Education Reform Bill

HL Deb 28 June 1988 vol 498 cc1387-581

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 123.

Lord Graham of Edmonton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 387:

Page 120, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) Not less than four and not more than six of the members shall be academics currently employed in the UFC funded sector; not less than a further four and not more than a further six shall be persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in higher education; and in appointing the remaining members the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and a later one are akin to ones that I moved earlier to which a satisfactory reply was given. In those circumstances, therefore, I do not intend to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 387 not moved.]

Lord Morton of Shunamoved Amendment No. 388:

Page 120, line 17, at end insert— ("(3A) The Council shall appoint a sub-committee to undertake its functions in relation to Scottish universities, and the members of the sub-committee shall all have either experience in a Scottish university or be relevant in and have had experience of working in Scotland.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed to a certain extent before we adjourned. The amendment is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and myself. It suggests that the Universities Funding Council shall appoint a sub-committee. We understood from what the noble and learned Lord said earlier that this does not meet with the approval of the Government.

The Croham Report suggested, on the assumption that a separate Scottish planning and funding body was not established as recommended by the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council, that at the very least the University Grants Committee should have a Scottish committee. That is merely what we are asking for on the face of the Bill. The Government seem to have something against having anything like this on the face of the Bill. It may well be that the wording of the amendment does not meet with the approval of the Government. However, if they regard the Croham Report as in any way helpful on the distinctive nature of the Scottish universities—I remind the House that the Croham Committee said that, more than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the Scottish universities operate in a distinctive environment and serve Scottish needs, and that this means explicit recognition—and if they will accept that there should be a Scottish committee to look at Scottish universities and they wish to put in their own wording (if the wording of the amendment is wrong), then I would be most happy to withdraw the amendment on that assurance. But I gather from what the noble and learned Lord said that this was all unnecessary and that Scottish universities would of course have a separate sub-committee, just as apparently anything else might have a special subcommittee. I am not sure whether it was suggested that questions of the teaching of Icelandic might have a similar sub-committee to the Scottish universities, or even the teaching of Mongolian, or something like that.

To my mind it illustrates what is almost regarded in Scotland as the contempt of the English governmental bodies for anything that is significantly Scottish; and secondly, the contempt of the Government for any suggestion that the Bill can in any way be improved.

We have discussed the issue of separate Scottish representation and the need for the Scottish universities to be treated distinctively. I do not believe that I can add much to what I said earlier, and therefore I do not intend to delay the House. I beg to move.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House because I have already made two speeches on this subject: one in Committee and one today. I wholly support what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said. However, this is the third option which he and I have proposed to allow Scotland some recognition in the Bill. I thought that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor showed sympathy when he said that no doubt such a committee would be appointed. I urge him to go a little further and put something into the Bill, because he well knows that it is what is in the Bill that counts. As has been said, several committees have recommended that a statutory committee for Scotland of this kind should be set up.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Grimond. We are asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to help us. When we discussed an earlier amendment, we said that he saw that it would be appropriate for the UFC to appoint a sub-committee. Will he say that he will be happy to see the word "Scotland" included on Third Reading and for the Bill merely to say something such as, "The UFC will appoint a Scottish sub-committee" without defining any of its powers? Then I for one would be entirely happy.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, this is an entirely Scottish campaign; but perhaps I may say that I support the amendment, not least because in the House and elsewhere we English spend a great deal too much time on Scottish affairs.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised that I cannot support the observations on that point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The discussion of Scottish affairs here is good and welcome. The reason that the Government consider it inappropriate to put a reference to Scotland on the face of the Bill is that if it is to do the job properly it must define "Scottish sub-committee" in detail, with its functions, and so on. There is a great deal to be learned from experience in these matters. The UFC will have sub-committees as the UGC has. The UGC operated without any statutory provisions. We do not want to have too many statutory provisions applied to the new UFC. Its members will be people of stature who will know what to do.

They will know what is required with regard to Scotland. I am happy that the Scottish universities should be under their tender care. I am sure that they will nurture them to the best of their ability. If they think it appropriate to have a sub-committee, I have no doubt they will appoint the necessary subcommittee with the necessary membership and powers to review such matters from time to time in a way that would not be possible if the matters were all set out in the Bill. 1 doubt whether approving the amendment would relieve the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, from considering Scottish affairs to any extent.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, the one point upon which I would agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is in my disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It seems to me, as a mere Scot, that we have spent far too much time in the House discussing purely English matters and not nearly enough time discussing Scottish and United Kingdom matters. There is a tendency for Scottish matters to come on during the dinner adjournment. I have never noticed matters dealing purely with London being dealt with only during the dinner adjournment.

Leaving aside that issue, I am disappointed by the Government's attitude. It is another illustration of their attitude throughout the Bill. They say that the Bill is a framework Bill. It sets up a framework; but whenever anything is suggested by the Opposition, they say that it is impossible to accept it because the detail is needed on the face of the Bill; in other words, the Government can have their scaffolding and their framework, but if anything else is suggested, every detail down to the last polish of the window is required from the Opposition before it can even be considered. As I do not wish to detain the House, I shall, with regret, withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 389 and 390 not moved.]

Lord Flowers moved Amendment No. 390A: Page 120, line 23, after ("research") insert ("both full-time and part-time").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose to return to United Kingdom affairs and, in particular, to move Amendment No. 390A with which I beg leave to group Amendments Nos. 390B, 403C and 403D.

The first pair of amendments refers to the responsibilities of the UFC, and the second pair to the PCFC. The intention of both pairs of amendments is the same. It is to draw the attention of the councils to the fact that they are responsible for the funding of continuing education provided part-time as well as the more usual full-time education, and that continuing education in that context includes research pursued part-time. For example, Clause 123(4) and (5) would after amendment, read—if I may paraphrase—that the council shall be responsible for the provision of education and the undertaking of research both full-time and part-time by universities. It would apply similarly in the other establishments.

It seems strange that continuing education receives so little mention in the Bill, because for many years it has been a central theme of government policy that a greater volume of higher education should be provided part-time to mature students. For example, in 1984 the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education and the UGC issued a joint statement in which they said: both effective economic performance and harmonious social relationships depend on our ability to deal successfully with the changes and uncertainties which are now ever present in our personal working life. That is the primary role which we see for continuing education". The joint report went on to discuss how more emphasis could be given to various forms of continuing education. It all sounded good, and it encouraged us to develop special courses and arrangements of all kinds to increase the proportion of our work devoted to various forms of continuing education. Of course, some of us have been doing it already.

Unfortunately, when it came to money, the UGC did little to help. 1 am not sure that the NAB did much better. The UGC, in particular, laid s, much stress upon the research activities of universities that even our ordinary undergraduate teaching was bound to be seen as of secondary importance in comparison. Continuing education was seen to come very much third in the financial stakes.

That unsatisfactory state of affairs will undoubtedly continue unless the new funding councils are given explicit responsibilities for the development of continuing education of all appropriate kinds. That is most easily done in the Bill, it seems to me, by introducing the words "both full-time and part-time" at the appropriate places.

There are other amendments before us today which draw our attention to continuing education. I believe that the amendments in my name are the simplest in order to have the desired effect. But, in any case, 1 do not think that they are inconsistent with any other amendments and so can properly be considered separately. I beg to move.

9 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, the House will not be surprised to hear that I very warmly support these amendments. In doing so, perhaps I should declare an interest as the head of the only institution in the university sector that is wholly dedicated to part-time education.

As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has already said, some people have been at this for a long time. Birkbeck has been at it since 1823 when it was set up as the Mechanics Institute for men who work by day and study by night. It is very important that we have on the face of the Bill some words which commit both the funding councils to continuing education for a variety of reasons.

First, I should like to point to the demographic factors which make this very important. We are going to see an enormous decline in the 18 to 21 year-old group. It will go down by about 30 per cent. This means that if we are to maintain the levels of qualified manpower needed in this country, we shall have to rely rather more on bringing back mature students to do short courses of various kinds. Many of them, for one reason or another, will want to study part-time rather than full-time. There are various different modes by which they may do this—not just short courses but also degree courses in the evening, through block release, by day release or through various combinations of these facilities. That is the first reason why it is important.

The second reason relates back to an earlier debate today about adult education. It is of course the case that technical and technological change is proceeding as fast as ever and that if people are to keep up with their subjects and maintain their professional skills and competence, it is very important that they come back for post-experience education and training of various kinds.

It is also important that we give a second chance to those people who missed out the first time round. I think that both the polytechnics and the universities, perhaps to differing degrees, have already shown some commitment to the provision of part-time facilities for both education and research. The polytechnics have perhaps been rather better at this than the universities, but I believe that the climate of opinion is changing in many of our universities. They would like to do more of it. This means that the funding councils themselves have to be committed and willing to provide the resources to make it possible for part-time courses to be expanded. Since the Government are extremely aware of the need to broaden access and to make sure that people have the opportunity to get further education and training later in life, I should have thought that they would have very little difficulty in accepting what are extremely simple amendments which I strongly support.

Lord Briggs

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. The Open University has developed, with the full support of the Government, a quite incredibly large continuing education programme which has been financed mainly from private money. That programme is of very great national importance. I believe that if one is going to develop continuing education satisfactorily, the experience of the people who are involved in it has quite significant research value.

There is a tendency to regard continuing education as simply another form of teaching. However, one of the great merits of continuing education is that one draws upon the experience of people who have been involved in various walks of life. In particular as regards industrial continuing education, it would be very sad indeed if we did not recognise the great importance of part-time research as well as full-time research. I believe that this is a most important amendment.

Lord Trafford

My Lords, I have great sympathy with the general tenor of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, in proposing the amendment. If I have any question, it is simply to ask whether it is wise that what one might call fairly detailed instructions should be set in statute stone. It seems to me that some of the arguments put forward—for example, that the recent allocation of UGC funds was based on a research-related review—are perfectly accurate. Of course teaching came down the line, one reason being that it was difficult to reach any form of agreement on how such an assessment could actually be made.

When we come to writing into a statute the question of full-time or part-time, nobody doubts the value of continuing education, about which we have heard much. Nor would one doubt the value of mature education, of the necessity to attract mature students, and so on. I am quite certain that any university that ignores the requirement in coming years will be very unwise.

The only reservation I have is that we might limit the capacity for change. By setting matters in this statute form, we might make it more difficult to make the requisite adjustments as time goes by or even the allocation between one and another. So it is not a question of any disregard of the arguments on continuing or mature education, full-time or part-time research. I would agree with the comments made on that. It is merely a slight reservation with regard to the possible rigidity of the system and writing it in this way in this form of amendment.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, for drawing attention to the importance for our higher education system of part-time as well as full-time provision. I think it is already widely recognised, and about 40 per cent. of the students in higher education are part-time. I can assure the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who supported him that the word "education" in Clauses 123 and 124 of the Bill covers all types of education, and that the word "research" covers all types of research, both full-time and part-time. It is not necessary to explain that on the face of the Bill. The more detail of that kind one puts in, the more questions one raises about other words and whether they also have to be, as it were, expanded.

It is not necessary to explain on the face of the Bill that full-time and part-time education are included. If that distinction were made, why not make others such as between the arts and the sciences? Why not state, for example, research in the arts and research in sciences? Perhaps slightly more seriously, to qualify the words "education" and "research" here must imply something different about the words in the many places they appear elsewhere in education Acts.

As I understand the position, the word "research" as used in the Bill already covers full-time and part-time research and nothing is gained by adding that. The only thing that might be gained is a question about whether other references to education or research, or any other matter, include full-time as well as part-time provision. That could have the very opposite effect to that which those who supported the amendment wished to achieve.

Lord Flowers

My Lords, I shall comment very briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said. I cannot see that the phrase "full-time and part-time education and research" sets anything very much in concrete. After all, it is not making a choice between two things. It merely makes the provisions which the funding council has to provide all-inclusive. That is not setting anything in concrete, I respectfully suggest.

The noble and learned Lord has said that the Bill already implies, in using the words "education" and "research", part-time as well as full-time provision. I of course shall accept the noble and learned Lord's word for that. But I can respectfully tell him that I shall be very much happier about the position when I see the financial memoranda under which the councils will operate and see the words "part-time" in those memoranda. It is important to instruct those councils that they are to be responsible for the funding of part-time education as well as full-time education.

One could have said that the UGC is responsible for the funding of part-time education. Indeed it is; it is just that it does not fund it very much. I thank the noble and learned Lord for pointing out that the Bill covers part-time education and research. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 390B and 391 not moved.]

Lord Swann moved Amendment No 391A: Page 120, line 29, leave out ("payments, subject to such terms and conditions") and insert ("grants, specifying such particular obligations, and subject to such general guidance").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at an earlier stage of this Bill the Chamber carried an amendment on academic freedom moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The present amendment also relates to academic freedom, but in a collective rather than an individual way. The amendment looks very short and simple. It is short, but it is in reality not very simple. Nevertheless, I shall try to be as quick as I can in explaining what the problem is.

Clause 123, to which this amendment refers, gives power to the Universities Funding Council to make payments to the universities, subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit".

But—and this is a very important "but"—there is no indication whatsoever in the Bill what that actually means in practice. For many years past the funding of universities has been by means of grant; hence the title, University Grants Committee. The meaning of the word "grant" can be argued by lawyers, but in practice it has meant what are called block grants, where the university in question has a substantial measure of freedom to spend the money on teaching and research as it thinks best, subject only to general guidance and advice. Attached to this have been various obligations, mainly what are known as earmarked grants: namely, money to be spent only on particular purposes. It will be evident to your Lordships that the emphasis has been on freedom coupled with responsibility.

A review committee set up by the Government under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Croham, which reported early last year, recommended a variety of tidying up measures, but emphasised that block grant funding on the present lines should continue, as it put it, for sound practical reasons, as should earmarked grants.

Within only a few weeks of the Croham Committee's report, the Government announced in a White Paper that those arrangements were to be scrapped and legal contract funding put in their place. Within a few more weeks the Department of Education and Science produced a paper on what that would mean. It is a most extraordinary, ultra-bureaucratic document that has been widely and forcefully criticised not only by the academic world but by many of your Lordships on Second Reading, in Committee, from the Opposition Benches, from the Cross-Benches and indeed from the government Benches. One might have expected to hear at least some approval of the actual concept from the government Benches—but no, not a whisper, even from Ministers in this House. I conclude that even they must have serious doubts about it, as well they may.

The reason for so much criticism and, so far as I can see, no approval, is obvious enough. All too many academics know what government research contracts look like. Earlier in the passage of this Bill I did my best to describe in some detail to your Lordships how increasingly elaborate, illiberal, bureaucratic and exasperating those have become in recent years. I shall recall only two of them. The first is the Ministry of Agriculture, whose forms for research workers receiving contract funding are so involved and complicated that the ministry has had to lay on training courses for research workers in how to fill out the forms.

I recently came across a document within the domain of the Department of Education and Science by means of which academics can get long-term contract funding. The document has innumerable pages. There is one page which I like particularly. You have to fill in, for the third, fourth and fifth year of your grant, what will be your quarterly expenditure under 12 different heads, and 217 little boxes must be filled out.

In short, the Government intend to abandon the type of funding that has led to British universities being so highly esteemed throughout the world precisely because they have been trusted to do the best they can with only general guidance and a minimum of compulsion from government. In place of that, the Government propose an elaborate and bureaucratic system that hardly trusts anyone to do anything.

Looking back on what the Government have said in defence of contract funding, the Secretary of State said last October that contract funding was not intended to be excessively bureaucratic and inflexible; that it must not jeopardise the pursuit of research and scholarship; and that it must take into account the distinctive nature of higher education. Despite the good intentions of the Secretary of State, one can have only the gravest reservations about a system operated by officials in the DES and UFC that by its very nature must be bureaucratic, must be inflexible, is bound to jeopardise the freedom of research and scholarship and, by setting detailed plans if not in concrete at least in glue or treacle, cannot take account of the distinctive nature of universities.

It is true that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at Committee stage that contract funding would tend toward Option A in the Department of Education and Science paper to which I have referred. There are three options in that paper—A, B and C. Option A is the least bureaucratic. However, in the tone of the whole paper it can only be described as the least awful of an awful bunch.

Those would-be reassurances fail to reassure for two simple reasons. In the first place, if the Government do not want to put an altogether tighter rein on universities, why do they wish to introduce legal contract funding? In the second place, the two Ministers involved speak with quite different voices. The Secretary of State is genial and makes light of the impact of the proposed new regime. The junior Minister, Mr. Robert Jackson, plays the opposite role, holding up contract funding as the essential mechanism for forcing change on a reluctant and incompetent university system.

Perhaps I may briefly quote from The Times Higher Educational Supplement the extraordinary remarks which the junior Minister made at a recent conference. He said: Academics should stop cowering in the secret garden of knowledge and get to grips with the real world, since knowledge for its own sake is no longer the prime concern". I find it incredible that a Minister responsible for universities in a democratic society can say such things. Where is his sense of history? Does he really not know that knowledge for its own sake makes the root from which all the successes of industry and the new technologies have stemmed? Should he not be reminded that were it not for a great many people over many years who valued knowledge for its own sake he would be lucky, even at his relatively young age, still to be alive?

It can be argued that the amendment will not make much difference. In one sense, that could prove to be true. But in another and profounder sense, I think that it is wholly untrue. Grants can be given the force of law, just as contracts can. Obligations can be made to mean legal obligations. But in everyday parlance, grants imply a measure of freedom, and have long done so in the context of university funding. Likewise, obligations in everyday speech mean moral obligations. In short the amendment aims to establish a style of funding that relies on a sense of responsibility on the part of universities and a sense of trust on the part of the Government while leaving the ultimate power where it has to belong, with the Government.

I do not believe that any amendment could for certain shield the universities from undue interference. The Government, after all, pay the bills and in the last resort can do what they like. However. the amendment does indicate a style of behaviour which has long existed to great effect, where the Government keep a reasonable distance and where universities are left free to give of their best. Academics are not in it for the money but because they believe profoundly that the extension and dissemination of knowledge are and always have been essential elements in a civilised society.

Freedom to give of one's best in such a difficult area of human endeavour is not just self-indulgence, as Mr. Jackson seems to think, but, on the contrary, a noble concept. I believe that tying universities up in legal red tape would be a profound mistake which would haunt the Government for many years ahead. I hope your Lordships may agree, and I beg to move.

Lord Adrian

My Lords, in rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Swann, in this amendment, to which my name also is attached, I would say that I agree wholeheartedly with everything he has said, and I do not propose to repeat it. But we still need to find out what are the Government's plans in terms of contract funding between the universities and the UFC.

The noble Lord, Lord Swann, and I were most grateful to the Secretary of State for agreeing to see us and to talk to us about this issue. At that meeting the Secretary of State said that his thinking was still developing upon these matters. Can we know where his thinking stands at this 11th hour, before we accept this clause as it stands?

I believe this amendment attempts to express what the Secretary of State implied in that meeting and it would very greatly reassure us if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could accept the amendment. If he cannot, we hope to learn more than we know at the moment when he tells us why he cannot do so, as I regret to say I fairly confidently expect him to do.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I was not going to enter this debate until I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, because on the face of it, the amendment does not seem to do a great deal and in practice, whether we pass it or not, the Government's reaction will be cursory, I would suggest. However, it is very interesting to think we are talking about a subject where local initiative, control, influence and decision-making are being taken away by the Government. It is curious to think that we are discussing this subject on the day in which Comrade Gorbachev is actually asking the Soviet people to relieve the local institutions in the Soviet Union of the dead hand of the party and the bureaucracy. Here we are, speaking about an amendment which asks the Government not to impose the dead hand of bureaucracy and the party—and in this case it is the Tory Party—on academic institutions. It is interesting to draw the parallels. In this country we are going in one direction; in the Soviet Union they are going in the other direction. I wished to make that observation in support of the amendment.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment, if only to make it clear that support for the movers is not confined to the Cross-Benches and the other side of the House.

Those of us in the party now in government who have been in touch with the gestation and progress of the Bill must confess themselves very disappointed at this late hour that an important feature of government thinking has to be teased out of the noble and learned Lord on the last day of Report. It has been made clear to the Secretary of State by many of us that this notion of contract funding, unless limited to getting from universities particular services that the state might require for some reason, is not in keeping with the notion of a university because one of the ideas in university government is that it must from time to time itself decide on the disposal of the funds made available to it. Without that, there cannot be the spontaneity and development that are held to characterise universities among other forms of education, higher or whatever.

It is extraordinary because, as the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said, there have been repeated comments by the Secretary of State—contradicted to an extent sometimes by his junior Minister, but we must take the Secretary of State as being in control of his department. He has told us that of course the traditional autonomy of the universities is not meant to be affected by any of these changes, and that contract funding, as I said, is to be limited to very specified areas. If a certain number of teachers are required in some rare subject, it would not be unreasonable to contract with the university, or for that matter with the polytechnic, to provide them, and that could be very straightforward with none of the bureaucratic entanglements to which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, referred.

I speak, if I may, as a member of my party. I am very worried about the inability of Her Majesty's Government to heal the breach that has developed between them and the universities. This seems to me more important even than the bureacratic nonsense that it is intended to impose upon heads of departments, researchers and so on. It is a psychological matter; it is a matter of recreating confidence.

I appeal to the noble and learned Lord when he replies not to dash the hopes of government supporters again by failing to appreciate that what is being asked for is not some extravagance—it is not, as Mr. Jackson appears to think, the right to live in ivory towers; it is to enable universities to perform the function that, even at a time of limited resources, it is generally recognised they have performed to the nation's benefit. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give some indication that he has appreciated this point.

Lord Briggs

My Lords, after the great eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and the deep feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, it is difficult to say much more.

I think that it is essential to go back to a fundamental point that has nothing to do with words. Universities have developed in society as centres of initiative. If they had developed entirely on the basis of contract at different periods in their evolution, there would not have occurred the same developments in society as a whole, starting with medicine, scientists and moving right across. It would have been impossible to have developed university systems on the basis of contract.

I believe therefore that this is not just a question of whether or not there is bureaucracy, though I am horrified to see the nature of many of the forms which at the moment come in from research councils and other bodies and which seem to me to make a mockery of the process of encounter between university people and people dealing with the funding.

I am sure that there would be a great deal of desire on the part of many of the people involved in any new funding system to make it work fairly and without too much bureaucracy, but I have no doubt that bureaucracy would creep in. More fundamental than that is the question of whether one can conceive of a university system moving into an unknown future which is tied on the bais of contracts with people who know far less about the matters relating to the contracts than those who are involved in the signing of them.

9.30 p.m.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I hesitate to rise after the case has been put so ably by others who are far more experienced and learned than I am, but when I was discussing this issue with the noble Lord, Lord Swann, he showed me one of the contract forms and my imagination could not conceive it possible that anybody could work out such a form. I have made no judgment about the outcome of tonight's debate but I ask the noble Lord, Lord Swann, whether he will consider putting that particular form into the Library for other noble Lords to see. I assure your Lordships that everyone who sees it will be on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and those who are supporting this amendment.

Baroness White

My Lords, I hesitate to speak after such convincing speeches from such distinguished academic figures as are in your Lordships' House. But perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words arising from my very recent experience. I am president and chairman of the council of the University of Wales' Institute of Science and Technology, which is part of the federal university of the Principality. As some of your Lordships will know—anyone who reads The Times Higher Education Supplement certainly knows—there have been certain difficulties in the academic world in Cardiff as a result of which we have undertaken an exercise of merging our institution with our neighbour in the city which, for one reason or another not germane to my remarks this evening, has got itself into grave financial difficulties. They are indeed extremely serious. We have every reason to suppose that by 1st August next our two institutions will have become a new unitary institution and we shall have fashioned an administration which will secure both academic standards and good financial administration.

All I can say is that had we been constrained by the kind of contract system that is contemplated for the future, I do not believe that we could possibly have reached a satisfactory conclusion and brought about what I have every reason to think will be a new academic institution with excellent prospects for the future and which is run responsibly in its administration and finances. We should have been hemmed in at every turn had we had to follow the kind of pattern that is suggested.

So it is from practical experience that I support wholeheartedly the amendment that is put before the House by the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Adrian, and supported by the other very distinguished speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, with whom I do not always agree. Tonight, however, I agree with every word that he spoke.

I hope that the Government will take this matter seriously because the kind of constraints that could be the result of contract funding in the spirit in which it might be administered and which is certainly advocated by Mr. Jackson would be detrimental to the development and to the necessary restructuring of our universities in certain situations.

Lord Dainton

My Lords, I had not intended to rise again. I shall be brief because the hour is late. I must be the only person in this House who has been in the position earlier in my life of having been tempted by the devil to apply the method of contract funding to the universities. I always resisted it for two very simple reasons. The first is this. All my experience throughout four universities as a teacher and researcher has taught me one thing. It is that the human mind unconstrained by narrow concepts, narrowly drawn and specified in contracts, is the most secure defence we have for freedom, on the one hand, and the permitting of the full flowering of the human mind. If, on the other hand, one tells people who have high skills and high intelligence to do something within a narrow framework, one will not liberate their intellectual energies and inventiveness; one will constrain them.

The second reason is very simple. From time to time in the University Grants Committee we had to enter into discussions with the universities about the closure of particular departments because the need for them no longer existed. That is a perfectly legitimate discussion. It led to conclusions which satisfied the state requirement that its money was expended for the purposes for which it was intended and was not wasted. However, we also gave money to universities in block grants simply because we wanted to retain this freedom to liberate their own energies and initiative.

We knew from experience—and this is the important point—that decisions taken at the centre, remote from the laboratory bench, the lecture theatre, or from the tutorial group, were generally ill-informed, and that to give universities a degree of freedom was to give them a degree of freedom which might prove us at the centre sometimes to be wrong. As I said on an earlier occasion, that was not only good for our humility—something for which we must all be grateful—but it was also a lesson which points to the same conclusion; namely, that in dealing with universities one should be dealing with independent corporations.

The aim is not to antagonise them—which the Government's attitude at the present time seems to have done—but to draw them into co-operation, and to give them that degree of freedom which will enable them to do what they most wish to do above all: to make the best possible contribution that they can to the educational welfare of the young people in this country and to its research base. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, I rise not only to support the case most powerfully put by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, but also to make an appeal to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor before his winding up speech. Like many other noble Lords, I have a great regard for the legal authority and Scottish integrity of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, on the occasion of the amendment in my name which was carried at Committee stage, to which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, referred, I was deeply disappointed by the speech of the noble and learned Lord. It was one factor which determined me to ask the Committee to divide on that issue. I am very glad that I did so.

I was deeply disappointed because I thought on that occasion that he showed no appreciation that academic freedom was a wider issue than a dismissal procedure for an assistant lecturer in Cardiff—the noble Baroness, Lady White, has referred to problems at Cardiff—or other universities and was a question of a climate of opinion within which advances of knowledge could be made. I appeal to him this evening—if he has any wish to heal that breach between the Government and universities to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred so powerfully—to show an appreciation that he understands that there is here a major issue and that this amendment goes very close to the root of it.

Lord Trafford

My Lords, it is extremely difficult not to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swann, on his description of contracts and contracting. In one sense he is referring to only part of the problem, because the examples of contracts that he gave referred to departments not UGCs and universities, not UFCs-to-be and universities but to departments and research groups. Those who recall his speech at Committee stage will remember this. He also referred to research councils, and to any department dealing with the professions. I drew his attention to some contracts drawn up by the DHSS which were as bad or nearly as bad, though I have not seen the argicultural examples to which he referred.

I accept all that. I accept also that it is, and would be, an error to introduce in any great detail or measure such bureaucratic legalism into the conduct of affairs between government or their agencies and the universities. Equally, I accept the arguments put forward by most noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and my noble friend Lord Beloff, that there is a breach of trust or confidence between the universities and government. This I personally regret. Nonetheless I am not certain that the terms of the amendment address the problem. If the amendment is intended to be used as a vehicle by which, in some curious way, my noble and learned friend is shortly to be tested in his faith in universities, his trust in academic freedom or other matters that have been referred to, it does not seem to me that this is an appropriate amendment on payments, or types of payment (grant versus contract) upon which to base it.

Had a slightly different amendment been introduced that covered these points then—as I expect is behind the feelings expressed eloquently by my noble friend Lord Beloff—indeed that would have been most appropriate. But on this matter the contract question is much wider and, I would accept, getting worse. I hope that it does not become a standard pattern in any sense, except in the most minor and specific details as far as the future UFCs and the universities are concerned.

I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, on this question. But I suggest to your Lordships that this is not the amendment to which we have mostly been speaking. The amendment to which we have been speaking, concerning questions of grant and payments, does not cover many of the points that have been made. It is for this reason that I doubt that it is the best vehicle to express the views that have been put forward. I appeal to my noble and learned friend to make some points which would tend to heal the breach that was referred to between the universities and government. But whatever he does with the amendment, I cannot see that it will make much difference to that specific question.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, as I was approaching manhood an uncle gave me this bit of advice—never do business with a man you do not trust. That is a principle I have tried to follow during the subsequent years. The Government are by statute forcing the universities to do business with a party they distrust, to whit the bureaucracy that serves Her Majesty's Government. I appeal to the noble and learned Lord to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has said and to make some gesture of reconciliation. This is a modest amendment. It may not be the ideal amendment that has just been referred to, but it is modest, and if the noble and learned Lord could see his way to concede the matter, that would go some way to heal the breach.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I say just a few words from these Benches in support of the amendment. However, in doing so I emphasise that I do not regard this a political matter, although we support the amendment. In echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said, I believe that, quite independent of party, there is a kind of bureaucratic mind on the Left or the Right which cannot wait to carry out such contract funding and interference and which does not have the faintest appreciation of the issues that we have been talking about. I regard the matter as essentially non-political.

My second remark is much more prosaic. It echoes what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, in quoting from the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Croham. It is that we should regard some of this matter in a practical way. As an economist my view is that the method of funding—the broad principles which we used to have— maximise the efficiency of the system in the sense of getting as much out of it as possible relative to the inputs. My judgment of the kind of contract funding which people have in mind will do exactly the reverse. It will minimise the efficiency of the system and give us the least output for the input.

If one wishes to set aside principles, which we certainly do not, and go in for the normal economist's approach to such matters, I believe that in following their views the Government should accept the amendment. Alternatively, if they do not like the detail, they should produce their own amendment purely on practical and efficient grounds. It is a much better way of running the system. We strongly support the amendment and I hope to hear positive comments from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

Viscount Eccles

My Lords, while I have the greatest sympathy with the amendment and would be inclined to vote for it, I should like to point out that there is another side to this issue. When I was Minister for Education I went around all the universities and asked whether they would help me in researching how to teach mathematics, for instance, and other subjects connected with children. I received no response whatsoever except from Professor Thwaites at the University of Southampton. He was the only person who helped me.

I went to my own university, Oxford, and asked whether it would create a Chair of Education because we needed its help. It would do nothing. I went to Cambridge University, which stated that it had a Chair of Education but that it did not want to study the issues about which I wanted to know. Therefore there is another side to the issue.

