Education Reform Bill

HL Deb 27 June 1988 vol 498 cc1142-206

3.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Hooper.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 53 [Initiation of procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:

[Amendment No. 236 not moved.]

Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 237:

Page 47, line 35, at end insert— ("(2A) In any school where a ballot of parents is to be held by virtue of subsection (1) above, the governing body shall also undertake consultation with parents of pupils attending any primary school from which a significant number of pupils have been drawn in the previous year, and such consultation shall be undertaken in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary of State under this subsection.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we appear to be going through the Bill in a curiously hand-to-mouth way, never knowing at the beginning of the day where we shall finish or at what hour of the night or morning. By the luck of the draw it falls to me to open the proceedings today. I do so by moving Amendment No. 237. It is a much shortened, less onerous and more easily acceptable version of what was Amendment No. 211 BB at Committee stage. It was then moved by my noble friend Lord Tordoff on my behalf while I was occupied elsewhere with the even more urgent demands of salmonella.

We are discussing a situation in which a secondary school is about to decide whether to acquire grant-maintained status. I take it that no one will disagree with the statement that the most important factor to be taken into account in making that decision is the effect that it will have on the education—and therefore the future—of the children concerned. But which children? Surely they are the children who will be at school after the choice has been made.

If my youngest child leaves the school before the lengthy process of acquisition has been completed it will make no difference whatever to him or her. Yet, as a parent, I shall have a vote in the ballot. If, on the other hand, I am likely to want to send my child to that school in a year or two's time, because it is one of the secondary schools to which children normally progress from the primary school where my child is a pupil, then the decision concerns me and my child intimately. It is most important to us but I shall have no vote in the ballot.

That is the dilemma to which the amendment draws your Lordships' attention. In considering the matter we decided, with regret, that it would be impossibly difficult to give votes to the parents of feeder primary schools such as I have described. The compilation of the electoral register for such ballots will be difficult and erratic enough, without adding to it such complications. Therefore we fell back on consultation and I suggest that noble Lords must insist on that.

In replying at Committee stage on 12th May [Official Report, col. 1313] the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, opened with these words: We recognise that the views of parents of pupils in feeder primaries are relevant to consideration of the question whether a school should become grant-maintained". That was a clear acceptance by the Government of the validity of the point we are making in this amendment. However, the noble Lord went on to doubt whether, the provisions relating to the parental ballot are the most appropriate place for such views to be taken into account". Maybe not, but in that case what is the most appropriate place?

Having conceded the validity of our concern, the Government have done nothing whatever to meet it. Today we ask either that the Government will accept the amendment or, if they do not like it, promise to come forward with a suitable amendment at Third Reading. Failing that, as an absolute last resort, will the Government undertake that in regulations the Secretary of State will ensure that the views of such feeder primary parents are ascertained; that they are made known to the voters in the ballot; and that the Secretary of State will give due weight to those views, for or against, in making his final decision? I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to add my support to the amendment. It has been recognised all round the House that it is important that the parents of pupils at primary school—those likely to be in the catchment area of the possible future grant-maintained school—should have some kind of voice in what will happen to the school their children will be attending. In one way it seems to be much more important that they should have a say rather than the parents of children who are about to leave.

We have decided that it is too difficult to involve those parents in a ballot. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has said, we are falling back on consultation. There are plenty of precedents for consultation. I do not believe that it will be at all difficult to establish some kind of scheme by which the opinions of those in the feeder primary schools could be collected. I very much hope that the Government will feel able to give a little on this issue. I strongly support the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, I should like to add my support to this amendment. I believe that one must bear in mind that a majority of the parents whose children attend a particular school are concerned about the standard of that school. So are the majority of the parents whose children will go to the school. One must bear in mind that only a small minority of parents are public spirited enough to have any concern about a school where their children are not being educated or are not going to be educated. We are speaking here of parents with the highest possible interest and concern. I certainly believe that some sort of consultation should be provided for. I strongly support the amendment.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I have no doubt that some of the parents of children attending "feeder" primary schools will take an interest in the possibility of a neighbouring secondary school becoming grant-maintained. However, I see no merit in imposing on the governing body of that school the duty to consult those parents, as this amendment requires.

Apart from anything else, in practice it would be difficult to construct regulations prescribing the form such consultation must take; for example, where exactly would the line, if any, be drawn to define which parents should be consulted and which not? And whatever the success in drawing up such distinctions, the administrative burden of the consultation both on the governing body of the school considering grant-maintained status, and possibly on the primary schools concerned as well, would be most unwelcome. And I must add here that the amendment as drafted leaves quite unclear what the implications of the proposed consultation are intended to be.

Such complexity is, in any case, unnecessary. It is most unlikely that local parents would be unaware that a school is applying for grant-maintained status. We all know that from the interest aroused by plans for schools' reorganisation under Sections 12 and 13.

Proposals to acquire grant-maintained status will, as part of the procedure, be published in summary form in the local press. Anyone who wishes will be able to view them in full and comment on the proposals to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Parents of children at local primary schools who have strong views on the issue will therefore be able to make them perfectly clear at this stage, either individually or collectively. The Secretary of State will consider the proposals on their merits, in the light of all the points put to him and the evidence of parental support. For these reasons, I recommend the House to reject this amendment.

Lord McNair

My Lords, that was one of the most predictable utterances to which I have ever had to listen. The Government accept that we have a point but will do nothing to meet it. To say that anybody can write to the Secretary of State is no answer. Of course anybody can write to the Secretary of State. We can all write to him. However, that is not the way in which parents normally express their opinions.

We are told that this would place an impossible burden on the governing body of the school. The main primary "feeder" schools can easily be identified. Any head teacher knows which they are. One gets in touch with the governing bodies of those primary schools, which call a parents' meeting. They listen, explain and pass on the findings. The parents may be very keen on opting out. I am not saying that they will always be against that. However, their views should be known and it should be impossible to avoid consulting them; that is the point.

We have had the usual sort of knee-jerk automatic resistance which is a practice from which, I believe, the Government should be discouraged.

3.23 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 237) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 116.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Elwyn-Jones, L.
Adrian, L.	Ewart-Biggs, B.
Airedale, L.	Falkland, V.
Amherst, E.	Fitt, L.
Ardwick, L.	Fletcher, L.
Attlee, E.	Flowers, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Galpern, L.
Barnett, L.	Gladwyn, L.
Birk, B.	Graham of Edmonton, L.
Blackstone, B.	Grey, E.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Grimond, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Hampton, L.
Bottomley, L.	Hatch of Lusby, L.
Briginshaw, L.	Henderson of Brompton, L.
Buckmaster, V.	Houghton of Sowerby, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Hunt, L.
Carter, L.	Jacques, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Jay, L.
Dainton, L.	Jeger, B.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
David, B.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Kearton, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Kennet, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Leatherland, L.

Listowel, E.	Seear, B.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Serota, B.
Longford, E.	Stallard, L.
McNair, L. [Teller.]	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Mishcon, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Morton of Shuna, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Murray of Epping Forest, L.	Thurlow, L.
Nicol, B. [Teller.]	Tordoff, L.
Northfield, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Perry of Walton, L.	Underhill, L.
Peston, L.	Walston, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.	Wcdderburn of Charlton, L.
Reilly, L.	White, B.
Ritchie of Dundee, L.	Wigoder, L.
Rochester, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Russell, E.	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Sainsbury, L.	Young of Dartington, L.
Scanlon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Allerton, L.	Hesketh, L.
Arran, E.	Hives, L.
Auckland, L.	Home of the Hirsel, L.
Beaverbrook, L.	Hood, V.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Hooper, B.
Beloff, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Belstead, L.	Kaberry of Adel, L.
Bessborough, E.	Killearn, L.
Blackburn, Bp.	Kimball, L.
Blake, L.	Kinnaird, L.
Blyth, L.	Lauderdale, E.
Borthwick, L.	Layton, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	London, Bp.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Long, V.
Brentford, V.	Lovat, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Lyell, L.
Broxbourne, L.	McFadzean, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Butterworth, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Buxton of Alsa, L.	Manton, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Marley, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Merrivale, L.
Carlisle, Bp.	Mersey, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Mountgarret, V.
Carnock, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Coleraine, L.	Munster, E.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Cowley, E.	Nelson, E.
Cox, B.	Newcastle, Bp.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
De Freyne, L.	Orkney, E.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Oxfuird, V.
Dudley, B.	Pender, L.
Dundee, E.	Porritt, L.
Effingham, E.	Portland, D.
Elibank, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Reigate, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Renton, L.
Erroll of Hale, L.	St. Davids, V.
Faithfull, B.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.	Selborne, E.
Ferrers, E.	Shannon, E.
Ferrier, L.	Sharples, B.
Fortescue, E.	Skelmersdale, L.
Gainford, L.	Strange, B.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Strathspey, L.
Gray of Contin, L.	Sudeley, L.
Gridley, L.	Terrington, L.
Haig, E.	Teviot, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylehone, L.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
	Thorneycroft, L.
Halsbury, E.	Trumpington, B.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Whitelaw, V.
Harvey of Prestbury, L.	Wise, L.
Harvington, L.	Wynford, L.
Headfort, M.	Young, B.
Henley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.31 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 238 to 240 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 241: Page 48, leave out line 19.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with the grouping containing Amendment No. 232. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 242 not moved.]

Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 243:

Page 48, line 42, at end insert— ("(10A) The provisions of this section, and arrangements in section 54 relating to a ballot of parents, shall be applicable from a date five years after any acquisition of grant-maintained status as though they applied to a reacquisition of maintained status.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment appears to have been included in the Marshalled List by mistake as my name is also to Amendment No. 244, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, which is exactly the same. Therefore, I shall not move it.

[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]

Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 244:

Page 48, Line 42, at end insert— ("( ) The provisions of this section, and arrangements in section 54 relating to a ballot of parents, shall be applicable from a date five years after any acquisition of grant-maintained status as though they applied to a reacquisition of maintained status.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment to the effect that after five years there could be re-entry into the maintained system; that is, that a school which had opted out could opt back into the system after five years, with the agreement of the required number of parents.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne said on 12th May, as reported in col. 1318 of Hansard: The Government are confident that grant-maintained schools will be successful". The point was not whether schools would be successful, but that there could be a change in circumstances. Over a period of five years a school might change; the area might change and the people might change. I cited as an example the county of Kent where the Channel Tunnel is being built and where there will be a complete change of population. If the governors of a school feel that they cannot continue to run a school and want to give up altogether the only option is for the school to close, for the Secretary of State to be advised accordingly, and for the school then to reopen.

I believe that it would be wise for a school to be able to opt back into the system not because it has been failing and is not a success but because of changed circumstances, a change in the governors or because the governors feel that they cannot carry the responsibility. I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, I add my support to this amendment. As the noble Baroness said, circumstances can change dramatically and as the Bill stands there is no possibility, except by closing the school, of doing anything to meet that situation.

What do the Government intend to do if circumstances change to that extent? Would it not be possible after that period to have the opportunity of opting back into the system? Many of the parents might be pleased if that happened. It seems ridiculous not to have that possibility in the Bill. Therefore, I add my strong support to the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, this is not a particularly good idea that my noble friend has put forward. The one aspect that will be desirable once a school has decided to opt out is that it should be free of political manoeuvring and thinking and that the governors and staff should be able to get on with the job of running the school. If there are people in the area who regret that the school has moved out of the local authority and people in the local authority who are desperate to get it back, there will be constant politicisation, at least on that issue. I should have thought it unlikely that schools would want to opt back.

My noble friend is right to suggest that a school might want to close. Schools in the private sector sometimes, but not often, close and one might do so in the maintained sector. If a local authority is short of school places and wishes to start up a new school it will presumably be for the authority to decide from scratch whether to have the new school in its place. If this amendment were accepted it would be utterly disastrous for opted-out schools. I should be sorry to see the amendment accepted and I hope that the House will not support it.

Lord Seebohm

My Lords, I support this amendment for the simple reason that I believe it to be entirely illogical for schools to opt out but never be able to opt back. It may be that five years is not the right period and that it should be longer; but it is illogical, once a school has opted out, for it not to have the right to opt back.

Lord Hunt

My Lords, as one who has been a pure listener, with one exception, throughout the passage of this Bill I feel it would be helpful if the noble Baroness would explain what she means in saying that it is important to keep political influences out of the matter and that it is sufficient to opt out without the ability to opt in again. I fail to see why it should be a political matter. It is possible that the majority of parents will wish to opt in again on purely educational grounds.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I should like to add my voice to that opinion. I too was taken aback by the introduction of politicisation on this issue. I am not saying that people cannot bring politics into almost anything that one can think of, but my understanding of the grant-maintained proposals is that they were put forward on educational grounds.

We must accept—and even noble Lords opposite must accept—that there is an experimental side to this legislation. It is a new proposal and everybody concerned will be trying to learn from it. My view is that five years is quite a long time as a period for pause, but another view is that it could be longer. I find convincing the notion that there should be asymmetry here. I should like to hear the case argued for asymmetry, bearing in mind that this is a new departure. Some governors may decide that their educational responsibilities lead them to consider not that they want the school to close but that they want the original decision reconsidered. It would be a pity not to have that facility. I do not deny the intervention from the noble Baroness that politics could be brought into the matter but I was hoping that we were largely discussing this as an education Bill and seeing this as an educational issue. I certainly look forward to the reply from the noble Baroness on this matter.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, the noble Baroness is precluded by the rules of the House from replying to the noble Lord. We are at Report stage and not the Committee stage.

I believe that the word "politicisation" has been misinterpreted. I imagine that what the noble Baroness has in mind is that it will be very undesirable for the issue to continue to be a live one. One does not want parent's meetings taken up every year or so with deciding or undeciding what has been done. It is educational stability of the school rather than politics in any party sense which is at the root of the objection put forward by the noble Baroness.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I do not understand this. If one can go on and on asking for grant-maintained status it seems totally illogical that, having tried it and having found that it does not work in a particular school, one cannot ask for the management to be reversed. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is trying to have it on one side only. One can ask as often as one likes for grant-maintained status, but once one has it, one cannot ask for it to be taken away again.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the Government have consistently made it clear that they are unwilling to accept an amendment of this kind. The objectives of establishing grant-maintained status, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, are definitely to improve our education system. The intention is to offer more choice and competition in the maintained sector. Any mechanism to opt out might encourage initial applications for grant-maintained status to be undertaken rather too lightly, offering, as it would, the possibility of a change of heart if running the school proved a little too challenging.

Further, any provision for being able to opt back in would diminish the chances of a grant-maintained school becoming well-established. The procedures are quite complex. Once it has been set up, a grant-maintained school, like any other, will need time to prove itself. It would be highly discomforting for all concerned, not least the pupils, if there were the prospect of another change of status after five years, as the amendment suggests, and the possibility of still further to-ing and fro-ing after that.

The Government are confident that grant-maintained schools will be successful and fully accountable to parents; and that parents, in turn, will want them to succeed. As my noble friend said when introducing the amendment, there are provisions in the Bill permitting the governors of a grant-maintained school to publish proposals for its closure, though the Secretary of State has made it quite clear on a number of occasions that he would not expect any proposals from the governors to close such a school for the first 10 years of its life.

For those reasons and because we discussed similar amendments before, I hope that I have given sufficient explanation of why we see no merit in the amendment and I recommend that it be rejected.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, if five years is too short and since the Secretary of State talked about the possibility of closure at the end of 10 years, would the Government think again about the possibility at the end of 10 years? One is left with the impression that the politicisation comes from the Government Benches.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that what has been made clear by the Secretary of State as regards the procedures for the closure and then, if necessary, the re-opening of a school, may meet the case raised by the noble Baroness and others. It is in this respect that he has referred to a period of 10 years.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and for their support. If a school is keen enough to opt out, then for at least five years it will not want to opt back. I maintain that there will not be politicisation as suggested by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. There will not be edging and pushing and awkward situations arising at the meetings of governors as suggested by my noble friend Lord Beloff. I am suggesting that circumstances may change for reasons which have nothing to do with the success of the school or with politicisation. However, the Government have taken a certain stand and I do not propose to divide the House. I hope that when governors and parents opt out of the system it will be made clear to them that they cannot opt back in again. I believe that they should know where they stand. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness David

My Lords, the amendment is in my name also. I am not prepared to withdraw it. I am sorry that I did not make that point clear when I spoke. I am not agreeable to withdrawing the amendment.

