aided schools.
(1) Where any persons propose that a school established by them or by persons whom they represent which is not a voluntary school, or any school proposed to be so established, should be maintained by a Local Education Authority as a voluntary aided school, they shall, after consultation with the Authority, publish proposals for that purpose in such manner as may be required by regulations made by the Secretary of State and submit to him a copy of the published proposals.
(2) Any ten or more local government electors for the area may within the period of two months after the first publication of the proposals submit an objection to the proposals to the Secretary of State, and objections to the proposals may also be submitted to him within that period by the governors of any voluntary school affected by the proposals and by any Local Education Authority concerned.
(3) The proposals shall require the approval of the Secretary of State who may by order reject them, approve them without modification or, after consultation with the persons by whom they were made and the Local Education Authority by whom the school is, or is to be, maintained, approve them with such modifications as he thinks desirable:
Provided that in considering whether to approve the proposals the Secretary of State shall have regard to the general principles that, so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents for particular types of education provision. such as schools in rural as well as urban areas of different denominations or religious faiths, small schools which can satisfy the above conditions, schools with biases towards the visual and performing arts and with other biases as well as towards science and technology or schools employing innovative methods of learning.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment tabled in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is a new variation on a theme that we raised at the Committee stage of this Bill and before that at Second Reading. That theme is the need for more variety in the schools of the country than is allowed for in this Bill, more alternatives for parents to choose schools which, being without fees, do not exclude poorer people who cannot afford to pay the fees, more experiment, more choice for parents and children and more variety from which to choose.
In drafting the amendment which expresses this theme we have lent upon what the Minister said on 16th May in Committee. She said that if variety is to be increased it should be by means of the present system of voluntary-aided schools rather than by creating new types of school. She also said that she would look again to the criteria operated for voluntary-aided status to ensure that they are not operating unfairly to the disadvantage of minority groups.
Turning to the amendment, the first two subsections, and the first part of subsection (3), come straight from Section 13 of the 1980 Act which is about voluntary-aided schools. However, the guts of the amendment are at the end of the second paragraph of subsection (3). After repeating the excellent principle that is enshrined in the 1944 Act—that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents—we go on to give examples of some of the kinds of voluntary-aided schools that we hope will flourish in the future, such as the performing arts and music schools to which reference was made earlier tonight, and to religious and small schools. There are undoubtedly many parents who want schools of different denominations and faiths than are allowed for at the moment—for example, Moslems. Since 16th May I have received letters from the Moslem education service which portray vividly the difficulties that Moslem groups have had in achieving voluntary-aided status for any of their schools. For instance, in the case of a hoped-for Moslem primary school in Brent the promoters were told that they must increase the size of their notional school if they were to have a chance. Then the council refused planning permission for the expansion that had been urged upon them. Much the same problem has arisen in the hoped-for Moslem secondary school in Batley.
The other prime example is that of small schools. I am convinced that demand is essential. There has been a reaction against big schools, in part because of the problems of indiscipline and disorder that characterise many large schools where the pupils' identities can so easily be submerged and the personal touch lost, whereas more civilised behaviour seems to be the mark of small schools. This has been picked out in numerous HMI reports on schools. I give one example. It could be reproduced many times over from HMI reports. In talking about a small school, the report said that pupils were courteous, friendly, and played harmoniously together. There was firm, benevolent leadership which was revealed in the orderly environment and good discipline. A spirit of concern for the underprivileged pervaded the school.
We recognise that if this amendment is incorporated into the Bill, it would not change the law so much as signal in the clearest possible manner that there will be a change in the way in which the law is operated. So why is the amendment necessary? It is necessary in our submission because it is very generally believed in the country at large that voluntary-aided schools are restricted to Church of England and Roman Catholic schools. The belief is well-based.
The DES figures show that there are about 4,000 voluntary-aided schools. About 2,000 of them are