The taxpayer pays such a large part of the universities' income and therefore we should be able to say to them from time to time, "Will you please study this particular subject because it is in the national interest that you should?" On the other hand, anyone more keen on academic freedom than I cannot be found.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, as I understand it, this is a debate in connection with a particular amendment. I should be interested in knowing how the objectives that have been spoken of are particularly advanced by the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has referred to the matter of academic freedom and the previous debate. I should like to point out that at that stage we were discussing the question of academic freedom in relation to the procedures for dismissal. The amendment which he moved into the Bill with the approval of your Lordships was concerned with that matter, and it was into that part of the Bill that the particular amendment was included as an aspect of academic freedom.

I have been sufficiently long in connection with universities and other institutions to know that freedom has many aspects to it and I appreciate that fully. Freedom from dismissal is by no means the only aspect, although it may be an important one in some circumstances. I do not wish to re-open the argument now; I may have something to say about that at a later stage.

I value the concept of freedom to research and freedom to pursue knowledge as highly as any other noble Lord in this House. I believe that it has served us very well over many years. I started off life devoted to pure mathematics. One cannot imagine an area in which more freedom is required to make progress than that.

The question is: what does this amendment do? The noble Lord, Lord Swann, referred at Second Reading, in Committee and again this evening, to forms of contract in connection with particular pieces of research. I have had some little experience as the person who sought the information of trying to obtain help from universities on matters on which information was required by government departments. I have had some experience of the fact that it is not always the easiest thing in the world to get exactly what one wants on those particular matters. Sometimes it is possible to obtain the information; sometimes it is not very easy. My noble friend Lord Eccles referred to that.

We are not here concerned with the question of contract funding for particular pieces of research. To devote attention to that as if it was what was presently proposed for the main core funding of universities themselves is to distract attention from the reality. This Government and the Secretary of State who speaks for policy on this matter have made it perfectly plain that the Government very much esteem the concept of academic freedom and are fully devoted to it. I have no intention of doing anything to impinge in any way on the proper appreciation of that concept. The noble Lord has referred to some observations by my honourable friend Mr. Jackson, the Under-Secretary of State and a distinguished member of the University of Oxford. I have no doubt that he was speaking in a context which we have not fully examined. The Secretary of State and the Government have made perfectly plain their devotion to the concept of academic freedom.

There is nothing in the amendment which adds to the academic freedom which will be provided under this Bill. The amendments moved on Report in another place have made it plain that the Government will not interfere between the Universities Funding Council and particular universities except in extreme cases where further approval is required; namely, to assist in very difficult and special situations such as those to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred. As regards the rest, that is a matter between the Universities Funding Council and the particular university.

To suggest that the funding arrangements which are proposed should imperil the traditional mission of our higher education institutions is not something which commands our support. Our conviction is that the public funding of higher education must be granted on the principle that money will be handed out on an understanding as to how it is to be used.

The amount of detail to be gone into is a matter of degree. I can see nothing in this amendment which in any way modifies that. The amendment refers to, specifying such particular obligations". I have no doubt that that sort of power could be applied to give exactly the sort of contract arrangements to which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, referred. If I had to draft a contract using these powers and if I set my mind to it, I believe that I could produce one at least as detailed as is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Swann—possibly even more so. Therefore, this great amendment heralded as the great triumph of academic freedom and the great flagship which is to secure academic freedom into the future, does not appear to me to have any such effect. I believe that it must be very questionable whether the great sentiments which have been expressed in support of academic freedom—

Lord Annan

My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give way. Does he not agree, as the lawyers say, that there is a distinction between the word "grant" and the word "payment"?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I would be extremely interested to know what that distinction is in the context of this amendment. Does the noble Lord wish to add to what he said?

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord makes a point that one can understand. However, if there is so little difference in the meaning, and since everyone who has knowledge of university affairs suggests that this would be a way to make a new start and to heal the breach, would it not be wise to consider accepting the amendment?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, that strikes me as a very helpful but remarkable suggestion because it means that these great sentiments are so easily satisfied by using words which do not mean anything different from the words in the Bill and that all these great difficulties can be resolved. That shows something about the nature of the difficulties. If the problem is as easily resolved as that, it cannot be much of a problem.

The noble Lord asked about the difference between a grant and a payment. No doubt the noble Lord who moved the amendment will be able to explain because he wants the word "payment" removed and the word "grant" substituted. The amendment continues: "specifying such particular obligations" as the Universities Funding Council may require. The noble Lord says these are to be moral obligations. We are not amending a code of ethics. We are dealing with a Bill which it is intended will have the force of law. If we talk about "such particular obligations" we are specifying such legal obligations as may be required. That is why I say that this amendment does nothing to advance the cause which is so dear to so many noble Lords and which has been so eloquently addressed.

I am as fervent as any of your Lordships in support of the principle of academic freedom. I would heartily defend it in all its aspects and in all circumstances, but I would be misleading your Lordships if I suggested that accepting this amendment adds one iota in advancing the cause of academic freedom in our universities. The phrase in the Bill is perfectly suitable for the purpose of providing a basis for the funding of universities under statute.

I agree wholeheartedly that what matters is the way in which these powers are used. Of course, it may be possible—it has not been done yet—to give some specification which advances this point; but this attempt does not advance the cause of academic freedom one iota. The Secretary of State has made clear how he intends that the Universities Funding Council will use these powers. After all, the Universities Funding Council is to be a body which I should reckon to have the sort of status that the University Grants Committee has had; that is the level of body that we are looking for here. That body will he in charge of this administration, not the Government directly. As I said, the Government have indicated that they will not interfere between particular universities and the Universities Funding Council except in the most extreme circumstances which have been explained in detail and which I need not rehearse.

As I said, the Government are firmly committed to the cause of academic freedom. I certainly have no limited or half view of academic freedom. The way in which the Government intend that these powers should be exercised will be in accordance with the principles of academic freedom. In particular, as regards this aspect, the powers will ensure that the Government do not interfere between the Universities Funding Council and the university funded by it. As regards assuring universities, seeking to heal the breach and seeking to assure universities that I and my colleagues in government appreciate academic freedom, I give that assurance wholeheartedly and I cannot do more. But I cannot agree at all that this amendment advances that cause one whit.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, may I take the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor back to a point he made earlier in his speech?

Noble Lords

No.

Lord Jerkins of Hillhead

My Lords, may I not ask the noble and learned Lord a question relating to his speech?

Noble Lords

No.

A noble Lord

My Lords, of course he may.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, surely I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question on his speech. The noble Lord, Lord Swann, made what to my mind was a devastating quotation from Mr. Robert Jackson implying that the days of inquiry for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge were over. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to that and said in an intriguing phrase that that was made in a context that we have not yet considered. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord, what is the context and when are we to consider it?

10 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the noble Lord Lord Swann, made a quotation which is not one with which I am familiar. I certainly do not know the full context. I certainly do not regard it as the final statement of government policy on this matter. In answering this amendent before your Lordships I have sought to state what is the policy of the Government. I said also that the Secretary of State is responsible for this matter and he has made his attitude abundantly plain.

I certainly do not agree with the view, whoever may have expressed it, that we are finished with the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. I started life in a discipline which would not have got very far if it had accepted that particular principle. I am still very much in love with that discipline though I do not have as much opportunity to follow it as I used to. I believe that there is a great deal to he done in seeking knowledge for its own sake. I am now responding rather fully to a question rather than speaking again. That is the situation as I see it.

This is the fundamental point: I do not believe that this amendment is the most cogent way in which to enshrine the principle of academic freedom. It has not advanced the argument in the slightest. As regards the principle, I do not believe that there is anything between us. I do not believe that the Universities Funding Council will have the 127 little boxes, or whatever the figure was, about which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, spoke and which are so difficult for the academic researchers to fill in that the researchers need to be trained for it. I do not believe that the universities will be asked to fill in 127 boxes of that kind. They may well be asked a number of questions, because a limited amount of money has to be shared among the most deserving institutions. Therefore, it is necessary for full examination to be made of the various cases put forward and for them to be fairly considered.

The word "bureaucratic" is of uncertain content and it is not exactly a word of approbation. However, that kind of idea relates to the way in which the procedure is carried out and the attitude with which it is executed. So far as I am concerned, there is no question of that attitude being pursued as regards the basic funding of the universities. However, as regards getting specific pieces of work done, some detail about the work which is to be carried out may he required. Sometimes it is not all that easy to get academic researchers, accustomed to pursuing knowledge for its own sake, to answer the questions that Government need to have answered in order to respond to questions or debates in this House or in the other place.

Lord Adrian

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. Let us suppose that the Universities Funding Council of its motion decides to fund universities by block grant in the main, as opposed to some subsidiary earmarked grant. Does the noble and learned Lord believe that the Secretary of State will regard that as perfectly permissible within the terms of the Act? Would it be consonant with what he believes to be the present view of the Secretary of State?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I believe that the view of the Secretary of State is that the Universities Funding Council, in giving out money to universities, may regard it as important to make certain conditions as to the application of the money. In general, I would not expect those conditions to be particularly detailed. I would expect them to be on the same lines as those which are presently followed by the University Grants Committee. Then I would expect that the university obtaining the money would be bound to observe those conditions. If the university received money on the basis that it has courses in Sanskrit, Arabic and pure mathematics, I hope it would be understood that it would provide those courses and that it would not give the money to philosophy, politics or something else. General conditions of that kind appear to be perfectly appropriate. We are talking about an amendment. We are not conducting a Second Reading debate, although perhaps some of my observations may sound like that. The amendment which the noble Lord has proposed, with all his skill and experience in Edinburgh and elsewhere, does not advance the cause which he so eloquently described in his general observations. In my submission, it should not be approved because it does not do anything to advance the basic position.

Lord Swann

My Lords, I see the noble Lord, Lord Denham, looking a little uneasy. I did not mean to provoke 54 minutes of discussion. I thank those noble Lords who have supported our amendment. I should also like to thank my noble friend from Edinburgh days. He was a noble friend because he used to advise me in those days. Sometimes I took his advice and sometimes I did not. This time I genuinely thank him of the points he has raised. One needs much more time to discuss those issues. I did say that I did not think any amendment could guard against undue bureaucratic interference. I doubt whether such interference is legally definable. To that extent, the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and myself is intended as a marker. It could be said that it does not advance the cause one iota; but does it follow from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that the phrase in Clause 1 of the Bill which lays down that the national curriculum should promote, the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils", has a legal definition? Does it advance the matter? I think it is a marker.

In any event, I should like to test the opinion of the House. I do not wish to withdraw my amendment.

10.7 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 391A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 69.

DIVISION NO. 5
CONTENTS
Adrian, L. [Teller.]	Kirkwood, L.
Airedale, L.	McCarthy, L.
Alport, L.	McNair, L.
Annan, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Ardwick, L.	Monkswell, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Beloff, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Blackstone, B.	Nicol, B.
Blease, L.	Parry, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Perry of Walton, L.
Bramall, L.	Perth, E.
Briggs, L.	Peston, L.
Campbell of Eskan, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Carter, L.	Raglan, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Combermere, V.	Rochester, L.
Dainton, L.	Russell, E.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	Seear, B.
David, B.	Serota, B.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Swann, L. [Teller.]
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Flowers, L.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Gallacher, L.	Thurlow, L.
Goodman, L.	Tonypandy, V.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Tordoff, L.
Grey, E.	Turner of Camden, B.
Grimond, L.	Underhill, L.
Halsbury, E.	Warnock, B.
Hampton, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Hart of South Lanark, B.	White, B.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Jay, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Winstanley, L.
Kilbracken, L.	Young of Dartington, L.
Kinloss, Ly.

NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L.	Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Arran, E.	Greenhill of Harrow, L.
Auckland, L.	Greenway, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Gridley, L.
Belstead, L.	Hanson, L.
Blatch, B.	Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Harvey of Prestbury, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Harvington, L.
Butterworth, L.	Henley, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.	Hives, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Hood, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Hooper, B.
Carnock, L.	Hunter of Newington, L.
Coleraine, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Cowley, E.	Long, V.
Cox, B.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Craigavon, V.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Craigmyle, L.	Mersey, V.
Crathorne, L.	Munster, E.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Pender, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Dundee, E.
Eccles, V.	Renton, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Rochdale, V.
Ferrers, E.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Forester, L.	Sandford, L.
Fortescue, E.	Skelmersdale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.	Trafford, L.
Strange, B.	Trumpington, B.
Swinfen, L.	Ullswater, V.
Swinton, E.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.	Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Torrington, V.	Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

10.15 p.m.

Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 392:

Page 120, line 32, at end insert— ("( ) Within two years of its establishment, the Council shall report to the Secretary of State upon new methods of funding, in particular—

1. (a)the endowment from the Exchequer of universities and colleges with capital sums; and
2. (b)an increase in grants to students to enable them to meet a higher proportion of the expenses of their education from fees.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to increase the freedom of the universities. That may not seem to be its purpose, but it is. Anyone who has listened to our debates this evening must have gathered that there is considerable anxiety not only about the amount of funding that universities now receive, but about the method of funding. There is also anxiety that as the Government control the purse strings, they may simply bring pressure to bear, either directly or through the UFC.

All I am suggesting is that as we are setting up the UFC, whatever one may think of it, we might ask it to look at new methods, if not of wholly financing universities, at least of contributing to them. I am not asking the Government to put forward any particular idea at the moment. The matter is obviously of concern. No doubt as the UFC will acquire considerable knowledge, it might be asked to report on new methods of financing. I mention two methods. One is that endowments should be given to the universities. There is no doubt that colleges which have endowments are in a much stronger position than the universities and colleges that do not have them. I shall quote in support a paragraph from Diamonds into Glass by Professor Kedourie, a man I am afraid who I do not know. I quote that because it is published by the Centre for Policy Studies. Although it must not be taken necessarily to agree with everything that he says, presumably his views are not wholly incompatible with the Government's. He states: It is obvious that to function properly, to keep up and improve their fabric and facilities universities need more than current income to cover current expenditure. Universities need a capital endowment". He goes on to speak of the discounted value of, let us say, 10 to 15 years of subventions.

I thought that it would be wise to use some of the oil revenues to endow universities and colleges of education generally. I emphasise that I do not suggest that that should be their sole source of income. It would give them a cushion and some latitude which would greatly add to their independence.

My second suggestion is that fees should contribute a greater part of a university's income. I wish to cover myself against any misunderstanding. I am not suggesting that students' parents should be forced to contribute further, but that the Government should make it possible by subventions to students for them to pay a greater part of the cost of their education. This has been constantly suggested, and the Robbins Committee regretted that such a small part of the income of the universities came from fees. Again, I do not suggest for one moment that that covers even a major part of their expenditure; but it might be worth looking at.

Perhaps I may finish by saying that I propose all this against the background of my deep belief not only in the first-rate teaching and research ability of the universities, but in their ability to run their own affairs. I see no reason to suppose that they are incapable of running their own financial affairs. If one contrasts them with, say, the Ministry of Defence, one must be thankful that universities are far more capable of handling finance than some parts of the Government. I think that if they were given more control over their own sources of finance, it would be of benefit not only to education but to efficiency. Therefore, while I do not say that the suggestions put forward here are necessarily the right ones or the only ones, it might be possible to look at these and ask the Universities Funding Council also to do so. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Grimond. There are questions here which will need a good deal of serious thought. I do not know at the moment whether I am entirely persuaded by the case for going over to fees. I am certain that it needs investigation. I also think that if universities are to be asked to cut their costs, they need more control over the arrangement of their own costs than they can have at present, with the reservation that no system of re-organisation can make two plus two equal five.

However, I have learnt in the case of my own college, University College London, that the amount of control we have over our own budget is extremely limited. In these circumstances, the cutting of costs can be extremely difficult. One can imagine the situation of a business which is facing a deficit. It can neither increase its sales nor increase its prices. In those circumstances, it is not quite clear what it should do. That analogy is exact as far as such an analogy could be.

I look at what an American university does when it faces a deficit. It immediately thinks of adjusting its student intake. Either it takes more students so that it increases its income and can cover what it sees as necessary costs, or it reduces its intake, thereby reducing the area of its operations and bringing costs down to a level which it can then afford to meet.

Because our student intake is fixed, not only in gross numbers but also in terms of how many we shall take in each department, down to the nearest person, we cannot do this. Reductions in staffing inevitably have to be limited because the area over which we can teach is limited. Our knowledge is not infinite. There are many more points which I could make, but the general theme seems to me to emerge very clearly. It is very difficult to put your own house in order if you are not allowed to send for the builder.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the purpose of the Universities Funding Council is to seek fairly to fund the universities. This amendment would appear to put upon that council a distracting obligation to consider new methods of funding. It may be that the Universities Funding Council will wish to suggest changes in the methods of funding, but it does not seem appropriate to require them to do so, let alone require them to do so in relation to particular methods of funding within a particular time, as this amendment proposes.

There is always room for theoretical debate about different flows of money in support of higher education provision. I know that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has set up a working party to consider these issues. No doubt that would be a very appropriate body to look at them. But to impose on the statutory framework for funding universities this kind of obligation would, in my submission to your Lordships, be inappropriate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, on consideration, may feel able not to press this amendment.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Far be it from me to impose any extra burdens on any part of the academic world which already groans under conditions of every kind. It seems to me that the Universities Funding Council will have learnt a lot about this question of funding universities and is bound to have come to some views on the matter.

However, on the undertaking that this matter is being considered and that it will be in the mind of the Government to look very carefully at whatever the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals puts forward, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 392A:

Page 120, line 32, at end insert— ("(6A) In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section the Council shall have regard to the desirability of not discouraging any university in respect of which payments are made under subsection (6) above from maintaining or developing its funding from other sources.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 404D. In Committee I moved an amendment which aimed to prevent the Universities Funding Council removing funding from a university on the grounds that that university had raised funds from private sources. I attempted then to express, on the face of the Bill, the stated intention in this matter of the Secretary of State.

I used two arguments. The first was that to do so would discourage universities from trying to raise those funds from private sources, and, secondly, that those private sources would likewise be discouraged from providing funds. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor produced reasons why the amendment, as I moved it, was inadequate. However, I was extremely grateful for the support that the intention of my amendment attracted from all sides of the Chamber. I am indeed very grateful for the agreement reached in correspondence with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on the wording of the present amendment and for their encouragement to move it on Report.

I believe that these two amendments achieve the result which I had hoped to achieve with my original amendment in Committee. At the suggestion of the Government, I shall also move an equivalent amendment for the polytechnics—Amendment No. 404D. I am extremely glad to do that. After the support which I received in Committee from all sides of the Chamber, for which, as I have said, I am most grateful, I believe that I need not say more at this stage, but I hope that these two amendments will commend themselves both to the Government and to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

Baroness Young

My Lords, in Committee I supported an amendment designed to achieve the same result as the present amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has moved and the amendment that he has coupled with it which applies to polytechnics. I was not absolutely clear why my noble and learned friend was unable to accept in principle these amendments and, if necessary, bring back a government amendment to meet these points.

It seems to me that it is the intention of the Government and of universities—indeed, I know it is— and of polytechnics to raise large sums of money on their own account. For precisely the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, gave, it is very important to have an amendment such as this on the face of the Bill. I hope very much, from what the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has said, that in correspondence the Government have indicated that they would support amendments such as this one. They are very important for carrying out the policies that we all wish to see.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I too wish to support this amendment. I did not speak on the matter in Committee. I concede that there is something a little unusual in that we very rarely legislate in such a way as to say that something shall not be discouraged. But in the circumstances of this case I think that it is the right phraseology, strange as it may seem. We know that our universities have been built up since the earliest times through the generosity either of individuals or, as is more likely these days, of companies and various institutions. It would be a great tragedy to do anything which would prevent that money from coming forward.

Perhaps one of the most recent and famous examples is the establishment of Robinson College, Cambridge, which was achieved entirely by private funding. I hope that my noble and learned friend will bear in mind that there is near unanimity about the principle of the amendment. I hope that he will be sympathetic towards it.

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton

My Lords, I also support the amendment. It is in line with the Government's general philosophy of trying to assist in the creation of independent sources of power which will be able to criticise the Government and to be sceptical about their policies. The amendment has been put in extremely modest terms, as my noble friend Lord Renton has said. The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, raised the matter on a previous occasion. I believe that the House will be in sympathy with the amendment.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, moved an amendment in Committee which was designed to effect the same purpose as the present amendment, I indicated that the Government agreed with the principle. However, there were difficulties with the way the objective was to be achieved. The present method has resolved the difficulties and I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Adrian and Lord Swann, for taking the trouble to change the line of the amendment, as it were, to achieve the same results in a manner which is acceptable to the Government. I have great pleasure in commending to the House Amendments Nos. 392A and 404D. Perhaps I may say, to show that I am generous in defeat as well as in victory, that it gives me particular pleasure that the amendment is associated with the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swann.

Lord Adrian

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that very kind agreement to the amendment. I also thank all noble Lords who have supported it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 393 not moved.]

10.30 p.m.

Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 394: Page 120, line 39, at end insert ("and to present to Parliament an annual survey of its own activities, and a triennial report on University development").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 394 gives effect to a proposal of the Croham Committee that the Universities Funding Council should make an annual report to Parliament and present a triennial review of university development. I hope that I shall hear, before I am urged (as I am almost sure I shall be) to withdraw my amendment, why the Government did not see fit to adopt that proposal.

When these issues were debated in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the vice-chancellors had not asked for such provision and they were quite happy with the ability to give private advice. I accept that. However, I do not move the amendment for the benefit of the vice-chancellors; I move it for the benefit of Parliament. Parliaments wish to participate not only in the ouput but also in the input in the debate which helps to contribute to the formation of policy. There are some fairly large issues coming up as regards university funding over the next few years, to some of which my noble friend Lord Grimond has alluded briefly. I shall not detain the House by commenting on them at great length.

When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated, at col. 159 of the Official Report of 16th May 1988: To require anything more than this"— "this" being the presentation of the Universities Funding Council accounts— seems at best superfluous and at worst the sort of time-wasting distraction that none of us would like to see".

That, as an attitude to Parliament, strikes me as the Executive voice par excellence. Indeed, they are words Charles I might have spoken. I know that in the heat of the night one sometimes says slightly more than one means. In fact I think on that night I did so myself, and I regret it. So I hope that now we might receive a slightly more sympathetic answer. I am particularly attracted by the proposal for a triennial review of university development, which will enable rather more discussion of the big issues than we have had so far.

This is a responsible House. We are a body of people mature enough to be trusted with this information. We have heard some strong expressions of feeling from the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, about the position of Parliament as it appears to be emerging. I happen to be slightly more optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. If I may paraphrase Professor Parkinson, I think that at this moment it is just possible the British Parliament is still an important body.

Lord Peston

My Lords, in speaking briefly in support of this amendment, I am bound to say that I wish there was no need to have such an amendment. I find it almost inconceivable that this body would not produce an annual report on its activities. I should have thought any sensible body would do precisely what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said. Indeed, as I go into the Printed Paper Office every day and see with despair the vast number of glossy annual reports from all sorts of bodies, I feel most of them are a complete waste of money—and frequently public money. I am certainly not someone who thinks that the more reports there are the better; but in this case I feel that everything the noble Earl has to say is eminently sensible. I remain quite mystified as to why the Government cannot say, "You do not need an amendment like this: it is perfectly obvious that this is what will happen. It is perfectly obvious that Parliament will wish to have such material in order from time to time to debate university developments". I dearly wish that we did not need even to consider such an amendment as this; however, I strongly support it.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I should like to make it clear at the outset that anything I said on a previous occasion was not intended in any way to be disrespectful to Parliament or to indicate a desire to follow Charles I. In the provision I concentrated on then (paragraph 16 of Schedule 6 to the Bill) there is a requirement on the Universities Funding Council to provide annual statements of account, and reports on them by the Comptroller and Auditor General are to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

I argued then that this fulfils more than adequately the legitimate desire of Parliament to be reassured that the funds voted to the council are used for the intended purposes. It is actually a funding council, and the accounts of what it funds will constitute the basic information about what it is doing. I continue to hold that belief, even at this hour. There will certainly be plenty of other opportunities as well for Parliament to be made aware of what the Universities Funding Council is doing. Many aspects of what the council does will be published and, in particular, its decisions on the funding of individual universities, which I expect to be announced in much the same way as those of the UGC are now, will be made known as they are announced. Individual Members of this Chamber will be able to ask questions of the Government, or to correspond directly with the council.

I know that several honourable Members of another place have been in recent touch with the chairman of the University Grants Committee on a variety of matters. I am sure that your Lordships also feel free to do that, if you have a point that you want to put to him. Moreover, the Chief Officer of the Universities Funding Council will be designated as accounting officer for the funds at the council's disposal, and can therefore be summoned to give evidence to the Public Accounts Committee of another place.

The advantage of these approaches, which present practice suggests will provide a mass of information, is that they get things into the public arena while they are still reasonably current. Looking at the annual reports presented by other bodies, one's experience is that, when the time comes to consider them, interest has perhaps waned. The reports will have been prepared some considerable time beforehand. We believe that the structure and mode of working of the Universities Funding council will produce plenty of material for consideration as its work is being done. The need for accuracy and completeness means that any annual report takes a little time to assemble.

As I made clear in Committee, the University Grants Committee survey for the academic year 1985–86 was published only towards the end of 1987. We all know how efficient and anxious to get on the UGC is. This was two years after some of the developments that the report described. There were no objections when I suggested that, while one or two noble Lords might have read it, the overwhelming majority perhaps had not read it completely in all its detail. The Government received no feedback from anyone on the report's publication. Neither I nor my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can recall ever receiving a parliamentary Question or a letter arising from such a report. The same point arises on the triennial idea. The general developments of the universities are very much in the public eye as they happen. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers are very vigorous bodies which are not slow to draw attention to particular issues when they think it necessary, as their activities in connection with this legislation have amply demonstrated. I have no doubt that they will continue to see that role for themselves; it will not stop when this Bill goes on to the statute book.

In sum, we think that enough has been done in the arrangements already made effectively to give Parliament all the information that it requires at a time that will be suitable for it. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Earl may feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I confess that that answer gives me profound disappointment. In effect, it is the same answer that I received in Committee, which is an answer to something rather different from the amendment that I moved. I was not expecting that there would be any problem about the Universities Funding Council's annual accounts. I am aware that that is well taken care of.

I was concerned with the informing of Parliament on major issues of university policy. I am well aware that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, outside bodies and outside individuals regularly make representations to this House. Those representations are of course ex parte. It has been known for noble Lords to place rather less value on them for that reason than perhaps they should.

There is some value in having reports from authoritative bodies that enable us to grasp and consider some of the real issues. There is in particular a profound difference of view between the Government and the universities about whether it is possible to have this many universities for this much money. That is a question on which I should have wished Parliament to be able to make up its own mind.

We have here, as has already been said tonight, a question of trust. Trust inevitably is approached in symbols. Like the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, this could have been the symbol which would have contributed to the restoration of trust. However, I recognise that trust cannot be won in the Division Lobbies. For that reason alone, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 395, 396 and 397 not moved.]

10.45 p.m.

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 397A: Leave out Clause 123.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have been asking questions about the purposes of Clause 123 since Second Reading. Before any other noble Lord raises the matter, I have been looking at the Standing Orders. I read there that it is not proper at this stage to move the deletion of a clause simply in order to initiate a general debate, and I am not doing so. I understand that it is proper to do so in order to pursue an undertaking in Committee or in a genuine desire to leave out the clause. Which of those alternatives is applicable I hope to discover.

In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave on the whole a very reassuring answer on this matter. I have read it a great many times. In effect he argued that we are dealing only with the need to set up a statutory body. I should like to know why that change was of such great importance. I should also like to know precisely from what disadvantages the Government were suffering by the lack of a statutory body, especially when I read that answer beside the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who on 21st June said in this House that, when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change." [Official Report, 21/6/88; col. 617.] In the light of those words I believe the House is entitled to ask why it was quite so necessary to change to a new system of university funding.

In his reply the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor drew a great deal of attention to the large sums of public money disbursed annually to universities. Very shortly afterwards I read a letter in The Times from Sir Philip Goodhart who, I am happy to say, is not his brother's keeper. He suggested that certain appointments which cannot now be afforded could be afforded if there were a new system of funding. It seemed to me suspiciously like the belief that one has come across before: that a reorganisation is financially capable of making two and two make five.

I think there is a regular pattern in the administration of this Government. Many times I have looked at what is happening to the health service for guidance as to what we can expect next for the universities. We see first the belief that there is waste. Then, when there is a cry to cut the amount of money available, we see confusion and a declining service. Then comes the proposal for reorganisation and with that the belief that reorganisation is capable of making things cost less than they do. That is the belief that I should be glad to be assured is not the basis for setting up the Universities Funding Council. I should be glad to be told that this is not an attempt to reduce unit costs, and indeed that there is a recognition that unit costs cannot be cut any further.

I have been looking at the statement made to the AUT council in May 1986 by Mr. George Walden. If I am to agree to withdraw my Motion to leave out this clause, I should like to know that that statement remains government policy. Mr. Walden said: The Government is listening very carefully indeed to the growing chorus of voices that is telling us that enough is enough, and that the restrictions on public funding and pay that the universities have experienced in recent years cannot continue without damage—damage not only to the universities directly, but also to their capacity to produce the graduates and the research that the country needs and to continue to contribute to research and scholarship nationally and internationally in the humanities as well as in science and technology.

If that remains government policy and if the setting up of the Universities Funding Council is not intended to supersede it, I shall agree to withdraw this amendment which I now beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the essential reason for Clause 123—the setting up of the Universities Funding Council—is to put the funding of universities on a satisfactory basis. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, in the Second Reading debate on this Bill said, at col. 1282 of Hansard on 8th April, that the provisions as they now stand constitute, a much needed reform of the very unsatisfactory arrangements under which both we"— that is, the vice-chancellors— and the Government increasingly suffer at present. The situation up until this time has been that very substantial government money—taxpayers' money —has been handed out to universities under arrangements which have no statutory basis. It is highly important for the reasons that we have been discussing in the earlier amendments that these arrangements should be statutory and should be subject to parliamentary approval. They are now being submitted for parliamentary approval.

Arrangements which are carried out under statutory powers are affected—I use a neutral word—by the existence of these statutory powers and they must be used in accordance with them. That seems an eminently better situation than a position in which the Secretary of State exercises theoretically unlimited powers to dispose of very large sums of public money—the Public Accounts Committee of another place certainly deals with all matters of handing out public money—without approval by Parliament as a whole, including this House, of the arrangements under which it is disbursed.

It is in order to effect that improvement that Clause 123 has been put in. I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment on that assurance. The existence and preparation of Clause 123, and its passing into law, has no effect of itself on the sum available. The Bill now contains provisions making it clear that it is the Universities Funding Council that will be responsible for the distribution of the money between the various universities, subject to the very longstop provisions to which I referred earlier.

Earl Russell

My Lords, before I take any decision, perhaps 1 may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he will reassure me, first, that it is not the objective of the Universities Funding Council further to reduce unit costs; and, secondly, whether he will tell me whether Mr. Walden's statement which I quoted still represents government policy. Within the meaning of Standing Orders it is a question asked for the purposes of elucidation.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I certainly do not think that there is anything in the proposal in Clause 123 which has the effect of changing any government policy. Government policy is determined from time to time in the light of circumstances. Clause 123 is proposed as part of a structure which we feel to be much more satisfactory as a permanent structure for the future.