Lord Broxbourne

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether the characteristically constructive suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that if this amendment were withdrawn the Minister might undertake to give sympathetic consideration to an amendment at Third Reading substituting 10 years for five, would meet the case.

Baroness David

My Lords, I agree to that but I understand that the noble Baroness will not agree. She is shaking her head. That happy situation and solution is not available to us. I wish it were.

3.46 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 244) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 110.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Adrian, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Airedale, L.	Kearton, L.
Alport, L.	Kennet, L.
Amherst, E.	Kilmarnock, L.
Ardwick, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Attlee, E.	Leatherland, L.
Aylestone, L.	Listowel, E.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Barnett, L.	Longford, E.
Birk, B.	McNair, L.
Blackstone, B.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Mayhew, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Bottomley, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Briginshaw, L.	Nicol, B. [Teller.]
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Northfield, L.
Carter, L.	Perry of Walton, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Peston, L.
Dainton, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Darcy (de Knayth), B.
David, B.	Porritt, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Reilly, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Rochester, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Russell, E.
Ennals, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Scanlon, L.
Falkland, V.	Seear, B.
Flowers, L.	Serota, B.
Gallacher, L.	Stallard, L.
Galpern, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Goodman, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Grey, E.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Grimond, L.	Thurlow, L.
Hampton, L.	Tordoff, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Henderson of Brompton, L.	Underhill, L.
Hughes, L.	Walston, L.
Hunt, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L
Jacques, L.	White, B.
Jay, L.	Wigoder, L.
Jeger, B.	Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Adlington, L.	Carnegy of Lour, B.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Carnock, L.
Allerton, L.	Cathcart, E.
Arran, E.	Clitheroe, L.
Beaverbrook, L.	Coleraine, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Constantine of Stanmore, L.
Beloff, L.	Cowley, E.
Belstead, L.	Cox, B.
Bessborough, E.	Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Blake, L.	Davidson, V. [Teller.]
Blyth, L.	De Freyne, L.
Borthwick, L.	Denham, L. [Teller.]
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Dudley, B.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Dundee, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Eccles, V.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Effingham, E.
Buckmaster, V.	Elibank, L.
Butterworth, L.	Ellenborough, L.
Caithness, E.	Erroll of Hale, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Fanshawe of Richmond, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Ferrier, L.

Fortescue, E.	Marley, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Merrivale, L.
Gainford, L.	Mersey, V.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Mountgarret, V.
Gray of Contin, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Gridley, L.	Munster, E.
Haig, E.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Nelson, E.
	Newcastle, Bp.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Harvey of Prestbury, L.	Orkney, E.
Harvington, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Headfort, M.	Oxfuird, V.
Henley, L.	Pender, L.
Hesketh, L.	Portland, D.
Hives, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L.	Reigate, L.
Hood, V.	St. Davids, V.
Hooper, B.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L	Selborne, E.
Kaberry of Adel, L.	Shannon, E.
Kimball, L.	Sharples, B.
King of Wartnaby, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Kinnaird, L.	Strange, B.
Lauderdale, E.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Layton, L.
London, Bp.	Strathspey, L.
Long, V.	Sudeley, L.
Lovat, L.	Terrington, L.
Lyell, L.	Teviot, L.
McFadzean, L.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.	Trumpington, B.
Malmesbury, E.	Wynford, L.
Manton, L.	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.56 p.m.

Clause 54 [Ballot of parents]:

[Amendment No. 245 not moved.]

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 246: Page 49, line 15, at end insert ("in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State which shall provide—

1. (a) that no more than one vote be cast in respect of any registered pupil at a school in any ballot;
2. (b) that the same definition of the person entitled to vote as a parent be applied throughout England and Wales.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an important amendment. We expected that the Government would come forward with an amendment of their own to define a "parent", but they have not. During the Commons stages of the Bill the Government dismissed the Opposition argument that a definition of a "parent" was needed. The Minister of State, Mrs. Rumbold, argued that the definition provided by the Education Act 1944 was sufficient.

Section 114 of the Act gives the following definition: 'Parent', in relation to any child or young person, includes a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person". That provides for a wide interpretation. For example, where a child stays with his or her natural parents at the weekends but stays with grandparents during the week, it would appear that all four would be entitled to a vote in an opting out ballot. The Government have argued that a child who is in care will not be entitled to vote on his or her behalf because it would not be appropriate to suggest that the director of social services should be part of the parent body for the purpose of the ballot. However, by relying on the definition of "parent" in the 1944 Act, this is precisely what will happen. There appears therefore to be some confusion as to the interpretation of the definition.

During the Committee stage in your Lordships' Chamber an amendment on the definition of "parent" was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. She pointed out that though the definition of "parent" might at first seem obvious, a number of people now have not only two natural parents but in divorced families there may be a great many people who claim to be parents. There may also be people who, while not being parents, are the people doing the job of a parent, namely, a grandparent or some official who is looking after the wellbeing of the child". [Official Report, 12/5/88; col. 1325.] The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, rejected the amendment because it would have prevented parents or governors from pursuing an application for grant-maintained status until the Secretary of State had published the definition of "parent" for this purpose in a schedule to the Bill. He said at col. 1325: The Government believe that this would be an unnecessary and over-prescriptive provision; but I can reassure the noble Baroness that we intend to provide, in an appropriate manner, all the information and guidance which governors will require to carry out their duties effectively in this context". He explained that it would be the duty of the governors to ensure that every person known to them to be a parent of a registered pupil at the school would be given the opportunity to vote. He admitted (col. 1326) that: Very occasionally a genuine question may arise as to whether a person qualities as a parent of a registered pupil at the school. In such eases it will be for the governing body to reach a decision, taking account of the legal definition of a parent for the purposes of the Education Acts. These define a parent as including a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person, so there may be circumstances where a child has more than two parents. The natural parents of a child will normally qualify, even where they are divorced and a step-parent or other relative is also exercising parental rights—but sometimes a natural parent may have his or her rights and duties removed by court order. The burden of proof will be on the person wanting to be recorded on the admissions register as the parent of a particular child. A person who disputed the governing body's decision would have to demonstrate that it was a decision which no reasonable governing body could have taken. All those matters will be discussed in guidance we shall issue to every governor in the country once this Bill has received Royal Assent".

The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, commented that that response hardly clarified the situation. She said that she could see nothing but confusion ahead by a refusal at that stage to decide on some definition. The Government must be pressed to explain why it is not considered appropriate to define the term "parent" sufficiently precisely to avoid confusion. Apart from seeking to establish a consistent definition of a parent throughout England and Wales, the amendment seeks also to ensure that only one vote is cast for each registered pupil at a school.

The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna who proposed an amendment in Committee to limit the voting in this way, pointed out that: It seems to us that this is the only way to answer the problem of how the voting is to be done; otherwise there will be unfairness between the multi-child family, the single parent family and the family which is split up and the parents have re-married which may cause all sorts of problems".—[Official Report 12/5/88; col. 1315.] In response the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, agreed to take the amendment back to see whether there was some way to meet the point.

As the Government do not appear to have brought forward an amendment to allow this change, it is most important to press the matter today. We are now nearly at the end of the Report stage and we must settle the matter. Surely the Government must admit that to allow different pupils different weighting, according to the number of parents who register on their behalf, would be extremely unfair. It seems to me that the fairest thing would be: one child, one vote. That means that the whole thing is child-orientated. That is how I think it should be done. After all, it is the children who matter. The amendment reinforces that view. I beg to move.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I should very much like to support the amendment, especially the point that deals with establishing that there shall be one vote for each child, no more no less. I think that is so much more important than the slightly theological point, when is a parent not a parent. If a cluster of people are claiming to be a parent and each is clambering for a vote, surely, as in the French elections, we should let them have a "run-off" as to who is to be the chosen candidate. That is something that they should do in this family where they are all claiming rights to vote for the child.

I do not mind who the parent is or, indeed, which parent it is; but there should not be more than one vote for each child. In other words, each child should be represented by one vote. That is what we are after. Please let us not get ourselves bogged down with arguments about the definition of a parent, if we can agree on that which is really the substance of the amendment.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

My Lords, uniformity in the teaching approach is not desirable; but I think consistency in administrative questions such as this is a different matter. In something as far-reaching and emotive as opting out one gets a sense of unfairness, as has already been said: for example, if school A decided that each parent could have a separate vote, while school B next-door—perhaps with some of the same parents involved—restricted it to one parent only. I think we should all know where we stand before an operation of this type begins. I am somewhat surprised that this otherwise most prescriptive Bill should be silent on the matter. In my view this amendment deserves support.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, I think that there is also a social element in the matter. White middle-class children are much more likely to have two parents together than, for example, the child of an Afro-Caribbean family, where there may be only one parent. I think that that element is a most important one.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, I am most puzzled about the idea of one vote per child. What happens if the child has two parents and the parents disagree on the matter—which is normal in family life?

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, there are certain legal difficulties involved. I should have thought that the law is quite clear as to who is responsible for a child, except in one direction; namely, the director of social services. If a child is in care under the Children Act 1948, it is the parents' responsibility and not that of the director of social services. On the other hand, if the child is in care under a care order obtained through the courts then the child is the responsibility of the director of social services. Therefore it would be most helpful to have the matter clarified.

Lord Peston

My Lords, while I think that this is a slightly trivial matter, in my experience as a parent I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is entirely right: parents do disagree. However, the whole point of family life is for them to come to an agreement on the matter. We certainly did not run our family on the assumption that we could not come to an agreement about how to bring up our children. In the case of the exercise of this vote, it seems that the noble Baroness. Lady Seear, is entirely right. It takes the most pessimistic view of the nature of the family in this part of our century to argue that parents, even though they disagree, could not come to a conclusion. I hope that we do not base our deliberations on that hypothesis.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the amendment raises two important issues. First, as has been explained, the amendment would require no more than one vote to be cast in respect of each pupil. The number of votes cast would relate to the number of children attending the school and not to the number of parents. As we agreed in Committee, we have thought further about the proposition but I must report that we still do not consider it acceptable. Indeed, the approach seems to be based on a set of assumptions which are, to say the least, debatable.

When we are talking about fairness and unfairness let us take, for example, the case of two households each with two parents, but one having a single child at the school and the other three. The proposers of the amendment would give the first household one vote and the second household three. Is this really fair? Why should it be thought that parents with a single child care only one-third as much about the future of that child's school as those parents who have three?

There is a further problem. The amendments would mean that where there was only one child in a household the husband and wife will have to share a ballot paper. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Beloff pointed this out. Perhaps I may say in response that at the very least such an approach would destroy the secret nature of the ballot, a principle upon the defence of which I should have expected all Members of the House to be united.

Further, the Government's proposals are about enhancing the influence of parents. We believe that the most logical way to reflect the intention in this context is to provide for one parent, one vote. Therefore I hope that the proposers of the amendment will at least join with me in acknowledging that constructing any franchise is a sensitive and tricky business. I suggest that the Government are in line with their general democratic traditions by providing that the best approach is one parent, one vote.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, does that mean that the Government are encouraging divorce? As I understand it, if people divorce and remarry you then might have a child with three parents. In those circumstances do they get three votes? Further, if you got into the Hollywood scale you could have one child with a whole concertina of parents. Does the noble Baroness not agree that this might be most prejudicial to the single parent, either because the person is not married or because he or she has been widowed?

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask her whether she agrees that if a parent or even two parents have two, three or four children in a school, all at different stages, the importance of the decision about whether the school should become a grant-maintained school will be considerably greater for them than if they only have a single child who may be towards the end of his or her educational career in the school? Surely it is perfectly legitimate and acceptable that if you have several children in a school then you would have more than one vote; whereas it is not acceptable where there are four or five parents and step-parents with a single child in a school that all those parents should have a vote. That seems quite illogical.

Lord Stewart of Fulham

My Lords, before the Minister rises, perhaps I may put this question to her. If there are two households, one consisting of father, mother and child and the other of a widow with three children, is it just that in the first household there should be two votes and that in the second household the widow should have only one vote, although she has three children?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I prefaced my remarks by saying that I was sure that we should all be united—the discussion has proved it—in agreeing that the construction of any franchise is a sensitive and tricky business. I do not think that anything I have said can be construed as advocating divorce so as to increase the possibility of multiple voting rights for parents.

I shall come now to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others about the multiple approach. I said that we are advocating one parent, one vote. There is no doubt that the Bill makes clear provision for that in Clause 54(3) by requiring that every parent be told of his or her entitlement to vote. I cannot accept any suggestion that the issue has been left vague.

Secondly, the amendment provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations defining who is a parent—that is the little argument we had—for the purpose of ballots. The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we do not consider that provision necessary. The Bill requires that governors take all reasonable steps, no less and no more than that, to identify those who are eligible to vote. They will normally do that by ensuring that their admissions register is up to date and includes the names of every person claiming parental rights in respect of a child at the school.

As the noble Baroness said, the 1944 Act offers a definition of a "parent" which includes the guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child. In a few cases, that could mean that a third or fourth person may have a vote; for example, a stepparent or where the natural parents have divorced and the parent with custody of the only child remarries or where a grandparent is bringing up the child. The governors' responsibility will extend only so far as settling disputes in those rare cases—I believe that they will be rare cases—where the question is raised. The detailed guidance which we intend to issue to governing bodies on this matter will make that point clear.

I see no reason why that action should be thought anything other than sensible and thoughtful. I am convinced that sensible and thoughtful governors will have no difficulty in applying their common sense to the matter. The making of regulations would be an unnecessary step. For the reasons I have outlined, I invite the House to reject the amendment.

Baroness David

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she make clear what the Government's proposal is? I have not mastered it. I think that she said one parent, one vote was made clear in one subsection of Clause 54. Would she mind repeating what the Government's solution is?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the Government's solution is one parent, one vote so that the parent with a child or any number of children at a school will have the right to vote. As I have said, it is up to the school governors to keep the register of parents and to notify anyone known to have an entitlement to vote of his or her right to do so.

Baroness David

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned Clause 54 something.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, subsection (3).

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, does the Minister agree that any board of governors would probably find as many different interpretations of how the voting should take place as have your Lordships in the past few minutes? As governors' meetings generally last a long time they would find even greater permutations of the interpretation. That is point one. Secondly, does that not also mean that different governing bodies could come to different decisions? If that is the case, surely the Minister agrees that that could not in any way be acceptable.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord because at the very least he has reminded me of the question on that issue asked by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. I do not believe that there will be a distinction between schools as a result of the guidance that will be issued to governors. There will not be a case such as that referred to by the noble Earl, with the governors of one school saying one vote per child while the governors of another school say one vote per parent. We have made it clear in the Bill, and in the discussions surrounding the Bill, that it is intended to have one vote per parent.

Lord Jay

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down again, in the relatively simple case where both parents have been divorced and remarried, would there then be four parents all of whom would have a vote, or would that be a case where the governing body would take some sensible and responsible discretionary decision?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, there is no doubt that in such a case there may be "four parents". I emphasised in my earlier remarks that such cases would be rare and that we rely upon the good sense and common sense of the governors to deal with those problems.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, with one in three marriages breaking down, how can the noble Baroness stand there and say such cases will be rare? In addition, there are a number of cases where there are single parents. She is talking as if we still had the two-parent family of 50 years ago.