1269
Church of England and 2,000 Roman Catholic, with about a million pupils between them. There are only a handful of others: a few Jewish and Methodist schools. More than 98 per cent. of all the voluntary-aided schools in the country are Church of England or Roman Catholic. However, it does not have to be like this. The system of voluntary-aided schools could be broadened out and provide for much more variety than has been the case since the 1944 Act.
What we hope for is acceptance that there should be new aided schools of different kinds to satisfy the demands we believe there to be for more choice and diversity than is at present allowed. We look forward with very much hope to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I speak briefly in general support. I shall not repeat the points made in Committee or the case put so eloquently by the noble Lord. Lord Young of Dartington. I just highlight, if I may, the case that is felt very widely throughout the country for some of these categories of school, especially those that are set up to meet parents' deepest religious and philosophical convictions. The noble Lord mentioned Moslem schools. There are also the very well established Jewish schools, of which perhaps the Yesodey Hatorah school is the one that has been seeking voluntary-aided status for longest, and some of the new Christian schools which seem to be running into opposition of a political and not of an educational kind.
I make the general point that there is a precedent for this kind of flexibility of provision in other countries. The Netherlands, for example, has been operating a system whereby groups of parents who passionately want particular kinds of schools can set them up and then, assuming that they are adequate educationally, can achieve recognition and funding for them. It works extremely well in the Netherlands and there is no reason why this flexibility should not work here.
I thought that the arguments against a similar amendment at Committee stage were not convincing. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will appreciate that the philosophy behind this amendment is entirely compatible with the spirit and the substance of the Bill and might indeed welcome that spirit as enhancing the Bill's potential to realise its fundamental purposes.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I hope that I shall be excused speaking at this time of night. In defence of myself I must say that I have not wasted much of your Lordships' time at this stage of the Bill. I restrained myself from speaking in Committee on this amendment, although its theme is dear to my heart. It is dear to my heart because, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, it offers further choice in education for people who are unable, because they are poor, to exercise a choice which is available to those who can send their children to fee-paying schools and also because it links the school to the local community. But I should like to say, particularly in the light of the experience which I have, that I approve of this proposal being entirely
1270
permissive. It would all be subject, as I understand it, to the approval of the Secretary of State and to local initiative.
I do not think that such schools would be appropriate in all areas. Indeed in the area in which I live, where we have a very satisfactory system of primary and secondary education with which the community is largely satisfied and in which it plays an active part, I doubt whether these schools would add anything and might, indeed, disrupt what is a fairly happy situation.
I am also somewhat doubtful about an extension of religious schools. I can see that there may be a case for that in certain circumstances, but there is also a case against it in certain places such as Northern Ireland and the west of Scotland. However the proposal, if written into the Bill, would allow (not compel, but allow) the possible development of more choice and different ideas in education, and I believe with the mover that that is necessary.
I should also like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the movers of the amendment. They have a fairly long record of starting out ideas which when first proposed appear to be outlandish but after a time become the accepted and conventional wisdom. Therefore your Lordships should pay attention to the proposal and, if it is not proper in its exact form, we might ponder whether it can in some form be included in the Bill. It has, after all, a considerable record in other countries and proposals such as this, I understand, have now been accepted as useful additions to education on the Continent of Europe.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment from a different point of view. It is that of the children who are not fitting in at home or into their big school. If one is not careful a number of such children ultimately come before the court for committing offences or for non-school attendance. Transfer to a small school of this type often prevents them committing offences and coming into care. On many occasions I have used such schools with gratitude.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the amendment restates the relevant provisions of Section 13 of the Education Act 1980. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said, we discussed the matter in a slightly different form at the Committee stage. I appreciate the concern of the movers of the amendment. So it may be helpful if I briefly describe the kinds of questions which the Secretary of State puts to those seeking voluntary-aided status.
Because every application is considered on its merits there are no formal criteria for voluntary aided status. However, there are six areas in particular which the Secretary of State explores with the proposers and which have to be taken into consideration in reaching decisions on proposals. The first of these is demand. Is the proposed new voluntary school needed to meet a shortage of places? If not, and there are already places available in the maintained system, in what respects are these unsuitable for the particular needs of the parents and pupils at the proposed new aided school? Your