I do not think that it would be right for me to give any commitment on government policy as it applies to the future. These funding decisions have to be taken from time to time, but Clause 123 as a structure certainly does not make any change.

Earl Russell

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor able to answer the question about Mr. Walden's statement?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I have sought to do so.

Lord Swann

My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a question? Is not the need for Clause 123 connected with the recent scandal of the University College of Cardiff where the principal refused to accept the advice of the UGC and therefore made his institution bankrupt?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, there is no question but that the existence of a structure such as Clause 123 would be of extreme value if a situation of that kind were to recur. But I should not like it to be thought that the sole motivation behind the production of Clause 123 was to assist the noble Baroness to deal with the difficulties that were faced in some parts of the Principality.

Earl Russell

My Lords, that was a very limited and guarded reassurance; but it is all I can expect to get. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 124 [Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council]:

[Amendments Nos. 398 and 399 not moved.]

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 400: Page 121, line 15, after ("education") insert ("of whom one shall have experience of, and have shown capacity in, higher education in a non-designated PCFC institution").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lockwood, who regretfully cannot be with us this evening. It concerns an important matter and it enables us to elucidate one or two sentences in Clause 124. I ask my elucidation question first. In subsection (3) between paragraphs (a) and (b) the word "and" appears. It occurred to me to ask whether that means that the people who are appointed have to meet both criteria, which the use of the word "and" would normally mean: that they should have experience etc. and he currently engaged in higher education. Intuitively I feel that the Government cannot mean that both criteria should hold and in logic it should read "or" rather than "and". I ask that question for elucidation.

I shall now emphasise the point of the amendment. I take it that a person with, experience of, and to have shown capacity in", higher education in a non-designated PCFC institution is certainly eligible under these criteria. The point of the amendment is not merely to press the eligibility matter, but to single out an appointment of this kind precisely because of a desire to emphasise the need for the experience in the two types of institution—to have each, as it were, feeding the other. That is the purpose of the amendment and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, on the first question that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked, just reading the clause it seems to me that paragraphs (a) and (b) have to be satisfied in respect of the persons who are to be selected under the first branch. If that is not the intention, I shall certainly see whether we cannot do something about it. That is the way the clause appears to me.

As the noble Lord has explained, the amendment proposes that one of the academic members of the funding council should have experience in the local authority colleges. The council will be a small body and we are anxious to secure the strongest individuals to serve on it. To maintain this flexibility, we have deliberately avoided including in the Bill any representative places, and for this reason I do not feel able to accept the amendment.

But in any case, the amendment is not necessary to secure that these colleges have a voice. The Government have made it clear that the council will be required to establish a joint consultative committee with the local authority associations to consider issues of common interest, including provision in the local authority colleges. That will give the colleges a direct channel to the council.

The Government also want to appoint to the council someone from the local authorities who can play a leading part in co-ordination between the local education authority and funding council sectors. The intention is certainly that the persons for whom the noble Lord is concerned in the amendment will have a voice in these matters. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. On the elucidation point, I should be obliged if he would pursue the matter because I cannot believe that, for example, a retired person with experience under paragraph (a) would be disqualified under (b); so I really believe that the word "or" is what the Government have in mind. However, I fully accept what the noble and learned Lord has said.

I prefer my substantive amendment but the noble and learned Lord has made a number of reassuring comments which enable me not to proceed. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11 p.m.

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 401: Page 121, line 15, after ("education") insert ("of whom at least one shall he nominated by organisations representing the employees at the institution").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, much as I think the amendment is of enormous importance the noble and learned Lord has already said, in arguing the previous amendment, why he will not accept it. I am not a complete idiot in the sense that I can generalise from one argument to another.

It is particularly regrettable that the Government have not seen fit to guarantee a place for the employees of the institution, albeit within the small body that we favour. I believe that in terms of management and morale it is an error. Perhaps I ought to proceed with the amendment in order to give the noble and learned Lord an opportunity to repeat his argument. However, I do not do so with any hope of success. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, with his usual acumen the noble Lord has forecast what I had in mind to say. I should be wasting the time of the House if I tried to say in different words what I have said already in relation to other amendments. It is difficult to see why a particular group should be singled out. The idea is not so much to have particular representatives as a group which will work together. The question is to obtain the best people available with the relevant experience. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that is too brief an answer to this important question.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the answer. It is not too brief because it fits with the logic of the Government's position, even though it clashes with the logic of my position. I believe that it is a serious error not to take the point that when we are coming to the governance of an institution of this kind there is a special role for the employees. However, I have made my point and the noble and learned Lord has made his. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 402: Page 121, line 15, after ("education") insert ("of whom two shall be appointed on a nomination of the local authority Associations").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I accept the full logic of what the noble and learned Lord has said. In order to save time I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 402 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 403 not moved.]

The Lord Chancellormoved Amendments Nos. 403A and 403B:

Page 121, line 24, at end insert ("; and (b) making payments in accordance with section (Payments by Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in respect of certain expenses in connection with person employed in the provision of higher or further education) of this Act.").

Page 121, line 25, leave out ("Those activities") and insert ("The activities eligible for funding under this section").

The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments have been spoken to with Amendment No. 383A and I ask your Lordships' agreement to move them en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 403C and 403D not moved.]

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 404:

Page 122, line 6, at end insert— ("(7A) In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section the Council shall have regard (so far as they think it appropriate to do so in the light of any other relevant considerations) to the desirability of maintaining what appears to them to be for the time being an appropriate balance in their support of such activities as between institutions concerned in those activities which are of a denominational character and other institutions so concerned.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment responds to concern from the Churches and voluntary colleges that the Churches' stake in higher education should be recognised in legislation and afforded some measure of protection. The Churches have always pressed for, and governments have resisted, a commitment to funding the Churches' contribution to higher education on the basis of a historic share.

The Government wish to reassure the Churches that proper account will be taken of their interests under the polytechnic councils. It was originally thought that that could be achieved without the need for legislation. Ministers have already undertaken to see that the councils have a voluntary colleges consultation committee and promise that there will be a representative of the voluntary college interests on the councils. Those measures, however, have not proved sufficient to reassure the Churches and it has become clear that it is necessary for the Government to table an amendment.

I hope that the Government amendment has achieved what it set out to do and I beg to move.

Lord Swann moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 404, Amendment No. 404A: Line 4, leave out ("(so far as they think it appropriate to do so in the light of any other relevant considerations)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the three amendments which are related to the government amendment is to try to put right a modest case of injustice, as I see it, which can be explained quite briefly. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already referred to the background.

When the Government decided to abolish the NAB, the National Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education, and replace it by the PCFC, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, they necessarily also had to abolish the Voluntary Sector Consultative Council, a body originally established by the Secretary of State at the instigation of the Church colleges.

At an earlier stage my noble kinsman the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London wrote to the Prime Minister about the Church colleges and received a reply which she made public. That said, among other things: The Government attaches great value to the work of the voluntary colleges in teacher training. We have stated our firm commitment to the continuation of this work".

At a later stage the Secretary of State said in another place: I wish to reaffirm the Government's support for the Churches' continuing role in higher education through the voluntary colleges. I intend to ensure the PCFC establishes a committee to advise it on issues of direct concern to the voluntary colleges". Naturally, the Churches welcomed that statement but were dismayed to find that there was no mention of any such matter in the Bill. When they approached the DES they were told that the department was framing its own amendment to meet the point. Your Lordships now have that amendment before you as Amendment No. 404.

As your Lordships will see, its phrasing is hedged about with qualifications and obfuscations and bears very little relation to the forthright statements from the Prime Minister and Secretary of State. Needless to say, the voluntary colleges feel decidedly let down. Having learned the whole story, I believe that they are right to hold that view.

The amendments to the amendment go some little way to dispelling their dismay. They remove the depressingly negative elements of the Government's wording while leaving the sense intact. I can see no possible reason for the Government not accepting them without further ado and thereby in a small way compensate the colleges for the loss of the BSCC and direct representation on the NAB. I beg to move.

Lord Thurlow

My Lords, as I see it, the amendments are in no sense adversarial but rather protective with the object of tidying up the language of the Government's amendment, nor do they seek to introduce inflexibility in terms of that amendment. They explicitly state that the council should have regard to the duty of "maintaining". They impose no duty as such.

However, the amendments try to express the Government's intention in plain English. I believe that your Lordships will share my view that the phraseology of the Government's amendment lacks some of the clarity which Parliament has the right to expect.

Indeed, the amendments cut out phrases that so qualify the council's duty as to render it virtually the exercise of an arbitrary whim, which I am sure is not the intention of the Government, but in terms of the Bill will provide opportunities for future governments. Therefore, I hope that the Government may feel able to accept these amendments which are put forward, as I say, in a positive spirit.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I support this amendment. One cannot do other than describe Amendment No. 404 as a piece of verbose waffle. It does nothing to convey any sense. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, take out totally unnecessary words without changing the meaning. Therefore, I strongly support the amendments to the amendment.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the idea that the Government amendment is verbose waffle does not exactly fill me with pleasure. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that is not an accurate description of the amendment. The phrase in brackets in Amendment No. 404, so far as they think it appropriate to do so in the light of any other relevant considerations points to the need to take account not only of matters about the balance but also other matters that might be relevant to that balance. It is important in the light of practical experience to do that. It would unduly fetter the discretion not to give the right to consider other relevant matters apart from the balance itself in deciding what the balance should be.

I do not see any difficulty in that. It is not an unusual form of expression when one is considering a discretion that has to be exercised in regard to a particular balance or competition when one also wants to take account of matters other than the matters raised purely by the competition itself.

In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment to our amendment, which has been put forward in the light of representations and with some degree of consideration.

Lord Swann

My Lords, verbose waffle or depressing, as I called it, does not matter. I am sad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not feel able to accept the amendment, but I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment to Amendment No. 404, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 404B and 404C not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 404 agreed to.

Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 404D:

Page 122, line 6, at end insert.— ("(7A) In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section the Council shall have regard to the desirability of not discouraging any institution within the PCFC funding sector in respect of which payments are made under subsection (7) above from maintaining or developing its funding from other sources.").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 405:

Page 122, line 26, at end insert— ("(9A) for the purposes of subsection (7A) above an institution is an institution of a denominational character if it appears to the Council that either—

1. (a) a majority of the members of the governing body of the institution are persons appointed to represent the interests of a particular religious denomination; or
2. (b)all or most of the property held for the purposes of the institution is held upon trusts which provide that, in the event of the discontinuance of the institution, the property concerned shall be held for, or sold and the proceeds of sale applied for, the benefit of a particular religious denomination.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is part of the group of amendments I introduced by Amendment No. 404. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 406 not moved.]

The Lord Chancellormoved Amendment No. 406A: After Clause 124, insert the following new clause:

("Payments by Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in respect of certain expenses in connection with persons employed in the provision of higher or further education.

.—(1) The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council shall have power to make payments, subject to such terms and conditions as the Council think fit, to—

1. (a)any local education authority; and
2. (b)the governing body of any institution designated under section 121 of this Act;

in respect of relevant expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that authority or body of any class or description prescribed for the purposes of this section.

(2) In subsection (1) above "relevant expenditure" means—

1. (a)in relation to a local education authority, expenditure in making payments to or in respect of persons employed or formerly employed at an institution which provides or (in the case of an institution which has ceased to exist since the employment in question came to an end) formerly provided higher education or further education (or both); and
2. (b)in relation to the governing body of any institution so designated, expenditure in making payments to or in respect of persons employed or formerly employed at the institution.

The reference in subsection (2)(a) above to higher education or further education (or both) shall be read, in the case of an institution which ceased to exist before the date on which section 112 of this Act comes into force, as a reference to further education within the meaning of section 41 of the 1944 Act as that section had effect immediately before that date.

(3) Each of the following, that is to say—

1. (a)a local education authority; and
2. (b)the governing body of any institution so designated; shall give the Council such information as the Council may require for the purposes of the exercise of their power under subsection (1) above.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 383A. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 125 [The Funding Councils: supplementary provisions]:

11.15 p.m.

[Amendment No. 407 not moved].

Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 408:

Page 123, line 22, at end insert— ("( ) The Secretary of State shall give directions, not later than 1 January 1990, requiring the Funding Councils to support all courses leading to State Registration as a physiotherapist (under the Professions Supplementary to Medicines Act 1960).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington, who should in reality have done so, because she has a close association with physiotherapists. who are referred to in this amendment. She has been in close touch with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy about the amendment. Regrettably she cannot be here, but I am delighted to move it on her behalf. Noble Lords may have noticed that this amendment was tabled at Committee but it was not pursued owing to the constraints of time. We are under no such constraints tonight, as there is plenty of time. Therefore, I have no hesitation in pursuing the matter as briefly as I possibly can.

It is the contention of those who attach their names to this amendment that physiotherapy is increasingly to be viewed as a graduate profession and should be treated as such by the new funding councils and not funded by the National Health Service as at present. I am sure that I do not need to tell noble Lords about the dramatic changes that have taken place in recent years in the profession of physiotherapy. It is no longer simply a matter of massage and heat treatment and a few graduated exercises. Physiotherapy is now a highly advanced technological profession using techniques which are far too complicated to explain at this time of night. I know that many noble Lords have benefited from the services of the profession and I am sure that they will recognise that these are qualities that deserve true professional status.

It seems odd that physiotherapy training should be wholly funded by the National Health Service, which at present bears virtually the whole cost of physiotherapy education. Even courses run by institutions of higher education are charged to the National Health Service on a repayment basis. As the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy points out, not all pysiotherapists practise with the National Health Service. The society's estimate is that between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of physiotherapy activity is outside the National Health Service.

It seems that we should recognise that and change the present situation. Why should this profession be treated differently from the way in which it is treated now? We should recognise that this profession involves about 800 new recruits every year, that the entrance requirements for training are A-levels and that they are not greatly different from those required for university entrance. The courses run for three years with a qualification which is not dissimilar to a degree. Often that qualification enables a student to move to postgraduate studies at university.

Furthermore, as many noble Lords will know, in Scotland and Manchester three-year degree courses are available. As I said, those are paid for indirectly by the National Health Service. One of the disadvantages of that system is the present situation within the National Health Service. There is competition for resources and, necessarily, resources are focused on patient care. I believe there is a tendency for matters such as this to suffer from that kind of battle for scarce funds. Naturally, people believe that resources should be directed towards patient care and therefore they are directed away from physiotherapy education. I believe that that could be harmful.

On a practical note, it is worth saying that there is an increasing involvement of physiotherapists in community care which is not based in hospitals at all, and there is an awareness of how to deal with worsening social problems and not just with the treatment of acute injuries. The transfer of physiotherapy from health to education and the change to looking at it as an educational study would not have any damaging effect upon the National Health Service. It is the view of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and of many in higher education that the future of physiotherapy should be in a multidisciplinary institution. It should be integrated into higher education and the system of funding should reflect that. The effect of the amendment would be that physiotherapy would be taught as a higher education course in higher education establishments. It would be financed just as any other course is financed. Normal academic processes would be employed to determine the award at the end of the course. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, seven professions come within the Professions Suplementary to Medicines Act 1960, of which physiotherapy is one. There are 32 courses in the United Kingdom leading to state registration as a physiotherapist. Of these, 21 are run within the National Health Service, one is provided by an independent establishment and 10 are provided by the education service.

The amendment would place on the funding councils responsibility for funding those courses which are presently within National Health Service institutions. The amendment is in line with a proposal by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, to which the noble Lord referred, that the NHS should relinquish responsibility for these courses and that this provision should be transferred to establishments of further and higher education. The amendment may presuppose that such a transfer has been agreed, or, at all events, seek to promote agreement to it, and will have taken effect by January 1990. In fact, the proposal is still under consideration and the Government are not ready to announce their decision.

Further, the amendment would place on the funding councils responsibility for funding at least one course provided in the local education authority sector. This would run counter to the policy of the Government, who have recently stated their intention that courses of a professional nature at local education authority institutions should be funded by the LEAs concerned and not by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

It would normally be inappropriate to distinguish a single profession in primary legislation in the way that this amendment does when other professions are dealt with in the schedule to which I referred. For this and the two further reasons I have given, the Government are unable to support the amendment. As the fundamental matter is still under consideration I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for informing me and the House that this matter is still under consideration and also that the Government have not yet made up their mind. I should not like to do anything at all to force the Government to make up their mind here and now, perhaps in the wrong way. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 409: After Clause 125, insert the following new clause:

("Inspection of accounts.

. The accounts of—

1. (a)any university;
2. (b) any higher education corporation; or
3. (c)any institution designated under section 121 of this Act as an institution eligible to receive support from funds administered by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council;

shall be open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have statutory right of access to the accounts of universities and higher education institutions in the PCFC funding sector. He already has access to university accounts under a non-statutory agreement reached in 1967. Like the overall funding arrangements for the universities, this is now placed on a proper footing. He needs a parallel right in relation to institutions on the PCFC funding sector in view of the direct flow to them of money voted by Parliament. I beg to move.

Lord Adrian moved, as a manuscript amendment to Amendment No. 409, Amendment No. 409ZA: In paragraph (a), leave out ("university") and insert ("any institution receiving funding from the Universities Funding Council").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move this manuscript amendment I must apologise to the House. I move this manuscript amendment because I learnt only a day or two ago that the Third Reading of the Bill is to be on Tuesday and unfortunately I shall be unable to be here on that day. I therefore took the rather bold course of moving this manuscript amendment.

In the amendment I seek to express the intention that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have access to the accounts of institutions which receive money from the UFC. Perhaps I should have said that the amendment replaces the word "university" in paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 409 with the phrase, institution receiving funding from the Universities Funding Council".

The problem arises because paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 409 goes well beyond that. "Any university"—which is the phrase that is used—includes the University of Buckingham and the Open University, neither of which, I believe, receives funding from the Universities Funding Council or will do so when that funding is set up. Further, by the operation of Clause 208(1) the Bill includes the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, which receive no funding from the UGC at present—either directly or indirectly—and presumably, therefore, will receive none in the future from the Universities Funding Council. They are separately chartered and financially autonomous bodies within the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

At this point, noble Lords will realise that I must declare an interest as a Master of a Cambridge college. That means that I am aware of how the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge are financed. A college at Cambridge does not receive money from the university, unlike university colleges and colleges in the federal University of London. However, it receives fees from local authorities—paid on behalf of individual students—and room rents and also charges students for meals out of their maintenance grants. A college also has private endowments.

A college receives no money directly from the UGC or through the university, or directly from the DES. Under the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Acts dating from 1923, the college accounts are published but the books and the accounts—other than those published—are not at the moment inspected by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Our college affairs are not, therefore, subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee. Amendment No. 409 as it stands would bring the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as those of Buckingham and the Open University, within the view of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.

I am aware that it is the Government's intention to review the arrangements for funding colleges at Oxford and Cambridge and that after appropriate and full consultation, it may indeed be that the Universities Funding Council will be involved in their funding. If the Universities Funding Council were to become involved in funding colleges, the amendment tabled in my name, Amendment No. 409ZA, would automatically mean that the Comptroller and Auditor General would gain access to the accounts of a college—and, of course, appropriate scrutiny would then operate.

However, until such a review has taken place, I have heard no arguments for extending the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General into the affairs of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. I believe that it would be arbitrary and potentially oppressive to make so sweeping a change in the last stages of the Bill, without consultation and without an opportunity for this House to discuss the arguments for or against it.

Therefore, if it is not the Government's intention that the Comptroller and Auditor General should inspect college accounts, I plead with them to accept the spirit of the amendment tabled in my name and to give some indication that they will come back on Third Reading with an amendment of their own. I am aware that the precise form of the amendment may not be faultless. In particular it may be that it should have said, receiving funding directly, or indirectly, from the Universities Funding Council", to deal with the case of the federal University of London. I hope that that point can be dealt with by the Government if they bring the amendment back.

I am grateful to the Minister, with whom I have been in correspondence on this issue, as I believe that she intends to make a statement for the record that it is not the Government's intention that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall inspect the accounts of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. That is a comfort. To have a clause which says what the Government mean would be much more of a comfort, because we all too often hear the argument that we should not mind giving sweeping powers to the Government as they will not use them. I beg to move.

11.30 p.m.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that earlier this year I spent the best part of a month concerning the consideration of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill in which Trinity College, Cambridge, was acting as a major entrepreneur for that astonishing enterprise. It was acting as the main landlord and compensating for the use of land industrially by setting up nature reserves.

None of that has anything to do with the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is private enterprise by Trinity College. I enter a strong plea that the view of my noble friend Lord Adrian should receive a sympathetic hearing.

Lord Goodman

My Lords, I support the manuscript amendment, which I have not had the opportunity to see. It would be helpful if the Government could make a statement that it is not their intention that individual Oxford and Cambridge colleges should be subjected to this provision. The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has had some indication to that effect, and if we could have a similar indication it would be useful.

The provision is thoroughly undesirable for a number of reasons. I do not believe that it is understood that the Comptroller and Auditor General operates in a political sense. If he has to consider some sanction he has to bring it before the Public Accounts Committee which is a body the majority of whose members are furnished by the Government and the minority by the Opposition. It is therefore in a sense a political audit. For that reason also, I believe that the provision is thoroughly objectionable. It would be helpful if some statement could be made as to the Government's intention in relation to individual colleges. As the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said, at this hour protracted discussion is a matter of difficulty. It is a sadness that because of the ludicrous timetable under which the Bill has been operating a provision of this significance and importance cannot be fully discussed. Having made that point, I should welcome some clarification from the Government as to their intentions.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, perhaps I may say a word. The position of the University of Buckingham was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. It receives no money from central government, and indeed is pledged to central government never to ask for money. It seems to me that the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General is to follow the expenditure of money from public funds. That point would be met by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian.

There are necessary anomalies. The Open University, which was mentioned, is not funded by the council but is of course funded directly by the Department of Education and Science. The same is true of that portion of the work of the Cranfield Institute of Technology which is also directly funded. However, not being styled a university, it appears somehow to escape. I think that as between Buckingham and Cranfield there seems to be a rather odd result from this phraseology which would be met by the manuscript amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian.

Lord McCarthy

My Lords, I should like to take advantage of academic freedom, which is what most of today's debate has been about. As a fellow of an Oxford college, I disagree with almost everything that I have heard so far. I must accept what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says. I am not sure that there is any sense in which the University of Buckingham receives public funds. Probably it does not. But it is the purest fallacy to suggest that the colleges of Oxford University, for example, do not receive public funds. The whole CUF lectureship scheme is a way in which the Government assist colleges.

I am very worried about the desire of the old universities to exclude themselves from a process which it appears is to be applied to all other universities. What are they afraid of? Why should they be so concerned at the idea that the Public Accounts Committee will investigate their financial affairs? Why should they come this late at night and want to make of themselves a special case? I find this very suspicious.

Lord Perry of Walton

My Lords, as the Open University has been mentioned, I should make it perfectly plain that, although it does not receive money from the University Grants Committee, it is subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General's scrutiny. Its accounts are so subject, and they are answerable to the Public Accounts Committee.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I have got into the habit of supporting amendments. 1 wish, if 1 may, to achieve a hat trick by supporting all three amendments in this group: the Government Amendment No. 409, Amendment No. 409ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and Amendment No. 409A, which I understand is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn.

The universities have no objection to the audit of their accounts. In fact, there is nothing they would like better than to have their financial position really and truly understood. There is one question to which I think a number of us would like an answer if possible. It is whether these powers apply to private money not derived from public funds. Our understanding, which has been strengthened by some things which have happened this evening, is that the powers do not apply to private money. But, since there is a small element of ambiguity on the point, I think it is in order to ask for a further assurance.

I support Amendment No. 409ZA. I accept that there is no intention at present to interfere with the internal affairs of Oxford and Cambridge colleges. I shall not join issue with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, although I could do so in detail, and doubtless will in the bar later in the night. It is possible that at some future date we might have a government possessed of the ideals once described by Mr. Robert Jackson in his younger days as "Wedgwood Bennthamism". In those circumstances, I think that having the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, on the statute book would be of very considerable use.

Finally, if I am in order in addressing Amendment No. 409A, which is grouped with this one, although it has not yet been moved, this is to direct, in words which I understand are derived from Mr. Crosland, the Secretary of State, that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall not interfere with academic objectives. This raises an issue which is general enough and has been underlying enough of our debates to be worth a minute, even at this time of night.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow the amendment to be moved before he addresses himself to it. I know that his intentions are good, but I shall value his support afterwards.

Lord Annan

My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice to those who think it would not be entirely right for the Comptroller and Auditor General to look into the affairs of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges. It is for this reason. The Comptroller and Auditor General—I am sure I can speak on this with some years of experience—has been entirely just, sensible and judicious in his examination of the affairs of universities. There has never, in my memory, been a complaint that he has been interfering with academic freedom or doing anything more than seeing that public funds have been and are correctly used. But the criterion is surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said, whether an institution receives public funds. If it does, it should be examined, and here is the statutory justification for that.

However, the Oxford and Cambridge colleges do not receive funds. Here the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is not right. In Oxford it is perfectly true that fellows of colleges receive an additional payment for certain services which they render to the university, but the college does not receive that money.

The same thing applies in Cambridge, where the system is entirely different and the university employs university lecturers, professors and readers. They may be fellows of colleges, but the college does not receive their emoluments. The emoluments which fellows of colleges receive are those connected with teaching, which the college arranges and not the university. It is for those reasons that I very much hope we shall obtain the assurances which we have been promised.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, as regards the manuscript amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, the Government accept that amendment in principle. That is to say, the idea is that Amendment No. 409 should apply only to institutions which receive money from the Universities Funding Council. That would of course equally exclude the University of Buckingham.

The wording may not be precisely right because it would be wise to extend the same kind of exclusion to the PCFC institutions too. If the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his manuscript amendment—No. 409ZA—I undertake to bring forward on Third Reading an amendment that we judge to be right, having the effect that he wishes to cover and having a similar effect as regards the PCFC sector.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether this provision applied to private money. The amendment applies to institutions. We have said that we are not really concerned in any way to reduce funding on account of private money, but we are concerned that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall have access to the accounts of institutions which receive funding from the Universities Funding Council. The institutions may also receive private money, but that does not make it inappropriate for the Comptroller and Auditor General to see their accounts. He would not be concerned so much with the application of the private money, but rather with what was done with the public money.

The point does not really arise in that form on this amendment, therefore. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, may feel able to withdraw his manuscript amendment.

Lord Adrian

My Lords, before I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I wish to respond to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and to say that, as regards the University of Cambridge, for which I think I may speak, although not so directly as a year ago, the university has no hesitation in accepting the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall have access to its accounts. The point is very specifically directed towards the colleges. There seemed to be an implication in what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that it was the universities which were objecting. That is not the case at all.

However, having said that, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I welcome his acceptance of the spirit of my amendment. I am glad to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.45 p.m.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 409, Amendment No. 409A:

At end insert— ("(2) Where an institution or body falls by reason of this section within the scope of Part II of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy, efficiency and effectiveness examinations), the words "policy objectives", of which the merits may not be questioned under sections 6(2) and 7(2) of that Act, include academic objectives and decisions reached on academic grounds.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for my intervention earlier, but I wanted to keep this amendment separate from the former problem. It is not an amendment which in any way questions the propriety of the Comptroller and Auditor General examining the accounts of bodies in higher education in receipt, I should have thought, directly or indirectly, of public funds. On the contrary, it reasserts that view by referring to a matter which comes in, as I understand it, by a side wind, as a result of government Amendment No. 409. That side wind is Part II of the National Audit Act 1983. Under Sections 6 to 8 of that Act, the National Audit Office can carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the way that the body has used its resources in discharging its functions—the so-called value for money inquiries. Those sections also state that the National Audit Office is not entitled: to question the merits of the policy objectives of any … body in respect of which such an examination is carried out".

The purpose of my amendment is to clarify, in the context of the discussions which we have had on this Bill, the meaning of "policy objectives". It becomes important to do so when the Government have introduced a new clause which brings all the institutions within its purview within the scope of the National Audit Act.

The wording of the amendment is taken from a statement by the Secretary of State for Education on 26th July 1967 at col. 749 of the Official Report of the other place. The Secretary of State, Mr. Crosland, said: It is no part of the Comptroller and Auditor General's duty to question policy decisions or decisions reached on academic grounds. His function is to comment and advise on the propriety, regularity and efficiency with which moneys voted by Parliament are administered by those to whom they are entrusted".

The bi-partisan character of the policy which then became, as I understand it, that of successive Administrations was marked by the statements from the Opposition Benches. Sir Edward Boyle stated: We … wish to state categorically that the new arrangements"— that is, the arrangements for audit— must not infringe academic freedom". Mr. Pardoe, speaking for the Liberal Party, made a similar statement at col. 752 of the Official Report of the same date, as did several Back-Benchers, including Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, as he then was, who subscribed to the same formula as a member of the Public Accounts Committee.

It might be asked, if that is so, why we should bother to spell it out. There are two reasons. The first has been illustrated this evening by the worries and fears expressed about the new systems of contract funding. Contract funding could widen the area available for audits of efficiency and effectiveness in quite new ways. Indeed, in the consultative document on accounting issued by the Department of Education and Science in 1987 it was made clear that efficiency could be tested in new ways which might extend into what had previously been understood to be academic policy issues.

The second reason is the concrete case of the National Audit Office. I am not asking for any disavowal of anything which it has done. However, it is a fact that the documents which it produced which were available in 1987 and the audit which it seems to have embarked upon as regards some universities has given rise to considerable worry. The chancellor of Manchester University, Professor Griffith, writing in the admirable Cambridge Review for June, said that he believed that the new types of inquiries could be a direct challenge to the academic role of universities. He stated: enforcement of the directives from the DES and the University Funding Council will be more easily effected through accounting and auditing procedures than by any other method". One does not have to go that far to note the fear which is being expressed. I put it in this way. Unless it is clear that what is being brought by this new clause within the compass of Part II of the 1983 Act—unless it is clear that the objectives which must "not be questioned" in subsections (2) of Sections 6 and 7, that "policy objectives" will include academic decisions, academic policies, decisions reached on academic grounds, to use the words that were agreed to by Mr. Crosland and everybody else in 1967—then there is a worry that the elegant prose added to Clause 182 at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, might be outflanked by the calculators of the accountants. I do not believe that is an excessive fear. I hope that the Government will regard this new subsection as a way of expressing their offer to university circles, whether or not they think the fears are excessive, to go this far and say, "Yes, the bipartisan tradition of value for money inquiries will be maintained". I beg to move.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I should like to offer my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, for speaking prematurely to this amendment. It was a result of some misunderstood conversations in a very busy day. I should like also to apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the fact that I was in the middle of trying to clear up this muddle when he answered a question which I am grateful to him for answering. The answer was not altogether what I expected and I will talk with others before reflecting any further on it.

This amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, raises some issues of importance and some issues which I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been inviting us to address ever since the Second Reading. It raises the issue of the potential conflict between autonomy and accountability. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that surely it cannot seriously be urged that the Government, on the taxpayers' behalf, have no right to determine how those substantial sums are disbursed.