Baroness David

My Lords, it is no use saying that there will be guidance. The matter is complicated, as has been made abundantly clear from the discussions on the amendment. The governing bodies may not accept the guidance which is offered. It is essential that something about this extremely important matter should be on the face of the Bill. One parent, one vote is not clearly in the Bill. One parent, one vote is not nearly as satisfactory as one child, one vote. It is not fair where there is more than one child in a family. It is the children at whom we must be looking, not the parents. If there are three children, then three votes seems abundantly fair. I think that I must divide the House on this point.

4.17 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 246) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 115.

DIVISION NO. 3
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Dainton, L.
Adrian, L.	Darcy (de Knayth), B.
Airedale, L.	David, B.
Amherst, E.	Davies of Penrhys, L.
Ampthill, L.	Dean of Beswick, L.
Attlee, E.	Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Aylestone, L.	Dormand of Easington, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Elwyn-Jones, L.
Barnett, L.	Ennals, L.
Birk, B.	Ewart-Biggs, B.
Blackstone, B.	Falkland, V.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Flowers, L.
Bottomley, L.	Gallacher, L.
Briginshaw, L.	Galpern, L.
Buckmaster, V.	Gladwyn, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Goodman, L.
Carter, L.	Graham of Edmonton, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Grey, E.

Grimond, L.	Peston, L.
Hampton, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Reilly, L.
Hughes, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Hunt, L.	Rochester, L.
Jacques, L.	Roskill, L.
Jay, L.	Russell, E.
Jeger, B.	Scanlon, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Seear, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Serota, B.
John-Mackie, L.	Shepherd, L.
Kearton, L.	Stallard, L.
Kilmarnock, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Leatherland, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Listowel, E.	Strabolgi, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Taylor of Blackburn, L
Longford, E.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
McNair, L. [Teller.]	Thurlow, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.	Tordoff, L.
Mayhew, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Monson, L.	Underhill, L.
Morton of Shuna, L.	Walston, L.
Mulley, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Murray of Epping Forest, L.	White, B.
Nicol, B.	Wigoder, L.
Northfield, L.	Wise, L.
Perry of Walton, L.	Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Allerton, L.	Headfort, M.
Alport, L.	Henley, L.
Annan, L.	Hesketh, L.
Arran, E.	Hives, L.
Beaverbrook, L.	Home of the Hirsel, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Hood, V.
Beloff, L.	Hooper, B.
Belstead, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Bessborough, E.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Blake, L.	Kaberry of Adel, L.
Blyth, L.	Kimball, L.
Borthwick, L.	King of Wartnaby, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Kinnaird, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Lauderdale, E.
Brookes, L.	Layton, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Long, V.
Broxbourne, L.	Lyell, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	McFadzean, L.
Butterworth, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Malmesbury, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Manton, L.
Carnock, L.	Marley, L.
Cathcart, E.	Merrivale, L.
Clitheroe, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Coleraine, L.	Mountgarret, V.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Munster, E.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
De Freyne, L.	Nelson, E.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Norrie, L.
Digby, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Dundee, E.	O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Eccles, V.	Onslow, E.
Eden of Winton, L.	Orkney, E.
Elibank, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Pender, L.
Erroll of Hale, L.	Porritt, L
Ferrier, L.	Portland, D.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Gainford, L.	Reigate, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Renton, L.
Gray of Contin, L.	St. Davids, V.
Gridley, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Haig, E.	Seebohm, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Selborne, E.
	Shannon, E.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L.	Sharples, B.

Skelmersdale, L.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Strange, B.	Thorneycroft, L.
Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.	Trumpington, B.
	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Strathspey, L.	Whitelaw, V.
Sudeley, L.	Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Terrington, L.	Wynford, L.
Teviot, L.	Young, B.
Teynham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.26 p.m.

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 247.

Page 49, line 15, at end insert— ("Provided that no vote shall be exercised in respect of a pupil who—

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

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

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

The purpose of this amendment is to exclude parents of pupils who will not be there in the year when the grant-maintained status takes over. During the Committee stage, Amendment No. 211CA proposed by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna was intended to exclude from the vote the parent of a Kaberry of Adel, L. child within one year of the end of statutory education or above the age of statutory education where that parent had no other children at school.

In speaking to the amendment, my noble friend argued: Our case is that by the time the ballot has taken place and, let us say, the school opts out, the child will have left school. Therefore it is irrelevant whether or not that parent wishes the school to opt out".—(Official Report, 12/5/88; col 1315.) In reply, the Minister, Lord Trefgarne, said that he had numerous objections to this and other amendments in the group. Since the noble Lord failed to indicate what his objections were to this reasonable amendment, it would be helpful if the Government could be pressed at this stage to be more explicit.

It is hardly logical for those who have no interest in the change of the school's status to have an equal right to vote on the future of the school. It is particularly illogical and unfair that parents of such pupils should have a vote when the parents of children in the primary schools who will be most affected by the change in school status will not even be consulted. We have just been defeated in trying to get them even to be consulted, and even staff who work in the school and face changes in their employment position will not be given the chance to object. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, this seems a most unwise amendment. It means that the parents with the most experience of the working of the school are, for that reason, to be denied a vote. Parents of a child in his or her final year will have had longer experience of how that school has worked, whether it has worked well or badly, than any other of the parents. Deliberately to exclude them seems very foolish if the object of the exercise is to get a sensible decision, as I hope it is.

Moreover, it will give rise to all sorts of complications. Sometimes a child may be thought to be in his or her final year. The child may fail an examination and decide to stay on a little after the age of 16 in order to have another go at the examinations. Who is to say, in respect of many children, whether they are in their final year at all? This amendment is asking for trouble, it is asking for questions, it is asking for wholly unnecessary difficulties. I hope that it will be rejected.

4.30 p.m.

Baroness Young

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on this. It seems to me that this whole series of amendments has been designed to make it more difficult to opt out. Parents whose child is in the final year of a school should be entitled to a vote not only for the reasons given by my noble friend but also because they may be people who have always thought that the school should have opted out and have a great interest in the school in so doing. As regards the pupils in the second part of the amendment, those children may be leaving the school for all kinds of perfectly good reasons but again their parents may regret that they are leaving and may wish that they could go on into an opted-out school.

On the point about primary schools, parents need not choose the school that has opted out. They could choose another secondary school in the area. So that point is quite irrelevant. It is very important to recognise why a school would want to opt out in the first place. I think that it will want to opt out if it is dissatisfied with something—probably a change of character that has been asked for by the local education authority which is not desired by parents. Under those circumstances I should have thought that most parents in the school will in any event vote for opting out if that is what they think. To make that more difficult for the two kinds of people covered by this amendment would be grossly unfair and would defeat what is a very valuable proposal in this Bill.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, it is a strange assumption, is it not, that has been made by both the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that all people in the top form who vote will vote for opting out? It is perfectly possible that they may vote against it. Or, are only people who are for opting out going to be allowed to vote?

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I made no such assumption. I merely said that whether they voted for or against, they would have more experience—

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I rose before the noble Lord sat down. If the noble Lord can contain himself, perhaps he can look at the manual of procedure and we would get on quicker. I made no suggestion one way or the other. I merely said that we wanted to get the right decision and that those with most experience of a school would be most likely to give the right decision.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

My Lords, I think that this amendment is no less important than Amendment No. 246. with which we have dealt. In fairness—I think fairness is an important issue here—no one should be able to vote for opting out who will not be around to bear the brunt of it or to reap the benefits, whichever way one cares to look at it. I do not believe that the experience of parents is the important issue here. It would be nice if this provision could be more watertight and if the converse could be achieved by including those from primary schools who would be attending the school by the time it became grant-maintained. But I think that one has to accept, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, did in moving Amendment No. 237, that this is fraught with legal difficulties and that a simple exclusion of those who are known to be leaving the school before opting out is the most practical way forward. I hope that your Lordships will agree with the reasoning behind this amendment and support it.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I suspect that wherever we draw the line there will be objectors, one side or the other. I wish to start by emphasising to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that parents of primary school pupils, staff at the school and ethers in the community will not be deprived of the right to object. The ballot of parents decides only whether an application for grant-maintained status should go forward. It is the trigger to the process.

Where a child is leaving the school and the parent has no continuing interest, he or she is not being obliged to vote. That, after all, is the voter's privilege as much as which way he chooses to vote. But in many cases the parent will still have a strong and lively affection for the interests of the school and, more important still, as has been said, he or she will have had a child at the school for a considerable time and be an excellent judge of the school's best interests. In those circumstances his or her judgment could be invaluable and should certainly not be excluded in this fashion. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary and I urge the House to reject it.

Baroness David

My Lords, we are getting used to the Government saying "No". I still do not believe that the experience argument carries any weight at all. I think that the fact that the child is leaving is far more important, and that the interests of the parents will be bound to get less, unless of course there are other children of the same family attending that school. In that case the parents will have a vote anyway. As regards parents being able to choose another school, there may not be another school in the neighbourhood if the only secondary school in that neighbourhood decides to opt out. There may be no other option for the parents. However, I accept that we are not going to win this amendment. Therefore I shall very reluctantly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 248:

Page 49, line 23, at end insert— ("(aa) any statement prepared by the local education authority of its view on the proposal to seek grant-maintained status; (aab) any statement prepared by the governing body of its view on the proposal, together with any minority statement").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are proceeding rather slowly. I regret to say that I believe that this, too, is an important amendment. Therefore, I feel I must argue it at least moderately fully. It is an amendment within the spirit of what the Government have stated in Clause 54 (3)(a) and 5(a)(iii). As I understand it, the essence of the Government's position is that opting out is a very serious decision and that it is right that that decision is taken on the basis of as much information as can reasonably be made available.

Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, emphasised to us in an earlier amendment, if your Lordships have rejected the possibility of opting in, then this decision is even more serious. Clause 54 (3)(a) refers to the consequences of acquisition of grant-maintained status. It is vital to include in that the point that the noble Baroness made—that that means that one cannot opt back in.

As this provision is in the spirit of the Government's own position on rational decision-making on the basis of full information, I hope that we can get a constructive response to it. In essence it follows from what one or two noble Lords said earlier, not excluding the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who raised this question and who really knows about these things and has experience of them. If we follow the logic of what he said, then it is certainly not unreasonable to argue that the local education authority will have some experience and knowledge of these matters. It would be reasonable for a statement from the local education authority of what it thinks will happen to be made available to the parents who are going to vote.

Equally, we must at least assume the possibility that the governing body will not be unanimous in this matter, that there will be more than one view. Again, therefore, it would seem to me that parents should have available to them both, as it were, the majority statement of the governing body and an appropriate minority statement if it exists. Curiously, one of the reasons for that relates to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said in response to the earlier amendment as to why a school would want to opt out. I should like to believe that it would want to opt out for constructive purposes, along the lines of what at least some noble Lords speaking for the Government have suggested. Those speakers have suggested that the schools would opt out because they believed it was a positive move and that they could thus do better.

However, my fear—which I have argued before—is that most opting out will be of a reactive kind. It will be reactive to any attempt on the part of a local authority to do sensible things within its area. That is the real worry. I have argued before that I think opting out will be a troublemakers' charter. The Government have refused to be persuaded about that. The Government, or rather others, will have to live with that. Whoever is right or whoever is wrong, to increase the information basis for the decision is surely a good thing. Therefore, I strongly commend this amendment to your Lordships.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the Government acknowledge the value of an informed debate on possible applications for grant-maintained status. We believe that that can only help in making our proposals better understood. But we also believe that campaigning must be kept clearly separate from the formal balloting procedure. To that end parents will receive with their postal ballot papers purely factual information only on the nature of grant-maintained status and on the specific proposal which the governors would make if the ballot authorised them to do so.

It would not be appropriate for them to receive at the same time, as the amendments as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggest, material which argued for or against the proposition, perhaps in some cases in contentious terms, any more than it would be for postal voters in general elections to receive party political material in the same envelope as their ballot papers. In order to avoid any risk, however slight, that the ballot might become embroiled in disputes about libellous material, it would be necessary to call upon the Electoral Reform Society, which would be the group responsible for distributing the ballot papers and accompanying material, to vet each leaflet. That does not seem to be either practicable or desirable.

Having said that, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the local education authority, the governors, any group within the governing body, or any other interested party, from lobbying voters directly, as these amendments imply, with their points of view, so long as they remain within the law. That seems to be the sensible way in which to proceed, I ask the House to reject this particular amendment.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Baroness for her answer. As I understand it, she distinguishes between what she calls campaigning and some other form of information provision. As I now understand it, that distinction will apply to the governing body as well as to everybody else; in the instance we are discussing, they will simply provide information. Campaigning can be separate. The noble Baroness says that, subject to remaining within the law and remaining within the proprieties, there will be no restraint upon that. I will accept that as a reasoned response to my remarks. The prodecure appears to be less biased than that currently in the Bill.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. The noble Baroness used the phrase, "So long as they remain within the law". What exactly does the noble Lord think that that is supposed to mean in terms of the position of governors and possibly the local education authority? I should be very interested to know the answer to that question. Following a discussion on the trade union Bill, with a number of noble Lords opposite I went into the Lobby in defence of a proposition which the noble Baroness is now proposing as a matter of principle.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I assumed that in this case "within the law" meant within the law as defined by this Bill and more generally within the law in the sense of not containing defamatory material and matters of that kind. In particular I assumed that where something called campaigning was involved, the governing body would be as restrained in its ability to campaign within the provisions of this documentation as, for example, a local education authority. I have assumed that that is what the noble Baroness was saying. It is up to her to say whether she is saying that, if she wants to. If she is saying that, I find it moderately reassuring and therefore I propose not to press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.45 p.m.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 249:

Page 49, line 47, at end insert— ("(5A) Where the governing body of any school are under a duty by virtue of section 53 of this Act to secure that a ballot is held in accordance with this section they shall make available to every person employed to work at the school for inspection (at all reasonable times and free of charge) at the school a document containing the information required by subsections (3)(a) and (5) above to be given to parents of registered pupils at the school.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Government are about to say "Yes". The Government have tabled this amendment in response to the undertaking we made at the Committee stage to consider concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others about the need to keep staff properly informed where a school is considering whether to make an application for grant-maintained status. On reflection, we agree that the staff should have access to exactly the same information as parents will receive before they vote in the ballot; namely, a general account of grant-maintained status and the school's specific intentions in respect of the composition of the governing body, proposed date of implementation, and so forth. The amendment therefore requires the governing body to make such information available to staff at the school for inspection, free of charge. I commend it to your Lordships' House.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, it is a unique occasion when the Government listen to something said by the Opposition. I welcome this amendment, but I am now going to carp a little. If, as is required by the Bill, something over 1,000 circulars giving all this information must be sent why cannot they be circulated among the staff of the school, who presumably are fewer in number than the parents? Because of the way in which parents seem to be multiplying in this Bill, a large secondary school with 800 or 1,000 children would involve sending circulars to over 2,000 parents, but only one set of documents will be available for the whole of the teaching and non-teaching staff. There seems to be a slight lack of availability. That is the point I wished to raise; otherwise, I welcome the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 55 [Proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:

Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 250: Page 51, line 45, leave out ("and address").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, while the Government are in this amiable mood, I beg to move Amendment No. 250. Clause 55 concerns the proposals that must be published after a school has held the parents' ballot and has decided that it wants to move towards grant-maintained status. Subsection (7)(d) stipulates that in these proposals both the name and address of the person who is the head teacher must be published. Presumably that means the home address.

Openness and accessibility are important in any school. Everyone wants to know who the head is and how he or she can be contacted. That is of even greater interest when a school becomes grant-maintained. The head teacher may well arrange for a place of contact outside school hours. However, I suggest that to insist on the publication of a head teacher's home address is going too far. I understand that head teachers are extremely concerned about this matter.