1271
Lordships may recollect that I explained on a previous occasion that an application for aided status would not be refused solely because of a surplus of places in neighbouring schools, provided that the proposers would satisfy the Secretary of State that those places would not meet their special requirements.
The second area is the curriculum. How would the proposers intend to comply with the legal requirements for provision of secular instruction? Thirdly, there is staffing. How would the legal requirements for qualified teaching staff be met? Fourth, on premises, how would the requirements of the Education (School Premises) Regulations be met? Are there impediments, such as the need to secure property or to get planning permission, which might prevent their being met over a reasonable timescale? Finally, there is finance. What costs would fall to the LEA for maintenance and to the Secretary of State for capital grant on building work to bring the premises up to standard?
The Secretary of State's decisions are made on a balance of all the relevant considerations and no single one is necessarily decisive. I should make it quite clear that where an issue arises which would involve the proposers in expense—for example, employment of qualified staff or bringing premises up to standard—the Secretary of State does not expect the school to comply with the relevant requirements before voluntary-aided status can be given. He is rather looking for willingness on the part of the sponsors to meet the required standards and for a reasonable assurance that meeting the requirements would be a practicable proposition once public funding was available. Nor would objection from the LEA necessarily be an overriding factor. It is obviously much better if a voluntary-aided school can co-operate harmoniously with the LEA responsible for its maintenance and the Secretary of State would encourage sponsors to do all they can to bring this about. The Secretary of State would be bound to consider any objection an LEA might make to voluntary-aided status but if such an objection was not soundly based it would not necessarily be decisive.
I hope that in reciting those facts I have succeeded in making it clear that it is open to any minority group with a need for education of a particular kind to apply for voluntary-aided status and that in considering the merits of these applications in relation to the questions he asks, the Secretary of State operates fairly and reasonably. In the light of these assurances I hope that the proposers of the amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her reply and for the small comforts that she held out; they are comforts. I am grateful, as I am sure is the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to the Minister for having considered the amendment. We look forward to a great advance and development in the range and number of voluntary-aided schools. Onward let us go while I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 348:
Before Clause 99 insert the following new clause:
(".—(l) The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In the case of a county or voluntary school whose main purpose is to provide education for pupils who have attained the age which is the upper limit of the compulsory school age, the instrument of government for the school shall provide for the governing body to include (as well as the other members provided for under that Act)—

(a) in the case of such a school which has less than 300 registered pupils, one pupil governor:

(b) in the case of such a school which has 300 or more registered pupils, two pupil governors.

(3) Section 15(14) of that Act shall not apply in relation to any pupil governor provided for under subsection (2) above.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to have student governors on the governing bodies of sixth form colleges, which of course they used to be. According to education law, sixth form colleges are schools. The amendment defines them as schools whose main purpose is to provide education for pupils over the school leaving age. Since they are schools they are covered by Section 14 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 which made it illegal for any school to have a governor aged under 18—not the case until that Act became law. We consider that ban to be insulting to 16 and 17 year-olds in sixth form colleges, many of whom would have a great deal to contribute to the running of their colleges.
It is also anomalous compared to the position in further education colleges where, under Section 61 of the 1986 Act, students aged under 18 are allowed to be governors, subject to regulations excluding them from participating in certain discussions; for example, on staff disciplinary matters. That was the case when they were governors of sixth form colleges and is something which is perfectly well understood.
The Government have accepted the value of student governors in FE colleges. In sixth form colleges there are young people of the same age, often doing the same courses, who could contribute in the same way to the running of their institutions.
In the past the Government have opposed pupil governors in schools on two extremely weak grounds. First was the legalistic claim that the post of school governor was a public office which a minor could not hold. They eventually dropped that when they agreed that if that was the law, then Parliament could change it. In any case, legal opinion commissioned by the Children's Legal Centre showed that there were no legal obstacles to pupil governors. The Government's arguments were spurious. Furthermore, the existence of student governors in FE colleges destroyed that argument.
The second government argument was that pupil governors would have to be excluded from certain business and it would be unsatisfactory to have two kinds of governors. We accept that students would be excluded from some discussions such as those concerning staff discipline, but it is absurd to make such a mountain out of that molehill as to argue against student governors at all on that basis. It is very easy to divide an agenda into two parts and to