That is not at issue. The noble and learned Lord also said that there is an obvious tension between the public funding of higher education institutions and the need to preserve their essential autonomy. It is that obvious tension that 1 hope we may manage in due course to address in a slightly more constructive manner than between us we have managed to do so far.

First, I should say there is no question at all here about the right to audit public money. That is conceded. Where the question resides, I think, is in areas of academic objectives and about competence. There is an argument that academic judgment in some areas is to be treated like clinical judgment and therefore is only to a limited extent susceptible to useful outside scrutiny. That is why, under the past system to which we have been used, the task of scrutiny has to a large extent been delegated.

I think another, larger issue arises behind this. We have been told many times by the noble and learned Lord, among others, that we are to have a body which is to be concerned with the general principles of academic management. The words "general principles" raise questions about how far they are concerned with what I might describe as a planned economy of learning. This is the area in which I think a considerable number of academic misgivings are concentrated, for many of us think that within the area of academic judgment there is a great deal to be said for free enterprise. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, used to say when I was an undergraduate (I heard him say it many times): The gentleman in Whitehall does not always know best". One often gets the most constructive and creative ideas not from people who are concerned with making plans—I may say that every forecast based on manpower planning that I can remember in my lifetime has been wrong—but from people right at the beginning of their careers, postgraduates, young people just starting off and perhaps being told, as I can remember being told, "You seem to be working on a very boring subject". That illustrates the kind of dangers that 1 see in a planned economy of learning. In asserting that auditors are not competent to question academic objectives, I am also asserting that within the realm of learning there is a great deal to be said for free enterprise.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the phrase "policy objectives" comes from the National Audit Act 1983, and is intended to apply across a wide range of institutions subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The phrase is one of general application. I should have thought that it was at least as precise and capable of application as the phrase proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, as a replacement for the purposes of this type of institution; namely, academic objectives and decisions reached on academic grounds". I am not clear at present exactly what a decision reached on academic grounds is as distinct from a decision that is not reached on such grounds. I think that "academic objectives" may be within the field of "policy objectives", but I find the second phrase more difficult.

I commend to your Lordships the use of the general phrase that Parliament decided upon as a general phrase in the National Audit Act. It encompasses the idea that the Comptroller and Auditor General is not concerned with the policy of the matter; these matters have to be accounted for otherwise. What he has to do is to take these policy decisions as not to be questioned by him and see whether the money at which he is looking has been properly accounted for and spent, assuming that the decisions are correctly taken.

While I understand the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, has raised, I feel that we are on more solid and certain grounds if we continue to use the general phrase in the National Audit Act 1983, which automatically applies to the Comptroller and Auditor General's operations in this field if no amendment of the kind now proposed is passed.

As to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I entirely agree that free enterprise may work well in the universities. This group of amendments is concerned with making sure not only that free enterprise works well, but that public money given to such universities works well also and is properly accounted for. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, may feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at any rate for some of what he said. I shall not try to compete with him in terms of precision.

I appreciate that the words "policy objectives" would normally be enough. As to the new situation, it was one that all parties were careful to address before it arose: the party of the noble and learned Lord, my party and the Liberal Party; the three main parties at the time, although I am sure that had the others existed they too would have addressed it. They all said one must be very careful that there was no question of any trespass on academic freedom by way of national audit inquiries. If the noble and learned Lord would consider "academic objectives" as a proper phrase—I understood that he was advancing towards that notion—perhaps I may put to him very strongly that the Government should consider that as an inclusion in the phrase "policy objectives" before Third Reading. The reason is not merely that the matter which was considered and dealt with in 1967 on a bipartisan basis has been reopened by all the changes in this Bill, but by virtue of the fact that the National Audit Office—and I take it that the National Audit Office does not disagree—is advancing on to new territory. When the National Audit Office (to read from one of its papers) advances on to "a main issue of inquiry whether the universities have aims or objectives that include developing links with industry", and then follow some subheadings including "curriculum development for undergraduate teaching", then curriculum development for undergraduate teaching, to which a series of questions are addressed, is essentially, in my submission, an academic issue.

There may be particular questions that are correctly put within the auditing function; but this inquiry goes further than any has ever gone before. I cannot speak with their authority, but I believe that the Vice-Chancellors and Principals would not dissent wholly from that proposition. Certainly the Association of University Teachers would not.

So I say to the noble and learned Lord that there is a new situation and it is a graver threat in practice to relations between the Government and the university world than many of the issues that have been discussed tonight, because it will happen every year. Every time that there is an inquiry and an audit, this issue will fester away at the edges of what is and what is not proper for the National Audit Office to do, unless the Government deal with it in advance with the wisdom of a Mr. Crosland, Sir Edward Boyle, Mr. Pardoe and other predecessors.

I believe that this Government can be so wise. In begging leave to withdraw this amendment, I urge the noble and learned Lord to give it his personal attention and to consider it at third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment No. 409 agreed to.

12 midnight

Lord Perry of Waltonmoved Amendment No. 410: Insert the following new clause:

("Continuing Education Commission

.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that there is adequate provision throughout the nation of continuing education at the higher education level.

(2) The Secretary of State shall appoint a Continuing Education Commission consisting of not less than 13 and not more than 18 members plus a Chairman. Four members shall be nominated by the Universities Funding Council, four by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and two by the Open University, and one by the education departments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The Secretary of State may appoint up to five further members. The Chairman shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Chairman of the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

(3) The Continuing Education Commission shall be responsible for analysing the needs and demands for continuing education at the higher education level, for drawing up plans for satisfying these needs and demands, and for recommending to the Secretary of State and to the Funding Councils how best these plans could be implemented.

(4) The Secretary of State shall provide adequate staffing and funding to enable the Continuing Education Commission to fulfil its responsibilities.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to a similar amendment at Committee stage and I shall try to be very brief. Earlier today the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, spoke about the importance of éducation permanente and I do not think that I have heard a single voice raised in this Chamber to challenge it. At all levels of education other than higher education, continuing education is covered in Clause 112 of this Act. I only wish to talk about continuing education at the higher education level, of which there is in fact no mention whatever in the Act. There were one or two amendments which tried to introduce it but they were either not moved or withdrawn.

Some years ago I was invited by the University Grants Committee and the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education to chair a joint committee to keep under review the provision in this country of continuing education at the higher education level. The committee tried very hard to do that. Over those years much has happened and in some universities, colleges and polytechnics there has been a great advance in the provision of continuing education at the higher education level.

The Government have moved in that direction and are sympathetic to it in that they have provided help through the pick-up schemes to both the universities and polytechnics. But the findings over these years have shown that the provision is patchy. It is well done in some institutions and not in others. It depends upon where one lives and on one's occupation whether or not one can obtain access to this kind of continuing education.

It is true that neither the UGC nor the national advisory body, both of which have been extremely busy trying to cope with the problems of initial education, have had the energy, time or money to devote to continuing education.

I do not believe that the position will be any better with the funding councils. Their problems with initial education will be every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the problems have been in the past. I believe that the future of this country industrially depends on the provision of continuing education at the higher education level for all the vocations and skills that the country needs so badly. I believe this to be absolutely vital to the future of the nation.

It is probably true to say that such a measure is even more vital than the provision of more initial education. I do not believe that the amendment I have put forward is a controversial one. It asks only that there should be an advisory commission to advise the Secretary of State and the funding councils as to what should happen. It would replace and make statutory the committee that I have had the privilege of chairing. I believe that it ought to be a statutory committee because unless there is such a statutory committee it is unlikely that the funding councils will have the time and the energy to devote to this problem. That, as I have tried to say, is quite vital. The amendment could not possibly do any harm. It might do a lot of good. I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to add our strong support to this very positive suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Perry, about continuing education. Just as adult education has been neglected—and we spoke about that earlier this afternoon—so continuing education needs a boost. To have a positive statutory committee which was devoted to it would be an enormous help. We know how much the noble Lord, Lord Perry, has done for continuing education with the Open University. I think that it would be very helpful if the House tonight could give its support to this suggestion. I shall not take up the time of the House any longer, but I hope that we shall have strong support for this amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I should like to support the spirit of the amendment. Continuing education is of extreme importance, not least at the higher education level. I am quite sure that the noble Lord is right to highlight the need for strategic thinking about it.

I am not sure that to set up a body in this context with the remit suggested in the amendment is the best way at the higher level. In effect, continuing education at the higher level comprises everything that is not initial education. It is bound to be increasingly a major concern of every higher education institution. It is also bound to be a major concern of both funding councils. Would it not be better if the thinking and the recommendations to the funding councils were through mechanisms set up by the higher education institutions themselves, by special continuing education committees of the funding councils, or a joint committee of both funding councils?

Another possibility might be to have a continuing education body which would have an overview to include further education, now that the definition of further education seems to have been widened by the Government to include adult and continuing education at the lower level. However, I would query the addition of an extra body to the funding councils and the combined thinking of the institutions. That is my only concern. Nevertheless, I am sure that it is absolutely right to highlight this particular need at the higher level in this context.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, when we discussed the matter in Committee, I sought to pay tribute to the noble Lord's strong commitment to continuing education as well as to his great services to it over many years. The Government share this commitment. Continuing education needs to be fostered for its essential role in promoting economic prosperity as well as for its contribution to personal development and social progress. The Government endorsed the importance of adult continuing education in the White Paper Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge,and have taken steps to promote in-career vocational education through the PICKUP programme, to which the noble Lord referred, and in other ways.

The Government do not, however, believe—and this echoes the doubt raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour—that it is right either to give the Secretary of State a new duty in respect of continuing education or to establish a new body, such as is proposed in the amendment, for that purpose.

It would be a work of supererogation for the Secretary of State to take on himself an additional duty in respect of continuing education. The 1944 Act, which remains in force, already gives the holder of the office of Secretary of State the duty to promote the education of our people. As is clear from what has been said earlier today, that duty encompasses higher education as much as any other sector. It would be illogical to separate out continuing education, as subsection (1) of the new clause does. We all attach importance to post-graduate studies, medical education, applied research and many other subdivisions of the higher education enterprise. It would be unsuitable for the Secretary of State to have a whole list of specific duties. It would be most unlikely that anyone at the one moment would think of all the appropriate duties. What we have in the 1944 Act, and it has stood the test of time, is the general obligation on the Secretary of State in respect of education as a whole.

I believe that your Lordships will readily see that a provision such as that in subsection (1) would place on the Secretary of State a serious constraint in the exercise of one of his most difficult functions: the determination of priorities in the allocation of public funds. I believe that to make a very definite prescription of this kind in respect of one only of the branches of higher education or particular aspects of higher education, however worthy, would be wrong. Continuing education is and should be an integral part of higher education.

The matter could be looked at in some more detail. The provisions in respect of continuing education follow a wide range and, as I have said, the Government are certainly committed to these. Continuing education also has local connections to some extent; subsection (3) of the proposed new clause recognises that. The Government believe that in its very nature the interests of continuing education are best served by its present diversity and the capacity of institutions, national and local, individually or in combination, to respond to the variety of circumstances that we presently meet without central directive.

In the nature of things, a continuing education commission would either have to centralise—which, as I have argued, would be undesirable—or it would in practice have nothing very definite to do. While sharing strongly the commitment of the noble Lord to the principle of continuing education, the Government do not feel able to support the amendment; but in the light of the commitment which I have expressed, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Perry of Walton

My Lords, I am glad to know that the Government share my commitment. It is perfectly true that it ought to be the case that continuing education should share a place equal to that of initial education. The hard facts are that, throughout all the previous years, it has not shared that kind of place. It has been like adult education was said to be earlier today, the poor relation. We as a nation cannot afford to leave it as a poor relation. I do not believe that it ought to be left as a single part of the duties. I believe that it ought to be a separate issue. I believe passionately in this, and I feel I ought to test the temper of the House.

12.15 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 410) shall be agreed to.

Their Lordships divided Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 59.

DIVISION NO. 6
CONTENTS
Annan, L.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Blackstone, B.	Nicol, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Parry, L.
	Perry of Walton, L. [Teller.]
Carter L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Peston, L.
Combermere, V.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
David, B.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Raglan, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
	Rochester, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Russell, E.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Seear, B.
Flowers, L.	Serota, B.
Gallacher, L.	Sherfield, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Stewart of Fulham, L.
	Thurlow, L.
Hart of South Lanark, B.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	White, B.
Kirkwood, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
McCarthy, L.	Young of Dartington, L.
McNair, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Arran, E.	Hood, V.
Beaverbrook, L.	Hooper, B.
Beloff, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Belstead, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Blatch, B.	Kimball, L.
Blyth, L.	Limerick, E.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Long, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Middleton, L.
Butterworth, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.
	Munster, E.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Pender, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Renton, L.
Coleraine, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Sandford, L.
Cowley, E.	Skelmersdale, L.
Cox, B.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Strange, B.
Crathorne, L.	Swinton, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Teviot, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Dundee, E.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Trafford, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Ferrers, E.	Trumpington, B.
Greenway, L.	Ullswater, V.
Halsbury, E.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Harvington, L.	Young, B.
Henley, L.	Young of Graffham, L.
Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

12.22 a.m.

[Amendments Nos. 411 and 412 not moved.]

Clause 127 [Control of disposals of land]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 412A to 412D:

Page 124, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (9) below,").

Page 124, line 43, leave out ("since") and insert ("after").

Page 125, line 14, leave out subsection (7) and insert— ("(7) A disposal shall not be invalid or, in the case of a disposal which consists of a contract, void by reason only that it has been made or entered into in contravention of this section; and (subject to the provisions of section 180 of this Act) a person acquiring land, or entering into a contract to acquire land, from a local education authority shall not be concerned to enquire whether any consent required by this section has been given or complied with.").

Page 125, line 21, at end insert— ("(9) This section does not apply to a disposal falling within subsection (8)(a) above if it is made in pursuance of a contract entered into, or an option granted, on or before 22nd July 1987.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 413 and 424B to 424F.

These, like a number of other amendments we have tabled on Report, are technical or drafting amendments to tidy up the provisions for wrongful disposal of assets which are to transfer from the local authorities under the Bill. These particular provisions apply to the polytechnics and colleges. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 128 [Construction of references to land held for the purposes of an institution]:

The Earl of Arran, moved Amendment No. 413: Page 125, line 23, at end insert ("of this Act").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 413A: Page 125, line 25, leave out ("122(2)") and insert ("122(2A)(a)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 129 [Schemes for financing locally funded further and higher education]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 413B: Page 127, line 5, leave out ("Chapter") and insert ("Part of this Act").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 418ZC, 418ZD and 418E. These government amendments make a minor technical change. Their purpose is to ensure that the interpretation of the term, "designated assisted institution dependent on assistance from an authority", applies not merely to Chapter III of this part of the Bill but to the whole of Part II. To achieve that, it is necessary to transfer the interpretation from Clause 143, where it is now, to Clause 148, and that is what these amendments do.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 130 [Initial preparation and imposition of further and higher education funding schemes]:

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 414: Page 127, line 35, leave out ("full-time").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to Clause 130 on the initial preparation and imposition of further and higher education funding schemes. The purpose of the amendment is to probe the extent of the Government's proposals to introduce financial delegation to further education colleges.

Many LEAs have set up institutions that provide post-school education of a vocational, social, physical or recreational nature but they do not provide any full-time vocational education. Included in that description would be many adult education institutions and so on.

Removal of the words "full-time" from Clause 130(4) would require the LEAs to develop funding schemes for these institutions. The purpose of the amendment is to ascertain whether the Government intend to bring these institutions within the framework of financial delegation to further education colleges. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, by this amendment the local education authorities would be required to consult all maintained and substantially assisted institutions of further and higher education, including those adult education centres which provide only part-time education. The Government do not believe that that would be appropriate.

Clause 129 provides that schemes must cover those institutions of further and higher education which provide full-time education. Schemes are not required to cover adult education centres which provide only part-time education. It is therefore logical that the requirement to consult on schemes should be limited to those institutions which are required to be covered by the schemes.

This does not, of course, prevent local education authorities from consulting whoever else they may wish. Indeed, the Government expect, as the department's draft circular of guidance on schemes notes, that local education authorities will wish to consult a great deal more widely than Clause 130 requires and that that will often include adult education centres. But for the purposes of setting the minimum consultation requirement—which is what Clause 130 is designed to do—it is right to limit the requirement to those who are directly affected, leaving the question of wider consultations to the discretion of the local education authorities.

Baroness David

My Lords, as I said, this is a probing amendment and I have had a full explanation from the Minister. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 414A: Page 128, line 9, leave out from ("in") to ("as") in line II and insert ("the case of that authority").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment ensures that schemes which have to be imposed by the Secretary of State may relate not only to the setting of budgets but to the full range of provisions required in schemes generally. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

12.30 a.m.

Clause 132 [Delegation to governing body of management of institution's budget share]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 414B: Page 129, line 32, leave out ("required to be covered by the scheme in") and insert ("in respect of which financial delegation is required for").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 414C. These amendments concern the arrangements for delegation to colleges which are not within the delegation requirement; that is, those colleges with fewer than 200 full-time equivalent students. As Clause 132 is drafted it requires that local education authorities may delegate to such colleges only those powers which are set out in the authorities' approved schemes. There are only 20 or so colleges which have fewer than 200 full-time equivalent students. The extent to which delegation is appropriate for them will vary from case to case. We believe that this is a matter which is more sensibly left to local education authorities and colleges to settle between them. Government Amendments Nos. 414B and 414C will give local education authorities greater flexibility in this area and I hope that the House will welcome them. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

12.30 a.m.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 414C: Page 129, line 38, leave out ("or permitted").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 133 [Further and higher education funding schemes: determination of budget share]:

[Amendment No. 415 not moved.]

Clause 134 [Further and higher education funding schemes: provision for financial delegation]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415A: Page 130, line 47, leave out from ("institution") to end of line 49 and insert ("is subject to section 135 of this Act in the case of any institution to which that section applies").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a group of government amendments (Nos. 415A to 415H) which concern the arrangements for the phasing-in of schemes. Though they look rather formidable, the amendments make only two rather technical changes of any substance; namely, that the planning and budget-setting provisions of schemes may be phased in over a period as well as the delegation procedures. Secondly, colleges which are set up while schemes are being phased-in can also receive financial delegation over a period and do not have to get it all at once. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 135 [Initial implementation of delegation requirements under further and higher education funding schemes]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415B:

Page 131, line 44, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) The delegation requirement under a scheme shall not apply in relation to any institution which comes within the scheme in any financial year falling within the scheme's initial period until a date specified in the scheme. (1A) A scheme may include provision—

1. (a) for modifying or excluding the application in relation to any such institution of any of its provisions other than the delegation requirement; and
2. (b) for modifying the delegation requirement as it applies in relation to any such institution from any date specified under subsection (1) above;

until a date specified in the scheme. (1B) The provision authorised by subsection (1A)(b) above includes in particular provision limiting the delegation requirement to delegation for such purposes, and in relation to expenditure of such descriptions, as may be specified in the scheme. (1C) For the purposes of this section, a scheme's initial period (subject to any order made under subsection (3) below) is the period of three years beginning with the date on which the scheme comes into force.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415C: Page 132, line 5, after ("(1)") insert ("or (1A)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415D: Page 132, line 6, leave out ("different purposes and different descriptions of expenditure") and insert ("and different purposes of any modification or exclusion made under subsection (1A) above, and in relation to institutions coming within the scheme in different financial years or at different times within the same financial year;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415E: Page 132, line 10, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 12 and insert ("beginning of the financial year next following the end of the scheme's initial period").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415F: Page 132, line 15, after ("(1)") insert ("or (1A)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415G: Page 132, line 17, leave out from ("extend") to ("until") in line 18 and insert ("any scheme's initial period").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415H:

Page 132, line 19, at end insert— ("(3A) For the purposes of this section, an institution—

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 138 [Delegation of powers as to appointment and dismissal of staff]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415J: Page 133, line 37, at end insert ("or section (Costs of dismissal, premature retirement or voluntary severance) of this Act.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 415J to 415L and 416A and 416B concern the allocation of responsibility for determining and meeting any payments arising from the voluntary severance of staff. Parallel amendments were made to the clauses on delegation to schools. Although they are rather lengthy, the purpose of these amendments is quite straightforward, as was explained when the schools amendments were discussed. I beg to move.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, of this group of amendments perhaps the crucial one is Amendment No. 416A; the rest of them seem to pave the way for it. As the noble Baroness said, this is similar to the schools' amendment. She may perhaps remember that I raised questions about that, and the same questions arise here.

The governing bodies of the schools had to take the advice of the chief education officer. The governors do not have to take anybody's advice; they just do it. It seems extraordinary—more extraordinary when there is no advice—that the governing body can determine what payment is to be made by a local education authority and the amount of any such payment, and the local education authority then has to pay it. There is no input into the decision whether that payment should be made, whether it is right or wrong, contrary to law, fair, just or anything else. The authority has to pay it. That is entirely wrong and the local education authorities should have at least an input into whether the payment is right.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, as with premature retirement and dismissal costs, the costs arising from voluntary severance would normally be met by the local education authority. However, the local education authority will be able to charge the whole or any part of such costs to the college's budget if it has good reason to do so.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 415K and 415L: Page 133, line 42, leave out from ("to") to first ("of") in line 43 and insert ("costs incurred by the local education authority in respect of the dismissal or premature retirement, or for the purpose of securing the resignation,"). Page 135, line 32, leave out subsection (10).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 416 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 416A: After Clause 138, insert the following new clause:

("Costs of dismissal premature retirement or voluntary severance.

.—(1) Subject to any provision of the relevant scheme or the articles of government of the institution and subsection (2) below, it shall be for the governing body of any institution to which section 138 of this Act for the time being applies to determine—

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

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to any payment which the authority are required to make—

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

(3) The local education authority concerned—

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

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

(5) The fact that the authority have a policy precluding dismissal of their employees by reason of redundancy is not to be regarded as a good reason for the purposes of subsection (4) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 139 [Withdrawal of delegated powers for mismanagement, etc.]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 416B: Page 136, line 48, at end insert ("or section (Costs of dismissal, premature retirement or voluntary severance) of this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 141 [Provision required in instrument and articles of government]:

[Amendments Nos. 417 and 418 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418ZA:

Page 138, line 38, at end insert— ("(3A) The provision made by the instrument of government by virtue of subsection (3)(a) above shall not be such as to disqualify a member of the governing body for being such a member by reason only of the fact that he becomes, by virtue of that office, a member of a committee or sub-committee of a local authority or local education authority.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to allow those college governors who represent employment interests or who are co-optees to participate in joint local education authority college committees set up by the authority. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418ZB: After Clause 142. insert the following new clause:

("New further and higher education institutions.

.—(1) This section applies to any institution proposed to be established which in the financial year in which it is established will be required to be covered by a scheme.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

1. (a) with respect to the government of institutions to which this section applies including in particular provision—
1. (i) requiring the constitution of temporary governing bodies for such institutions pending the constitution of their governing bodies; and
2. (ii) with respect to the size and composition of such temporary governing bodies;
2. (b) applying any of the provisions of this Chapter (including any provision made under section 136) in relation to institutions to which this section applies which have temporary governing bodies constituted in pursuance of any provision made in the regulations by virtue of paragraph (a) above, subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State may think fit.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) above may in particular include provision—

1. (a) requiring schemes to cover institutions to which this section applies;
2. (b) requiring schemes to provide for the delegation to their respective temporary governing bodies of the management of the budget shares of any such institutions which by virtue of any regulations made under paragraph (a) above are required to be covered by the schemes;
3. (c) authorising the governing bodies of such institutions—
1. (i) to determine what staff (both full-time and part-time) are or will be required for the purposes of such institutions, and to select all such staff for appointment by the local education authority; and
2. (ii) to take such steps with respect to any other matters referred to in section 138 of this Act as may be appropriate in preparation for the conduct of such institutions following their establishment; and
4. (d) prohibiting local education authorities from taking any such steps as are referred to in paragraph (c)(i) or (ii) above which governing bodies are so authorised to take.

(4) Regulations under this section may provide that any scheme shall have effect with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be approprioate in consequence of any provision made in those regulations by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 143 [Interpretation of Chapter III and supplementary provisions]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 418ZC and 418ZD:

Page 140, line 22, at end insert ("and").

Page 140, line 27, leave out from ("functions") to end of line 30.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418ZE: After Clause 146, insert the following new clause:

("information with respect to educational provision in institutions providing further or higher education.

.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring every local education authority to publish, in relation to each relevant institution maintained or assisted by the authority, such information with respect to the matters mentioned in subsection (3) below as may be prescribed.

(2) For the purposes of this section, an institution is a relevant institution in relation to a local education authority if it is either—

1. (a) an institsution providing full-time education which is maintained by that authority in exercise of their further or higher education functions; or
2. (b) a designated assisted institution providing full-time education which is dependent on assistance from that authority.

(3) The matters referred to in subsection (1) above are—

1. (a) the educational provision made by the institution for students at the institution; and
2. (b) the educational achievements of students at the institution (including the results of examinations, tests and other assessments of those students).

(4) The information shall be published in such form and manner and at such times as may be prescribed; and the regulations may provide for a local education authority to make arrangements with the governing body of any relevant institution for the publication by that governing body of the information required to be published in accordance with the regulations in the case of that institution.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause empowers the Secretary of State to require the publication of information about college provision, and in particular, the examination results of students. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 147 [Adjustments of block grant in respect of expenditure on advanced and further education]:

[Amendment No. 418A not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418AA:

Page 143, line 44, at end insert— ("(3A) Anything done by the Secretary of State before the passing of this Act for the purpose of making in the block grant payable to a local authority in England adjustments under paragraph 5 or 6 of that Schedule in respect of expenditure incurred in the years beginning 1985, 1986 and 1987 by local authorities in England in connection with further education of an advanced character (including the training of teachers) shall be deemed to have been done in accordance with that paragraph.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment 418B not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418C:

Page 143, line 45, after ("section") insert ("— local authority" means a body which is a local authority for the purposes of Part VI of that Act; and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418D: Page 143, line 45, leave out ("Part VI of that Act") and insert ("that Part").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 148 [Interpretation of Part II]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418E:

Page 144, line 11, after ("education);") insert— ("(bb) references to a designated assisted institution dependent on assistance from a local education authority shall be read in accordance with section 129(7);").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 149 [Abolition of ILEA]:

Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 419: Page 144, leave out line 27 and insert ("After 30th June 1992, the Secretary of State may by Order in Council, subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament, determine the date on which the following shall cease to exist—").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 420, 421, 422 and 423. The amendments are an attempt to strengthen what I believe to be the weakest part of the Bill, which may well bring discredit on the whole of the Government's plans for educational reform.

The three new clauses proposed in Amendments Nos. 421, 422 and 423 stand on their own and can, if necessary, be moved together later. The object of the amendments is to ensure that the future organisation of education in inner London has the maximum possible degree of acceptability to teachers, parents, school governors, the councils of inner London boroughs and public opinion generally.

It has already been made absolutely clear that before the introduction of Part III in Committee in another place, the Secretary of State and his department had no opportunity to prepare the ground for the revolutionary act of abolishing, after a century, the central education authority for inner London. There had been no consultation, no assessment of comparative costs and no chance to consider the problems posed by the fragmentation of the specialist and non-statutory services now provided by the ILEA. Further, what is most important, there had been no assessment of what might be the effect on the general standard of primary and secondary education in London as a whole.

The political correspondent of a leading newspaper suggested to me that the Secretary of State had been bounced into the decision by his colleagues in another place, presumably with the connivance of his superiors in the Cabinet. The Secretary of State is an extremely able Minister. He must know as well as we do that the abolition of the central authority for education in inner London—in the way it is now being done—is bound to end up with a host of anomalies, administrative confusion and widespread discontent among local authorities, parents, teachers and students. He must know that everything which goes wrong with London's education in the future will be blamed on his Ministry and on the Conservative Government—not on the incompetence of some borough education department. On the present basis, a great deal will go wrong during the next few years.

The Department of Education and Science had no opportunity to find out whether the abolition would save public funds. One estimate is that the cost of the Education Reform Bill overall will be about £600 million. What will be the cost to inner London? One of the principles of business management is that there are administrative economies in size. Will a dozen or so local education departments cost less than one central authority? What will be the overall consequences for the standards of primary and secondary education in London? We must remember that, simultaneously with their new responsibilities, hastily recruited borough education departments will have to give effect to the massive changes being introduced in the Bill.

The affluent boroughs such as the City of Westminster and a yuppie-based borough such as Wandsworth, helped by experienced officials purloined from the ILEA, may be able to provide a reasonable standard, but it is clear to anyone who has studied the Westminster City plan that it will have serious difficulties. For instance, that plan states: The ILEA currently provides a wide range of specialist and non-statutory services. The council recognises that there is a good deal of public concern over the future of these services. However, our intention is to assume responsibility for the education service as a going concern and to make appropriate arrangements for the continuation of all these services". That may mean anything, and probably means nothing.

But what about the boroughs where the real education problems of London reside—Hackney, Hammersmith and Islington, for instance? The Secretary of State had no opportunity to know the consequences to the educational standards generally in those boroughs before Part III was inserted into the Bill. He cannot know now, because most of the boroughs are awaiting the Royal Assent before formulating their plans.

The amendments are designed to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to do what he would have wished to before making the vitally important change of policy and what any experienced business man would have done before radically changing the structure of his company—that is, to make a careful assessment of the financial consequences of his plan and the effect on the quality of his product.

So far from being a wrecking amendment, this amendment, like those associated with it, provides a lifeboat for the Secretary of State. They do nothing to prevent the eventual abolition of the ILEA; they do nothing to frustrate the Government's policy; they give the Secretary of State the power to do what I am absolutely sure he would have wished to do if he had not been bounced into this hasty decision.

It was argued in Committee that delay would prolong the uncertainty now facing London education. The fact is, as anyone who has been in touch with head teachers and others in London knows, that extreme uncertainty now exists among teaching staff, parents, governors and local councils. That uncertainty will continue long after 1990, longer than the delay of a couple of years that these amendments would entail if a planned transfer of responsibility existed.

What I believe is constitutionally important is that, if the Secretary of State issues an order abolishing the ILEA after June 1992, as he will have power to do under the amendment, the new Government will have a new mandate consequent upon a general election. With that mandate, and as a result of full consultation, expert independent advice and a carefully thought-out plan, the Secretary of State will be able, if he wishes to do so, to abolish the central education authority for inner London with full confidence as to the integrity and acceptability of the consequences. What I suggest is most important is that he will have the power, under Amendment No. 423, to make any appropriate amendments or additions to the Bill by Order in Council.

I believe that these amendments are in the interests of any Secretary of State of any party which may have the responsibilities of government during the next 10 years and perhaps a good deal longer. But what 1 believe even more is that they will contribute to ensure that the 300,000 children in London, for whom state education is the gateway to their expectations in later years, and the many thousands of adult students, for whom further education provides the essential and sometimes the only chance of enriching their quality of life, all alike will benefit from these amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 419.