In the private sector the house where the head teacher lives is usually well known; it is either on the campus or a familiar house in a local street. In the state sector the situation can be very different. The head teacher may live some considerable distance from the school. For various reasons he or she may have deliberately decided to do so. Head teachers can meet rough times. They and their families sometimes have to put up with unpleasant letters, personal abuse, and even bricks through windows. Where there are children, this can be very frightening indeed.

For similar reasons many Members of Parliament do not publish their addresses. Why should head teachers do so? I very much hope that the Government will consider removing this requirement from the Bill. I beg to move.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I understand the anxieties behind this amendment, and we are pleased to be able to allay them. The purpose of requiring that a proposal for grant-maintained status contains the names and addresses of the proposed governors of the grant-maintained school is simply precautionary: it will ensure that they are real people. All that matters is that each governor should give an address where he or she may be contacted if necessary. There is therefore nothing in the Bill which would prevent the head teacher, if he or she wished, from giving the address of the school itself, rather than the home address, and we shall make that clear in the guidance which we shall issue in due course. In the light of this reassurance, I invite my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his reply. I hope that this point will be made clear because as the Bill stands it is not clear at all. If it is not the home address that is referred to, it is peculiar that the provision is in the Bill at all because everybody knows that the head teacher is at the school. It presumably deals with contacting the head teacher inside school hours. I suppose that is why it is in the Bill. As long as it is made absolutely clear somewhere that it is not necessary for the head teacher to publish his or her home address, I think those people who are anxious about this matter will be satisfied. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 250A: Page 52, line 29, at end insert ("and (where it is not the relevant trustee) the statutory diocesan body responsible for schools;").

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I have a feeling that the present amiable mood of the Government is not going to extend a third time. I realise that a great deal of your Lordships' time has already been taken up in discussion of the rights of trustees within procedures for opting out. The purpose of my first two amendments is not to extend their rights in any way but simply to put right an anomaly. I am also speaking, by leave, to Amendments Nos. 309A and 313B.

As was explained to your Lordships last Thursday night as the witching hour of eleven approached, and indeed passed, in the case of most Roman Catholic aided schools the trustee is the diocese, usually in the person of the bishop. Therefore, by giving the trustees certain rights of consultation—which of course we have welcomed—one is bringing the diocese into the consultative process alongside the local education authority, with which it shares certain planning responsibilities.

As regards Church of England aided schools, the diocese is trustee only in a small minority of cases. The comparable body in the Church of England to the Roman Catholic trustees is the diocesan education committee, which is a statutory body. But. by identifying the trustees as the focal point for consultation, the effect in most instances is to include Roman Catholic diocesan authorities and exclude their Church of England counterparts. I cannot believe that this was the Government's intention, and my Amendments Nos. 250A and 309A simply seek to correct this anomaly which exists in the Bill as currently drafted.

The circumstances behind my Amendment No. 313B are slightly different. Here, possibly by an oversight, the trustees, whether diocesan or otherwise, have not been mentioned at all. Surely they ought to be mentioned here because the situation at issue is the possible withdrawal of grant from a church school by the Secretary of State. In that situation the Bill requires that the school governing body must be consulted, and so must the relevant local education authority, but the responsible diocesan body has been given no voice in the matter. That surely cannot be right.

I recognise that I may not have got the wording of these amendments quite right. For example, my use of the word "statutory" in Amendment No. 313B may, I now realise, have the effect of including the Church of England dioceses but excluding the Roman Catholic ones, and that certainly was not my intention. However, I hope that the Government—whom we asked some time ago to suggest an appropriate wording to meet these anomalies—will be prepared to take the matter away and return with it at Third Reading. I beg to move.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, as a Presbyterian involved in this dispute between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, I would support the right reverend Prelate on these amendments.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I am not sure whether the right reverend Prelate's amendments are technically correct, and no doubt my noble friend the Minister will tell us, but I am bound to say that his argument seemed to be unanswerable. Surely both churches should be treated alike and in both cases the trustees brought in. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept the spirit of this even if the wording requires further amendment at Third Reading.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the right reverend Prelate has said, and I see the difficulty, but I believe that there are distinctions to be drawn in this case. The diocesan education committees are an important part of the administrative structure of church-provided education. They are essentially planning bodies and do not themselves own or run schools, unlike the local education authority, the governors and trustees.

Clauses 55, 81 and 85 of the Bill give a formal role to these latter parties for the simple reason that they have the most direct interest in a school and in any fundamental changes to it because of their ownership. Diocesan education committees are in a rather different position. They should, of course, be given every opportunity to comment when a school in which they have a general interest is affected in these ways, and I understand that the mechanisms exist where by a Measure of the Church of England can require trustees to consult them. I appreciate the right reverend Prelate's difficulty when certain trustees may not comply, but that is surely an internal matter for the Churches rather than a matter for this House to rule upon.

Amendment No. 250A would make the diocesan education committee a statutory objector. We are not convinced that this is appropriate. But because they have some interest in the school and in wider provision in the area, clearly the diocesan authorities will be more than welcome to comment on, or object to, a proposal, as indeed other interested parties. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State would look at any such expression of opinion very carefully.

We shall take the additional step of ensuring that, when we publish a circular on grant-maintained status, it will contain a reminder to the governors of Church schools that if they are contemplating an application to become grant-maintained, it would be appropriate for them to consult the diocesan authority, if different from the trustees. I believe that that should be enough to protect their interests in this respect.

In the case of each of these amendments the Government take the view that the prime role is for others. For example, in the case of the potential closure of a grant-maintained school it is surely right that the consultation procedure should be aimed at those who would be directly affected by such a proposal—namely, the governing body of the school itself; the local education authority, which would take responsibility for the pupils if the school were to close; and, if different, the local education authority from which the cost of running the school is currently being recovered. The diocesan education committee's interest is less central.

We appreciate the concern of' the Churches to give every protection to the particular ethos of their schools and I hope that the House will agree with me that we have done our best to meet those concerns in the Bill as a whole. But in this particular case I have to say that I believe that the right reverend Prelate's original view was right when he said in Committee that the role of the diocesan authorities was primarily "a domestic matter for the Church of England". We believe that that is the correct way forward here, and I invite him to withdraw these amendments.

The Lord Bishop of London

My Lords, I must confess that I am disappointed at the response of the Minister. I shall not take up your Lordships' time for very long but I should like to make two points. First, I think that what the noble Baroness said does not reflect the situation on the ground. To compare in our case the local education authority, the governors, and the trustees as if they were all the same is simply not relevant. The trustees in some cases can be, say, a couple of local farmers some distance away, whose ancestors happened to give the land. This is not remotely comparable to the trustees in the Roman Catholic sense. The comparable body there is the diocesan education committee. We have been given many assurances that voluntary schools will not in any way cease to be Church schools should they require grant-maintained status, and I do not find it easy to reconcile that assurance with the line that is being taken here.

Secondly, the noble Baroness was right that I said in Committee that I thought we could deal with this under the Measure which is at present under preparation in the General Synod, but we realised that this would be asking the Church of England to write into that Measure diocesan powers vis-á-vis the Secretary of State as opposed to powers vis-á-vis the governing bodies. It is questionable whether that is a proper procedure.

However, in the light of the noble Baroness's reply it may be that we shall have to think of some way in our Measure to try to secure that the governing bodies are required to consult. It is perhaps interesting to reflect that the original diocesan education committee's Measure in a sense arose for similar reasons to these amendments, to meet this situation in the Church of England over trusteeship. I do not think that the noble Baroness would expect a synodical measure to impose duties upon the Secretary of' State, which is in effect what we should have to do if we were to achieve my ends.

We shall have to see what we can do through our own measures. I see that the Government are not going to move on this. I shall not seek to divide the House and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5 p.m.

Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 251:

Page 52, line 30, after ("proposals") insert— ("(cc) any teaching or non-teaching member of staff at the school").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and my noble friend Lady Blackstone. This is another amendment to the subsection of Clause 55 relating to who may submit objections. In her response to the right reverend Prelate and in what she said at Committee the Minister suggested that subsection (10) allowed virtually anybody to object and the Secretary of State would take account for their objections. I must say that that is not how I read subsection (1) of this clause. It states: Before the end of the period of two months beginning with the publication of the proposals, any of the following may submit objections to the proposals to the Secretary of State—". The four groups are then listed. Such experience as I have as a lawyer indicates that one has to fit oneself into one of those four groups before one can make an objection of which the Secretary of State will take account. Otherwise the Secretary of State will just brush it aside and say that one does not come within categories (a), (b), (c) or (d), and therefore it is an incompetent thing to do. That seems to me a very clear and almost trite statement of the law.

If the advice which the Minister has received is to the contrary I must say—taking the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, out of context in another case—I most profoundly disagree. I think that we may be in some trouble if people believe what the Government have said and then, when they come before a court, are told that they have no right to make an objection but must fit themselves within Clause 55(10)(a), (b), (c) and (d).

The other matter which I want to raise before coming to the specific question of the teachers and staff is the question of the 10 or more electors referred to in subsection 10(a). Does that mean 10 or more local government electors anywhere in England or Wales so that 10 local government electors in Cumbria can object to a proposal relating to a school in Cornwall? Is that really what it means? I think that the Government need to take this subsection back, look at it more closely and consider what they are saying.

Turning now to the particular, it is on the basis of my interpretation of this clause that I suggest that it is necessary that the staff should be able to make an objection if they feel so minded. By staff I mean either the teaching or the non-teaching staff. If one interprets "local government electors" as meaning local government electors in the local education authority area, teachers in the school who live outside that area but who want to object would be excluded. That would be the natural meaning of local government electors.

As I read the clause, teachers as teachers or staff as staff cannot object. They should be entitled to object and they should be entitled to object wearing their hats as staff and not having to hide under the pretext of being local government electors. They should be able to write to the Secretary of State saying "we object because we are teachers at the school or staff at the school, and for this reason" and not have to say, "although we are really teachers or other staff we have to pretend to be local government electors". I beg to move.,

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, dealing first with the general point, I must repeat that in practice anyone who wishes to comment or object will be able to do so. Every view expressed will be taken into account. There is no question of anybody being able to challenge the Secretary of State's legal right to consider the objections of people who are not defined as statutory objectors. That perhaps makes the point the other way round. Because the whole process will be subject to any publicity which anyone objecting wishes to give the matter, the Secretary of State will ignore a valid point at his peril.

Turning to the list of statutory objectors to grant-maintained proposals, this is closely modelled on that in the 1980 Act for Section 12 and 13 proposals for school reorganisation or closure, in which, I must say in passing, staff are not included.

In relation to subsection (10) relating to local government objectors, yes, the answer is 10 local government electors anywhere. In practice, of course, they will be in the immediate area of the school which may involve the interests of more than one local authority.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question. Is she seriously suggesting that 10 local government electors could make representations which the Secretary of State will have to consider about a school in Wolverhampton? Is that the effect?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am saying that we have not confined the local government electors to the particular local authority district in which the school concerned is situated because there could be many electors in the surrounding districts who may have an interest. Therefore it would not be appropriate to confine the area in any way.

Turning to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, and his proposals to include members of staff at the school in the list of statutory objectors, I must reaffirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has consistently made it clear that he will consider proposals on their merits and take all relevant factors into account. Since, as I have said, this means that teachers and non-teaching staff in a school may make objections either individually or collectively, we believe that it is not necessary to include them in the list of statutory objectors.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may ask her to reconsider. Surely she realises that teaching staff and non-teaching staff in a school which is likely to be closed have a direct interest of a kind which is quite different from those of the other categories to which she has referred. They are all important but the interests of the teachers in the closure of a school is of paramount importance to the teachers. Surely in terms of morale—and heaven knows morale in the teaching profession wants a bit of a boost—for that interest to be recognised on the face of the Bill would mean a very great deal. Does she not understand the feelings of teachers at the present time and what it means to people to be recognised in that way? Will she really not reconsider?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House as I have already pointed out, these proposals are based on the arrangements for reorganisation or closure under Sections 12 and 13 of the 1980 Act and we are following that model. I repeat that if the Secretary of State receives letters or representations pointing out that the staff are solidly opposed to grant-maintained status, that would clearly be a most important consideration to be taken into account in coming to his conclusion.

Lord Jay

My Lords, is this not an extraordinary way to legislate? We now seem to have reached a position in which any local government elector anywhere in the kingdom is included in the category of having a statutory right to intervene, whereas apparently those teaching in the very school which is at issue are denied that statutory right and merely given some vague promise. I am sure that the Minister means well but that cannot be the correct way to legislate.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, whatever the origins of this section in previous legislation, I should have thought that, if the intention was that any objection by anybody in England and Wales was to be heard, it would have been perfectly possible to say so. Subsection (10) does not say "anybody may object"; it says "any of the following" may object—and "the following" are four different classes. If one is dealing with a school in, say, the West of Cornwall, apparently so long as one can gather together 10 local government electors in Northumbria, Cumbria or somewhere like that, it meets the case. One can have the trustees, the governing body and the local education authority. How can one have anybody else? If a teacher, a cleaner or anybody else wants to object, how do they fit in?

Say that the next stage is that the Secretary of State makes a decision. He either accedes or not to the proposal and he pays attention to an objection that does not come within (a), (b), (c) or (d). The side which has lost can take judicial review because the Secretary of State has gone outwith his powers by giving attention to a matter to which he should not have given attention. I did not think that this would be a difficult point but it is a very important point, and I regret that I must seek the opinion of the House.

5.12 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 251) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 122.

DIVISION NO. 4
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Kearton, L.
Adrian, L.	Kennet, L.
Ampthill, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Ardwick, L.	Kilmarnock, L.
Attlee, E.	Leatherland, L.
Aylestone, L.	Listowel, E.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Birk, B.	Longford, E.
Bonham-Carter, L.	McGregor of Durris, L.
Bottomley, L.	McNair, L.
Broadbridge, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Buckmaster, V.	Mountevans, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mulley, L.
Carter, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Nicol, B.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Northfield, L.
Combermere, V.	Perry of Walton, L.
Dainton, L.	Peston, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
David, B.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Davies of Penrhys, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Reilly, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Rochester, L.
Ennals, L.	Rugby, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Russell, E.
Flowers, L.	Scanlon, L.
Gallacher, L.	Seear, B.
Galpern, L.	Seebohm, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Serota, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Shackleton, L.
Greenway, L.	Shepherd, L.
Grey, E.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Grimond, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hampton, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Swann, L.
Hart of South Lanark, B.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Thurlow, L.
Hughes, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Hunt, L.	Underhill, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L.	Walston, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Jacques, L.	Whaddon, L.
Jay, L.	White, B.
Jeger, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Young of Dartington, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Birdwood, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Blake, L.
Allerton, L.	Blyth, L.
Alport, L.	Borthwick, L.
Arran, E.	Boyd-Carpenter, L.
Bauer, L.	Brabazon of Tara, L.
Beaverbrook, L.	Brookes, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Brougham and Vaux, L.
Bellwin, L.	Bruce-Gardyne, L.
Belstead, L.	Butterworth, L.
Bessborough, E.	Caithness, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.	McFadzean, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Carnock, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Cathcart, E.	Mancroft, L.
Clitheroe, L.	Manton, L.
Coleraine, L.	Marley, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Merrivale, L.
Cox, B.	Mersey, V.
Crathorne, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Cross, V.	Mottistone, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Munster, E.
Denman, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Digby, L.	Nelson, E.
Dilhorne, V.	Norfolk, D.
Dundee, E.	Norrie, L.
Eccles, V.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Elibank, L.	Onslow, E.
Elles, B.	Orkney, E.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Ferrers, E.	Oxfuird, V.
Ferrier, L.	Pender, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Gainford, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Porritt, L.
Gridley, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Haig, E.	Reigate, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Renton, L.
	St. Davids, V.
Halsbury, E.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Hanson, L.	Selborne, E.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L.	Sharples, B.
Harvey of Prestbury, L.	Strange, B.
Harvington, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Headfort, M.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L.
Henley, L.	Strathspey, L.
Hesketh, L.	Sudeley, L.
Hives, L.	Teviot, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L.	Teynham, L.
Hood, V.	Thorneycroft, L.
Hooper, B.	Trafford, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Trumpington, B.
Kimball, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Westbury, L.
Layton, L.	Whitelaw, V.
Limerick, E.	Wise, L.
Long, V.	Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Lothian, M.	Wynford, L.
Lyell, L.	Young, B.
McAlpine of West Green, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.20 p.m.