1273
have the students present for the first and not the second part.
I am a governor of a sixth form college and before the 1986 Act we had student governors who played a very good and active role. The students were extremely cross after the 1986 Act when they were prevented from being full governors. I am glad to say that the governors had the good sense to invite them to come in as observers and they are allowed to speak and so on. However, they feel that their role has been diminished. I believe that it is insulting to them. I cannot think why the Government should not agree to this amendment, and I very much hope that they will so do. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. Students and youngsters of the ages of 16 to 18, who are in the sixth form college when they do not have to be, are presumably quite keen on what they are doing and will have a considerable amount to contribute. It is also a very good education for them to take part in the work of the governing body. It is training in democratic procedures, and from both points of view it is extremely important that they should be there.
I am glad to see that the amendment proposes that there should be two student governors if there are more than 300 pupils. We argued this at inordinate length with no success on a previous occasion. The position of one student governor is very isolated indeed and makes it extremely difficult for him to take part in what may be unpopular decisions which he then has to go alone to defend against his fellows who may be very annoyed at what has been agreed. That in itself can be a valuable experience, but the student governor needs the support of at least one other student to assist him to stand up to the difficulties. I hope that the Government are prepared to accept this amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, 1, too, briefly support the amendment. It is a simple change to the Bill and a progressive amendment to encourage young people to participate more fully in decisions about their own institutions. It will be highly desirable from an educational point of view. I very much agree with my noble friend that young people on such bodies can often make an extremely useful contribution.
I believe that my noble friend referred to pupils at sixth form colleges being aged 16 and 17. However, many are aged 18 towards the end of their schooling and they have the vote. If we give these young people an opportunity to take part in both local and national elections, surely we ought also give them an opportunity to take part in decisions concerning the colleges they are attending. That can only be desirable, for the reasons that have already been expressed both by my noble friend Lady David and by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, briefly support the amendment. I have had a certain amount of experience of the inclusion of students in university committees and I have found that they take part in a
1274
careful and thoroughly responsible way, often giving support by knowing things that no others on the committee know.
There is also a philosophical issue behind the amendment. We have been told on many occasions that it is the Government's philosophy to shift power in education from the producers to the consumers. I pass over whether education may be properly divided into producers and consumers, but if there are consumers in education they must by any sensible definition be the pupils. The parents are not the consumers of education, save only in the sense that they are consumers of their children's ice creams. They have no proof of the pudding. If the Government really believe in shifting power to the consumers they will accept this amendment. If the Government do not, they do not mean what they say.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government have on numerous occasions made clear their belief that it is undesirable for pupils of a school to be members of the governing body of the institution they attend. We do not believe that they could play a full part in all the matters which governing bodies are called upon to determine; and it is of paramount importance, given the increased responsibilities which governing bodies will shortly assume, that all members are able to take a full share in their work.
I am of course familiar with the arguments in favour of pupil governors and I recognise that on occasion there have been pupil governors who have contributed most effectively. Having said that, there is, of course, nothing to prevent a governing body which does wish to appoint a pupil governor to one of its co-opted governorships from doing so, provided the pupil concerned has reached the age of majority. But it remains our view that it is generally inappropriate for pupils to be entitled to become members of school governing bodies. I call upon the House to endorse this view and to reject the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she give us reasons and not merely a statement of her beliefs? The noble Baroness has not said why she disagrees, only that the Government believe that it is undesirable. I should like to know why they believe it.
Baroness David: My Lords, apparently the noble Baroness does not intend to reply. I simply cannot understand why it is undesirable. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone says, these young people may well have the vote. Many students in their second year at sixth form colleges are aged 18. I assure the Minister that they do consider it insulting. I know that those on the governing body of the sixth form college where I am a governor wrote to Mr. Kenneth Baker asking him to think again. He did not bother to reply. I think that was insulting. I eventually put down a Question and that of course received a negative Answer too. I believe it is very unimaginative of the Government not to give way on this, because it is such a simple matter. After all, if pupils can be governors of a college of further education, why on earth should they not be at a sixth-form college? I feel strongly about this, so I shall divide the House.
11.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 348) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not Contents, 49.