Baroness Cox

My Lords, in robustly resisting these amendments, perhaps I may briefly highlight three kinds of arguments which I think prove convincingly the case for the necessary and timely abolition of ILEA. In so doing I shall highlight some of the evidence which was not made available during Committee stage. The arguments relate to profligacy, inefficiency, and politicisation.

On profligacy, much play was made at Committee stage of the reason why ILEA needs such generous funding of 50 per cent. above the national average for pupils elsewhere in the country. No mention was made of frequent reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate over the years, who point to the very high levels of funding. In 1980, Her Majesty's inspectors said that funding was generous to a fault, with lavish over-provision and waste. There was expensive equipment unused for long periods and in 1988 levels of staffing and resources were always generous, sometimes to excess.

However, perhaps one of the most telling examples of real profligacy refers to the current situation with regard to teachers above authorised numbers. These refer to the number of surplus teachers in secondary schools which are over and above the generous provision which has already been conceded. In last year's report, the figures for 1987–88 referred to 1,345 such surplus teachers, costing over £19 million; 80 per cent. of schools had such surplus teachers, one had 40, three had 30, five had 20. Even worse, these teachers often refused to cover for each other or to move to fill vacancies in other schools. The report points to 70 vacancies in shortage subject areas, important areas such as maths and science, craft design and technology; and 83 surplus teachers available and qualified in those subjects who would not move. How wasteful and inefficient can a system get?

Secondly, despite such generous resourcing, the results of secondary schools in ILEA are very disturbing at the school-leaving age. Whereas children arrive at secondary schools from primary schools performing at roughly the national average, by the time they leave secondary schools, their performance in terms of formal examinations is about 30 per cent. below the national average. In the discussion at Committee stage, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to results which had been adjusted to take account statistically of social factors. But even when we make allowance for those adjustments, ILEA does not perform as well as other major inner city areas such as Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. So despite the lavish funding, it does not produce good results for the pupils who are in many of its schools.

The third area, very briefly, is one which was not really touched on during Committee stage. That is the very serious one of politicisation, and particularly politicisation of the curriculum. Much of this developed, one might point out, while I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was deputy education officer at ILEA. During those years, ILEA's commitment to influence the entire curriculum to reflect its ideological position in areas such as anti-racism, anti-sexism and anti-classism manifested itself in developments such as anti-racist maths and chemistry.

However those rather more extreme versions were really just the tip of an iceberg of sustained pressures on schools and staff to adapt their teaching to accommodate ideological priorities. One father to whom I was speaking recently, who has a son in an ILEA comprehensive school, described how during one term recently there were just three subjects in history studied, all taken entirely out of context, but to illustrate the themes of classism, racism and sexism: the peasants' revolt, the burning of witches and slavery. Those subjects were taken quite out of context, but taught from an ideological point of view. It is not surprising that there is under-achievement in educational terms when ideology takes precedence over academic criteria. One of the most important aspects is the pressure that this ideological position has put on staff. Ken Brooker the general secretary of the inner London branch of the National Association of Head Teachers, has said: There are a tremendous number of head teachers leaving the profession. The job has become almost impossible. Their powers of management have been eroded by County Hall. They are continually harassed by threats of tribunals over allegations of racism, sexism and so on". I repeat that I did not say that. It was Ken Brooker the general secretary of the inner London branch of NAHT. I shall not prolong the discussion by cataloguing other indictments of ILEA. Much other evidence was given in Committee. Of course there are some good schools and I should be the first to recognise and commend those schools. But overall ILEA can no longer be justified. I hope that the amendments will be roundly defeated.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow

My Lords, not having been able to be present in Committee on the Bill, I wish to say that I still remain profoundly concerned about the proposals for, and the timing of, the abolition of ILEA. I fully accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has said. It is easy to make a great attack on ILEA. It is undoubtedly true that ILEA is far more expensive than many, or perhaps all other education authorities. I am sure it has rightly at times been accused of being a profligate authority.

I accept that the standards of results within the secondary schools can also in many areas be open to criticism. However, it is one thing to attack ILEA; it is another to decide whether abolishing ILEA by the beginning of 1990 and requiring the inner London boroughs to take over education in its place will in any way improve the standards which have been criticised. My concern is that the Government's change of heart—for that, clearly, is what it must have been—during the course of this Bill was somewhat hasty and ill-thought out, as stated in Committee.

I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Alport is right in saying that there is any advantage to be gained in attributing blame. I am more attracted by the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, about joint schemes between the inner London councils. My concern is that I do not think the Government are necessarily giving adequate time or adequate thought to the ability of the smaller boroughs to become, in their own right, individual education authorities.

I have no doubt that some of the inner London boroughs will be able to achieve that end, but the Minister must remember that the department is responsible not only for the education of those who live within Wandsworth, but of those who live within the areas of the other inner London boroughs. I know that as a government we looked at this matter in 1980. I think I am right in saying it was looked at again by my noble friend Lord Joseph in 1983. On both occasions we were not persuaded that standards of education would necessarily be improved by turning education from a single-authority responsibility throughout London to one of separate responsibility for the individual boroughs. I remain concerned in that regard. While I appreciate the argument that delay can cause continuing uncertainty, I think that we are entitled to know from the Government what steps are being taken towards achieving what they believe can be achieved by the individual boroughs.

The House was told, in the reports that I have read of the Committee stage, that development plans were to be provided by the individual boroughs by February next year. How far advanced are the boroughs in providing the development plans? What power, if any, does the Secretary of State have if he is not satisfied as to the adequacy of the development plans? We must have more explanation from the Government as to how they will safeguard the educational opportunities of those who live in the poorer and smaller boroughs of London before we agree that the ILEA should be abolished at the speed which the Bill proposes.

Lord Young of Dartington

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on many important issues. However, when it comes to London, I feel that she speaks about a very different London from that which I know. I have had the privilege of working in Tower Hamlets since 1952. There is increasing dismay in that borough at the prospect of what the Government have in mind. There is special dismay among the members of the Bengali ethnic community, and among the Somali, Chinese and Vietnamese communities, all of which are well represented in the borough.

To look at the schools that such children attend in the borough and then to speak about a lavish waste of resources seems extraordinary. I do not believe that anyone could go to some of the schools in Tower Hamlets and say that there has been profligate expenditure; rather the opposite. There is a need for more expenditure in order to give anything like equality of opportunity to people whose home circumstances are extremely unfavourable to a decent education in many respects.

There are large numbers of people in Tower Hamlets who view the whole prospect of what is to come with dismay and feel that there has not been any adequate examination of what it will mean in that borough, which is one of the least favoured parts of London, if the Bill is enacted in its present form. Exactly the same considerations apply to many of the poorer boroughs. We have heard about Wandsworth and we know about Kensington and Westminster. The poorer boroughs are concerned that they will not receive even those resources which they have had up to now to spend on education.

It is not simply a question of what the poorer boroughs will receive in terms of money but also what they will receive by way of human resources in administration and teaching. They will lose the benefits of an administration which is, on the whole, skilled, and they will have to build from scratch an entirely or largely new administration which will be untested for many years to come. I am happy to support the amendment. I hope that, on what I believe will be a historic night, the House will see fit to support it.

Lord Bramall

My Lords, hitherto, for a number of reasons which noble Lords will appreciate, I have been most reluctant to get involved in our debates on the problems of education in inner London. However, I have been so depressed that what seems to me to be the almost irrefutable logic against rushing out of a long-established, in certain areas respected and in all areas tried (if not perfect) system into an unknown field, manifestly fraught with enormous problems as yet uncalculated and uncosted, apparently has not found great favour with your Lordships' House that I felt 1 must make a brief intervention in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and the other related amendments.

The fact that the deep concern, which I know is held by so many in this House, as to the way London education was going under the Bill, was not as fully reflected at the Committee stage as it might have been, was, I am convinced, in no small part due, if it does not sound presumptuous to say so, to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who, in a charming, delightfully unarrogant and reasonable speech, tried (as is so proper in this House) to win the intellectual argument. Indeed, he succeeded to the extent that he must have convinced many open-minded noble Lords that the Government were reasonable men and women who could be trusted in the intervening period to do the right thing and cobble together something which would eventually work.

However, I have to say that, to my mind at any rate, there was in all this more than a hint of a plaintive plea of, "Yes, we may in some areas and with some of London's children, be about to make a mess of things hut, for goodness' sake, let us get on with making a mess of it and—who knows?—before it all has to happen we may have been able to sort it all out, rather than having the thought and threat that we are about to make a mess of it hanging over everyone's head, with all the uncertainty that may bring"— or as the old drill sergeant from my previous incarnation, teaching young NCOs to command men, would have put it, "For Gawd's sake, say something, even if it's only 'Goodbye'."

Indeed, with the figures which seek to expose the incompetence and financially profligate nature of ILEA being highly questionable, to say the least, the removing of uncertainty has been the only solid argument that has not either insulted the intelligence or defied common sense, as opposed to pandering to political motives. This is why such an experienced and able advocate as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, sensibly concentrated at the Committee stage on this aspect, in order to appeal to your Lordships' intelligence.

All other arguments have cried out for deeper consultation—consultation which, I may say, will be quite impossible if, as I believe to be the case, boroughs are charged with having to submit their firm plans to the Department of Education by February or March next year. They have cried out for preserving on a London-wide basis those estimable services to youth, to adult and vocational further education and to children with special needs. In the research and statistical fields and, in general, they have cried out for planning in much slower time the whole outcome, whatever it may be but which may, if there is any justification at all for change, be actually seen to enhance the education of London's children.

This is why I would hope, even at this late hour—late in every sense of the word—that the Government would favourably respond to this clutch of amendments, which reflect these needs. If they cannot do so, I would beseech your Lordships to support one or other of these amendments, as appropriate, which, to a greater or lesser degree try to ensure that we will not do something now that later the country, and particularly London, may bitterly regret.

Baroness Young

My Lords, I think that all of us in the House are highly conscious that feelings run very deep on the subject of ILEA. We had this at Committee stage, and it has been repeated again this evening on Report. I am, however, hound to say to my noble friend Lord Alport that his amendment is in effect really one that is almost identical (except on the length of time) to that which was moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, which we discussed at very considerable length at the Committee stage. I do not say that it is identical: but it is very similar, and, in effect, it is a delaying amendment.

When we discussed this matter previously, delay was the real problem and difficulty. I think that I quote the noble Lord, Lord Alport, correctly when he said that a great deal would go wrong over the next few years, and it certainly would now if there were delay. It would cause planning blight and good staff would leave. There is no doubt that where boroughs are now taking positive steps, they would all come to a stop because there would he a delay. That would have a very serious effect. I am surprised that the noble Lord should raise this amendment, especially at this time of night, and at this stage of the Bill

Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Carlisle, to whose remarks I listened with very great interest, that I think we are all aware that it is necessary to get the new arrangements right. I think that the carefully thought out and measured speech of my noble friend the Leader of the House, Lord Belstead, when he replied to the debate at Committee stage, set out in full the various steps that will be taken, the requirements for development plans, the money that the Government will produce to support the services and the arrangements that will be made for many of the joint services. To imagine that everyone is rushing into something without thinking seriously about it is not the case at all. One needs to look at the material published both by the Government and by those boroughs that have already produced some material. It was, I thought, a rather unfair and out of context quotation of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, about Westminster. I think that the very full publications produced by Wandsworth are very helpful indeed.

I hope very much that the Government will not accept these amendments. I think that once again we shall have delay on a very serious issue which I do not believe for one minute is in the interests of the children of London and future education in the boroughs.

1.15 a.m.

Lord Stewart of Fulham

My Lords, it really is cool on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for bringing up this matter at this time. Whose doing is it that the matter is being raised at this time? Who put this whole project into the Bill unexpectedly, breaking up the whole programme and timetable of the Bill, first in another place and then here?

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The Government!

Lord Stewart of Fulham

It is the Government that are responsible for this situation all the way.

Reference has been made to the fact that this matter of splitting up ILEA has been considered before and rejected. Perhaps I may add one other item to the list. The same thing happened in 1963 when it was the original intention of the Government to break up ILEA. They gave up the idea because of the massive rising of parents and teachers throughout inner London who objected to any such course. What is interesting is that at the present time the one body of people which emphatically has never given its support to breaking up ILEA is the parents—the community to which the Government were anxious to pay such reverence in their preparation of the Bill. Whatever may be said about the conduct of the poll of London parents, when one has made every possible allowance, beyond any doubt it is still perfectly clear that the overwhelming majority of parents with children being educated within ILEA is against the destruction of ILEA. It is being done completely in defiance of that wish.

Now, when we are told that Westminster and perhaps Wandsworth have plans prepared for the future, I ask, how can they have as things now stand? Consider some of the things they will plan for. Westminster by itself cannot arrange for the whole structure of adult education in inner London to be carried on; neither can Wandsworth. That can only be done by the combined operation of the London boroughs acting together, which is the very thing for which no opportunity has been given, for which there is no time and for which these amendments would provide time.

If we in this country felt that we had a bad government, we would consider that the right course to take would be to vote the other way at the next election—not to abolish Parliament. If the people of London think that they have bad government at County Hall, the thing to do is to replace it with someone else. That is what, time and again, they have refused to do. That is why we have this proposal for the abolition of ILEA. We all know that. I wonder why some noble Lords opposite are so mealy mouthed as to avoid this obvious conclusion.

I have received letters from people who are responsible for running schools for children with special needs, some of which are not within the geographical boundaries of ILEA but in Surrey and Sussex. They wish to know what will happen to them. Neither Westminster nor Wandsworth nor any other authority has so far agreed to undertake responsibility for those schools. Indeed, how could they do so? One cannot make arrangements for those schools again without bringing in all the London boroughs to consider the whole problem of education for children with special needs in the inner London area.

As to the complaints of profligacy, it has been pointed out before and it is perfectly clear that everything costs more in London; it always has done, whether one is talking about the police or ambulance service, education or whatever. If one digs out sufficient anecdotes, one can produce some that are to the discredit of ILEA. One can do that with any education authority in the country. One can even consider whether Westminster's handling of the problem of what to do with cemeteries is a testimonial to its fitness to be entrusted with London education. One can produce these anecdotes. However, one needs something more solid and more complete than that to reach a decision. That is exactly what one does not have. Faced with difficulties owing to the massive racial problem in London the provision of good education has become a gigantic task.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, seemed to object to the fact that one of the things that ILEA endeavoured to do was to combat racism. Does she not realise that in London—which has so many different races coming together, with all the possibilities of their getting on each other's nerves, to put it mildly—it is the obvious duty of any educational authority to make the combating of racism one of the most important parts of its work. That is a responsibility about which many education authorities in the country do not have to worry because they do not have the problem. London has the problem. It has endeavoured to solve it. It deserves better thanks than it receives from some noble Lords and some people elsewhere for what it is doing.

If we look back over the history of London, it has been a shoddy business of repeated attempts to tear the organisation of London education to bits for reasons of political malice. Some Members in another place said that the proof of whether we were anxious about ILEA was whether we would restore it if we came back to power at some future date. One marvels at the ignorant flippancy of that question. When one takes such action one upsets the lives of families of very large numbers of public servants who have to find new jobs. Whatever care is taken in an Act of Parliament to provide for them, there are still very serious personal problems that they have to face. One cannot say casually, "We shall put it all back again when we have the chance." Matters are not rearranged so easily as that. However, I must say that if I had the chance of putting anything back it would not be the old GLC—ILEA as it now is—but the London County Council, and an education authority as it ought to be; a committee of the local authority, not an ad hoc body.

It was a weakness of ILEA that it was an ad hoc body. I believe it makes it difficult for any group of people to handle their financial problems properly if they have to compete with the claims of other services on the public purse. It was not the members of ILEA who turned themselves into an ad hoc body. It was the Government looking for some further way to damage London education. That was what happened: the old LCC was destroyed and in its place grew the Greater London Council, a body at one and the same time too big geographically and too weak in its range of powers. In addition it was an ad hoc education authority, a bad principle, and one that London has had to struggle with ever since.

What will be the final end to this story of maladministration and gerrymandering we do not know. But at least the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is right in urging that there should be a chance to stop and look further before we leap into the abyss.

Baroness Cox

My Lords, may I just correct a misrepresentation, because I was very seriously misrepresented? The noble Lord suggested that I was against attempts to combat racism. I abhor racism and I should like the record put straight, please, that I was quoting someone else who was speaking on behalf of the National Association of Head Teachers about the pressures put on its members. It was not my own attitude about racism. I should like the record put straight.

Lord Stewart of Fulham

My Lords, the noble Baroness was producing that quotation from somebody else with a great deal of relish, as all of us who heard her know very well.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. What we are really considering is not the goodness or otherwise of the ILEA; it is the goodness of the education provided for London's children. The importance of ILEA is the extent to which it contributes and can continue to contribute or not to the good quality of London education. That is what it is all about.

We have every reason to be indignant about the way in which this whole matter has been handled. The abolition of the ILEA was not in the manifesto. The ILEA was the creation of this Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has said. There was no question in the manifesto of getting rid of it. When it came to the drafting of the Bill there was no reference to the ILEA and we all know that the abolition of the ILEA was introduced in the House of Commons because two Members of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons decided to introduce this addition to the Bill. This in our view is a very improper way of bringing about so important a change in the educational provision for a very large number of children in London. That is what we are so deeply concerned about.

Of course one can criticise certain aspects of the ILEA, but I do not want at this time of night to get into an argument with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. However, she makes these sweeping assertions. There is one thing she said which I think she will wish on reflection she had not said. That was the not even veiled attack on the professional standard of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when she was employed by the ILEA. Enough said about that, but I do not think that remark should pass without comment.

We want to see the best possible education in London. How can it make sense to bring about a reorganisation of this kind in such a short period of time? Of course the wealthy boroughs can reorganise their education, but what really will happen to the poorer boroughs which are already heavily in debt and where the schools are already in great difficulties and up against tremendous problems of ethnic minorities, single parent families and so on? if the changes are to take place in such a short period of time we all know what the parents think about it. I do not know what the evidence is against that parents' poll. I know of parents who mortgaged their own houses to pay for that ballot to be undertaken. That was a measure of the determination of some of those parents. Surely it is evidence of the fact that some of them did not believe that the ILEA was doing a bad job.

The noble Lord, Lord Alport, is not asking that the ILEA should be kept in perpetuity. He is asking that its abolition should be delayed so that a proper inquiry can be undertaken as to what should be done; also, that at another election the matter can properly come before the electorate. That will give time to collect data, to make plans if necessary and to reconsider the whole issue. Surely that is sensible and I hope that the House will support the noble Lord.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

My Lords, I was going to contribute to the debate even at the risk of repeating arguments which I advanced in Committee. Many noble Lords have spoken. Having listened to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in particular I should like to associate myself with everything that he has said and what has been said by other noble Lords in favour of these most sensible, unprovocative amendments.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I also do not wish to repeat everything that I said in Committee but I feel that I must respond to some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. That is so particularly because she at least implied that some of the aspects which she most dislikes about the inner London authority have something to do with me. I only wish that during the time when I was one of the deputy education officers and then clerk and director of education I had had as much influence as she implied.

When discussing an issue of this kind, about which people feel most strongly, it is terribly important to try to be dispassionate and to look at the evidence in the way that an objective social scientist would look at it. I found a little regrettable the fact that in her speech the noble Baroness used the evidence most selectively and put forward evidence which is no longer relevant to the issues. I should like to refer to that.

First, she made a good deal of the issue of profligacy. I believe that at a certain period during the ILEA's history it was probably spending rather more than it ought in some areas. I am happy to admit that because I believe that it is important to be objective in circumstances such as these. However, we must look at the present situation in trying to decide whether we need to have totally new policies and a totally new structure for education in inner London.

During this financial year the ILEA is cutting its budget by 12 per cent. Those cuts have been imposed by central government through rate-capping legislation. If the Government wish to continue to impose such cuts they can do so. They do not have to abolish the authority in order to deal with profligacy; they have already dealt with it. That is the first sense in which the evidence being brought to bear by the noble Baroness was not appropriate to the discussion tonight.

The second point she made was that ILEA's standards are far lower than those in other inner city areas. I believe that again that is a selective quotation of the evidence. The ILEA's standards are lower than those of some inner city areas but higher than those of others. That is a balanced expression of the position rather than what I believe was a biased and unbalanced expression as put forward by the noble Baroness.

She went on to say that she thought the ideological position adopted by the ILEA in various spheres was unacceptable. She mentioned in particular the initiatives which the authority developed over some years in the areas of anti-racism, anti-sexism and class. It is possible that the way in which the ILEA presented its initiatives was not terribly well thought through and not as careful as it should have been. Perhaps at times it put too much pressure on head teachers and expected more of them than they could deliver. I believe that we must take into account the fact that 40 per cent. of children in inner London schools come from the black and Asian community. We must take into account that racism is a fact in inner London and that something needed to be done.

I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, said. I believe that anybody who has spent any time in Tower Hamlets will realise to what extent the Asisan community needs support and protection.

The rather bitter backlash that the authority's policy seems to have evoked, at least in the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, suggests that there is something in what I have said; namely, that the authority did not present its policies in that area as well as it could have done. However, during the course of this Bill we have spent a lot of time talking about the needs of the least able and disadvantaged children. That is something on which the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has concentrated. The motives of the ILEA in developing its policies were designed to help those children and to improve the standards of education in the inner city by doing so.

I believe that there is some evidence to suggest that standards have gone up. If one looks at trends and examination results within the authority over time, that is the sort of objective evidence about which we should think.

Perhaps I may make one further point. There was a quote from the National Association of Head Teachers which suggested deep resentment of the authority. Again, I believe that the objective evidence would be to look at the recent survey of the views of head teachers in inner London where an enormous majority came out strongly in support of the retention of the ILEA. To go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said, there is great uncertainty among head teachers. However, there is more than great uncertainty. There is deep-seated fear about what the Government have in mind for education in inner London.

1.30 a.m.

Baroness David

My Lords, there have been some very interesting speeches. Perhaps one of the most interesting was the very balanced speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who has been through all this. He has had the experience of wondering what to do about ILEA and coming down on the side of retaining it. We have all been greatly moved by the letters we have received from parents and teachers in the inner London area. I believe that we are all very distressed about the education of children in inner London because of what is now happening.

I should like to give our full support to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. It seems right that there should be an opportunity for an election and a mandate for the very drastic action being taken—and being taken in such a hurried manner. I do not want to say any more. It has all been said by my noble friend Lord Stewart. It is very difficult to improve on what he says. I believe that he put the matter extremely well. We strongly support the amendments of the noble Lord.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, we spent a considerable time at an earlier stage debating the principle of the Government's proposals for education in inner London. I said at that stage that many of the amendments then before the House would inject delay and uncertainty into a situation which is actually best resolved by swift and determined action. Your Lordships agreed with that assessment, and, like the other place, resoundingly endorsed the Government's proposals. These amendments are very similar to those rejected by your Lordships six weeks ago.

I recognise that like the Government, the mover and supporters of this amendment see the need for and wish for improvements in the quality of education for those in inner London, above all for the children in the secondary schools. But I am rather surprised that they continue to believe that the best way to achieve those improvements is to leave ILEA's future uncertain for another four years, followed perhaps by a further two years during which the authority was being wound up.

Those who have spoken in favour—in particular, perhaps, my noble friend Lord Alport—are rather out of date. They fail to appreciate the determination of the inner London boroughs to make a success of their new education services. Of course they face problems in preparing for their new and important functions. Indeed, the difficulties endemic to education in inner London will not magically disappear on 1st April 1990. Nobody is suggesting that. But the boroughs are setting about their task with enormous seriousness and enthusiasm. These amendments seek to destroy that commitment which has already started.

The Government are enormously encouraged by the boroughs' attitude and we believe that there is every prospect that they are laying the foundations for a thriving and dynamic education service for our capital and, moreover, one which allows full scope for locally diverse approaches without losing the important strengths which have existed in some aspects of ILEA's provision.

The scene is changing rapidly. I should like to outline to your Lordships some of the developments that have taken place since we last debated this subject. I think it will give considerable reassurance. The first, and the most important. is the fact that all the inner London boroughs, and ILEA itself, have accepted your Lordships' decision and expressed their determination to work together in developing the new educational structures for inner London. The Government recognise that, particularly for ILEA, acceptance of the position has not been easy, but we are genuinely grateful for the attitude that is now being taken, and that is reflected in contacts between ILEA and the boroughs and with the DES.

The department's Inner London Unit, to which we referred in Committee, has of course been in discussion and consultation with a number of boroughs for several months now. The unit has now had preliminary discussions at senior officer level with all the inner London boroughs and these contacts are becoming closer. The unit has in addition begun to work closely with those in ILEA who are involved in planning the transfer of responsibilities, and discussions have been held on a number of important topics. The authority itself has brought the boroughs and the department together to reach decisions on the arrangements to be made over the next two years, and in particular on the priority areas for joint discussion. Therefore, far from not having time to do that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, suggested, they are already doing it.

Beyond these contacts, which are essentially concerned with planning, I can assure your Lordships that development plans are on course for February of next year, even in the smaller or more reluctant boroughs, but certainly in those that have been referred to this evening—Westminster, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea, which are well on their way.

I had intended to refer to a number of specific areas, including those to which I referred in some detail in Committee. However, a number are also the subject of later amendments. Suffice it to say, therefore, that on adult education, on museums (the Geffrye and Horniman) on music, the residential special schools, co-operation with voluntary bodies and on the careers service we are making considerable progress. I will be happy to give more details on those programmes should any noble Lord so wish.

Amendment No. 421 refers, of course, to consultation with other interests, including teachers, governors and parents. The department's draft guidance to boroughs on development plans makes it clear that in drawing up those plans we expect them to consult groups such as these with a direct interest. Local people, parents and teachers will, therefore, for the first time have an opportunity to influence and shape the structure of the education service in their area, including the provision to be made in most of the categories identified in the amendment.

The Government are committed to that process of consultation and that is why the development plan procedure is as it is. We have deliberately refrained from requiring development plans once published to he set in concrete. The boroughs will be expected to continue consultation on them and will, we expect, wish to modify them in the light of that continuing consultation. We believe that that is the really effective way to involve local people in decision-making about their own education service. I am happy to say that all the boroughs are also committed to that process of consultation.

There is one aspect as regards these amendments that I have not yet touched upon and it relates to the financing of the arrangements proposed. The first thing to emphasise is that in 1990–91 a safety net will operate which will help the boroughs to adjust both to the new system of local government finance and to becoming education authorities. Its effect will be that an inner London borough will be able to spend the same on education as ILEA could have been expected to spend in its area in that year, while raising broadly the same amount from their domestic ratepayers and community charge payers as they contributed to ILEA before abolition.

Preparatory work for the apportionment of ILEA's spending has begun in consultation with the authority. The calculations will need to take account not only of the attribution of institutions to individual boroughs but also of patterns of movement of pupils across borough boundaries. The safety net and GRE assessment will need to be based on the most accurate possible information about pupil and student numbers by area of residence.

The inner London boroughs will be notified of their GRE need assessments for 1990–91 in the normal way and in due course. The method of assessing GREs under the new system is currently being revised and will he discussed with the local authority associations later in the year. The purpose of the assessments will be to take account of differences in need to spend between authorities so that those with greater needs receive more government support. While the safety net is fully operative in 1990–91, community charge payers in inner London will be safeguarded from the full community charge implications of ILEA's high spending relative to GRE. As it is phased out, spending above or below assessed need will progressively feed through to the community charge payer, as it would have done had ILEA remained in existence.

When inner London boroughs have determined the provision they will take over from ILEA, and have information on the income they can expect from different sources, they will be able to take a view about an appropriate pattern of service. Initially, as the safety net arrangements will recognise, much provision will be inherited with particular ILEA costs and cost structures associated with it. But once boroughs have experience of running the service they will be in a position to judge how it might best be managed over the longer term to be more effective and efficient and to balance the level of service provided with the cost to their community charge payers.

This is an important consideration because 1LEA's spending has been profligate, especially in relation to the results and in comparison with other comparable inner city areas. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for having spoken at length in this way on these amendments. I believed it important to place on the record, as we begin the debate on Part III of the Bill, the fact that energetic progress is now being made. These amendments, I fear, take no account of that fact.

The decision taken by your Lordships on 17th May gave the green light for progress towards the ultimate objective of the improvement of education throughout inner London. I am in no doubt that approval of the present amendments would cause dismay, uncertainty and considerable confusion among those in the boroughs, and in schools and colleges, who are already planning ahead for the new structure from 1990. This would not be to the benefit of those for whom this Bill is intended, the real beneficiaries; namely, the schoolchildren of London.

If these amendments are pressed to a Division, I must once again urge your Lordships to reject them.

Lord Alport

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young accused me of being responsible for our holding this important debate at this time of night. I shall turn the other cheek to her and say that I do not remember that, when she led the House, we had a similar episode to the one that we are having tonight.

Much as I should like to, I believe that it would be wrong of me to try to reply to all the points that were raised in criticism of these amendments, except to deal with one matter. This amendment is not the same as that of the right reverend Prelate at Committee stage, either in its form or in its purpose; it is entirely different. As I said earlier on, I believe it is one which it is entirely in the interests of the Government to accept.

I hope that your Lordships' House will accept it, in which case it will not be necessary for me to move other than formally the other amendments that are associated with this one. If it is not accepted, then I shall move Amendments Nos. 420 and 421 at a later stage. I think that we should now make a decision on the matter.

1.45 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 419) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 56.

DIVISION NO. 7
CONTENTS
Adrian, L.	Kirkwood, L.
Alport, L. [Teller.]	McNair, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Blackstone, B.	Nicol, B.
Bramall, L.	Parry, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Peston, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Carter, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Combermere, V.	Rochester, L,
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	Russell, E.
David, B.	Seear, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Serota, B.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Sherfield, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Flowers, L.	Tordoff, L.
Gallacher, L.	Warnock, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
	White, B.
Hart of South Lanark, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Young of Dartinglon, L.

NOT CONTENTS
Ampthill, L.	Dundee, E.
Arran, E.	Eden of Winton, L.
Beaverbrook, L.	Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Beloff, L.	Ferrers, E.
Belstead, L.	Greenhill of Harrow, L.
Benson, L.	Greenway, L.
Blatch, B.	Halsbury, E.
Blyth, L.	Harvington, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Henley, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Hives, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Hood, V.
Butterworth, L.	Hooper, B.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Coleraine, L.	Kimball, L.
Cowley, E.	Limerick, E.
Cox, B.	Long, V. [Teller]
Craigmyle, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Denham, L. [Teller]	Middleton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.	Teviot, L.
Munster, E.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Pender, L.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Renton, L.	Trafford, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Sandford, L.	Trumpington, B.
Skelmersdale, L.	Ullswater, V.
Strange, B.	Young, B.
Swinton, E.	Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

1.53 a.m.

[Amendment No. 420 not moved.]

Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 421: After Clause 149, insert the following new clause:

("Consultation on future provision for education etc. presently administered by ILEA.