[Amendment No. 252 not moved.]

Clause 60 [Provisions supplementary to section 59]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 253:

Page 58, line 9, at end insert— ("(6) Before selecting, or giving any direction as to the selection of, a person to be a foundation governor on the initial governing body of any such school where religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination is given to any such pupils in pursuance of section 27 or 28 of the 1944 Act (religious education at voluntary schools), the Secretary of State shall consult the persons appearing to him to be the appropriate authority of the denomination concerned.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment meets a concern that has been put to us by the Church of England. Foundation governors in grant-maintained schools will be appointed by those named in the school's instrument of government as having that responsibility. In some cases more than one person or body will be so named, and they will need to make a joint decision on nominations. It will surely be rare for them to fail to reach such a joint decision, but the Bill must foresee every eventuality. Clause 60(5) accordingly requires the Secretary of State in such circumstances to make the necessary appointment or issue directions on how to resolve the matter. The amendment simply ensures that he consults the relevant denominational authorities before taking such action in the case of Church schools. We are confident that he would do that anyway and are glad to offer the assurance which has been sought. I beg to move.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, if my memory is right, last week we had a very short discussion on an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the difficulty of the words, "religious denomination", used indiscriminately when they could clearly mean religious faith. I have no objection to the amendment if the words mean denomination rather than faith. However, perhaps before Third Reading the Government could have a look at the places where these words are used and will ensure that they are using the words meaning Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of England or whatever, and not Buddhist, Moslem or Christian. On reading the Bill there appears at various stages to be a muddle as to the meaning.

The Lord Bishop of London

My Lords, I apologise for not being present when the Minister was speaking. I welcome this amendment which meets our problem.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Transition to grant-maintained status]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 254:

Page 199, line 14, at end insert— ("(ca) enabling the prospective governing body, at any time before the incorporation date, to exercise the power in section (Wrongful disposals and contracts) (3) or (4) of this Act to repudiate any contract to which that subsection applies;").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 254 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 261 to 265 inclusive. These amendments clarify the provisions under which the assets of a school are frozen as soon as it signals its intention to apply for grant-maintained status. The first amendment makes it clear that the freeze does not apply to contracts made before the governing body made its intentions known. The next three amendments pave the way for a new clause explaining that, where the LEA has ignored the freeze, and has disposed of property or entered into a contract without the governors' consent, redress may be sought by the new governing body, provided the application for grant-maintained status is successful. Once the application has been approved and the governors for the grant-maintained school have been named, they may recover from the local authority the value of the property disposed of, or repudiate a wrongful contract. If the application for grant-maintained status is not successful, the school will remain the LEA's responsibility, and the freeze will end. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 254A: Page 199, leave out lines 32 and 33.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 254A I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 254B, 265A, 266A, 266B, 267A to 267F inclusive, 268A, 268B and 315A.

These amendments, although formidable in appearance, are predominantly technical. They tidy up and clarify certain aspects of the procedures by which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may pay grant to grant-maintained schools, regulate such payments and recoup the moneys involved from local authorities in accordance with Clauses 71 and 72 of the Bill, and the finance regulations made under those clauses.

In particular, they clarify the definition of expenditure in respect of which my right honourable friend may make capital grants; clarify his power to impose and vary requirements on governing bodies in receipt of grants, and provide for recovery of grant in the case of overpayment.

Amendment No. 315A to Clause 86, clarifies the procedures by which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may make grants to a governing body in liquidation for the purpose of winding up the school, and may impose conditions in respect of such grants. Payments of this kind will assist in securing a smooth transition in those rare cases where a grant-maintained school closes.

These amendments help to ensure that grant-maintained schools will be placed on a sound and equitable financial footing, and will be duly accountable for the public moneys they spend. I commend them to your Lordships' House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 254B: Page 199, line 36, leave out ("or after") and insert (", at or after the time when").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 255: Page 200, line 31, leave out ("it") and insert ("the reference in that subsection to the preceding provisions of that section").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 66 [Proposals for alteration, etc., of schools eligible for grant-maintained status]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 256: Page 63, line 5, leave out from ("proposals") to ("or") in line 6 and insert ("under section 12 or 13 of that Act in respect of the school are first published for the purposes of that section").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 257: Page 63, line 7, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 10 and insert ("after proposals under section 12 or 13 of that Act in respect of any such school have first been published for the purposes of that section but before those proposals are withdrawn or determined").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 258:

Page 63, line 24, leave Out subsections (6) to (9) and insert— ("(5A) Where proposals under section 12 or 13 of that Act in respect of any school which is eligible for grant-maintained status have first been published for the purposes of that section and have not been withdrawn or determined, the Secretary of State—

1. (a) may determine a period of suspension in relation to the proposals; and
2. (b) may from time to time by a further determination extend any period of suspension previously determined under this subsection.

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

1. (a) where proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status for the school are published before the end of the period of suspension, until the end of the period of two months beginning with the date of publication of those proposals; or
2. (b) in any other case, until the end of the period of suspension.

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

1. (a) to the governing body of the school; and
2. (b) in the case of proposals under section 12 of that Act, to the local education authority.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 259: Page 63, line 46, leave out ("(7)") and insert ("(5A)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

Clause 67 [Transfer of property, etc., to governing body of grant-maintained school]:

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 260: Page 64, line 32, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I am aware that I am raising a rather technical and tedious matter but it is important that we examine it carefully. The matter on which I seek elucidation is the nature of the financing of the grant-maintained school. This amendment enables me to do so.

The grant-maintained school has been put forward essentially as a school which is largely, if not overwhelmingly, dependent on the local education authority, and is financed by central government. However, it is apparent from a number of statements made by Ministers that that is not the case.

If we consider the debt charges on which the school is based, those debt or loan charges remain as a burden on the local authority and on the local authority taxpayers. It seems to me that that cost, and possibly others of the school, will be borne by these taxpayers, although they have absolutely no rights or control over the school. The school is a grant-maintained school. The Secretary of State has argued that to a considerable extent he is financing it. But if the debt charges and similar matters—let alone other possible charges—are borne by the local taxpayer, the Secretary of State is not bearing those costs. It is the local ratepayer—I have just realised that in due course it is the local poll charge payer—who will be bearing this burden.

As we have been doing a lot of dividing on amendments, I hasten to add that I am not remotely proposing to divide your Lordships. I am proposing this amendment with a view to being given some elucidation so that it can be made quite clear what central government, by which I mean the general taxpayer, will be paying for in relation to grant-maintained schools and what burden is left with the local authority and whether, in particular, what burden will be left with the local authority and therefore its taxpayers, but with no rights of control or interference. That is the reason for the amendment. It is technical and I appreciate that at this late stage there is a limit to how many technical matters we can investigate, but this in my view is rather important. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, although we recognise the concern behind this amendment, we cannot accept it. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said, the Bill provides that when a school becomes grant-maintained any relevant debt charges remain the responsibility of the local education authority. We are concerned here with debt charges that may have been incurred for capital expenditure or capital improvements which occurred before the school became grant-maintained. It would be both complex and pointless to transfer the funding for such charges from the local education authority to the grant-maintained school concerned. First, the appropriate sum of money would have to be identified; then my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would have to pay an additional grant to the school to meet the payments and, finally, he would have to recover the cost of the grant from the local education authority. There seems to be no case for such a circular exercise especially, as I have said, the governors of the grant-maintained school will have no discretion over the spending of the money.

The approach proposed in the Bill does not lose the local education authority any money and saves it, as well as other parties involved, some unnecessary bureaucracy. For these reasons I recommend your Lordships to reject the amendment if it is pressed.

Lord Peston

My Lords, as I have said I have no intention of pressing the amendment, but I should like to go on record as saying that I am quite unconvinced. The school as it exists is a real asset which belongs to local taxpayers. There can be no doubt about that. It is being taken away from them. If the Secretary of State were that keen he could buy it at its market value, but he is not proposing to buy it from the local taxpayers. He is proposing to take it away from them and leave them with the financing of the interest on the capital involved.

I am not pressing this, but it seems to me that there is a fundamental point that ought to be understood about what is happening. I am glad that the noble Baroness has elucidated the Government's position. I have no intention of dividing the House on this matter; but the exercise did not have to be done in this way and as this is a peculiar form of nationalisation in one way—just taking it from the local sector to the central sector—central government could have paid for it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 69 [Effect of pending procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status on property disposals]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 261 to 264:

Page 67, line 42, at end insert— ("(6(A) Subsection (6) above does not apply in relation to a disposal which is made in pursuance of a contract entered into, or an option granted, before the procedure mentioned in subsection (I) above was initiated in relation to the school.").

Page 68, line 2, at end insert ("(subject to section (Wrongful disposals and contracts) of this Act)").

Page 68, line 6, leave out subsection (10).

Page 68, line 15, at end insert ("and in section (Wrongful disposals and contracts) of this Act").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 265: After Clause 69, insert the following new clause:

("Wrongful disposals and contracts.

—. (1) This section applies where in a case of a school to which section 69 of this Act applies—

1. (a) proposals for the acquisition of grant-maintained status are approved by the Secretary of State; and
2. (b) the local education authority have made any disposal, or have entered into any contract, in contravention of subsection (6) of that section (referred to below in this section as a wrongful disposal or, as the case may be, a wrongful contract).—

(2) In the case of any wrongful disposal, the governing body of the school shall be entitled to recover from the local education authority concerned the value of the property disposed of.

(3) In the case of a wrongful contract which consists in granting an option to acquire any land or interest in land, the governing body of the school may by notice in writing served on the opiton holder repudiate the option at any time before it is exercised.

(4) In the case of any other wrongful contract, the governing body of the school may by notice in writing served on the other party to the contract repudiate the contract—

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

(5) A repudiation under subsection (3) or (4) above shall have effect as if made by the local education authority concerned.

(6) Without prejudice to any provision made under paragraph 2(ca) of Schedule 3 to this Act, the powers conferred by this section may only be exercised on or after the incorporation date in relation to the school.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 71 [Maintenance grants, special purpose grants and capital grants]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 265A: Page 69, line 4, leave out ("other than expenditure of a capital nature") and insert ("for the purposes of the school").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 266: Page 68, line 12, at end insert ("and shall not exceed in any year the equivalent amount in real terms allocated to the school by the local education authority in the last financial year in which it was maintained except in respect of support services provided for individual pupils at the grant maintained school by the authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is yet another technical amendment also to do with money, economics and that kind of thing. We are concerned—I admit that I am slightly ambivalent about which direction I am concerned with—about the real funding of the schools. On the one hand we believe that they ought not to be starved of resources, because we are to have these schools whether we like them or not. As noble Lords are aware, I certainly do not like them, but as we are to have them it is in the public interest to see that they carry out their educational activities properly. Therefore we are concerned about ministerial assurances that these schools will have sufficient real resources to meet their needs.

The second point I have in mind to raise under the amendment is one on which I do not intend to divide the House, but I am seeking elucidation. We are concerned with what will be available for additional support services to deal with matters such as special needs. Whether the noble Baroness will be able to give us any information about how that will be funded or some of the principles that will be applied I do not know. I believe it has also been suggested that a school could become grant-maintained and left with certain gaps in provision. Therefore we are interested in financing to meet those gaps.

Briefly, there are two other matters: I have said that I am slightly ambivalent. If we are to have these schools they must be run properly, but equally we do not want them to be over-financed relative to the other schools in the system. The LEA maintained schools must be given every opportunity still to continue to do a good job and to show what a good job they can do. One is interested how that will be brought into some kind of balance.

Lastly, in terms of maintaining the real resources available to schools—since we know well from all kinds of other considerations that we have applied our minds to on local education that local authority schools differ enormously in the real resources available to them—even on almost any other measurement the schools should be much the same. One is interested whether variations across grant-maintained schools in different areas will be maintained and whether there will be room for rationalisation and so on.

I am not putting this forward as an amendment that one wishes necessarily to see carried into the Bill per se. I am putting it forward at this late stage to have some light thrown on the question of real resource allocation to these schools to enable them to do a proper job and to enable them, if they need to expand, to expand properly. One essentially is asking the Secretary of State or his officials whether they have thought all this through yet and whether there is anything that the noble Baroness can tell us on this general topic. I beg to move.

Baroness Young

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has raised an interesting and important point. When the Minister replies can she expand a little on the financing of the schools? As I understand the position on grant-maintained schools, the Government would pay a grant equal to the amount that would have been paid by the local education authority but would include in it additional money for the support costs which the local education authority would have from its various central services. Therefore the amount of money going to the school would be somewhat larger than that from the local education authority, but that would be because it had increased expenditure.

If I have understood the system correctly, a grant-maintained school should be able to apply for a 100 per cent. capital grant from the Government for something that it required. It would be helpful for us to have all this on the record because one of the points raised in Committee was the importance of grant-maintained schools and indeed all other schools which will have financial delegation and therefore will require more in the way of help in managing their affairs. It is important, particularly in the case of grant-maintained schools, that they should have this extra money for this purpose. I hope that my noble friend can give us those kinds of assurances. It would be helpful to the whole House to have these matters clarified.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I can appreciate the purpose behind the amendment. I hoped that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne had provided the House with this reassurance during the Committee stage when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington.

Grant regulations made under Clause 71 will provide that, in the period before the LEA has introduced its scheme of financial delegation, the annual maintenance grant for the grant-maintained school will be calculated by reference to the LEA's previous funding of the school, based on the information which the LEA will provide under what is currently Clause 73. This calculation will be uprated each year in line with increases in the LEA's funding of its own schools and will take account of any changes in the LEA's financial plans. Once the LEA has introduced a scheme of financial delegation, the annual maintenance grant will be derived by applying to the school the formula by which the LEA's funding of its own schools is calculated.

These provisions are not included on the face of the Bill because it may not be possible to prove beyond doubt in all cases that a school would have received exactly the same amount, down to the last penny. Some small degree of flexibility is needed to ensure that we established a system of payments capable of working smoothly and efficiently. We also need to be able to respond to changes in the LEA's own spending policies and priorities.

The noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggests that we should tie a grant-maintained school to its historic funding levels as a local authority school, with adjustments each year only to keep in line with inflation. But what if the LEA decides after a few years to alter its spending priorities so that schools with the characteristics of the grant-maintained school receive a larger or smaller share of total resources than before? is the grant-maintained school to remain untouched'? We think not, because that would mean abandoning the intention to put it on all fours with its local authority counterparts. I feel sure that the noble Lord will not seek to put it in a better or worse position.

The arrangements which the Government are proposing will involve the LEA fully in the calculation of the grant-maintained school's grant. Indeed it will be the LEA which provides the financial information on which the calculation is based, including the grant-maintained school's fair share of expenditure on support services. The Secretary of State will have a duty to act reasonably and I do not share the fears of the noble Lord that the grant-maintained school will receive favoured status of any kind.

In the light of these assurances, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that answer, which I shall read with great care. The main point that I was trying to make was that this is a difficult and highly technical matter. The Minister might like to ask her right honourable friend the Secretary of State whether in due course he might consider publishing a long but clear document about the financing of this sector. Assuming that it comes into existence I believe that this sector would benefit from such a document. I shall read what the Minister has just said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.45 p.m.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 266A and 266B:

Page 69, line 16, at end insert ("of any class or description specified in the regulations").