DIVISION NO. 8

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Birk, B.

Peston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Carter, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

David, B.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Seear, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

White, B.

McNair, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hives, L.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Blyth, L.

London, Bp.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfcrn, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Cowley, E.

Nelson, E.

Cox, B.

Renton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Selborne, E.

Denman, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Swinton, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Trafford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Trumpington, B.

Ferrers, E.

Wynford, L.

Grantchester, L.

Young, B.

Greenway, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.34 p.m.
Clause 99 [Prohibition of charges, etc., in maintained schools]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 348A:
Page 99, line 46, after ("provided") insert ("for registered pupils").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 348A, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 348C. These are minor drafting amendments intended to ensure that the no charge rule bites only in relation to school education provided for registered pupils at maintained schools. It is not intended that the charges provisions in this chapter of the Bill should in any way affect existing practice in relation to the provision of education to other groups in other circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 348B:
Page 100, line 2, at end insert ("; or
(b) and education provided at a grant-maintained school in pursuance of arrangements made under section 50(5) of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 348E, 348M, 348P and 348T to 348Z.
These are technical amendments intended to differentiate in relation to charges between, on the one hand, school education in LEA-maintained and grant-maintained schools, which must be free, and, on the other, arrangements which may be made, under Clause 50(5) of the Bill, by the governors of a grant-maintained school, acting as agents of the LEA, to provide further or adult education at the school. It is clearly not our intention that the general prohibition on charging for education shall in any way prevent an LEA in these circumstances from making a charge for adult or further education which may be provided by a grant-maintained school during the school day.
In order to clarify matters, these amendments introduce a distinction in Clause 102 between charges for specified aspects of school education in grant-maintained and LEA-maintained schools to—be known as "regulated charges" and to be subject to the various conditions already included in Clause 102—and charges for other education provided at a grant-maintained school under Clause 50(5) to which these conditions will not apply. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I appreciate that these amendments are only technical, but if one looks at Clause 50(5) one finds it only deals with primary and secondary education. I understand from what the Minister said—although he said it rather fast—that it was intended that if the school was used for further education the local authority or the school could charge. What about nursery schools? is nursery education covered by that, or will it be charged for? Where does that fit?
If one looks at Amendment No. 348B, this is purely a drafting matter. If one looks at page 100, line 2, where this is supposed to go, it does not seem to make sense. The clause begins with the words:
"No charge shall be made … subject to subsection (3)",
and then one goes to subsection (3) and inserts at the end the words contained in the amendment. However, if one reads it as a whole section:
"Subsection (2) above shall not apply in relation to individual tuition in playing any musical instrument or (b) and education".
The "and" seems to be superfluous and perhaps the Minister will consider that matter because "or (b) and" does not seem to be desperately good English at this time of night.
As regards Amendment No. 348P, which I think is included in this group, this removes lines 18 and 19 on page 102. This states that:
"the amount of any charge so made shall be payable by the parent of the pupil concerned".
Now, if that has been taken out, who is paying the charge? If the parent of the pupil is not paying, then who is? Presumably the pupil is not paying the charge