The Secretary of State shall consult the local authorities, professional teaching organisations, and representatives of school governors and parent associations in the Inner London Education Area with regard to making provision for the future organisation of adult and further education, special schools, museums and cultural activities and the advisory, inspectorate and procurement services at present administered by the ILEA.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now move Amendment No. 421 in association with Amendments Nos. 422 and 423. During the discussion on the last amendment, I outlined my general arguments in favour of giving the Secretary of State time and opportunity to take advice with regard to the future organisation of London's education; and the power to amend and add to the provisions of the Bill by Order in Council if he felt it expedient to do so.

I believe that there would have been great advantages to the Government if the implementation of this part of the Bill had been delayed until 1992. But that is now not to be done. I still hope that advantage will be taken of these three amendments to ensure, first, that proper consultation is undertaken as provided for under Amendment No. 421; and, secondly, that there is independent financial assessment to compare the cost of 13 education departments, as against a single authority and the effect of the fragmented administration on the quality of provision of all forms of education in London, which is dealt with under Amendment No. 422.

With regard to cost, only today the ILEA financial director has warned the boroughs that he calculates that the cost of education will increase considerably after the abolition of the ILEA.

The third matter that I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention is that I believe that the Secretary of State urgently needs power, as is provided in Amendment No. 423, to make amendments or additions to the Bill by Order in Council subject to affirmative approval, when the inevitable anomalies and problems of London's education begin to surface during the following months and years. That that will happen is already blindingly obvious.

The Government have already had to table 43 amendments to Part III, including Amendment No. 423GB, which your Lordships may have noticed, and which, as I understand it, transfers responsibility for services now provided by the ILEA to the London Residuary Body, the administrative dustbin into which the remains of the GLC were dumped. That expedient is so extraordinary that it illustrates the ludicrous situation into which the Secretary of State has been placed, and the realisation at the 11th hour that some form of central administration is necessary for certain aspects of London's education administration.

It is inconceivable that important services now provided by the ILEA should become the responsibility of such a totally inexperienced, ill-equipped and unelected body as the London Residuary Body which, as I understand it, is likely to exist for only a comparatively short time. What is to happen after it ceases to exist? What will happen to the services it now administers?

If agreeable to your Lordships, the amendments give the Secretary of State a chance to take measures to avoid the serious consequences to the whole structure of inner London education which must flow from the implementation of this part of the Bill in its present form. Over the past 100 years all parties have contributed to the creation of our national education system, and that of London in particular; but during the past 44 years the Conservative Party has had and deserved great public credit as a result of the late Lord Butler's Act. That reputation will be damaged by the inadequacies of this part of the Bill, and I therefore urge my noble colleagues to think carefully before voting to reject the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I have already spoken at length and fully answered the points that my noble friend has chosen to raise further. I said at the outset that to create uncertainty for another four years, followed by a further two years, would not help anyone and certainly not the people whom we aim to benefit. I also clearly demonstrated by what I said that thorough consultation is taking place and planning in considerable detail is going along.

The function of the London Residuary Body is to smooth through the transitional phase. I should have thought that my noble friend would have welcomed that because it gives the extra time that he seems so keen on in relation to the whole process of abolition.

Earl Russell

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in attacking uncertainty does she contend that there is no uncertainty about the policy that the Government recommend?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, we have made the plans and consultation processes perfectly clear. I see no cause for anxiety about the way the development plans are going forward. A longer delay could only give rise to further uncertainty and confusion, and will impede the plans that are already going ahead so successfully.

Lord Alport

My Lords, the reply of the Minister on this occasion, as indeed on the last occasion, has been very far from my own knowledge of the situation with regard to the boroughs and the mood, atmosphere and morale of education in London at the present time. I therefore feel that it is only in order to try to emphasise to the Government the immense concern that is felt generally at what is happening here at present that I should divide the House once again, even at this late hour, on the amendment. I therefore propose to do so.

2 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 421) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43, Not-Contents, 53.

DIVISION NO. 8
CONTENTS
Adrian, L.	Kirkwood, L.
Alport, L. [Teller]	McNair, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Blackstone, B.	Nicol, B.
Bramall, L.	Parry, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Peston, L.
Carter, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Combermere, V.	Ritchie of Dundee. L.
Dainton, L.	Rochester, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	Russell, E.
David, B.	Seear, B.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Serota, B.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Sherfield, L.
Flowers, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Gallacher, L.	Tordoff, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Warnock, B.
	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Greenhill of Harrow, L.	White, B.
Hart of South Lanark, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Young of Dartington, L.

NOT CONTENTS
Arran, E.	Hood, V.
Beaverbrook, L.	Hooper, B.
Beloff, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Belstead, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Benson, L.	Kimball, L.
Blatch, B.	Limerick, E.
Blyth, L.	Long, V. [Teller.]
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Middleton, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Butterworth, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.	Munster, E.
	Pender, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Renton, L.
Coleraine, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Cowley, E.	Sandford, L.
Cox, B.	Skelmersdale, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Strange, B.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Swinton, L.
Dundee, E.	Teviot, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Ferrers, E.	Trafford, L.
Greenway, L.	Trumpington, B.
Halsbury, E.	Ullswater, V.
Harvington, L.	Young, B.
Henley, L.	Young of Graffham, L.
Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

2.8 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 422 and 423 not moved.]

Clause 150 [New local education authorities fir areas in inner London]:

Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 423ZA: Page 144, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of section ("Organisation of further adult education") below").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 423ZA, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 423AC, 423DN and 423DQ. The purpose of these amendments, on the assumption that there will not be a London-wide ILEA, is to draw attention to the need for some London-wide provision for certain specific services which, in our view, cannot be adequately provided by the boroughs. This refers particularly to further education and adult education.

The colleges of further education, spread throughout the London boroughs, very rightly and sensibly specialise so that one college will have developed great expertise in Russian, say, another in advanced computer studies, and so on. It is highly desirable that this should be so. London being the kind of area it is, with relatively good internal transport, there is no problem about adults or post-compulsory school education pupils at any rate travelling around to the colleges at which the courses they wish to pursue are being run. That surely is as it should be. By definition further education and adult education are not appropriate services to be provided at the unit of the borough. Therefore we are asking for a London-wide body with responsibility for further and adult education.

Perhaps I may give an illustration on the adult education side. Morley College, of which I was the chairman for many years, is a London-wide college. People come to it from boroughs all over inner London and indeed from greater London. It is used by people who work in London but who do not live there. They come to the college at a quarter to six, have a cup of tea, do a course from six o'clock to eight o'clock and then go home on the train from Waterloo. The service which the college provides is valuable. It serves the boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth, in which it is situated. However, it is inappropriate for a single borough to operate a London-wide service. A London-wide organisation makes good sense, and I hope that the House will support the amendment. I beg to move.

Viscount Combermere

My Lords, I spoke to the amendment at Committee stage and I do not wish to add a great deal to what I said at that time. I support the noble Baroness in what she has said. I believe that there has been some improvement in the position of the Government, in that four institutes have been singled out for government support. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is reported in Hansard as acknowledging that each of these colleges makes a vital contribution to education in London.

However, 1 was not happy at the suggestion that those colleges would be expected to raise money from other sources and that government funding would be dependant on evidence that that had been attempted. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that. I am very concerned that the adult colleges and institutes outside the group of four will be financed by their respective boroughs, which may well have other education priorities. Not only can adult education not be considered to be one of those priorities but, following the abolition of ILEA, opportunities for strategic planning across London boroughs have already been jeopardised. For example, the Language and Literacy Unit and the Adult Education Training Unit, among others now organised by ILEA, will be impossible to organise on a borough basis.

I shall not elaborate on the importance of adult education or its excellence. Both have been emphasised in previous debates in this House and acknowledged by the Government. However, I should like to elaborate on one aspect of adult education which I referred to only briefly in Committee. That is university adult education. As a member of the staff of the extra-mural department of London University, I declare an interest.

The extra-mural department of London University makes a significant contribution to ILEA's provision, in that it is offering this year some 209 courses at adult institutes in inner London, of which 139 are held at the group of four institutes singled out for special government aid. That figure represents some 2 per cent. of ILEA's provision and 25 per cent. of the extra-mural department's provision. Approximately 46 per cent. of the students are on courses for certificates and diplomas of the university, which are held throughout the whole of the present ILEA area. That provides a network of courses offering wide choices of course options for our diplomas and certificates.

Many of the courses have a vocational value and offer access to higher education. If our current provision is to be maintained following the abolition of ILEA, there must be some mechanism for strategic planning and for co-ordination. It is in that context that I fully support the amendment for a London further education and adult education board.

Earl Russell

My Lords, as the case has been developed over a long time, I have not heard any criticism put forward of the further and adult education services which have been provided by the ILEA. Criticism has not concentrated in that area. That point is worth the attention of the House. The case for an overall London service is, in this area, quite peculiarly strong. London is a single social unit. Its transport makes it work as one—at least so far. If we have, say, 29 people in the whole of London who wish to study Chinese, it does not make much sense to break them up into 10 groups of two and three groups of three. You destroy your unit. This is a live thing here, and I hope the House will consider the amendment very seriously. It seems to be a practical attempt to resolve what looks to us like a very genuine problem.

2.15 a.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has proposed, I think, the very same amendment she put down at Committee stage. Perhaps I might be permitted to begin then by reminding her of the main reasons why we believe that a pan-London solution of the type she proposes could not work.

First, that solution would divide the responsibility for the education of 16 to 19-year-olds in London between the recognised local education authorities who would run the service in schools and this body which would provide for them in colleges. In addition, the boroughs would be responsible for running the youth service. Splitting responsibility in that way surely would guarantee at best an incoherent provision for London's 16 to 19-year-olds.

Secondly, the noble Baroness has put forward no mechanism for funding her body. As I hinted at Committee stage, the logic of this would be a high-cost provision funded by the boroughs: the body would decide the size and nature of the supply, and the bill would fall to the boroughs. In this way, power and responsibility would be divided. And we have all seen what that did to the cost of provision in the ILEA itself before the days of precept limitation. If, however, one accepts the argument that the boroughs should have some say in determining the size and nature of provision, then experience tells us that the different priorities of the boroughs would soon lead to divisiveness and a breakdown of the central body as an effective planning mechanism.

In short, the kind of solution put forward by the noble Baroness has not worked in the past. Therefore, I must repeat that it is the Government's firm view that responsibility for the provision and funding of the further and adult education services must be located at the borough level, as it is elsewhere throughout the country.

That is not to say that there is no scope for co-operative activity between boroughs. Forgive me if I repeat once again that we have been in discussion with the ILEA and the Labour boroughs for only some four weeks. The progress made in that time is impressive. On our experience with the other boroughs, that progress will, I am confident, accelerate as the boroughs prepare, publish and then refine their development plans. During that time they will need to consider how best to provide, for instance, specialist further education. It is very likely that the colleges in different boroughs will continue to specialise in their areas of expertise—and the existing automatic recoupment regime will reimburse those boroughs that are net exporters. In addition, I must repeat that, like other LEAs, the London boroughs will purchase some further education provision from those institutions which will be transferring to the PCFC sector.

Turning to adult education, we have already made clear our plans in respect of that part of the service provided by four major institutions. The noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, referred to this. Perhaps I should elaborate by saying that my honourable friend the Minister of State and I have met the principals of the assisted colleges to discuss the implications of the Government's proposals for funding, which it is proposed will initially be through the London Residuary Body. But discussions have also been initiated with the National Institute for Adult Continuing Education about its role in relation to the colleges once the LRB is wound up. Department officials have had a very useful discussion with the principal of the Central Institute, which includes the City Lit., about our proposals for the future support of the City Lit. ILEA was represented at those discussions which we hope can now be taken further with the boroughs concerned in the context of arrangements for the generality of adult education in inner London.

Apart from the progress made in relation to those four major institutions, the rest of the service is expected to be planned at a borough level. Existing institutes may need to be reorganised to some extent to fit in with the borough framework, but that need not create major difficulties. Beyond that, plainly I do not need to repeat that the Government accept that neighbouring boroughs may well wish to co-operate and that boroughs will certainly need to discuss appropriate fee structures and recruitment arrangements. We are happy to assist them in that discussion. With that explanation, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I fear that the noble Baroness feels no such thing. The brief contained no answer to the points that I raised. I must therefore divide the House.

2.21 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 423ZA) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 49.

DIVISION NO. 9
CONTENTS
Alport, L.	McNair, L. [Teller.]
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Blackstone, B.	Peston, L.
Carter, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Combermere, V. [Teller.]	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	Rochester, L.
David, B.	Russell, E.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Seear, B.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Serota, B.
Flowers, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Gallacher, L.	Tordoff, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Warnock, B.
Greenhill of Harrow, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Hart of South Lanark, B.	White, B.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Kirkwood, L.	Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Arran, E.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Beaverbrook, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Beloff, L.	Kimball, L.
Belstead, L,	Limerick, E.
Blatch, B.	Long, V. [Teller.]
Blyth, L.	Mackay of Clashfern. L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Middleton, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Butterworth, L.	Munster, E.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.	Pender, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Renton, L.
Coleraine, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Cowley, E.	Sandford, L.
Cox, B.	Skelmersdale, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Strange, B.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Swinton, E.
Dundee, E.	Teviot, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Elliot of Morpeth, L.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Greenway, L.	Trafford, L.
Halsbury, E.	Trumpington, B.
Harvington, L.	Ullswater, V.
Henley, L.	Young, B.
Hives, L.	Young of Graffham, L.
Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

2.28 a.m.

[Amendment No. 423ZB not moved.]

Baroness DavidAmendment No. 423A: After Clause 150, insert the following new clause:

("Education services

. The Secretary of State, in pursuance of his duty under section I of the Education Act 1944, shall so exercise his functions under this or any other enactment as to promote and secure the maintenance and cost-effective provision by local education authorities of inter alia the following services for the benefit of inner London—

1. (i) specialist provision for those with special educational needs,
2. (ii) specialist further education and adult education provision,
3. (iii) specialist inspection of schools and colleges,
4. (iv) the provision of advice and information to pupils and students, and co-ordination between local education authorities and employers, in respect of careers and training.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment attempts to remind the Secretary of State of his functions under the Education Act 1944. They are: to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area". We wish to draw his attention to services which we fear are vulnerable and most likely to fall through the net of individual borough provision after the transfer of functions. In particular, those with special educational needs would be seriously disadvantaged.

There are four areas of particular concern to us: first, specialist provision for those with special educational needs; secondly, specialist further education and adult education provision; thirdly, specialist inspection of schools and colleges, and, fourthly, the careers service.

ILEA's reputation in the field of educational provision for children with special needs is world renowned. At a time when the Secretary of State for Education is preparing for a visit to the Soviet Union and has recently visited the United States in search of examples of good educational practice, it is deeply ironic that he and his Government are proposing to dismantle and abolish local examples of good practice with a world-famous reputation. The threat to this good work must be taken seriously.

The Government, far from denying their intentions, have on the contrary made explicit in their guidance on development plans their proposal to cut spending on education in inner London by 40 per cent. over the next few years. There will be intense pressures on the boroughs to provide only that which can be defined, however inadequately, as cost effective educational provision and as provision which benefits local ratepayers.

With special education we are concerned first about ILEA's boarding schools. Because of its size and the needs of the population it serves, the Inner London Education Authority has been able to maintain a wide range of boarding special schools which is unique among LEAs. These schools include provision for children with very special disabilities, such as autistic children, children with both hearing impairment and other disabilities and a range of schools for children with behavioural and emotional difficulties which, because of their number, have been able to develop individual specialisms.

Secondly, we are concerned about ILEA's special day schools, all of which serve inner as well as outer London boroughs. There are those for the visually impaired, the delicate, the physically disabled and the hearing impaired. One such is the John Aird school in Hammersmith. Of all the visually impaired children that attend John Aird school only 13 are from the inner London area as a whole. Can Hammersmith alone be expected to sustain such a service? Everyone in local government expects severe restraints to be placed on local authorities. What then will happen to the children of John Aird school?

There is particular anxiety for the children of inner London's poorest boroughs. Only 37 children leave the City of Westminster to attend schools outside their borough and within ILEA's boundaries. In contrast, 170 children from Hackney and 153 from Lambeth cross the boundary to attend special schools outside their borough. Will their places be secured if boroughs are forced by budget constraints to raise fences around borough boundaries?

Thirdly, there are the peripatetic teachers. None of these peripatetic teachers is attached to particular schools and therefore assured of transfer to particular boroughs. The Secretary of State cannot wash his hands of them. He must take responsibility for securing the outstanding and valuable work that they do.

Fourthly, there is the team of 82 educational psychologists working in special and mainstream schools, including specialists in the different areas of disability and learning difficulty.

Fifthly, there is the centre for the deaf providing support for hearing impaired students attending further education college courses; and, sixthly, the centre for motor and associated communication handicaps which has a specialist base at Charlton Park school in Greenwich and a team of six teachers supporting children with communication difficulties resulting from physical impairments.

As a result of this work many severely disabled people, not just in ILEA but all over the country and around the world, are today able to talk using synthesised speech and to write and draw. It cannot be too much to ask the Secretary of State that he should exercise his functions under the 1944 Act to secure the future of these services.

Finally, there is the child guidance service providing, together with district health authorities, 15 centres for consultation and advice for children, their families and schools. Based at these centres are 41 psychiatric social workers, 14 teachers and 30 support staff.

Linked to this work is the specialist inspection of schools and colleges. Among the ILEA's inspectorate is a team of special education inspectors. Each member of the team takes responsibility for specialist advice in each area of disability or learning difficulty. There are inspectors for autism; for deaf-blind children; for those with severe learning difficulties; for the delicate; for inservice training of special education for teachers; and for language hearing and visual impairment. It is most unlikely that these inspectors can be found a home in any single borough. There is a very grave risk of their expertise and experience being lost not only to London but to the nation.

Just as disturbing is the threat to ILEA's inspectorate in mainstream schools. It is clear that boroughs will want to take on general inspectors for the primary and secondary levels. If the experience of the outer London boroughs is anything to go by very few will be able to afford to employ the wide range of specialist inspectors currently employed by the ILEA. However, not only does the ILEA provide a wide range of specialist inspectors; it also has inspectors with a depth of specialised knowledge not usually developed by other LEAs. For example, in maths there are inspectors for the lower years in primary schools and others who specialise in the upper years in primary schools. There arc English inspectors for the first two years in secondary schools, the middle years and the last two years. Those ranges of inspectorate provision and the depth of inspectorate knowledge and experience are at risk with the transfer of functions to the boroughs.

I shall leave the area of specialist provision in further and adult education to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who has added her name in support of the amendment and who has a long record of commitment to continuing education within inner London.

I turn finally to the careers service, the fourth area of educational provision of concern to us. The central London careers office staff are widely regarded as an unrivalled source of central London labour-market intelligence. Seminars are regularly run for careers officers from neighbouring LEAs. Because of their integral relationship with the ILEA central London careers office, staff are well placed to advise employers and managing agents on the FHE facilities that they can use. Conversely, because they are in touch with schools and colleges, they can talk knowledgeably to employers about potential recruits from the entire age and achievement range. They are in a unique position to help education respond to employers' needs across all sectors.

This amendment seeks an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will so exercise his functions as to ensure that these vital services are both promoted and secured after the transfer of education functions to the inner London boroughs. The Secretary of State takes on an enormous number of powers throughout the Bill. He does not take on any so much as in this part of the Bill which deals with the Inner London Education Authority. In the amendment we ask him to recognise his duty to keep the essential services in operation when the ILEA ceases to be, for the sake of all people, young and old, in inner London. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. Size has disadvantages; it also has advantages. One of the advantages of size in the Inner London Education Authority has been its ability to provide certain kinds of specialist provision in a way which would be exceedingly difficult for the boroughs. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State plays an important role in overseeing the maintenance of this specialist provision.

My noble friend Lady David has already given a number of examples of the way in which specialist provision has been provided in the ILEA. It has been provided in a manner acclaimed not only by pupils, students, parents and other professionals working in education in inner London, but also by Her Majesty's Inspectorate and in particular by the senior chief inspector in the DES. He has especially drawn attention to the very high quality of three services listed in this amendment: further education, adult education and the inspectorate.

My noble friend Lady David referred to the fact that the ILEA has been able to provide specialist inspectors in certain areas. Classics is an example which she mentioned, and I should like to mention another example which is particularly dear to my heart; namely, dance. The ILEA is the only local education authority in the country that has been able to appoint an inspector for dance education and he has done a great deal to promote improved teaching in that particular area.

On careers, one of the great advanatages of the ILEA career service has been that it has been able to provide information about jobs and vacancies all over the capital which has been extremely useful to employers and makes much more sense than doing that on a borough basis. Careers officers have also played a very important role in establishing links between employers and FE colleges right across London.

Perhaps I may turn to FE provision. What characterises further education facilities in London is that they take no account of borough boundaries, but they are provided across the whole city. Indeed, only 28 per cent. of students live in the same borough as the FE college which they attend. Many students are attending highly specialist courses and they cover a very wide range including subjects like dental technology, cabinet making, ophthalmics, and telecommunications. There are many more such examples.

I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House will agree that those are very useful courses which, without the central co-ordinating functions of the ILEA, may well he threatened because the individual boroughs in many areas would find it extremely difficult to continue these courses. In many cases recoupment (which may well be put forward as the means of continuing them) simply will not cover the costs because they are rather more expensive than the average costs of FE courses on which recoupment finances are based.

Moreover, I believe it is highly likely that the boroughs would be unable to respond to new needs for different kinds of specialist courses and that they will tend to focus on providing general FE courses simply for their own area. For those reasons I support this amendment and I hope that the Minister will agree that it would be to the advantage of inner London if the Secretary of State played a role in ensuring that these provisions survive.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment. I have already spoken ad nauseam and to absolutely no effect about the importance of further adult education, and I do not intend to elaborate on the matter again except to emphasise the specialist nature of many of the services offered which is why special assistance is needed and not merely borough-based assistance.

I should like to add a further comment about the importance of the careers service and a career service on a wider than borough basis. Careers are much wider than boroughs and the expertise of the careers service is of the highest importance, especially at a time when job opportunities are changing as fast as they are and with so little real understanding in many schools about the opportunities offered by new training schemes. Unless a good careers service is available, a great deal of the Government's work in trying to promote training will not bear fruit because the message will not get through to the schools. It is very tough to get knowledge of the good training schemes through to children in schools. That depends on a good careers service. It is an essential adjunct to the training world. The ILEA has provided that, and unless it is provided on a wider basis, then that work will also decay. 1 hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendment.

2.45 a.m.

Lord Peston

My Lords, may I join in on this matter? I have not spoken ad nauseam. Indeed, I have not spoken for the past two hours. I have been getting back my strength.

I particularly wish to rebut what I regard as one of the more nonsensical aspects of the Government's arguments in this field—the uncertainty argument. Noble Lords were impressed by the uncertainty argument in ways that somewhat surprised me. The amendment brings out precisely what the Government are doing. Far from removing uncertainty in these key areas, and in many others, they are creating uncertainty. The future of every one of these activities is made uncertain by the Government's abolition of ILEA and they would not be uncertain if the ILEA were not to be abolished.

Therefore, I hope that we do not again hear from the noble Baroness an argument on uncertainty. It did not make sense when that argument was used earlier and it certainly makes no sense now. If one is concerned about uncertainty it is precisely in accepting a duty, and the Secretary of State accepting a duty, in this area that we might lower rather than raise it. I rose only to make that important point.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, this is an important subject and the Government recognise it as such. That will have been clear from some of what I have already said. It may, however, be of assistance to the House if I say a little more about the Government's view before explaining why I do not think that any of these amendments—and I believe we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 423ZB, 423AA and 423CB at this point—

Baroness David

My Lords, I spoke only to Amendment No. 423A.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, in that case perhaps I may remind the House of the words contained in the draft guidance on development plans. It is the Government's firm view not only that the inner London councils are capable of becoming effective local education authorities responsible in their own right for the full range of services but, above all, that this restructuring will provide a stable framework within which to secure urgently needed improvements in the performance and accountability of the education service in inner London. That expresses the fundamental difficulty which the Government have with this amendment.

We start from the position that one of the reasons for the educational and financial problems faced by inner London is that the capital's education service has been run on too large a scale and we believe that with suitable help during the preparatory period the inner London boroughs are perfectly capable of becoming healthy and viable local education authorities; as are their neighbours in outer London and elsewhere in metropolitan areas. More than that, we believe that it is only by giving the education service in inner London the clear local focus which it has hitherto lacked that we will bring to bear on the evident problems of the service the urgent attention which is required.

I will not at this stage rehearse the Government's reasons for taking that view as they have already been fully exposed at earlier stages of the Bill's progress. As I said, co-operative arrangements are quite possible on a voluntary basis. I do not need to remind the House that when my right honourable friend believes that co-operative arrangements are necessary, and believes also that it would be beneficial for them to be established on a statutory footing, he has powers to do so by setting up a joint education committee under Part II of the first schedule to the 1944 Act. The noble Baroness, Lady David, reminded us of that.

Unless the boroughs request such action in relation to specific services, the Government would prefer to allow voluntary arrangements a chance to operate initially before deciding that this formal procedure is required. There is of course a wide range of cooperation arrangements which is in principle open to the inner London councils, ranging from agreements between two councils that one should act as the agent for the other in specific matters to joint arrangements between a handful of councils for the provision of specific services within an area of inner London.

In its discussions with ILEA, the boroughs and others, the department is alive to the possible desirability of arrangements of that kind and that is why we have proposed, for example, that a lead borough arrangement would be sensible in relation to instrumental tuition for the musically gifted, or perhaps in relation to certain aspects of the careers service. In relation to the careers service—since this has been raised by a number of your Lordships—the responsibility for this lies with the Department of Employment. I am pleased that together with the Department of Education, the department has been able to hold preliminary discussions with ILEA and others about the future organisation of the service.

The Government are clear that responsibility for the careers service as such will lie with the inner London councils. The duties of local education authorities in this respect are set out in the Employment and Training Act 1973, which could be supplemented by general guidance, and will apply to the new local education authorities in London as they do to existing authorities. This local responsibility—

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness giving way. Is she not aware that for children of school age it is the LEA that provides the career service and it is only those of post-school age who are the responsibility of the Department of Employment? Therefore, the careers service is highly relevant in this connection.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, yes, and that is why I was talking about the careers service

Baroness Seear

My Lords, with the permission of the House, the noble Baroness said, with reference to the careers service, that it was the responsibility of the Department of Employment. For children of school age it is an LEA responsibility.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am coming on to how this ties in. This service is currently performed by the central London careers office and it is on this, aspect in particular that we have opened discussions. There are several possibilities, and one with some advantages would be for one organisation to provide a central service. As I said, we have had preliminary discussions and I know that, among others, the City of London and some employer forums are willing to explore these possibilities further with the help of ILEA. We recognise that the financial implications will need to he addressed and that some financial assistance from central government might be appropriate, at least in the initial years. We look forward to continued discussions with all concerned with a view to reaching firm decisions as soon as possible.

There were other specific points that were raised about residential special schools. On this subject I can tell the House that a meeting of the joint working party that has been set up was held last Friday. It was agreed that further meetings should be held upon the basis of information being put together by ILEA and the Department of Education.

A number of points were also made on the subject of adult education. We have already made clear our plans in respect of that part of the service provided by the four major institutions. The rest of the service will be planned at borough level. As I explained, we feel that that is most appropriate. This is an important topic and I believe that the Government are responding to the needs in this area and therefore that the proposals made under this amendment are not required.

Baroness Hart of South Lanark

My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me, before she sits down, to ask a question. Did I understand her to say just now that it is the view of the Government that, apart from the four specialist colleges it should be the responsibility of the boroughs and only of the boroughs, to provide further and adult education?

Baroness Hooper

Yes, my Lords. The basic premise of our plans for ILEA is that all education functions devolve to the boroughs except in the exceptional cases where some other arrangement has proved necessary. That is certainly the thinking at this initial stage. As I said, we believe that there is plenty of scope for co-operation between the boroughs and we prefer that to happen on a truly voluntary basis and not to be imposed.

Baroness David

My Lords, I must confess that at the beginning of her remarks I was not at all sure that the noble Baroness was answering the right amendment. Her answer did not seem to be directed to the specialist provision in all these areas which I specially mentioned: the specialist provision for special education, the specialist further education and adult education provision, the specialist inspection and the specialist careers service. The answer was so unsatisfactory that I shall have to divide the House.

2.55 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 423A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-contents, 49.

DIVISION NO. 10
CONTENTS
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Blackstone, B.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Carter L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Raglan, L.
Combermere, V.	Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]
David, B.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Rochester, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Russell, E.
Flowers, L.	Seear, B.
Gallacher, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Tordoff, L.
Hart of South Lanark, B.	Warnock, B.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Kirkwood, L.	White, B.
McNair, L.	Winchelsea and Nottingham, E.
Morton of Shuna, L.
	Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Arran, E.	Hooper, B.
Beaverbrook, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Beloff, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Belstead, L.	Kimball, L.
Benson, L.	Limerick, E.
Blatch, B.	Long, V. [Teller]
Blyth, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Middleton, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.	Munster, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Pender, L.
Coleraine, L.	Renton, L.
Cowley, E.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Cox, B.	Sandford, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Davidson, V.	Strange, B.
Denham, L. [Teller]	Swinton, E.
Dundee, E.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Trafford, L.
Greenway, L.	Trumpington, B.
Halsbury, E.	Ullswater, V.
Harvington, L.	Young, B.
Henley, L.	Young of Graffham, L.
Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.3 a.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 423AA: After Clause 150, insert the following clause:

("Joint Schemes for inner London councils.

(1) A joint scheme may be made by the inner London councils for the exercise of their functions as local education authorities as the scheme may specify.

(2) The councils shall be required to contribute to any expenditure made under the joint scheme; and the amount of the contributions shall be determined so that the expenditure in respect of which they are payable is borne by the councils in proportion to the population of their respective areas.

(3) A joint scheme may in the absence of an agreement between all the councils be made by a majority of those councils so as to be binding on all of them.

(4) A joint scheme—

1. (a) shall include provision for decisions to be made by a majority of councils, which shall include decisions to alter the functions specified in the scheme; and
2. (b) may contain such supplementary provisions as the councils making the scheme may think necessary as expedient.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, following the abolition of ILEA, the inner London councils shall be able to set up joint schemes to cover any of their functions as local education authorities, and also to ensure that all the councils will be involved in such a scheme on the basis of a majority decision.

The amendment requiring a review of educational needs—upon which I shall be speaking in relation to Amendment No. 423B—leaves the method for implementing an inner London-wide action, arising from that review, to the discretion of the boroughs. The boroughs have indicated that they wish to make any cross inner London arrangements which they consider necessary on a voluntary basis.

Amendment No. 423CB, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—to which she will be speaking— is grouped with this amendment. It places a statutory duty on the boroughs to co-operate from the outset; whereas this amendment, to which I now speak, would place such a requirement on the boroughs only in the event of voluntary arrangements breaking down.

The amendment is of great importance because it is well known that arrangements made between London boroughs on a voluntary basis have in the past not always been successful. For example, some voluntary arrangements set up after the abolition of the GLC in 1986 have already run into difficulties.