Page 69, line 18, leave out ("specified in the regulations") and insert ("so specified").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 266A and 266B together.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 267:

Page 69, line 34, at end insert— ("( ) Grant regulations shall provide for the payment of special purpose grants to meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs and shall prescribe the circumstances in which such grants are to be payable.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment carries on the debate in respect of Amendment No. 266, although only in one specific area. In view of what the Minister has just said, I believe that she may be able to say something positive in respect of this amendment. However, because she spoke quite fast I should like to move the amendment and hear what she has to say specifically on this point.

This amendment is similar to one that I moved in Committee but it no longer refers to capital grants because I believe that the Minister answered that point. However, I still believe that there may be a need for a special purpose grant. In committee on 12th May 1988 (at col. 1340 of the Official Report), the Minister explained that under regulations the annual maintenance grant for a grant-maintained school will equate to the funding that it would have received had it remained under LEA control. However, I am worried by what she then said, which was: If the LEA's formula for resourcing that school would have included an allowance for special needs pupils, then that allowance will continue when it achieves grant-maintained status.". It would appear therefore that if an LEA had not previously resourced the school for pupils with special needs before it opted out, the grant-maintained school would not receive funds for this purpose in the future. If that is so, and if a snapshot of the present is to be treated as a blueprint of the future, the grant-maintained school wanting to admit a pupil with special needs for the first time will be at a distinct disadvantage compared with an LEA school.

I realise that for the statemented pupil the LEA money will follow that pupil. However, there will be pupils with special needs and no statements who may need, for example, equipment not covered by capital grants or non-teaching assistance. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that the intention is not to maintain the status quo in that aspect. I look forward to hearing her reply. I beg to move.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. It is intended to ensure that the special purpose grants must take full account of the extra costs incurred in educating pupils with special educational needs. The amendment is designed to ensure that that payment will be made. We believe that there is a need for a precisely-worded power to provide specifically for special educational needs, and that it should appear on the face of the Bill.

I too was puzzled by the Minister's answer to the last amendment. We believe that resources must be provided for future needs. A grant-maintained school may not have been resourced under special educational needs before it became grant maintained. What incentive does it have to take children with special educational needs if the school cannot be sure that, after becoming grant-maintained, the proper resources will be made available?

The power to issue the special purpose grants for pupils with special educational needs should be clearly stated on the face of the Bill. The point which was made on Second Reading and which has occurred throughout the discussions on special educational needs is that if a school changed its status, can one be sure that there is power in the Bill to provide the resources for the children who need them?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, we welcome the chance the amendment gives us to reiterate our firm intention that the introduction of grant-maintained schools should not prejudice the integration of children with special educational needs into mainstream schools. The Bill already includes a number of safeguards to ensure that such children will continue to be admitted to schools which become grant maintained and we are confident that these schools, far from excluding such children, will be more, not less, accountable to the community they serve.

There are further safeguards in the Bill to provide for children with special educational needs who attend grant-maintained schools, and these make this amendment unnecessary. As far as funding is concerned, the regulations to be made under Clause 71 will provide that the annual maintenance grant to a grant-maintained school will equate to the funding which it would have received had it remained within LEA control. The LEA will be required to publish information about the funding it makes available to the schools it maintains, including the funds it provides in respect of pupils with special needs. If the LEA's resourcing of the school in question included an allowance for special needs pupils, then that allowance will continue when it achieves grant-maintained status. Thus additional costs incurred for children with special needs will be taken into account in the same way as they would be for a similar school which continued to be maintained by the same local education authority.

Once a system of financial delegation is in place—and this may cover the worries about future needs of schools—the local education authority will he able to provide for special needs to any school within that formula. Indeed by means of Amendment No. 173, which we discussed earlier in relation to financial delegation, we have strengthened Clause 33 in that respect. Through the application of the formula, grant-maintained schools which cater for children with special needs will receive comparable funding to those within the LEA's control.

We have consistently made it clear that we wish to ensure that grant-maintained schools neither lose nor gain financially in comparison with LEA-maintained schools. That is why the system of resourcing them is intended to parallel the LEA system. Special purpose grants will be payable in respect of the items of expenditure which are covered in LEA-maintained schools by grants such as education support grants and in-service training grants. Provision in schools for children with special educational needs requires constant funding, not the sort of once-off support that special purpose grants are intended to provide. This is why we intend that funding for it should be included in the regular annual grant payable to grant-maintained schools rather than by any other means.

In the light of that explanation, I hope that the House will accept that this amendment is unnecessary and that the movers will not feel it necessary to press it.

Lord Carter

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to understand what she has said. If a school which has not had children with special educational needs becomes grant-maintained and thereby incurs extra costs after it becomes grant-maintained, will the grant be increased to allow for the special provision?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House, it will be possible for a school to do that. Once the school has become grant-maintained then it may develop. Of course, there are the rules for preserving the ethos and character of the school, which will preserve the schools where special needs are well established. However, there is nothing to prevent a school in the future from taking on children with special needs.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I am not totally happy because she again said that the school which would have received funding, will continue to receive that amount of funding. I am still not absolutely clear that it will receive extra, or how it will know that it could receive extra, when it is considering whether it might take non-statemented pupils with special needs. I hope that she will think again on whether it is necessary to write this need somewhere in the Bill. There have been many worries by parents with children with special needs in the areas of local financial management and grant-maintained schools, that pupils with special needs are more expensive and could lose out. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, earlier mentioned that these were two areas of concern. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 267A, 267B, 267C, 267D, 267E and 267F:

Page 69, line 38, leave out from first ("or) to end of line 40 and insert ("subsection (3)(b) above as expenditure of a capital nature").

Page 69, line 43, leave out subsection (7) and insert— ("(7) A governing body to whom any payments in respect of maintenance grant or special purpose grants are made shall comply with such requirements as the Secretary of State may from time to time impose, being requirements—

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

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

1. (a) may he imposed on or at any time after the making of any payment by reference to which they are imposed; and
2. (b) may at any time be waived or removed or, subject to subsection (7C) below, varied by the Secretary of State.

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

1. (a) does not apply to a requirement imposed under subsection (7)(a) above; and
2. (b) is subject, in the case of a requirement imposed under subsection (7)(b) above, to the provisions of the regulations with respect to the determination of the requirements that may be so imposed in the case of payments in respect of the grants in question.

(7D) The requirements—

1. (a) which may be specified in or authorised by grant regulations as requirements which may be imposed on governing bodies to whom payments are made in respect of special purpose grants; or
2. (b) which may he imposed by the Secretary of State on a governing body to whom payments in respect of capital grant are made;

include in particular requirements with respect to the repayment, in whole or in part, of payments made in respect of those grants if any other requirement imposed under subsection (7) or (7A) above by reference to payments of such grants (whether imposed before, at or after the time when the payments subject to the repayment requirement are made) is not complied with.").

Page 70, line 16, leave out subsection (8).

Page 70, line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— ("(a) any requirements imposed by the Secretary of State under subsection (7) or (7A) above:").

Page 70, line 29, leave out ("purpose of the exercise of their functions in relation to the conduct") and insert ("purposes"). After Clause 71, insert the following new clause:

("Grants: further provisions.

.—(1)) the times at which, and the manner in which, payments are made in respect of—

1. (a) maintenance grant for any grant-maintained school in respect of any financial year;
2. (b) special purpose grants; and
3. (c) capital grants;

shall be such as may be determined from time to time by the Secretary of State.

(2) Payments in respect of maintenence grant for any such school in respect of any financial year may be made, before any amount has been determined in accordance with grant regulations as the amount of such grant payable for that year in respect of that school, by reference to an estimate of the amount which will be so payable made by the Secretary of State.

(3) Where in respect of any financial year any over-payment of maintenance grant is made to the governing body of such a school a sum equal to the amount of that over-payment shall be recoverable from the governing body by the Secretary of State.

(4) Where any sum is payable by the governing body of such a school to the Secretary of State—

1. (a) in respect of any over-payment of maintenance grant in respect of any financial year; or
2. (b) by way of repayment of special purpose grant or capital grant (whether by virtue of any such requirement as is mentioned in section 71(7D) of this Act or otherwise);

the Secretary of State may (without prejudice to any other mode of recovery) recover the whole or any part of that sum by deducting it from any grant payable by him to the governing body.

(5) References in this section, in relation to any such school, to an over-payment of maintenance grant in respect of any financial year are references to any amount by which the aggregate amount of any payments in respect of maintenance grant made to the governing body of the school in respect of that year exceeds the amount finally determined in accordance with grant regulations as the amount of maintenance grant payable for that year in respect of the school.").

The noble Earl said: With the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 267A, 267B, 267C, 267D, 267E and 267F en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)

My Lords, I should say that if Amendment No. 268 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 268A.

Clause 72: [Recovery from local funds of sums in respect of maintenance grant]:

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 268: Page 70, line 31, leave out subsection (1).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may make an apology for yet another financing amendment on which I am seeking elucidation.

It seems to me that Clause 72 brings out more clearly than I was able to argue earlier that, to some extent, to define a grant-maintained school as an independent school, or even to say that it is a publicly financed school with the financing coming from the Secretary of State, are misleading statements. It is not in any sense an independent school in the way in which that word is used in the private sector. It also becomes more and more apparent that the financing remains with the local taxpayer and what is really happening in terms of financing and ownership is quite cosmetic.

Perhaps I may set that on one side, important though it is and I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say about it. However, there are one or two other technical matters which follow from previous amendments, not least the one which has just been discussed, which I should like to raise. This subject is so complex that I find myself understanding it less and less the more we debate it.

We have referred to schools with special needs, but there are many other reasons that a school might need individual finance. I should like some comment from the noble Baroness on the subject. Perhaps noble Lords will forgive this rather crude language, but let us assume that a local education authority has a "best" school which opts out and becomes grant-maintained and there are other more difficult schools. As a matter of policy it decides to put into the difficult or not so good schools a disproportionate quantum of real resources to deal with specific problems. Does the concept of fairness imply that that same extra quantum of resources has to be carried over to the grant-maintained school, or will the local education authority be able to argue to the Secretary of State that, as it is using funds for these specific purposes which do not apply to the grant-maintained schools—this is the converse of the special needs case—therefore the Secretary of State should not "precept", if I may use that word, away from it those additional sums? If we had the time, that would be simply the first step of a whole series of questions concerning the nature of the financing of these schools. However, I am trying to bring out the need for elucidation. It may well be that all noble Lords understand this matter except me.

I certainly do not understand this matter. I referred earlier to the need for the Secretary of State to produce a document which might throw some light on these matters. I have no intention of going into my more acerbic mode by attacking the noble Baroness if she is unable to deal with all the relevant questions. I hope to persuade her and other noble Lords that this is an enormously complicated area on which we need a great deal more information. It is a pity that we are so short of time that we cannot go into the matter fully. That is the reason for the amendment, which I shall not, in due course, press. However, it is an amendment which we can use as a peg on which we can base some rational response. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, in proposing to remove from the Bill that subsection which allows the Secretary of State to recover from the LEA the money which that authority would have spent on a grant-maintained school if that school had not opted out, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggests that it is unreasonable to expect local authorities to pay for schools which are no longer under their control.

However, the LEA will not be robbed of funds which it does not have for this purpose, nor should other schools be deprived as a result of this grant recovery mechanism. The LEA will be entitled to receive rate or revenue support grant which takes account of all the pupils resident in its area who are attending maintained schools, including grant-maintained schools. The cost to the Government of funding any grant-maintained school in the area will then be recovered from the LEA because the running of the school will no longer be a burden which the LEA has to bear. This grant recovery will normally be effected through deductions from rate or revenue support grants, or from other grants payable by central government to local authorities.

The Government's intention is that the financial effects of opting out should be broadly neutral—for the school, for the national taxpayer and for the local ratepayer.

Perhaps I may turn to a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The local education authority formula can include weightings for special factors. If the grant-maintained school does not have the problems for which those weightings allow, it will not receive funding for them. As I said, we intend the financial position to be broadly neutral. I agree that this whole area of financing can be complex, but I hope that with the assurances I have given the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I take absolutely the point that she has just made. It is entirely right that the local authorities should not go on receiving funding for schools that no longer belong to them. However, my noble friend will have to look again at the clause to which Amendment No. 206 related. On that amendment my noble friend said that a local authority must continue to pay the cost of borrowing in relation to a school which no longer belongs to it. That could be a large sum for a long time. The two answers given by my noble friend conflict. I know that we are not now discussing the previous amendment, but it connects with what she just said and I think my noble friend will find that there is considerable illogicality.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I also thank the Minister for her answer which I found to be genuinely helpful. However, it brings out my main point—with which she agrees—of how difficult is all this. It would be as well at some point if we could discover what it all amounts to.

I feel that about the whole Bill. I am hoping that by the time we reach the end of our deliberations I will understand it. Of course, it would have been better if I could have understood it before we began our deliberations; but that cannot be helped. I still do not propose to place myself on the line in the sense of being willing to be subjected to an assessment test on the Bill. But, with those thanks to the noble Baroness, I hope that the words uttered by several noble Lords will be noted by the Secretary of State. I am sure that they will. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6 p.m.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 268A and 268B:

Page 70, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 71 and insert ("in respect of the maintenance grant payable for that year to the governing body of a grant-maintained school. (2) Subject to subsection (3B) below, sums recoverable by virtue of subsection (1) above in respect of any school for any financial year—

1. (a) shall be of such amounts; and
2. (b) shall fall due on such date or dates;

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

1. (a) where before the determination of the amount of that sum any amount has been determined under recoupment regulations as the total amount recoverable by virtue of subsection (1) above in respect of the school and financial year in question, by reference to any amount so determined as the total amount so recoverable; and
2. (b) in any other case, by reference to any amount estimated by the Secretary of State as the amount which will initially be so determined as the total amount so recoverable;

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

1. (a) in respect of any school in respect of which sums are recoverable from the authority under this section; or
2. (b) where there is more than one such school, in respect of both or all of those schools;

exceeds the total amount recoverable under this section in accordance with recoupment regulations in respect of that school or (as the case may be) in respect of both or all of those schools for that year."). Divide Clause 72 into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (5) inclusive (Recovery from local funds of sums in respect of maintenance grant); and the second consisting of subsections (6) to (11) inclusive (Provisions consequential on section 72).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 73 [Financial statements by local education authorities]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 269: Leave out Clause 73.

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 75 [General provisions as to religious education]:

[Amendment No. 271 not moved.]

The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 270: Leave out Clause 75.

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, although this amendment forms part of the package linked with Amendment No. 3 and I could therefore simply move it formally, I feel that it needs a little explanation. In the Bill as currently printed your Lordships will note that Clause 75 reproduces a great deal of Section 25 of the 1944 Education Act and applies it to grant-maintained schools. It has now been decided that it would be better to reproduce that material from the 1944 Act in a way which applies to all the schools covered by the Bill. This suggestion was put to your Lordships in Amendment No. 67 and agreed. That makes Clause 75 redundant. Therefore, I invite your Lordships to leave it out. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 76 [Religious education in former county schools]:

Lord Thorneycroft moved Amendment No. 272: Page 75, line 4, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to find myself in agreement with my noble friend on the Front Bench because I think we all accept that subsection (2) should be left out. There are only two points I wish briefly to make. The Bill as it now stands states that the act of worship shall not be, distinctive of any particular religious denomination". We raised this point in Committee. I think it is generally agreed that nobody could intend those words. Presumably, what was intended is, any particular Christian denomination". That is not particularly Methodist, Anglican, or Catholic. I thank my noble friend for meeting that point.

I express the hope that the Churches are reasonably liberal in this respect because there are many places where a Catholic priest, a Methodist or an Anglican conducts the religious worship. It works perfectly happily and no one has any objection to it. I hope that it can continue.