1277
but someone on behalf of the pupil is so doing. If one takes out the parent, it is not clear just who is left to pay for it. Perhaps the Minister will explain what is meant by that. As I said, I appreciate that these are technical points and indeed the Minister stated that they are technical amendments.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards the first point made by the noble Lord concerning Clause 50(5), this refers to education which is "neither primary nor secondary". In relation to the other technical amendments, I have stated that they are technical and the noble Lord opposite has accepted that they are. However, I shall make sure that he receives a reply setting out quite clearly all the technicalities in the amendments.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for his reply. However, I made the comment before: is it not for the House to consider the amendments or just the Minister and myself by correspondence? Further, the Minister did not reply to my question as to whether nursery education was involved in this provision. I raised the point of whether charges are to be made for nursery education.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge nursery education is not involved.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I respectfully suggest that Amendment No. 348P, to which my noble friend referred, which relates to leaving out lines 18 and 19 on page 102 is not quite so simple, if I may say so, because it is concerned about:
"the amount of any charge so made shall be payable by the parent of the pupil concerned".
I think that my noble friend rightly asked who was going to pay if the parents were not going to do so. Having regard to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) which appear above those words in the Bill, I can say from some experience that these are matters of importance to the pupils and especially to the parents. Therefore I hope that we shall have a wider explanation on that point than what we have so far received.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 348P and 348T go together. Subsection (2B) explains that the parent will pay.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 348C:
Page 100, line 3, after ("provided") insert ("for a registered pupil")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 348D:
Page 100, line 6, leave out ("the syllabus for a prescribed public examination") and insert ("any syllabus for a prescribed public examination which is syllabus")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 348F to 348L and Amendments Nos. 348N, 348Q, 348R, 348S, 352E and 352F. These are likewise technical amendments intended to ensure that all references in this chapter of the Bill relate to
1278
prescribed public examinations which are based on continuous assessment as well as those where there is a formal examination, to clarify the concept of preparation for an examination and to cover entries in individual syllabuses for prescribed public examinations rather than merely the examination in general.
There are no changes in our policy in relation to charges for examinations. The intention remains to prohibit charges for entry to those prescribed public examinations for which the school is preparing the pupil for entry and any associated materials, books, instruments or other equipment or transport or for any preparation by the school even where that takes place outside school hours. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I have only one question on this group of amendments. I presume that it is intended to prohibit charging even where the child does not eventually sit the examination for one reason or another. Will the Minister confirm that point?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, that is the intention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 348E:
Page 100, leave out line 10 and insert—
("Duties with respect to certain requirements) (1)(b) or (2)(a) of this Act;
but this subsection shall not apply in relation to education provided at a grant-maintained school in pursuance of arrangements made under section 50(5) of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 348F to 348Z:
Page 100, line 12, at end insert ("in any syllabus for that examination for which the pupil has been prepared at the school.")
Page 100, line 18, leave out ("prescribed public examination") and insert ("syllabus for a prescribed public examination which is a syllabus").
Page 100, line 25, leave out ("take any prescribed public examination") and insert ("meet any examination requirement for any syllabus for a prescribed public examination which is a syllabus").
Page 101, line 6, at end insert—
("(11) For the purposes of this section, a pupil shall be regarded as having been prepared at a school for a syllabus for any prescribed public examination if any part of the education provided with a view to preparing him for that examination in that syllabus has been provided for him at that school.").
Clause 101, page 101, line 47, leave out from ("for") to end of line 1 on page 102 and insert ("a public examination in any syllabus for that examination; and
(b) the pupiil fails without good reason to meet any examination requirements for that syllabus;").
Page 102, line 6, leave out ("take an examination") and insert ("meet any such examination requirement").
Clause 102, page 102, line 8, leave out ("the provisions of this section") and insert ("subsection (2) below").
Page 102, line 14, leave out from ("for") to ("and") in line 15 and insert ("a public examination in any syllabus for that examination otherwise than in circumstances in which by virtue of section 99(5) of this Act no charge may be made;").
Page 102, leave out lines 18 and 19.
Page 102, line 24, at end insert ("in any syllabus for that examination;").
Page 102, line 26, after ("examination") insert ("in that syllabus").
Page 102, line 27, after ("examination") insert ("entry").
Page 102, line 29, at end insert—
("(2A) The following provisions of this section apply in relation to any charge permitted under this section, other than a charge in respect of education provided at a grant-maintained school in pursuance of arrangements made under section 50(5) of this Act; and any charge to which those provisions apply is referred to in those provisions as a regulated charge.