The Inner London Consultative Employment Group is a case in point. It was set up after the abolition of the GLC to put a case to the European Social Fund for London to have special status. All the inner London boroughs, together with Haringey, joined. It was serviced by a officer in Camden. That voluntary arrangement has already broken down. I could instance other cases.

Voluntary organisations in London consider that a safeguard should be built into the legislation so that if voluntary arrangements between the boroughs were to fail a mechanism would already be in place to support the majority of boroughs that wish to work together in an area of education. This is the important part of the amendment.

I could say many other things in support of the amendment. I shall not do so because I think that I have explained its purpose. Noble Lords will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, when speaking to an earlier amendment, favoured the plan contained in this amendment. I hope that it will find favour with the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, am I correct in thinking that we are speaking now to Amendments Nos. 423AA and 423AB?

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, we are speaking only to Amendment No. 423AA.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the amendment makes provision for joint schemes which would enable a simple majority of inner London councils— seven out of the 13—to impose their wishes in respect of co-operative arrangements on the remaining six. Taking the most extreme grouping, that would enable authorities with responsibility for 390 schools to impose their wishes on authorities responsible for 638 schools. That is a recipe for friction. I venture to say that it would lead to the reverse of co-operation.

I hope therefore that I have made it clear in speaking to previous amendments that the Government accept that co-operative arrangements have a part to play in inner London in the future, but our firm conviction is that co-operation must mean just that and must not be imposed. I am therefore unable to accept the amendment and ask the House to reject it.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, the Minister missed the important point that I made, which was that the amendment would have placed a requirement on the boroughs only in the event that the voluntary arrangements broke down; it would be a safety net. The example she gave was not my point, which related to the breakdown of voluntary arrangements. I gave examples of where that happened following the abolition of the GLC. It would be something on which the boroughs could fall back. It is disappointing that the Minister has not taken seriously the amendment which, as I said, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said that he preferred. I find that disappointing. It is late, and we have had a great deal of exercise down to the Lobbies. Although dissatisfied, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 423AB: After Clause 150, insert the following Clause:

("Educational review—inner London.

(1) Each inner London council shall conduct a review of the educational needs of its area ("the educational review") which shall be published not later than I November 1991.

(2) In each subsequent year, each council shall publish a report ("the annual education report") which shall consist of two parts as follows—

1. (a) Part I shall consist of an update of the educational review; and
2. (b) Part II shall specify the policies the council intends to pursue to address the educational needs identified by the educational review and, where relevant, previous annual educational reports.

(3) In preparing the educational review and each annual educational report, a council shall—

1. (a) consult the other inner London councils and such voluntary organisations and other persons as appear to the council to be concerned; and
2. (b) have regard to the educational needs of the whole of inner London, and in respect of Part 11 of the annual educational report, the effect of its policies on the educational needs of the whole of inner London.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to impose a duty on the inner London councils to carry out an ongoing review of education needs in inner London at borough level and across inner London, and to take account of that review in developing their education policies in consultation with the voluntary sector and other relevant bodies.

The voluntary organisations in London are extremely concerned about the resources position. They are concerned about the threat of non-statutory services, including pre-school education, youth service and adult education in particular. If these services are reduced, it will be those in inner London's communities who are most in need at present who will suffer. This will include people from black and other ethnic minorities, unemployed people and people with disabilities. They also fear that valuable services which have been built up by the voluntary sector and ILEA working in partnership will be put in jeopardy.

The effect of this amendment would not be to cause a delay but to ensure that boroughs take account of the special needs of inner London, both when they are drawing up their plans for education and as they monitor their education services in the future.

There is little doubt of the extent of social and economic deprivation in London which has substantially increased over the past 10 years. There has been a review by the London Research Centre which has quoted an analysis which shows that 15 London boroughs have high levels of deprivation compared with London and Wales as a whole. Ten of the 15 are inner London boroughs. Education is of course one of the most effective means of breaking the circle of this poverty and deprivation.

The boroughs will therefore need to look jointly at ways of ensuring that their educational services are accessible in the widest sense of the word to all sections of our local communities. For instance, there is homelessness. The question is: will the borough in which a homeless family lives in a bed-and-breakfast hotel ensure that all the members of that family have access to educational services? Or will it say that this is the responsibility of the borough from which they came? I think boroughs need to look at this together; it will be the only way to satisfy the need.

The voluntary sector has much to contribute to policy-making as well as service provision in education. This amendment places a duty on the boroughs to consult it about how best to make education provision for different sections of the community. I commend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I have a certain amount of sympathy with some at least of the aims of this amendment. There might be some benefit if local education authorities generally carried out the sort of annual policy review envisaged. Indeed, many already do so.

But what would, I think, be a mistake would be to impose on the inner London local education authorities a requirement which is not imposed elsewhere. Like every other responsible local education authority in the country the inner London boroughs will have to decide for themselves how they review policy, the ways in which they consult others about that policy, and the ways in which they bring it to the attention of local people.

I fear in particular that the arrangements proposed in this amendment could result in a great deal of bureaucratic work, as, year by year, every one of the 13 inner London councils had to look at the plans produced by each other, whether or not they were likely to be of the slightest relevance. It is surely odd for Hackney, say, to have to consult Wandsworth—at the other side of London—about its policies, when it would be under no such duty in relation to Haringey, Waltham Forest or Newham, each of which is contiguous with Hackney.

In brief, I fear that the noble Baroness's amendment would undermine the position of the boroughs as fully-fledged local education authorities and would in any case make little practical sense. Boroughs themselves will see the need to consult where necessary on particular policies—for example, those I have already referred to relating to 16–19 year-old education—and I think it would be quite wrong for us to second-guess the judgments that they will make.

I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness started by saying that she had some sympathy for this amendment because that gave me some pleasure. But she said: Why should this be applied to inner London and not to other boroughs? The reason is that inner London is not the same as elsewhere. That is why we are trying to make special provisions for the vast mixed cultural community and mixed needs existing in London.

This amendment was proposed by the London voluntary organisations which have a huge amount of work to do among these communities. I know how disappointed they will be that the noble Baroness has found that she is unable to accept the amendment. It is very late and therefore, although I am not happy with the response of the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 423AC not moved.]

Clause 152 [Development plans for education]:

3.15 a.m.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423AD: Page 145, line 29, leave out ("and").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I announced in Committee that the Government proposed to introduce the provisions included in these amendments. It may be helpful to the House if I briefly describe how they will work. In moving Amendment No. 423AD, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 423ZBA, 423DR and 423DS.

Each borough will be required to include within its development plan a statement of its proposed management structure. That is not a term that can easily be defined in legislation, and the amendments are therefore drafted so as to enable the Secretary of State to include, in the guidance to be issued after Royal Assent, a clear statement of what it is we shall be looking for.

In brief, we would normally expect to see an organisational chart for the education department, identifying posts in at least the top three tiers of the structure and showing lines of responsibility. For a limited period—five years from 1st April 1990—these organisational arrangements will be subject to the Secretary of State's approval, and may not be varied without his further approval. Linked to this provision is one which would require appointments to the post of chief education officer to be made following consultation with the Secretary of State.

These arrangements would be operated in the same way as the similar provision which used to apply in the case of all LEAs—a short list would be submitted to the department, with brief biographical details of the candidates. The amendments also include provision for the Secretary of State to designate posts within the management structure for approval in the same way.

I should emphasise that these provisions are to remain in force for a limited period. Their purpose is to provide an assurance to all concerned with the future of education in inner London—parents and teachers above all.

Amendment No. 423DS in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, would I believe weaken that reassurance. If any person has reason to believe that the Secretary of State has acted unreasonably in prohibiting a particular appointment, he will of course have open to him the normal scope for redress under administrative law, including judicial review. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend would operate any such prohibition under equitable arrangements which were demonstrably fair to the individual concerned. Were that not so, of course, any such direction would be liable to be overturned under the procedures I have referred to.

I should, however, make it clear that we are dealing here simply with a particular discretionary power given to the Secretary of State. It would be odd to single out this particular power for potential reference to the High Court when other powers with similar effect, for example those in relation to the misconduct of teachers, are not so subject. Furthermore, with the greatest respect to the High Court I do not believe that it would be right to ask that court, as the amendment in the name of the noble Lord does, to make a judgment about whether or not a particular individual is a fit person to hold a particular professional appointment. That is a decision which it is proper for the Secretary of State to make, subject to the safeguard under administrative law that he has acted reasonably and fairly. I hope with that assurance the House will support the amendment in my name and that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, at times I am not sure whether at this late or early hour, whichever way one considers it, one is really in Britain or in some Kafka country, or in the world of George Orwell. The powers that the Secretary of State is taking for himself in Amendment No. 423DR are quite alarming. They are allowed for the initial period, which is five years. That is a fairly lengthy period in which to set up a borough as a new LEA.

The powers are those of approving the management structure and anybody within that structure. If one looks at Amendment No. 423DR, subsection (4) states: Such a council shall not before the end of the initial period make an appointment to which this subsection applies except after consultation with the Secretary of State". A large group of people will be involved in the management structure of the local education authority. For five years the Secretary of State will be able to choose who is to be appointed. That raises questions as to whether the powers are proper and whether that can be described as giving power to the people in the local area. It seems to me that it takes power from ILEA and gives it to the DES.

Noble Lords will remember that in the 1944 Act a local education authority was under a duty to provide the Minister with particulars of the main previous experience and qualifications of the people on the short list from whom the LEA wished to select a chief education officer. That was a power of approval which had no counterpart in previous legislation. A Conservative Government, in the Local Government Act 1972, took that power away. Perhaps that could be described as giving power back to local education authorities.

The present law provides simply and adequately that the LEA must appoint as a chief education officer a fit person. Presumably if the Secretary of State thought that anybody an LEA appointed as a chief education officer was not a fit person, the LEA could go to the court. It is not clear what matters will come into the Secretary of State's mind when judging the fitness of people on short lists. What guarantees will there be that a person who is critical of the policies of the Government will not be barred from appointment? Perhaps many educationists will be involved in discussing whether this Bill is correct or not. Will the Secretary of State say that such a person is one of us or not one of us?

On the other hand, if disqualification relates to academic background, teaching experience or managerial experience, surely criteria can be set out. If that is done, why should the LEA not make the choice within the critieria? I suggest that the fears expressed are not purely academic or unrealistic. The Independent, in an article published on 27th June 1988, named three people whose appointments to quangos had been vetoed. There were two distinguished academics and one very prominent, recently retired industrialist. The quangos were named as the National Curriculum Council and the Universities Funding Council. Any local education authority able to appoint any of these people to be its chief education officer would be very lucky; but would the Secretary of State be minded to veto the appointment and, if so, would that be because they had expressed opinions which did not fit those of the Department of Education and Science?

There is no obligation in Amendment No. 423DR for the Secretary of State to give reasons for his decisions; and those decisions could destroy the careers of individuals in local government. There is no right of appeal against the arbitrary decision. It may be that judicial review is open. It is interesting that in the classic case of judicial review, Wednesbury in 1947, the illustration given by the Master of the Rolls in that case related to a teacher who was turned down just because he was red-haired.

We are in the same sort of area here. There is nothing to show that this is not being done on a purely arbitrary or purely party political view, and it certainly seems to be a gross interference with any right of a local education authority to set up its management structure in a way of its own choice and not of the department's choice. 1 must say that although it is very late in this discussion, this is a very serious point. The amendment gives the individual the right of appeal to the court; and I think that everybody in this House is concerned that the individual should be protected by having a right of appeal to the court. Speaking as a lawyer, I would always want there to he a right of appeal to the court. Judicial review is not as adequate a right of appeal, because it only concerns the method of making a decision and not the decision itself. For those reasons, when we come to it I shall be moving Amendment No. 423DS.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, I rise only to say that 1 think the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, of the Government's amendment is entirely justified and deserves some support from these Benches. It seems to me that here is yet another example of the Secretary of State taking to himself altogether excessive powers in this case in relation to the appointment of senior management.

It seems to me that the very least the Government should accept, when the noble Lord comes to move his own amendment, is some appeal mechanism to safeguard an aggrieved individual against the exercise of the powers the Secretary of State is here taking, in an unduly partisan or otherwise unreasonable way. It almost seems, from what the Government have in mind here, that the Secretary of State wants to run the whole show himself and that what should be an essential function of each inner London council is to be denied to that council. Imagine the board of a large company withholding from its constituent parts such powers. It would not work in industry for a moment and I do not think this move on the part of the Government should be allowed to pass without challenge in this House.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

My Lords, it is easy to see the hook that the Government have got themselves on to in this matter.They are set on abolishing the ILEA for reasons which are educationally unsound, as some of us tried to make clear in Committee. Out of the window with ILEA will go a body of accumulated educational expertise. People are already worried about the educational and other competence of some of the successor authorities. This amendment is intended to reassure them. What is the thinking behind it? It is that "Mother knows best". Is this the 200th new power that the Secretary of State is taking to himself, or the 300th or 400th? I have lost count.

The approach is no more acceptable here than anywhere else. On practical grounds, let alone principle, how can Whitehall or the department have the kind of knowledge that would enable the Secretary of State to decide under subsection (8) on the merits of people whom its officials have never interviewed and of whom they have probably never heard? How long will the bureaucratic processes of subsection (7) take before a council is allowed to proceed or not with its appointment? On present form answers from the department do not exactly come at a gallop.

I do not pretend to know the best answer to the boroughs' difficulties in establishing their new management structures. I am confident however that it is not this one. I hope that this impractical, centralising amendment will be rejected.

3.30 a.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, it is wrong to suggest that all posts in the management structure, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, suggested, require the Secretary of State's approval. This amendment relates to the chief education officer and to others who may be designated. The designation of other posts will be restricted only to those cases which are clearly essential.

I should repeat that this provision is designed simply as a safeguard. The criteria under which the Secretary of State will operate will he set out in guidance on development plans. They will be straightforward commonsense criteria related to the experience of the candidates, as one would expect. After all, this provision is intended to operate for a limited period. We wish to ensure that the boroughs will start their lives as local education authorities with appropriate management arrangements and with a team of properly qualified staff in the education department.

These are not provisions which the Government take lightly, but I believe that they are ones that will be widely welcomed by those who have expressed concern as to whether all the boroughs will be effective local education authorities.

We do not expect that the operation of these provisions will in practice prove to be more onerous than was the case with a similar requirement under the 1944 Act for the approval of the chief education officer. Certainly if the boroughs fulfil the statements that they have made to date about their intentions, it is unlikely that the Secretary of State will need to invoke his powers of veto at all. What is important is that the reassurance is there.

Lord Peston

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down it would reassure noble Lords if she would give an absolute guarantee that one of the criteria that will not be applied will be the political views of the chief education officer or other designated officers. We require that kind of assurance even to consider this amendment.

Baroness Hooper

With the leave of the House perhaps I may say that I am not in a position to tell noble Lords exactly what will be the guidance. The intention is that the normal factors applying to appointments should be applied and I have no reason to believe therefore that the fear expressed by the noble Lord is in any way justified.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down again, this means of course the department and not the Secretary of State. Will she tell us why she thinks that the department is competent to make these decisions?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, as I have said, this is not an entirely new kind of provision. A similar provision existed under the 1944 Act. I believe therefore that the same considerations apply. It is something which has been experienced before in this country.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, did she say that my account was wrong in that I said that the 1944 Act on that point had been repealed by the 1972 Act passed by agovernment of the same party as she represents and that for the last 16 years there has been no such power?

Baroness Hooper

Yes, indeed. I did not wish to infer that the noble Lord had made a misrepresentation in any way. I was simply pointing out that the requirement that existed under the 1944 Act was in a similar vein.

3.35 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 423AD) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 27.

DIVISION NO. 11
CONTENTS
Arran, E	Hooper, B.
Beaverbrook, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Beloff, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Belstead, L.	Kimball, L.
Blatch, B.	Long, V.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom,	Middleton, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Coleraine, L.	Munster, E.
Cowley, E.	Pender, L.
Cox, B.	Renton, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Sandford, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Skelmersdale, L.
Dundee, E.	Swinton, E.
Eden of Winton, L.	Teviot, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Ferrers, E.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Greenway, L.	Trafford, L.
Halsbury, E.	Trumpington, B.
Harvington, L.	Ullswater, V.
Henley, L.	Young, B.
Hives, L.	Young of Graffham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Blackstone, B.	Peston, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.]	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
David, B.	Rochester, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Russell, E.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Seear, B.
Flowers, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Gallacher, L.	Tordoff, L.
Hart of South Lanark, B.	Warnock, B.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	White, B.
Kirkwood, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
	McNair, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

3.42 a.m.

Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 423B:

Page 145, line 32, after ("ILEA") insert— (", specifying in each case whether the council proposed to maintain that school, and in the case of any school which it does not propose to maintain, specifying the LEA which it is proposed should maintain such school.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment in my name, I also have to mention also Amendments Nos. 423C to 423CH, 423D, which is in my name, Nos. 423DA, 423DB, 423DD, 423DE, 423DG and 423DJ.

The Earl of Halsbury

How depressing, my Lords!

Lord Morton of Shuna

I agree, my Lords. Apart from the two in my name, the remainder are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. We are concerned here with the development plans of local education authorities and the specification of schools.

At Committee stage I raised the problem of what happened if a school fell out of the net, so to speak, and was not designated as a school by any borough education authority in the ILEA area and therefore closed without going through the statutory procedure. Amendments Nos. 423B and 423D are designed to solve that problem by saying in Amendment No. 423B that the local authority shall specify whether the council proposes to maintain the school and, in the case of a school which it does not propose to maintain in its area, which local education authority it suggests should maintain that school. Under Amendment No. 423D, the Secretary of State shall so exercise his power of designation, which is under Clause 153, that no school is closed without the normal consultation procedures with parents being carried through. These are fairly simple measures. Since the Committee stage the Government have considered that the arguments that I put forward then had some merit because they have tabled a group of amendments.

Amendment No. 423CC is linked with a new proposal which apparently enables schools situated in the inner London area and maintained until now by the Inner London Education Authority to be designated, possibly against the will of the neighbouring council in whose area it is, and to be maintained by an outer London council or by a local education authority which, up until now, had no connection with the school. Therefore, it appears to me that the Government's amendments do not cover the issue. Having tabled only two amendments in the group, while the Government have tabled teens of amendments, I claim that I have managed to keep the issue more straightforward. I beg to move Amendment No. 423B.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said, I promised at Committee stage that the Government would be tabling amendments designed to ensure that the Secretary of State may designate former ILEA schools to be maintained by local education authorities other than those in inner London. There was never any doubt that it would be possible under the provisions of the Bill, as they then stood, to transfer responsibility in this way, perhaps for example in relation to some of the residential special schools located outside inner London. But it seemed preferable to put the process of designation for schools outside the ILEA area on all fours with the procedure applying inside inner London. This is one of the effects of the Government amendments included in the group we are now discussing.

But the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, went on to point out in Committee, and has said today that there was no requirement on the Secretary of State to designate all ILEA schools to a successor authority, and that there might therefore be an element of doubt about whether every ILEA school would necessarily be designated in this way. We have made it clear that it was the Government's intention that all ILEA schools should be transferred to a successor authority, and that there is no question whatever of a school ceasing to exist simply as a consequence of the abolition of ILEA. We agree entirely with the noble Lord that no school should be closed without going through the formal processes under the education Acts. That, I think, is the purpose of his Amendment No. 423D, but it is also secured by the Government's Amendment No. 423CC, which will require my right honourable friend to designate every ILEA school either to an inner London council or to another local education authority.

The noble Lord's Amendment No. 423B is on a related, but slightly different point. He is suggesting that boroughs' development plans should state whether or not the authority intends to maintain the I LEA schools in its area, and if not, which other LEA the borough proposes should maintain the school. The provisions at present in the Bill (Clause I 52(2)(b)(i)) make clear the presumption that boroughs will inherit responsibility for all the I LEA-maintained schools in their area. If a borough does not, however, propose to inherit a particular school—and there may, in exceptional circumstances, be some reasons why this should be so—it would not, in the Government's view, be appropriate to require the non-inheriting borough to specify the authority which it wishes to maintain the school. It would of course he entirely in order for the borough to indicate where it had had discussions with another LEA for this purpose.

The point is that throughout the process of drawing up their development plans the boroughs will be in close discussion with the department's inner London unit, and we should therefore be well aware of boroughs' intentions even before the development plans are published. There should therefore be no uncertainty about the destination of individual schools. But in any event, as I have said, the Government's Amendment No. 423CC provides a guarantee that every ILEA school will continue to be maintained by a local education authority from 1st April, 1990.

I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, still has reservations about this matter, but I hope that he will feel that our amendments have responded fully to his concerns.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I still believe that my two amendments, which are much shorter, are therefore better.However, simplicity is not the guiding notion of this Bill—neither simplicity norclarity. I do not intend to press these amendments.

It worried me that it appears that the development plans will be, so to speak, censored by the DES before they are even published. Therefore, this again suggests that the department will control what happens to a very large extent, which I do not believe is delegating power down. However, 1 ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423ZBA:

Page 145, line 35, at end insert ("; and (c) give particulars of the management structure (within the meaning of section (Approval of management structure and senior appointments in initial period) of this Act) which the council proposes to adopt for the purpose of the exercise of those functions.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hart of South Lanark moved Amendment No. 423BA:

Page 145, line 35, at end insert ("and (c) specify a lead borough which will take responsibility for the Child Guidance Service and lead boroughs for the specialist services currently provided by ILEA.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope not to keep the House for more than a very short time on this. I should not dream of doing so were it not for the fact that the matter of the child guidance service and what is to happen to it is out of very considerable importance which stretches beyond the education system itself.

I find it incredible that there is no safeguard written into the Bill on the future of the child guidance service. We rest on what the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said in Committee. He said: It will be for the boroughs themselves in preparing their development plans to put forward their proposals on how best to ensure that an effective child guidance service will be provided in each new LEA. In preparing their proposals, the boroughs will need help". He went on to say that he was happy to repeat the assurance that the Secretary of State had given in another place and that: he would wish to discuss the continuation of the child guidance service in inner London with the inner London councils, the ILEA, and the relevant district health authorities". The noble Earl went on: The sooner these discussions can begin the better".—[Official Report, 17/5/88; cols. 311-312.)

The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, when speaking on another matter earlier this evening, specified certain subjects on which there have been discussions with the boroughs. She did not mention the child guidance service. I noted that very carefully, knowing that I was to move this amendment. She did not include child guidance among the subjects on which discussions were proceeding with the boroughs. My own understanding, such as it is, is that there have not been such discussions. Therefore, we are still in the wilderness as regards what is to happen to child guidance.

Perhaps I may make the point—and I hope that at this late stage the Minister can take the matter seriously—is that, whatever noble Lords opposite may choose to think about the various aspects of ILEA, I do not believe there is one who could quarrel for a second with the proposition that the child guidance service of ILEA is second to none and is absolutely essential to the children of London.

The noble Baroness will say, "Ah, but the boroughs can do it. Let us have the matter on a voluntary basis. Let the boroughs prepare their plans and let the boroughs produce their own child guidance service." That will not do in this case. There are a number of other areas in which it will also not do, but it will not do here because one of the particular qualities of a child guidance service based on a large area like that of ILEA has been that it could collect together and share the available expertise and achieve something more than the sum of its parts at the end of the day. I have in mind the psychiatric social workers, educational psychologists, child therapists and remedial teachers—plus, of course, the consultant psychiatrists who come in from the National Health Service. That is my first point. Boroughs cannot provide a child guidance service which will be as good as one which is run on an all-London basis; which could still be the case even though ILEA regretably is to be abolished.

My second essential point is this. In considering what they will do to establish a child guidance service, each borough will naturaly have to weigh competing claims on its expenditure. Sadly, although it ought not to be so, it is likely that child guidance will be regarded as somewhat marginal compared with the need to put children into rooms to he taught and have teachers to teach them. Inevitably, it will be regarded as marginal. Therefore, the quality of a child guidance service set up by an individual borough will not only be lower because it is no longer able to use the advantages of size and the concentration of expertise, but also because it would be marginal and the expenditure, pro rata, would be less.

I suggest also that this will affect the outer boroughs. There are a number of outer boroughs bordering on the inner boroughs where children from inner London are attending outer London schools; but on matters of child guidance those children are able to use the ILEA services. In other words, the outer boroughs will now have to take responsibility for some of the services provided by ILEA which they have been able to use.

Does it matter if child guidance is thrown into the wilderness and if it is not as effective as it has been? I suggest that it matters in a way that stretches beyond education. It ought to matter that disturbed children are, so to speak, picked up and given help at an early stage. It ought to matter to the schools where one disturbed child can disrupt a class. It ought to matter to the DHSS which will have to pay the hospital and health bills later on. It ought to matter to the Home Office. If I may be bold enough to say so, it ought to matter to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor because many disturbed children go on to crime unless they are assisted at the age when the disturbance expresses itself.

For all those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness can give an assurance. The amendment is modest. It is not asking for an ending of the voluntary principle which she proclaims. It is merely asking that rather than throw child guidance completely to the wilderness, she specifies a lead borough. One understands that there are one or two of the boroughs that might not be unwilling to take on that role of lead borough to make sure that the service is held together and that we maintain a child guidance service which meets the needs of children. I beg to move.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, the noble Baroness has the noble Earl replying again. The noble Baroness, Lady Hart of South Lanark, is concerned to protect ILEA's child guidance service and other linked parts of the ILEA health service. As I made clear in Committee, we sympathise with that concern. The ILEA child guidance service has a good reputation. Its 16 units are spread throughout the ILEA; but I accept that some boroughs have none and that there is a cross-borough flow of traffic.

That does not mean that a lead-borough approach, as put forward in Amendment No. 423BA, is necessarily the best solution. We continue to believe firmly that each borough must take on the responsibility for ensuring that an effective child guidance service continues in its area. It is plain, however, that neighbouring boroughs will need to consult each other in the preparation of their plans. There will also need to be careful consultation with the relevant health authorities. The DES has had a meeting with colleagues in the DHSS and copies of the draft guidance are being sent to the relevant regional and district health authorities, with a proposal that the DES and the DHSS are willing to assist in facilitating discussions between the health authorities, ILEA, and the London boroughs.

The second Amendment No. 423BB, refers to the joint consultative committees which act as a forum for the health and local authorities jointly to examine the related needs of each area. While it would not be appropriate formally for a part of the development plan to be submitted to the local JCC, since formal authority for the plan must remain with the borough, it might well be appropriate for the joint discussions on the child guidance and associated services that will be required in each borough to be taken forward within the local JCC.

With these assurances, the DES and DHSS are taking steps to bring together the district health authorities and the boroughs in order jointly to plan how best to ensure the provision of effective child guidance and related services in the areas to be served by each of the new LEAs. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

4 a.m.

Baroness Hart of South Lanark

My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Earl said, though I wish he had gone a little further. However, he has given a certain amount of reassurance and we hope that it will he followed up by effective actions which ensure the future of the child guidance service. I believe that the noble Earl probably means that that should be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 423ZBB: Page 145, line 41, at end insert ("and any trust established under section 153(5A) of this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to gallop through this at a supersonic speed, but it is very important and therefore I must spend a few minutes on it. With the leave of the House, I am speaking not only to Amendment No. 423ZBB, but to Amendments Nos. 423DC, 423DF, 423DH, 423DL and 423DP, all of which are closely connected. Here we are returning to an issue which was raised at the Committee stage but not moved.

It concerns the London boarding schools—that is to say, the schools which have been run by ILEA for children with special educational needs. The aim of the amendment is to ensure the continuation of these schools. At present there are about 30 of them and that number is shortly to be reduced to 27. They accommodate about 1,400 children, 1,300 of whom are from inner London boroughs. The schools are mostly situated outside the London area and only five are in the London area. The rest are in the Home Counties, in Kent, Sussex, Surrey and so on.

These schools cater for all manner of special education needs and most of them are for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. 1 regret to say that most of them are boys and there are 19 of them. There is a school for. childreno who are visually impaired in Wandsworth and one for the hearing impaired at Penn in Buckinghamshire. There is another school for autism at Merton and one for the physically handicapped at Staplefield; there are three for delicate children suffering from asthma, cystic fibrosis and epilepsy.

All these children need a boarding placement. This has been recommended by expert opinion. It is essential that they should remain part of a coherent and unified group of institutions. They are served by a range of professionals such as educational psychologists, social workers, psychotherapists, medical and paramedical services, specialist teachers and careers advisers. No individual borough could afford to run a service with that much expertise. I do not know how many times those words have been used in connection with this Bill, but it is certainly true of this case.

There are two even more serious problems which will complicate their dispersal. If the running of the schools passes to individual boroughs or county authorities, those authorities may well not want a school full of children with special educational needs from another borough. A school in East Sussex may well not want a school full of disturbed children from inner London. Most seriously, the properties involved, which are owned at the moment by ILEA, are very valuable. If they passed to other authorities, there would be a strong temptation for those authorities to want to take control of them and sell them to realise the assets.

When the county of Middlesex was dissolved 20 years ago there were 11 of these schools. They passed to the outer London boroughs. Not one of those 11 schools still exists. So we have an idea of what would happen if the schools, which are at present run by the ILEA, were to pass to different authorities.

How can they be preserved? A group of governors of the schools came together last autumn when they realised the way things were going to turn and discussed what they should do about it. Should they suggest that each London borough be allocated responsibility for a number of schools? Should some of the boroughs take responsibility for all the schools by means of a joint board or committee? The most favoured suggestion was that a trust should be set up to take on responsibility for the schools. This idea was favoured because it would interfere less with the new formed LEAs, with all their problems, and would also create parental involvement. All the assets of the schools--the land, the buildings and the equipment —would be transferred to the trust. The running expenses would be defrayed by the boroughs that were sending the children to the schools. The members of the trust could be appointed by the Minister; and the group of governors who have propounded the idea have indicated their willingness to serve.

This amendment, which suggests the setting up of the trust, or, rather, suggests that the Secretary of State may have the power to set up the trust, is purely permissive and enabling. He does not have to do it. But if that is the way decided on for the preservation of the schools the power is there. The amendment proposes that this should go into the Bill so that the power is ready to hand should the Secretary of State require it. I beg to move.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I do not wish to add to the arguments already deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, but when the Minister replies will she answer a question which has occurred to a number of us? If the Government decide not to accept the idea of a trust, and neither the boroughs nor the counties wish to take on the schools, what will happen to them?

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I should like most strongly to support the amendments. I have visited a couple of these schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and I was impressed by the work they do. One of the schools at Iver Heath is the only primary boarding school for boys from the inner London area. If the school does not survive there will no longer be any such provision. Although it is sad that such provision is necessary, it plays a crucial role in the difficult lives of these children. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something kind about the amendment.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, of course we recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and the concern of others who have spoken, in tabling an amendment which seeks to secure the future of the residential special schools maintained by ILEA. Of course the Government recognise the important work they do and the contribution they have made over the years to the education of inner London children with special educational needs.

There are three residential special schools located in inner London boroughs and responsibility for them will fall to the relevant borough council. But the Government are well aware that responsibility for the other 27, lying outside the inner London area, cannot be allocated in a straightforward way. That is why the department's draft guidance on the future provision of education in inner London addresses that point specifically.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has established a working party to consider the matter. The ILEA, the outer and inner London borough councils and those county authorities where such schools are located, are represented on the working party.