That is my first point. The second point relates to subsection (2)(a) of Amendment No. 273 tabled by my noble friend which states, shall in the main reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief in ways appropriate to the age, aptitude and family background of the pupils involved". As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said, these phrases have moved about. They started in Clause 75(2) as, The arrangements for the collective worship in a school required by subsection (1) above may, in respect of each school day, provide for a single act of worship for all pupils or for separate acts of worship for pupils in different age groups or in different school groups". The Government and the right reverend Prelate agreed that there might be separate acts of worship. There was then an amendment related to Clause 75—the clause we have just abolished but which is now Amendment No. 273 tabled by my noble friend which states, shall in the main reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief in ways appropriate to the age, aptitude and family background of the pupils involved". Therefore, we can have separate acts of worship for different groups in the school, for different ages or for pupils with different aptitudes. However, I ask the Government and the right reverend Prelate to consider different faiths. It seems to me odd to be prepared to have a separate act of worship for pupils of different ages, aptitudes and family backgrounds but not for different faiths. I shall not argue the case in detail because the right reverend Prelate has kindly said that he will speak on the matter. I know that he will have discussions with the Chief Rabbi, who is closely involved, on the subject. I do not know whether there is any significance in the amendment now being in the name of my noble friend rather than that of the right reverend Prelate, but I hope that we can meet, as arranged, with the right reverend Prelate and perhaps also with a member of the Government, as it is now a government amendment, to discuss this quietly together. I express the hope that the Chief Rabbi, who is deeply concerned with this matter, will be brought into those conversations. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I warmly support my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, especially on the need to provide for people of different faiths other than the Christian faith. I add just a few comments which relate to the handling of this matter from now on. The Government and the right reverend Prelate have tabled scores of amendments dealing with religion, and other matters have been tabled by the Government too. We welcome the right reverend Prelate's amendments and even more his willingness to consider whether they can be improved in order to meet the points which have been made.

Quite frankly, these scores of amendments on various matters have involved a great feat of scissors and paste on the part of somebody. I do not claim to have mastered the effect of all of them. A vast proportion of them have been taken on the nod and that shows great restraint by noble Lords on both sides of your Lordships' House. Together the amendments contain many complex provisions and some, strangely enough, overlap which was clear from what was said by my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft.

Perhaps I may give two examples. Amendment No. 273 comes next and overlaps Amendment No. 272 so I suppose it is in order to mention it. The effect of subsection (2) of my noble friend's Amendment No. 273 repeats subsection (2) of Amendment No. 69 tabled by the right reverend Prelate. I realise that one refers to "maintained schools" and the other to "grant-maintained schools". It appeared that both the Government and the right reverend Prelate had the aim of bringing religious matters together as far as possible, but when the Bill left Committee they were widely separated. It is strange to find that that has not been done. That can be said to be just a matter of structure and drafting.

Perhaps I may give another example of repetition. Amendment No. 273, subsection (2B), repeats Section 26(2) of the 1944 Act mentioned in Amendment No. 101. Those are two examples of repetition which may be avoided even at this late stage by the draftsman being asked to do a little restructuring though time is short. There are other examples but I shall not burden your Lordships with them.

A good deal depends upon when the Bill is reprinted. The present intention of the Government is to have the Third Reading on Tuesday of next week. If we do not see the Bill by Thursday morning — I believe it is unlikely that we shall because it will be asking an awful lot of the Government's printers—we and the right reverend Prelate, will be at a disadvantage. When we receive the whole Bill with all these amendments embodied, we shall need to read it again as we had to before the Second Reading. When it is reprinted I reckon that the Bill will have increased to 260 pages.

When we have seen the Bill, and preferably after we have seen any amendments tabled by the Government or by the right reverend Prelate, we shall need to draft our amendments. It might be a waste of your Lordships' time if we draft our amendments for Third Reading before we have seen what the Government and the right reverend Prelate are doing. In view of these factors I have mentioned, I hope briefly enough, it would be much better if we did not rush these considerations. It is the most important education Bill for 44 years and it makes some pretty radical changes in the system. Would it not be better to have a few more days to get it right and for Third Reading not to take place as soon as Tuesday week?

Lord McNair

My Lords, perhaps I may support what the noble Lord said. As far as I know, on Thursday of next week our amendments will be considered in another place. When is the Bill to be reprinted for that to take place?

6.15 p.m.

Viscount Buckmaster

My Lords, I believe it will be appropriate if I said a few words at this stage about the Moslem attitude to religious education because hitherto it has not been mentioned in detail. I can say with due humility that I am as close to Moslem thinking as any Member of your Lordships' House and I have heard several views on the subject.

I wish to emphasise that the Moslem community in Britain is a very large one, as many of your Lordships will be aware—1½ million to 2 million—which means more Moslems than Methodists. They wish to be co-operative, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London will agree. As your Lordships know, the Moslems accept both Judaism and Christianity. They are both regarded as people of the Book. I was told the other day that a Moslem who does not accept Jesus will not be called a Moslem. Perhaps I may quote briefly one of the Suras from the Koran, No. 285: We make no distinction [they say] beween one and another of His Apostles". As your Lordships are aware, the Moslems regard Jesus as one of their prophets. I have said before, and I emphasise again, that the Moslems wish to be cooperative but they are not wholly happy about the Bill as it stands at the moment. I hope that there will be some flexibility.

The Moslem community warmly welcomes the proposal for a conference this week which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned. I hope at that conference that we shall evolve some degree of flexibility which will take account of the Moslem desire to have their children educated appropriately as Moslems. They do not like the idea of opting out because they feel that that may lead to a vacuum. One thing they wish to avoid above everything else is a vacuum. That is why, as I said at the beginning, they feel that Christianity is better than no religion at all.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I see that the Leader of the House is in his place. I should like to support the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton on the proposed timing of the further stages of this Bill because that timing is highly relevant to this amendment and to the one which the noble Baroness is about to move. If my noble friend Lord Renton is well informed—he generally is—it is apparently the intention to take the Third Reading on Tuesday of next week. I suggest most earnestly to my noble friend the Leader of the House that that will cause very considerable difficulty. I do not need to stress to him, because he knows it, that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation for many years. It is 44 years since we had an education Bill and many of us who have been taking part hope it will be another 44 years before there is another.

It is of immense importance to get the Bill right. If we are to finish the Report stage on Tuesday, and on present form we have been finishing not exactly early in the day, that means that it will be extremely difficult to get the Bill reprinted during that week and before the Third Reading is taken. I do not say anything is impossible for the government printer. It will be extremely difficult for your Lordships to put forward amendments at Third Reading and to study before the Bill is taken those amendments which it is hoped that the Government will put forward.

I know that, particularly at this time of year, and perhaps especially this year, the government programme is a very difficult one and there is a natural objection to doing anything which disturbs it. However, I appeal to my noble friend the Leader of the House to appreciate the very great importance of getting the Bill right. I suggest to him that our chances of getting it right will be at any rate considerably diminished if, as is apparently proposed, it is to be rushed in its final stages. I am not asking my noble friend to answer now but I am asking him to think most seriously about it; and those of your Lordships who have supported the Government through these long debates have perhaps special grounds for making this appeal to him.

Lord Stewart of Fulham

My Lords, in view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, I hope I may be forgiven if I make again a point which I made in an earlier debate. I do so because it is an important point and I was quite unable to get the Government to understand it at the time.

I knew a school at which five-sixths of the boys were Christian and the rest were Jewish. They solved the problem by having two acts of collective Worship—for the Christian boys in one part of the building and for the Jewish boys in another. When those were over they met together for what one might call the secular aspects of morning assembly. That seemed to be a sensible and civilised way of dealing with the matter. It was not divisive in the school as both communities knew that they were of a different faith. They respected the difference and that was that. What is extraordinary is that, under Clause 97 of the Bill as it now stands and Amendment No. 69 which we have now adopted, this arrangement would be illegal. Both of those provisions say that one can have separate acts of collective worship for children of different age groups, for children of different groups for some other teaching purpose but not for different groups by faith. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft: why not have a different act of worship for children of a different faith?

I cannot see the objection to it. I hope that we shall not let the Bill go through with it being made illegal. It is my strong feeling that if we do that nobody will pay any attention, and a good many schools which have this problem and deal with it in this way will carry on doing so. That is not a satisfactory way of arranging things. We have a chance now of making this arrangement legal. It could be done in Amendment No. 337 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. If I understand it correctly, subsection (5) of the amendment would produce exactly this result. I earnestly ask the Government to make this arrangement.

Viscount Combermere

My Lords, I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, in this respect although I would emphasise that flexibility is absolutely essential. I do not believe that separate assemblies are correct as they can be divisive, but I should like the Minister to answer a question when she comes to reply to Amendment No. 273. It centres around the words "in the main".

Let us suppose that in a hypothetical school the religious affiliation of the students was predominantly Christian but that there was a small but significant proportion of children from other faiths. For the sake of example let us say that they were mainly Hindu. That is a perfectly possible situation. What would be the attitude to a request from this minority group that they celebrate in assembly the Hindu festival of Divali and that other children be invited to attend if they so wished? The school had in the past held assemblies which reflected the broad traditions of Christian belief and this request was perhaps an exception. One assumes that the teachers were qualified in the subject which had been well taught. Would the noble Baroness wish to discourage or encourage plans for assemblies of this nature? In my view this kind of assembly would be perfectly proper; and in terms of a flexible interpretation of the wording of the Act, it would be legal. It would be perfectly proper, as opposed to segregated assemblies which could be seen to be divisive. I should be most interested to hear the noble Baroness's views when she replies to Amendment No. 273.

Baroness Cox

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, referred to Amendment No. 337 which stands in my name, perhaps I may just assure the House that I shall not move that amendment this evening because of pressures of time. May I say briefly that I hope that the substance of the amendment will be met satisfactorily in discussions which we are looking forward to having with the right reverend Prelate later this week, and that an amendment to meet these valid points will be agreed and forthcoming for Third Reading. For example, the problem might be met by putting in a phrase "appropriate not only to pupils' age and family background but also other faiths". I am conscious of the fact that we shall have these discussions and I hope very much that we shall have an agreement by Third Reading.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I should like strongly to support what the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said about the difficulty of the Bill and the importance of getting it right. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, the same phrases arise again and again in the Bill. On one or two occasions I have raised the problem about denominations and faiths. Amendment No. 273 says, distinctive of any particular religious denomination". I should like to suggest consideration of the words, any denomination of a religious faith". That would make it clearer, if that is what the Government intend; otherwise, one will have a muddle, which all of us want to avoid, between denominations and faiths.

We are discussing Amendment No. 272 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and it would be unfortunate if we were to go back into the debate which I thought we had last week.

The Lord Bishop of London

My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, over the matter of timing. As I have said before, we would have much preferred the whole question of what one might call the religious settlement to have been worked out before the Bill came to the House; but that was not to be. We have had to do what we can in the circumstances before us. We have done our best in very difficult circumstances. Since last week we have been working extremely hard in our consultations.

I should like to say just two things. First, I can assure all those who have spoken this afternoon that the points which were made are being considered most carefully and account will be taken of them. Secondly, we are well ahead with a document which will be available to those who are coming to meet us on Wednesday. That document will both clarify our intentions and make evident the overall effect of the amendments in a way which I agree is difficult to see because of the way they have had to be dealt with. I ask your Lordships to accept the assurances as they are not only given in good faith but are based on a considerable amount of work undertaken in the past few days.

Lord Renton

My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, can be tell us whether when we come to the meeting on Wednesday he will be able to give us an idea of what amendments he is proposing to his own amendment?

The Lord Bishop of London

My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that I hope to be in a position to do so—perhaps I may add, after consultation with the Government.

6.30 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I rather think that the last statement made by the right reverend Prelate covers the position. Although we have debated the matter at some length and agreed to many amendments, I am sure that those noble Lords who still have anxieties in this respect will be reassured by the open-minded attitude of the right reverend Prelate and also, I hope, of the Government. We shall do whatever is possible further to allay any doubts which may arise.

As reference has been made to the subsequent amendment tabled in my name, I must say that since we have previously debated that amendment, I had not, in fact, intended to speak to it in any detail but merely formally to move it. On that note I hope that my noble friend will feel able not to press his amendment further at this stage.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, perhaps I may just be clear about what the noble Baroness has just said. Although we are most reassured to hear what the right reverend Prelate has said about the discussions he will have next Wednesday, the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised this important matter with the noble Baroness. As many other substantial issues are being dealt with during the Report stage of the Bill, will the noble Baroness indicate whether the Government will insist on having the Third Reading of the Bill on Tuesday of next week?

If we are to receive a print at the very earliest on Thursday—as I understand is the position—or possibly on Friday, it seems to me most unfortunate that we shall have an opportunity to consider the terms of the amendments put forward on Third Reading only at a very late stage indeed on what is the biggest education Bill for 44 years. Indeed, that point has already been made by the noble Lord opposite. Is it not possible for the Government to move slightly on the issue? I am not asking them to make any major concession in this regard, but perhaps they could move the Bill back a little so that the House can have a much more orderly debate on Third Reading. Indeed I suspect that that is the view of many noble Lords on both sides of the House.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the noble Lord is putting the same point to me as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I shall certainly look at the interval. However, I must make one thing clear. There has been talk about rushing the Bill through; that is not the case. The interval between the end of the Report stage tomorrow and the day which has been put down for Third Reading recognises what is supposed to be the intervals between Report and Third Reading stages. I make no secret of the fact that the Government have a very full timetable and therefore to alter a timetable is much easier said than done. The timetable has already been booked in the diaries of many people, and I also have to admit that it is most important from the Government's point of view to get their business through.

It would therefore be wrong of me to conceal from the House that it would be easy to respond to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Nonetheless, I shall look at the interval but, as I say, this could be a difficult matter. Indeed, what might be suitable for some people, might be unsuitable for others.

Lord Renton

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he would agree that, although a week between the Report and Third Reading stages is customary, when we have legislation of such length with a vast number of complex amendments which alter the whole structure of the Bill—some controversial and many leading to requests for further improvement—the one-week rule does not cover the situation.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, with the leave of the House, obviously my noble friend feels deeply about this point. Although I do not think it will be especially helpful to the House if I repeat what I said previously, nonetheless I shall do so—in the space of one sentence. In putting forward their programme on this point, as my noble friend rightly said, the Government are observing the customary intervals. Although changes in those intervals might suit some Members of the House, they may well not suit others.

Lord Thorneycroft

My Lords, I should like to make it absolutely plain to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that any conversations we have with the right reverend Prelate will have nothing to do with the date of the Third Reading of the Bill. Indeed, he has enough problems on his hands without having to take that one on board.

I say to the noble Baroness, yes, we are impressed in two respects: First, by the religious tolerance shown in almost every speech which has been made in the House this afternoon and the desire to do something sensible and helpful about other faiths; secondly, by the understanding and compassion of the right reverend Prelate in his willingness to take all those matters fully into account, so that they can be weighed before the discussions take place.

As regards the issue of time, I think that it would greatly help the timing if we could reach agreement at those discussions on some arrangements which were generally tolerable to the whole House. I very much hope that that will be so.

The Lord Bishop of London

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his sympathy. Indeed, I think that I may perhaps deserve it more than he realises in that next Tuesday is not only the Third Reading of the Bill, but it is also a session of the General Synod of the Church of England on a particular and constant problem.

Lord Thorneycroft

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 273 to 286:

Page 75, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) In the case of a school to which this section applies the collective worship required by section (Collective worship) of this Act—

1. (a) shall in the main reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief in ways appropriate to the age, aptitude and family background of the pupils involved; but
2. (b) shall not be distinctive of any particular Christian denomination.

(2A) In the case of such a school the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1)(a) of this Act to be included in the school's basic curriculum shall be provision for religious education in accordance with the appropriate agreed syllabus. (2B) Religious education given to pupils at such a school in accordance with the provision so required shall not include any catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular religious denomination.").

Page 75, line 14, leave out ("(2)(b)" and insert ("(2A)").

Page 75, line 19, leave out from ("worship") to ("shall") in line 20 and insert ("in a school to which this section applies required by section (Collective worship) of this Act").

Page 75, line 22, at beginning insert ("Subsection (5A) below applies").