(2B) The amount of any regulated charge shall be payable by the parent of the pupil concerned.").
Page 102, line 30, leave out ("charge made under this section") and insert ("regulated charge").
Page 103, line 5, after ("section") insert ("and the charge would be a regulated charge").
Page 103, line 10, after ("met") insert ("by or").
Page 103, line 15, after ("met") insert ("by or")
Clause 103, page 103, line 24, at end insert (", other than education provided at a grant-maintained school in pursuance of arrangements made under section 50(5) of this Act.").
Page 103, line 25, leave out ("a charge in any case in which a charge is so permitted') and insert ("such a charge").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 349:
Page 103, line 49, at end insert—
("( ) Any remissions policy determined by the governing body of a maintained school or by a local education authority shall provide for complete remission of any charges otherwise payable in respect of individual music tuition provided for a pupil of his parents are for the time being in receipt of income support or family credit.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment to prevent charges being made for music lessons which was put into the Bill at a late stage in another place. The 1944 Act said that anything provided by the school curriculum should be free. This was strengthened later on by a judgment in 1981 known as the Hereford and Worcester case in which a parent and teacher took Hereford and Worcester local education authority to court to challenge its introduction of a £10 fee for individual tuition for the two daughters of the parent who sued the authority. Mr Justice Forbes ruled that charging for individual music tuition which formed part of the school curriculum was unlawful.
In order to ensure that families receiving income support or family credit are entitled to a remission of charges for individual music tuition during school hours, I have put down the amendment which is printed on the Marshalled List. Clause 99 of the Bill allows charges to be made for individual instrumental music tuition, even if it is provided in school hours. This amendment would ensure that the remission arrangements which governing bodies and local education authorities are obliged to set up under Clause 103 include arrangements to remit charges paid for instrumental tuition for any pupils whose parents are receiving income support or family credit. Without this essential change, children from poor families are likely to be denied a vital part of music education. It would of course be much better to have ensured that instrumental music tuition was free to all pupils but, as this was defeated in Committee, the only thing, and I think the thing that we really must do, is to see that there is some mitigation for music education by at least ensuring that children from the poorest families are entitled to free individual music tuition.
During the debate on Committee there was considerable support for the suggestion, but one or two noble Lords said that they thought that where parents could afford to pay they could see no reason why they should not pay for individual lessons. So what I am doing now is making absolutely sure that those parents who cannot afford to pay and whose children therefore will be at a disadvantage because they cannot pay will have remissions applied. I am making it absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that remissions will apply. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: My Lords, at the risk of being very pedantic, will the noble Baroness agree that her amendment would make more sense if the word "of' in the penultimate line were spelt "if'? Or have I misunderstood?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we discussed at some length in Committee the Government's policy on charges in relation to music tuition. We emphasised then our firm commitment to the place of music education in schools, reinforced by the Bill's provisions, and explained the reasons why we consider it appropriate that charges may be levied in respect of individual instrumental music tuition. I should stress again that the Bill as drafted allows that charges may be made for such tuition; it will be for the individual school or LEA to decide whether charges are to be made.
This amendment appears to be based on the, if I may say so, misguided assumption that if any charges for music tuition must be remitted in cases of hardship, this will increase opportunities for children from less well-off homes to benefit from such tuition. As we made clear in Committee, we do not think that that is the case.
Those LEAs and schools which at present offer individual instrumental tuition free of charge to all pupils or which remit charges in cases of hardship will no doubt continue to do so under the new regime. Clause 103 establishes that remission policies will be at the discretion of the LEA and governing body. Nothing in the clause would prevent LEAs and schools adopting a no charges or a selective remission policy. If an LEA's or school's freedom to charge for individual music tuition were constrained by statute in the way proposed, this would simply lead to a reduction in the opportunities available for such tuition.
The only exception, under Clause 103, to the LEA's or school's freedom to determine its remissions policy, is in relation to board and lodging for "essential" residential trips for pupils whose parents receive family credit or income support. This exception is simply a recognition that these parents might not otherwise be able to pay for the keep of their children while they are benefiting from part of the mainstream curriculum alongside their friends.
Optional and individual music tuition cannot be regarded in the same light as part of the essential educational experience. It must be for individual LEAs and schools to determine and publish their policy on charging and remissions. It will of course be open to parents to raise any anxieties they may have about the policy through their representatives on the governing body or at the annual parents' meeting.

