Education Reform Bill

HL Deb 27 June 1988 vol 498 cc1221-82

8.4 p.m.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Clause 85 [Withdrawal of grant by Secretary of State]:

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 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 moved Amendment No. 314: Page 82, lint 9, at end insert—

1. ("(d) that the school premises or any parts thereof are unsuitable for a school;
2. (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;
3. (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;
4. (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 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 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 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—

1. (a) discharging any liabilities of that governing body (other than section 105 loan liabilities); and
2. (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 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 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—

1. (a) was wholly or mainly provided at the expense of a local education authority or a former authority; or
2. (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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 324: Page 92, line 27, leave out ("vest in a local education authority") and insert—

1. ("(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
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) be prepared every four weeks during term time,
2. (b) report all pre-registration absences,
3. (c) report reasons for absence where known,
4. (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—

1. (a) consult with the local authority education and social services departments concerning any persistent absentees, and
1231
2. (b) take whatever action seems to him appropriate to secure attendance at school of persistent absentees, and
3. (c) submit the head teacher's reports of absentees, and of action taken by him, to the next appropriate meetings of the governing body.
4. (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.
5. (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—

1. (a) be submitted on or before 1 September in each year, and cover absentees for the previous school year.
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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—

1. (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;
2. (ii) to ensure that such scheme provides for such children to be educated in ordinary schools or further education provision wherever practicable;
3. (iii) to ensure that such scheme is regularly reviewed and kept up to date so as to take account of changing circumstances;
4. (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 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". 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.

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.

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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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)—

1. (a) in the case of such a school which has less than 300 registered pupils, one pupil governor:
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 348C: Page 100, line 3, after ("provided") insert ("for a registered pupil")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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 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 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 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.

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.