Page 75, line 24, leave out from ("section") to ("the") in line 25 and insert ("(Exceptions. special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions) of this Act to receive religious education elsewhere. (5A) if in any such case").

Page 75, line 28, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Page 75, line 31, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Page 75, line 32, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Page 75, line 35, leave out ("so to do") and insert ("to do so").

Page 75, line 42, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Page 75, line 44, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Clause 77, page 76, line 4, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Page 76, line 12, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Page 76, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 16 and insert— ("In the case of a school to which this section applies the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1)(a) of this Act to be included in the school's basic curriculum shall be provision for religious education—

1. (a) in accordance with any arrangements made under subsection (2) above; or
2. (b) subject to any such arrangements,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 287 not moved.]

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 288 to 308:

Page 76, line 24, leave out subsection (5).

Page 76, line 33, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Clause 78, page 76, line 39, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert— ("(2) In the case of a school to which this section applies the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1(a) of this Act to be included in the school's basic curriculum shall be provision for religious education—

1. (a) in accordance with any provisions of the trust deed relating to the school or, where provision for that purpose is not made by such a deed, in accordance with the practice observed in the school before it became a voluntary school; or
2. (b) in accordance with any arrangements made under this section.").

Page 77, line I, leave out second ("the") and insert ("such a school").

Page 77, line 2, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Page 77, line 9, leave out ("so to do") and insert ("to do so").

Page 77, line 10, leave Out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Page 77, line 12, leave out ("instruction in the school") and insert ("education in the school in accordance with the provision for that purpose included in the school's basic curriculum by virtue of section 2(1)(a) of this Act.").

Page 77, line 19, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Clause 79, page 77, line 22, after ("(2)") insert (":(2B)").

Page 77, line 23, leave out from first ("the") to ("in") in line 24 and insert ("required provision for religious education should be provision for religious education").

Page 77, line 27, at end insert— ("(aa) the required provision for religious education shall (subject to subsection (2) below) be provision for religious education either in accordance with the tenets of that religious denomination or in accordance with any arrangements made under section 78(4) of this Act (as applied by paragraph (a) below:").

Page 77, line 28, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").

Page 77, line 34, leave out from first ("the") to ("otherwise") in line 35 and insert ("required provision for religious education should be provision for religious education").

Page 77, line 39, after ("76(2)") insert ("to (2B)").

Page 77, line 44, leave out ("76(2)(b)") and insert ("76(2A)").

Page 78, line 9, at end insert— ("(4) In this section "the required provision for religious education", in relation a school, means the provision for religious education for pupils at the school which is required by section 2(1)(a) of this Act to be included in the school's basic curriculum.").

Clause 80, page 78, line 19, leave out ("76(2) (b)") and insert ("76(2A)").

Page 78, line 28, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Page 78, line 30, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

Page 78, line 41, leave out ("the proposals") and insert ("any proposals such as are").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move these amendments en bloc

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 81 [Change of character or enlargement of grant-maintained school]

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 309:

Page 79, line 3, at end insert— ("Provided that no proposals may be published which include provision for—

1. (a) the charging of fees for educational services other than as provided in sections 99–04 of this Act, or
2. (b) the introduction of any system of selection in admissions, whether by ability or otherwise").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, yet again I find myself opening my speech with the statement that this is an extremely important amendment. It is certainly extremely important to noble Lords on this side of the House. The provisions of the Bill refer to the powers of the Secretary of State as regards the possibility of significant change in the character or enlargement of the school premises, and so on. We accept that once a school is set up it cannot be frozen, so to speak, in that state for ever and ever. The grant-maintained schools, inasmuch as we do not agree with them, must have some chance to change, to move forward and to respond to circumstances. Nonetheless, it is our view—as shown by earlier amendments that I moved concerning their financing—that such schools are still within the public domain. Indeed we have stressed that they have various aspects which indicate that they are in the public domain—not just their financing but other aspects as well. For example, all the questions relating to special needs indicate that fact.

In connection with such schools, there are no matters more fundamental so far as this side of the House is concerned than the two that have been raised in the Bill; namely, the charging of fees (other than the technical sense of Clauses 99 to 104) and the introduction of selection in admission procedures in a form that we mention in the amendment.

I am as aware as any one of your Lordships of the pressures of the timetable. I do not want suddenly to start us on a great debate about free education, comprehensive schools and all that; but I do not hesitate to make my commitment to both free education and comprehensive schools totally clear. Given the other burdens on us, it would not be appropriate to get that kind of debate going.

I want essentially to get the Government to put in the Bill what they have said; namely, that they are not introducing opting-out so as to introduce charging or to abolish free schooling, and they are not introducing opting-out and grant-maintained status so as to introduce selection and what used to be called the grammar school. The Government have said that. Our view is—and it may be that we are merely being neurotic; it is occasionally right to be suspiciously neurotic on certain matters—that since the Government have said that, in introducing grant-maintained schools, their intention is not to achieve those two ends, the best way to make that intention clear and to reassure those of us who are about as fundamentally concerned with this issue as with any other is to write it on the face of the Bill. I have not on the whole taken part in any of the debates on religion, but those noble Lords who have been concerned with religion should know that a noble Lord such as myself is as deeply concerned and perhaps even more concerned, about free schooling as he is about religion. If religion can be written into the Bill in the form in which it is, I cannot see why free schooling cannot be written into the Bill. That is the basis of the amendment.

I wish that we had more time because there are many dimensions to this subject worth exploring. What one should charge for is worth exploring. I am aware of the time limitation and aware of and sympathetic to the points made a little earlier on time and pressure. I do not want to prolong the debate; but in not prolonging the debate, I do not want noble Lords to underestimate how important we believe the content of the amendment to be, and how much we look forward to some positive and constructive response. It is probably too much on past record to say that I expect the Government to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I fully understand the strong feelings that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has about free schooling. The views that he holds and expresses are probably widely held in the House and elsewhere, but I am unhappy about the second part of his amendment—the exclusion of any possibility of an opted-out school going in for selection. As the noble Lord and most of your Lordships will recall, that is a long-standing controversy. I was involved in it when I was in another place, because I had the honour to be the Member for the other place for the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames which, as some of your Lordships may know, possessed and possesses some of the best selective schools in the country—the Tiffin schools. Your Lordships may recall they still operate a system of selection and still, partly as a result of that, obtain a remarkable number of Oxbridge entries and scholarships.

I am glad to recall that we succeeded in defeating the efforts of Mrs. Shirley Williams—I think that she is Mrs. somebody else now—who attempted to abolish them, and the schools continue and prosper. I do not see why where a school has opted-out, we should write into the Bill a prohibition on an opted-out school adopting the selection process if those controlling it think fit.

One wants a broader view on the matter. There is a great deal to be said for the point—and many of us feel this at least as strongly as the noble Lord feels about fee paying—that to exclude the possibility of creation of more selective schools would be a serious and damaging matter. For reasons of time, I do not want to open up the whole subject. Any of your Lordships who have experience of contact with such schools know that they perform an extremely good service in helping to educate, often from the humblest of homes, the brightest of our children. If it is any consolation to noble Lords opposite, they will of course be aware that in Soviet Russia, the system of selective entry is being extended.

6.45 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there is no possibility that grant-maintained schools will be able to charge fees. Clause 99 explicitly prohibits charging in respect of admission to any maintained school and, in respect of the provision of education at the school, other than in the limited circumstances set out in Chapter V. Grant-maintained schools will be able to charge for exactly the same things as local authority maintained schools can charge: no more, no less; and there is no possibility of them publishing proposals to do anything else. I hope that that sets the noble Lord's mind at rest on this important matter.

I turn now to the more complex issue of a change in the mode of selection. It will be possible for the governors of a grant-maintained school to publish proposals under Clause 81 for a change in the school's admissions arrangements. They could, for example, apply for the school to become coeducational; to change its age range; to go comprehensive; or to become selective. If the governors were to seek to do any of those things, all interested parties would be able to object to or comment on the proposal to the Secretary of State. He would take all relevant factors into account in reaching his decision.

I believe that this approach will ensure that the views of the wider community will be properly heard, just as they are in the case of Section 12 or 13 proposals for changing the character of local authority maintained schools. I certainly do not accept, any more than my noble friend does, that grant-maintained schools, alone of all maintained schools, should be completely forbidden from responding to the needs and wishes of the local community if it is their clear wish to return to selection.

Lord Peston

My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness. It might help me to clarify my mind. Is she saying that if a grant-maintained school which was comprehensive wished to become selective, it would be subject to the precise procedures mutatis mutandis that a local education authority would have to go through to convert the same comprehensive into a selective school? Is that her answer?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am saying that the right is the same although the procedures may be slightly different, but probably on a mutatis mutandis basis. I would not expect that change to happen any more than it does currently in the local authority sector, and certainly not in the early days.

It is widely recognised that stability is very important to a successful school, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that he would not normally expect to consider any proposal by a grant-maintained school for a change of character for at least five years after the school becomes grant-maintained.

The noble Lord's amendments suggest to me that his confidence in the comprehensive principle is faltering. I should have thought that if the parents and community governors at a grant-maintained school were proud of its progress as a comprehensive, they would be unlikely to propose changes which would radically alter its nature and keep out many of the pupils from the community it serves. On that basis, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I am tempted to respond, rise to the fly of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and get us started on a comprehensives debate. Suffice it to say that I do not remotely accept that selective education is other than damaging both for the pupils in the school and for all other pupils in the area in which the selection takes place. I do not regard entrance to Oxbridge as my criterion for educational success. It is not one that I hope increases in currency as a result of this legislation. If one does regard it as such, I point out that many of us have children who went to Oxbridge and also to comprehensive schools. It is worth bearing that in mind. As I say, I must stick to my rules. I am not going to have a debate on comprehensives.

I am a little worried about the noble Baroness's reply. If she has the time, she might like to write to me to say whether something equivalent to the Section 12 and 13 procedures would apply in rare cases. I think I would accept a written reply from her on that. Given that and the need to speed up, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 309A not moved.]

Clause 82 [Approval of school premises on change of character or enlargement]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 310: Page 80, line 13, leave out ("such") and insert—

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

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendment No. 310 together with Amendment No. 312. The Government have made it consistently clear that their proposals for grant-maintained schools pose no threat to children with special educational needs. Where the governing body of a grant-maintained school publishes proposals for a significant change of character to the school or an enlargement of its premises under Clause 81, it will be required to include details of how this would affect provision for pupils with special educational needs. Additionally, where the governors have published such proposals, the Secretary of State is empowered under Clause 82 to ask for any information he wishes about the premises or proposed premises of the school.

In Committee on 16th May the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), suggested further safeguards for those with special needs in such circumstances. We undertook to consider her concerns and we are confident that Amendment No. 310 will now satisfy them. It requires the governors of a grant-maintained school who have published proposals under Clause 81 to submit to the Secretary of State information on the extent to which the proposed premises would meet the minimum requirements of Design Note 18 on access to educational buildings for physically disabled people. The amendment will signal to governors the kind of detailed information they will be expected to provide in such circumstances. It affords further reassurance and additional security for all those with special needs who will be users of grant-maintained schools. On those grounds, I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I wish to welcome these two amendments most warmly. The noble Earl's confidence is not misplaced; the amendments achieve exactly what I was trying to achieve when I moved my amendment in Committee. They do it rather more fully and rather better. I am most grateful.

Baroness David

My Lords, perhaps I may say too that I am extremely pleased that the Government have made a concession on this important matter. I think that I supported the noble Baroness when she moved her amendment and I am delighted that the Government have seen the light about this.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 311 not moved.]

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 312:

Page 80, line 14, at end insert— ("(1A) In subsection (1)(a) above— access provision", in relation to school premises, means provision as to the means of access both to and within the premises; and the Design Note" means Design Note 18" Access for Disabled People to Educational Buildings" published in 1984 on behalf of the Secretary of State, or any document replacing that Note prescribed by regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 84 [Discontinuance by governing body]:

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 313: Page 80, line 29, at end insert ("including proposals published by the local education authority, on grounds of the inadequate size of the school, as part of a scheme of local reorganisation").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to allow local education authorities to propose the closure of grant-maintained schools as part of a reorganisation proposal for the authority. As the Bill is currently drafted, the local authority in which the grant-maintained school is sited cannot propose the closure of that school even though it is responsible for its funding. Yet the LEA is expected, and indeed it is its duty, to plan the effective provision of education for its authority as a whole. This could prove difficult if even one school in a small authority were to acquire grant-maintained status.

Over a period of years the Government have been urging authorities to improve planning in order to reduce wastage, to provide more efficient and effective education and to cope with falling rolls. In 1986 the Audit Commission published a report, Towards Better Management of Secondary Education, urging the need to close schools in order to respond to falling rolls. The commission took the view that: An increasing number of schools are too small to be educationally viable. Smaller schools are more expensive to staff if they are to deliver the same curriculum, especially as they fall below four forms of entry".

Because LEAs are responsible for education throughout their authority, they are able to plan the most effective way of delivering education. They can therefore make the difficult decision to close a school which is too small to function effectively. In contrast, the governing body of a grant-maintained school which is responsible for only one school is likely to be extremely reluctant to close the school, regardless of how effectively it is delivering education.

The view of such a body will be biased rather than impartial. This amendment would allow the LEA to consider the future of a grant-maintained school as part of its reorganisation plans. It would be difficult for an LEA to plan its future provision satisfactorily if there is some uncertainty about the future of a grant-maintained school within its area about which it had no say. If its plans were made on the assumption that the school would remain open and the governing body of that school subsequently applied for the closure of the school, then the number of places available within the LEA as a whole might prove inadequate.

If on the other hand the LEA made allowance for the closure of the grant-maintained school and the school did not close, there would be an excessive number of spare places in the LEA schools. The present wording of the Bill demands that the LEA plans provision but takes away its means of doing so. The LEA has this overall responsibility which I think will be more difficult unless this amendment is received, as I hope it will he, by the Government. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, this amendment is not acceptable to the Government. It would be clearly inappropriate for a local education authority which exercised no control over a grant-maintained school to have the power to initiate its demise. That decision is a fundamental and crucial one and it should rest with those who are responsible for the school and know it best—that is to say, the governing body and the Secretary of State.

It may be argued that no governing body will ever wish to close its own school, however strong the economic or educational arguments to do so. But that is not necessarily true. I expect that the parents themselves would exert strong pressure to that effect if they felt that the school was no longer capable of meeting their children's needs. But in any case Clause 85(3) provides a clear safeguard in such circumstances. The Secretary of State can terminate grant to a grant-maintained school where: The number of registered pupils at the school is too small for sufficient and suitable instruction to be provided for them at reasonable cost". In doing so, he will no doubt take due account of the implications of his decision for the wider educational provision of the area and it will be open to the local education authority to seek to influence his thinking in this respect. The authority will of course be consulted about the date of any such closure of the school in this context in order to achieve the minimum disruption to the education of pupils.

I believe that these mechanisms are sufficient to ensure that a failing grant-maintained school—of which I must say I do not expect there to be many—is not able to damage wider educational provision in the area by lingering on unjustifiably. I therefore urge the House to reject this amendment.

Baroness David

My Lords, I am sorry, naturally, to hear the remarks of the noble Baroness, because the amendment included in its wording, the inadequate size of the school", and the purpose was only to allow local education authorities to propose the closure. The Secretary of State will have the power, but he may not consult the local education authority about what he is going to do and he may not know all the problems which the local education authority is facing.

As with so many parts of the Bill this provision is anti helping local education authorities which have such a difficult task. The establishment of grant-maintained schools will, of course, make their task infinitely more difficult. However, I shall not press the amendment, but I regret very much that the Government again do not seem to have seen the point of what we are trying to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, this might be an appropriate moment at which to break for dinner. I beg to move that further consideration on Report on this Bill be now adjourned and that we do not return to it before 8 p.m.

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