1281
I hope that, in the light of these reassurances on the extent to which the Bill strengthens the place of music in our schools, and the fact that our provisions on charging are intended to safeguard the opportunities for individual music tuition, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I do not know why the Minister thinks those were reassurances. They were not reassurances at all. It was a very odd way of getting round this and trying to prove that black is white. The Bill contains a clause that was put in by the Government that charges should be made for individual music tuition. Now the Minister is saying that that matter can be left to any school. The Government have given a very strong specific lead by allowing charges to be made in this Bill. Now the Minister says that it is up to the schools. But there is nothing to guide them. We are talking about children whose parents cannot afford individual tuition. I remind the Minister that it also appears once again that music and arts have been treated in a far less serious way than the other foundation subjects.
Music and art now appear in the Bill as foundation subjects. The Chamber, by two votes, decided against accepting an amendment which I moved in Committee which would have made the wording of the Bill "the arts" rather than "arts, music". As music appears in the Bill so worded as a foundation subject, it seems even more odd that every effort should not be made so that pupils can get the best out of this. In his judgment over Hereford and Worcester local education authority Mr. Justice Forbes said the following. I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to read this out but I must in view of the very dusty answer that this amendment has received. He said:
"If it is possible for a pupil to get an 'A' level as a performing musician, or an '0' level, that is a qualification towards which a school curriculum might well aim … for this purpose there seems no logical reason for distinguishing between an '0' level in physics and one in piano playing."
There are no charges for physics or mathematics or any tuition in those areas. But for music we are back again not only with charges all round, which were eliminated by the 1944 Act, but the Government now seem to be absolutely set against even accepting what was really the most human and sensible way to deal with this. I am not concerned with whether this amendment goes in that particular paragraph of that particular clause, with the remission made by the Minister as regards some educational trips. I do not mind where it goes, but the point is that there should be remission of charges for parents who receive income support or benefit, and who by the very virtue of that have demonstrated that they are not in a position to afford private tuition in music. Even at this late hour I must divide the House on this matter. It seems to me quite a monstrous proposition.
11.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 349) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 49.

DIVISION NO. 9

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Birk, B.

Peston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

David, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dormand of Easington, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Russell, E.

Flowers, L.

Seear, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

White, B.

McNair, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hives, L.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Blyth, L.

London, Bp.

Brahazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Renton, L.

Cowley, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Cox, B.

Sandford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Selborne, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Selkirk, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sherfield, L.

Denman, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Swinton, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Trafford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Faithfull, B.

Wynford, L.

Grantchester, L.

Young, B.

Greenway, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
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.
House adjourned at one minute past midnight.