The first meeting took place last Friday, 24th June, and we are pleased to say that it was well attended. It will look closely at the problem involved and in due course, on the basis of its considerations, advice will be given to my right honourable friend. The principle of transferring educational responsibilities to inner London councils means the development of local services by local boroughs. We are strongly committed to this.

The amendment provides for the establishment of a trust to run the schools, although it does not say how it would be financed. It would presumably need to employ its own administrative and professional staff, or to use consultants. It would mean that the schools would be taken out of the public domain. We know that representatives of the governors of these schools favour the idea and they will be invited by the working party to put forward and discuss this proposal.

I do not think that we should pre-empt the recommendation which will be made by the working party. I can assure the House that, whatever the eventual decision on this proposal may be, the amendment as drafted would not be necessary as powers already exist to transfer property to a trust via the London Residuary Body. In view of the reason and good sense of the Government's case, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the information which he has given to the House. I hoped that something of this nature might be in the wind. I am very pleased to hear that a working party has been set up to look into the matter and will listen to the views of all those involved, including the governors who thought up the idea of forming a trust. We must hope that the party will produce the right and the most sensible solution, whereby such schools can continue to exist and carry on with their most important work. In the circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 423BB not moved.]

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 423BC:

Page 145, line 41, at end insert— ("(4) Guidance given by the Secretary of State for the purposes of subsection (3)(h) above shall identify policies for the meeting of special educational needs within special and ordinary schools and shall contain such advice as he deems appropriate for their implementation.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 423CA which, however, makes a different and separate proposal. But, as the two amendments have a common bond, they might as well be discussed together in order to save time. The common bond is the need to ensure that the London boroughs organise their special schools as it is acknowledged that ILEA has done.

The amendments have been suggested by the Greater London Association for the Disabled, of which I have the honour to be a patron. There is a small correction to be made in Amendment No. 423BC in that the word "ordinary" should read "other". However, that can be corrected on Third Reading.

The amendment adds a new subsection (4) to Clause 152. Subsection (3)(b) of the clause provides for a development plan to be prepared by the council and to, take into account any guidance given by the Secretary of State". The amendment tabled in my name provides such guidance, shall identify policies for the meeting of special educational needs within special and other schools", and shall contain the Secretary of State's advice for implementing it.

Surely the London boroughs can benefit from guidance on how to deal with such problems of children with special needs. They are different and more difficult problems from those which will arise in the London boroughs with regard to the education of other children. They are problems with which most people in the boroughs involved with education will be unfamiliar. They will therefore need such guidance.

I can deal with my other amendment even more briefly. It suggests that the London boroughs should form a joint committee so as to evolve a sound policy to deal with special education. The method is clear from the terms of the amendment, and there is no need for me to repeat them. I beg to move.

4.15 a.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I support the amendment. I know that the Minister and the Government Chief Whip are becoming increasingly impatient and so I shall be brief. The amendments are important. We are talking about the education of London's children. The Government's policy on special education is not clear. On a previous amendment, the Minister quoted from the Government's draft guidance to London boroughs as though that were enough. I have to remind the House that repeating an unverifiable assertion that the London boroughs are to take over the service does not constitute a policy. Having read three times the section of the draft guidance to which the Minister referred, I observed that all it really said was that the Government do not have a policy on this matter and would the boroughs tell them how to do it.

As with so many of the problems we have met in the Bill, it is clear that the Government gave no thought to special education when they spatchcocked the abolition of the ILEA into the Bill. There are many problems with special education. For example, what will happen to children with low-incidence handicaps? They will have to be drawn from a wide area to support a viable unit.

A survey was carried out in the ILEA area and the outer London boroughs by the National Deaf Children's Society. It showed that the movement of deaf children within the ILEA area was much greater than in the outer London area. That survey refers to one handicap only, but the situation it revealed could be multiplied across the whole range of handicaps. The amendments go some way towards dealing with the problems, and for that reason I hope that the House will support them.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I support the amendments. The Chief Whip will be delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said a good deal of what I was going to say and so I shall be brief. I like Amendment No. 423BC because it fits in with the general development plans. Amendment No. 423CA calls for co-operation and so I prefer that amendment. At one point, when in draft form, Amendment No. 423CA was distinctly more committed to integration within the framework of the 1981 Act. I should like it a good deal better if it retained that commitment.

I should like to finish by asking the Minister a question. Is there anything in the Bill to prevent boroughs co-operating formally or informally to provide education for those with special educational needs and, in particular, to continue the move towards integration? Will she also say whether there is any provision in the Bill to encourage them to come together?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I hope I have already made clear that the Government recognise the importance of special education and of assisting the London councils to secure adequate and appropriate provision for children and young people with special educational needs within their area.

Amendment No. 423BC would require my right honourable friend, in his guidance on development plans, to specify policies for meeting special needs, and advice on their implementation. In the draft guidance we issued last month, we laid emphasis on the importance in development plans of boroughs identifying clear policies on special educational needs in all sectors of education. But those policies are for the boroughs, as potential LEAs, to determine, just as that responsibility falls to existing LEAs.

The department will of course provide advice about the requirements and implementation of the 1981 Act, guidance it has already given to existing LEAs. Where necessary, we will also offer specific advice and information. In the context of the working group on residential special schools, for example, to which I referred earlier, the department is preparing a detailed paper for the boroughs explaining the background to the present position on special education. ILEA has offered to provide for the boroughs, in this as in other areas, papers explaining not just the current provision, but the implications of the Fish Report and the way in which ILEA thinking has developed. Once armed—and I hope not overwhelmed—with all this information, each borough will be in a position to determine the details of its own policy. I hope that this reassures my noble friend that we are not leaving the boroughs to sink or swim in this important area, but will be providing the service and guidance they will need to reach informed and responsible decisions.

Turning to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 423CA, this would establish in perpetuity a joint advisory council on special needs. We have already recognised the need for co-ordination and joint working on certain special needs issues. The residential special schools working group has had its first meeting. That meeting identified the need for the additional information from both ILEA and the department to which I have just referred. Certain specialist support services for special schools may well need joint discussions and decisions. The inner London councils would, I am sure, be the first to accept that, like other education authorities, they will not each directly provide a complete range of special schools, but will look for local co-operation.

I am sure, however, given this background, that the councils must be allowed to decide themselves on the form taken by any joint arrangements for which they see a need. The regional conference on special education already provides a forum for the discussion of issues of London-wide concern and indeed brings in the outer London boroughs and the Home Counties. As they evolve their plans, the boroughs may agree the need for a specifically inner London group to consider local issues. My right honourable friend has made it clear that he will be ready to facilitate, where necessary, arrangements involving informal co-operation. This voluntary approach is, I am sure, the best way to secure a longterm basis for co-operation. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not press these amendments.

Lord Renton

My Lords, first perhaps I may say that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) for their support of these amendments. I hope that they are as impressed as I am, with the answer which my noble friend gave from the Front Bench. I am completely reassured that the Government are seized of these important issues. I was interested by what the Minister told us of all that the Government have already done and are proposing shall he done. Convinced as I am, therefore, by the reply which we have had, 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 423C, 423CA and 423CB not moved.]

Clause 153 [Responsibility for schools]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 423CC:

Page 146, line 14, at end insert— ("(1A) The Secretary of State may by an order or orders so made designate in relation to any local education authority specified in the order (other than an inner London council)—

1. (a) any ILEA maintained school which it is to be that authority's duty to maintain; or
2. (b) any ILEA grant-maintained school in respect of which functions exercisable by ILEA are to be exercisable instead by that authority;

and shall so designate any such school which is not designated by an order under subsection ( I ) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arranmoved Amendments Nos. 423CD to 423CH:)

Page 146, line 15, leave out ("subsection (1) above") and insert ("this section").

Page 146, line 22, leave out ("whether it is inside or outside that council's area") and insert (";or (b) in relation to a local education authority by an order under subsection (IA) above; whether it is inside or outside the area of that council or authority.").)

Page 146, line 25, after ("council") insert ("and any other local education authority").

Page 146, line 27, after ("council") insert ("or authority").

Page 146, line 28, after ("(I )(a)") insert ("or (I A)(a)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to move Amendments Nos. 423CD to 423CH en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 423D not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DA: Page 146, line 30, after ("council") insert ("or authority").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DB:) Page 146, line 33, at end insert ("or the first-mentioned authority").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 423DC not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DD: Page 146, line 36, after ("council") insert ("or in relation to any other local education authority").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DE: Page 146, line 37, after ("(1)(b)") insert ("or (1A)(b)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 423DF not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DG: Page 146, line 38, at end insert ("or (as the case may be) by that authority.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 423DH not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DJ: Page 146, line 39, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 32 and insert ("or (1A) above is made any school designated under paragraph (a) of either of those subsections becomes a grant-maintained school, it shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (6) above as having been designated under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) or (1A) (as the case may require).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I call Amendment No. 423DK. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 423DL.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DK: Page 146, line 44, leave out subsection (8).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment simply extends those provisions discussed in Committee in connection with some amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. The provisions in the Bill provide for the removal of ILEA appointed and co-opted school governors at abolition date. As I have said, this amendment simply extends those provisions logically, as it seems to the Government, to institutions other than schools—in other words, principally to further education or adult education colleges.

As in the case of the schools provision, the purpose is to ensure that those people appointed to governing bodies specifically to represent the interests of the maintaining LEA are in a position to do so, and that, as a consequence of any changes in such appointments from April 1990, the slightly reconstituted governing body may reconsider, if it wishes, the position of co-opted members. But there will be no requirement on governing bodies to do so. It is entirely possible for those affected by these provisions to be immediately reappointed if the new LEA and the governing body, in the case of the appointed or co-opted members respectively, so wish. I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, I wish to make a comment about these amendments because they will mean that there is considerable disruption in the middle of the academic year if the change occurs in April. It could interfere with the interviewing and selection of teachers and other work of that kind which is undertaken by governing bodies.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 423DL not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423 DM: After Clause 153, insert the following new clause:

("Removal of certain governors.

.—(1) On the abolition date—

1. (a) any person appointed by ILEA as governor of any institution to which this subsection applies; and
2. (b) any person co-opted as governor of any such institution;

shall cease to hold office.

(2) Subsection (1) above applies to the following institutions—

1. (a) any school which immediately before the abolition date was maintained by ILEA; and
2. (b) any institution other than a school which immediately before that date was maintained or assisted by ILEA.

(3) On that date any person appointed by an inner London council as governor of a primary school by virtue of any provision included in the instrument of government of the school in accordance with section 7(1) of the 1986 Act (appointment of governor by minor authority) shall cease to hold office.

(4) On and after that date the instrument of government of any school to which that section applies shall have effect as if it made the provision that would have been required by section 3 of that Act if section 7(1) had not applied (and with the omission of any provision included by virtue of subsection (6)(a) of section 7).

(5) Neither subsection (1) nor subsection (3) above shall be taken as prejudicing any subsequent appointment or co-option as governor of the school or other institution concerned of a person who by virtue of that subsection ceases to hold office as governor of that school or institution.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 154 [Transfers of property, rights and liabilities]:

[Amendments Nos. 423DN to 423DQ not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DR: After Clause 154, insert the following new clause:

("Approval of management structure and senior appointments in initial period.

.—(1) References in this section to the management structure of an inner London council for the purpose of the exercise of its LEA functions are references to any aspect of the council's organisation and its arrangements for managing its affairs in relation to the exercise of those functions which the Secretary of State determines ought to be subject to approval under this section with a view to securing the proper performance by the council of those functions during the initial period.

In this section "the initial period" means the period of five years beginning with the abolition date.

(2) The reference in subsection (1) above to a council's organisation and its arrangements for managing its affairs in relation to the exercise of its LEA functions includes in particular its staffing arrangements and the determination of the duties to be performed by jts employees concerned in the exercise of those functions.

(3) It shall be the duty of each inner London council to adopt and to maintain during the initial period a management structure for the purpose of the exercise of its LEA functions which is for the time being approved by the Secretary of State under this section.

(4) Such a council shall not before the end of the initial period make an appointment to which this subsection applies except after consultation with the Secretary of State.

(5) Subsection (4) above applies to the appointment of a person—

1. (a) to be the chief education officer of the council; or
2. (b) to any designated post forming part of the management structure of the council for the time being approved under this section.

(6) In subsection (5)(b) above "designated" means designated for the purposes of subsection (4) above by a direction given by the Secretary of State.

(7) For the purposes of the consultation required by subsection (4) above a council proposing to make an appointment to which that subsection applies shall send to the Secretary of State particulars showing the name, previous experience and qualifications of the persons from whom the council proposes to make a selection.

(8) If the Secretary of State is of opinion that any person whose name is submitted to him under subsection (7) above is not a fit person to hold the appointment in question, he may give a direction prohibiting that person's appointment.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 423DS, as an amendment to Amendment No. 423DR, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 423DR agreed to.

4.30 a.m.

Clause 155[Establishment and function of staff commission.]:

Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 423E: Page 147, line 40, after ("authorities") insert (", in particular ILEA,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it is interesting to note that there are 71 pages in the Marshalled List, and we are now more than half way through at page 36. The intention of the amendment is to strengthen the position of the staff commission suggested in Clause 155. Apparently that commission will be similar to that which was set up on the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. Although these is scope in subsection (2), if the Secretary of State so directs, for powers to protect the interests of staff. In a similar manner to the 1972 local government reorganisations, it is unlikely that such a direction will he given. The staff commission will therefore have to rely on encouragement rather than on any real power.

In those circumstances, I suggest that it will be impossible to offer employees the prospect of continued employment in advance of the successor authorities drawing up their own establishment schemes and making arrangements to fill the posts therein. For that reason the amendment is important because if the provision is not strengthened, ILEA, which must continue to provide a service until 1990, will have grave difficulty in retaining the staff necessary to provide the service, especially in specialised areas where they will leave to obtain more secure jobs. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House and beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the Government are well aware that some key members of ILEA's staff have already left and that many more may be thinking about doing so. We therefore sympathise with the concern behind the amendment. We need to strike a careful balance between encouraging the boroughs to take on the staff necessary to prepare for their responsibilities as LEAs, and ensuring that the ILEA can continue to run an effective education service between now and April 1990. We need also to do whatever we can to reassure members of ILEA's staff that they have a future in inner London's education service.

The motivating principle is that front-line delivery of service must not be disrupted when the transfer occurs; that is why we have insisted that all staff, both teaching and non-teaching, whether full-time or part-time, employed to work at individual schools and colleges, will transfer to the employment of the boroughs. We have also made it clear that, if the boroughs wish, other groups of staff might transfer in this way. I accept that the sooner an assurance can be given to groups of staff, the better. But the boroughs must be given time to take their own decisions.

There will be areas of the service for which the boroughs will wish to recruit staff directly. We have made it very clear that a major objective of the staff commission will be to ensure that the boroughs, when recruiting for posts in these areas, will give reasonable preference to ILEA employees. We shall seek to construct ring-fence arrangements for this purpose. These arrangements must he flexible; but the Government are equally determined that they should be applied fairly and will accordingly ensure that they are enforced in the interests of a smooth transition and of legitimate ILEA staff concerns.

Since our debate at Committee stage, a forum has been established for discussion of staffing matters. It is co-ordinated by the Greater London Employers' Secretariat and brings together the ILEA and the inner London boroughs, including the City. An early focus has been on the need to develop a system of dual appointments, so that designated ILEA officers can continue to serve the ILEA while also offering their expertise to the boroughs. My right honourable friend gives his full support to these discussions.

Turning to the staff commission, it has been suggested to the department in its discussions with ILEA and others that there are arguments in favour of setting up the commission later this year, to give it time to gain a mastery of the many issues involved before the boroughs publish their development plans, which they must do by the end of February 1989. The Government will accordingly consider having in post at least the chairman and a supporting secretariat before the end of this calendar year. With those assurances I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, it is encouraging at this time of the morning to think of a ring-fence that is flexible. The real problem, it appears to me, is to retain the staff needed for ILEA to continue its job until the boroughs take over. The Government's response indicates that they have not really thought this out because to imply that various key people in ILEA can also do the job in the borough at the same time seems to me a pious hope. However, I do not wish to divide the House and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 156 [Remuneration of employees]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 423EA: Page 149, line 26, leave out ("(2) or (3)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a very minor technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 423F: Leave out Clause 156.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is logically connected with the last but one amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Morton. As I understand it, the clause is intended to get in the way of the ILEA in its closing days, gratuitously one might say, granting pay increases, especially to employees who may be transferring to successor authorities. I gather this is not unique as a clause in a reorganisation Bill, and so the objection is not to the clause in principle but really along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Morton, was arguing; namely, that it gets in the way of the ILEA doing its job properly during the time it continues to exist. It also could potentially get in the way of the ILEA granting perfectly normal pay increases or allowing perfectly normal regrading.

In addition, it is the most extraordinarily convoluted clause and I would defy anybody to claim that they fully understand it. More generally, as a matter of fact, it does not look in the least likely that the ILEA, subject to its present financial constraints, will be in the business of granting excessive pay awards. If we are looking to see where excessive pay awards in this sector are coming from, we need only look at the successor authorities. For example, Kensington already appears to have offered an extraordinarily large salary to an education officer, far in excess of what might be warranted on any other grounds. We are therefore not in the least happy about this clause. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the removal of this clause would have the effect of removing from the Secretary of State the power to prevent the ILEA from granting unjustified increases in pay in the period up to abolition. That is not to say that we expect the ILEA to implement excessive pay increases for the whole of 1989–90, or even for most of it. The need to balance its budget will prevent that.

But as abolition approaches there must remain the faintest possibility—no more than that—that ILEA will be tempted to raise pay for even a few weeks. This clause provides a mechanism whereby inner London councils could object were that to happen. We must remember that it is those boroughs which would suffer if they had to honour abnormally high pay increases for transferred staff or indeed fund higher compensation payments through the London Residuary Body. If the boroughs do not object, the process will not be triggered.

The procedure in the clause has been described as convoluted by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We believe it is a necessary procedure if we are to ensure that both the ILEA and the boroughs have a chance to state their case, and that my right honourable friend has sufficient information on which to take a decision.

I hope that this procedure will not need to be used, in which case it will be neither resource-consuming nor time-consuming. There is no good reason to suggest that it will prevent proper and reasonable pay increases being made to ILEA employees. That is certainly not its intention; nor will it be its effect. It is no more than a precautionary measure, but a necessary one. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to prevent excessive salaries being offered by the successor authorities? My noble friend Lord Peston mentioned the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which is a very small authority that will only have one county secondary school and which has offered a salary to its chief education officer that is far in excess of what other authorities of that size normally pay. Will the Government be doing anything about that? Will they at least be issuing some guidance to these successor authorities about the levels of salaries that they ought to be offering?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that I am not aware that the Government have any intention of dealing with the boroughs in the way suggested by the noble Baroness.

Lord Peston

My Lords, the noble Baroness has indeed reassured me to a considerable degree and 1 thank her for that. I am concerned that the Government's interest in profligacy does not extend to dealing with the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but depite saying that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 158[Compensation for loss of office or diminution of' emoluments]:

[Amendment No. 423G not moved.]

Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 423GA: Page 150, line 45, at end insert ("or subsequently acquired by him by reason of a variation in his contract of employment which was intended solely to ensure that, in the event of loss of employment by reason of redundancy, he would be entitled to be compensated on a basis not less favourable than that applicable to other employees of I LEA.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 431A. Clause 158 and, in so far as it affects ILEA, Clause 198 of the Bill are designed to prevent ILEA from entering into contracts with its employees which would have the effect of enhancing their contractual rights to compensation in the event of redundancy. These amendments are similar to those I spoke to at some length in Committee. I am reintroducing them now because, as I said at the time, I was not altogether satisfied with the Government's earlier response. I shall not explain again in detail the background to the amendments because I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly.

I have once more written to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, about them and I hope that in the light of the additional representations that I have made the Government will now feel able to accept them in full. Briefly, the amendments are not intended to undermine the main purpose of Clauses 158 and 198, but merely to secure limited exceptions which will enable ILEA to correct certain anomalies in the contractual rights of its employees so as to obtain equality of treatment among those in a particular group in the event of loss of employment through redundancy arising in consequence of the Bill.

As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, acknowledged in Committee, there is a category of ex-GLC employees who, because they were recruited by ILEA under Section 52 of the Local Government Act 1985, have lost the more generous rights to redundancy compensation which they had as GLC employees. In that respect they are less well off than the majority of their ex-GLC colleagues who were transferred to the employment of ILEA and so retained the rights that they enjoyed as GLC employees.

The noble Lord accepted that ILEA had led some GLC employees recruited to its employment to believe that they would retain the more generous provisions that they had enjoyed as GLC employees and regretted that they were not treated accordingly. In his response to the problem the Minister drew a distinction between those ex-GLC employees who were engaged in the belief that their GLC terms would be protected and those recruited in the knowledge that their GLC terms would be replaced by what the noble Lord called ILEA's standard contractual terms. He said that the first group deserved the Government's sympathy but that the second group presented a rather less good case because they were no worse off than the bulk of I LEA employees.

I am advised that that reply was based on a misconception. The hulk of ILEA employees enjoy terms similar to those in the GLC. There is only a small minority of ILEA employees who lost their GLC terms on recruitment to ILEA and they are therefore worse off than the great majority of their colleagues. Moreover, it is my understanding that they too were recruited in the belief and expectation that GLC terms would apply to them. It was only when they received formal letters of appointment on the eve of the abolition of the GLC that they realised they were excluded from those terms. By then it was too late to reject the conditions offered to them since that would have disqualified them from obtaining any redundancy compensation on the ground that they had received an offer of suitable alternative employment.

I am further advised that it was always ILEA's intention to correct the resulting anomaly. That contention is supported by a memorandum dated 26th March 1986. I am reading, for the benefit of the House, in order to get through this amendment as quickly as possible. I have no intention of cutting short what I say. I shall take the time that I think the matter warrants. That contention is supported by a memorandum dated 26th March 1986, a copy of which I have sent to the noble Baroness. It was only delay, arising from legal difficulties since resolved, that prevented ILEA from acting to remove the anomaly before the Bill was published. All affected ILEA staff must therefore have expected that they would enjoy the same redundancy compensation terms.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the London Residuary Body was to be given a discretionary power to reinstate the redundancy rights of the first group of' whom he spoke. I renew my thanks to the Government for that limited concession but submit that in the light of what I have now said what is needed is an entitlement under which all concerned will be treated alike.

In the next two years ILEA employees will have to make what for them are big decisions about their future career. They need to know now what compensation they will receive if they are made redundant. They cannot be expected to wait for up to two years to see whether the rights that they once had with the GLC will be restored to them.

Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, pointed out in Committee, uncertainty about their future may lead some ILEA staff who have occupied key positions to leave before the authority is wound down. It is bound to affect their morale and therefore the efficiency of the organisation.

Finally, a discretionary power would surely place the London Residuary Body in an invidious position because it would have to examine the precise circumstances surrounding the appointment of everyone recruited to ILEA in order to determine how the discretion should be exercised. This would place on the LRB an altogether disproportionate and even unfair burden and involve drawing fine distinctions based on subjective judgments as to the beliefs and expectations of individuals in 1986. Far better that the Government should now have the magnanimity to make the modest additional concessions that these amendments seek to achieve for a small group which, I understand, may eventually number no more than 20 or 30 people and accept that all those affected should be treated alike. I beg to move.

4.45 a.m.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I wish to support this amendment very strongly. The situation, as I understand it, is that at the time of the transfer from the GLC to ILEA both the employer and these employees—who 1 understand number about 20 or 30—intended that the GLC conditions would apply. That is the reason for the difficulty, because both the then employee and the then employer wanted this to be—I do not know whether the noble Lord the Chief Whip wishes to intervene.

Lord Denham

My Lords, I am so terribly sorry. I did not mean to interrupt the noble Lord. I was having a brief discussion with my noble friend, which I know was out of order, but I shall not do so again.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I know that the Chief Whip is very anxious that we should get on, and so are we. However, the Chief Whip has more power to allow reasonable hours for these debates than I have. It is not on this side of the House that the delays on this Bill have taken place.

This is an important matter for a small group of people, but this House would never consider that, just because it was a small group of people, they should he ignored and justice not done to them. I strongly support the amendment.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, we have considered the arguments carefully. We accept that the confusion in the last few days of the life of the GLC was considerable and could have left uncertainty in the minds of many ILEA recruits. To the extent that some members of that group might have to face the possibility of redundancy for a second time as a result of government policy, they indeed deserve our sympathy. It appears that in practice there is only one category of ex-GLC employee who, if made redundant, would suffer significantly. This category comprises those members of staff under 50 years of age with 20 years' service, who would receive less generous compensation under the general terms to be set out in the regulations than they would have received if they had retained their GLC terms.

We are proposing to have further discussions with the ILEA and the LRB to establish the extent to which employees in this category may have been recruited by ILEA in the belief that their contractual rights to redundancy compensation would remain unchanged. In these discussions we shall explore whether without excessive administrative effort on the part of the LRB this group can be separately identified. If so, the compensation regulations which we intend to make under Section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972 will be drafted in such a way as to ensure that the members of this group, if made redundant by either the ILEA or the LRB as a result of the abolition of the ILEA, will receive compensation on the same terms as their counterparts who transferred from the GLC to ILEA employment.

If these discussions make it clear that it would be a fruitless task to attempt to identify separately those employees who believe that their GLC rights have been retained, we are prepared to consider widening the scope of the regulations to encompass all the employees in this category. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, I am most grateful for the assurance that the noble Baroness has given that there are to be further discussions with the relevant bodies about this. From what she says it sounds as if there is every hope that the particular category about which I am concerned will be treated in the way that I had hoped. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423GB: After Clause 160, insert the following new clause:

("Provision of services and facilities by the London Residuary Body

.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, the Secretary of State may at any time by a direction require the London Residuary Body to provide for the inner London councils and such other authorities or bodies or classes of authorities or bodies as may be specified in the direction, services or facilities of any description so specified.

(2)—Any such direction shall specify the date (which must be a date falling on or after the abolition date) as from which the services or facilities in question arc to be provided.

(3) The descriptions of services or facilities that may be so specified—

1. (a) must be services or facilities of a description provided by ILEA at the date of the direction or (where the direction is given on or after the abolition date) immediately before the abolition date; and
1512
2. (b) subject to paragraph (a) above, include services or facilities of any description involving the provision for any council, authority or body of supplies required by them for the purposes of or in connection with the exercise of any of their functions (whether or not relating to education).

(4) It shall be the duty of the London Residuary Body to provide any services or facilities to which a direction under subsection (1) above relates—

1. (a)as from the date specified in the direction under subsection (2) above; and
2. (b) on such terms (including terms requiring the making of payments to the London Residuary Body by any council, authority or body to whom such services or facilities are provided) as may be specified in the direction.

(5) Any such direction may require such services or facilities to be provided on different terms for—

1. (a) the inner London councils and any other authorities or bodies or classes of authorities or bodies specified in the direction; and
2. (b) different authorities or bodies or classes of authorities or bodies so specified.

(6) Subject to subsection (7) below, the London Residuary Body may by agreement with one or more inner London councils, and on such terms as to payment or otherwise as the parties consider appropriate, provide the council or councils concerned with services or facilities of any description it would be within the power of the council or councils concerned to provide themselves in the exercise of any of their functions (whether or not relating to education).

(7) Any such agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 423GC and 423GE. The Government have made it clear from the outset that we expect inner London boroughs to take on responsibility for the full range of educational services from 1st April 1990. But we have always accepted that there may be certain areas where ILEA has run an organisation on a London-wide basis or certain support services where the boroughs have not finalised their own arrangements by 1990. The LRB can help in these circumstances to ensure continuity of provision and a smooth transfer of responsibility. Hence Amendment No. 423GB.

The other amendments are technical amendments. Amendment No. 423GE gives the London Residuary Body the power to make ex gratia payments in certain circumstances. I therefore beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, the amendment gives wide and sweeping powers to the London Residuary Body. Subsection (3)(b) reads: services or facilities of any description involving the provision for any council, authority or body of supplies required by them for purposes of or in connection with the exercise of any of their functions (whether or not relating to education). These are enormous powers that are being handed over.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 161[Repayment by London Residuary Body of loans to ILEA]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423GC:

Page 153, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert— ("(4) For the purposes of paragraph 8 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1972 (borrowing for purposes of repaying sums borrowed under paragraph 1(b) of that Schedule), as it applies in relation to the London Residuary Body by virtue of section 75 of the 1985 Act, the amount of any liabilities in respect of principal to which that Body is for the time being subject under subsection (1) above shall be treated as money borrowed by that Body under paragraph 1(b) of that Schedule.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 163 [Payment of pensions and pensions increase by the London Residuary Body]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 423GD: Page 154, line 36, after ("8(1)(b)") insert ("or (c)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423GE: After Clause 164, insert the following new clause:

("Power of London Residuary Body to pat' compensation.

.—(1) The London Residuary Body may pay compensation—

1. (a) to any former officer of ILEA who sustained an injury in the course of his employment with ILEA; or
2. (b) to the widow or widower or child of any former officer of ILEA who, in the course of his employment with ILEA, died or sustained an injury resulting in death.

(2) Subsection (1) above applies irrespective of whether the employment with ILEA of the officer in question came to an end on or before the abolition date.

(3) The London Residuary Body may pay compensation to any person in respect of loss suffered by him in consequence of any damage to property in respect of which it appears to them that a claim might have been brought against ILEA had ILEA not been abolished.

(4) Any compensation payable under this section may be paid either —

1. (a) by way of a lump sum; or
2. (b) by way of periodical payments of such amounts and payable at such times and for such periods as the London Residuary Body may from time to time determine having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

(5) The payment of compensation under this section shall not affect any right or claim to damages or compensation which—

1. (a) any such officer as is mentioned in subsection (I )(a) or (b) above or his widow or widower or child; or
2. (b) any such person as is mentioned in subsection (3) above; may have against any person other than the London Residuary Body or, except so far as may be agreed when the compensation is granted, against the London Residuary Body by virtue of section 164 of this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper> moved Amendment No. 423GF: After Clause 166, insert the following new clause:

("Preparatory expenditure of inner London councils.

.—(1) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by section 137 of the Local Governtnent Act 1972 (which authorises a local authority to incur expenditure which it considers is in the interests of its area or inhabitants of its area), an inner London council may incur expenditure in making preparations for the exercise on and after the abolition date of its LEA functions.

(2) Where before the passing of this Act any such council has incurred such expenditure, that expenditure shall be treated after the passing of this Act as authorised by subsection (1) above.

(3) The Secretary of State may pay grants to an inner London council in respect of such expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the council in any financial year ending before the abolition date.

(4) The Secretary of State may make any payment in respect of such a grant subject to compliance by the council concerned with such conditions as he may determine.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, Amendment No. 423GFA. In the department's preliminary discussions, a number of councils asked that their ability to incur expenditure in respect of their preparations for the transfer of functions be put beyond doubt. Although they were advised that legally this was never in question, the Government agree that it is desirable to make it clear. Subsections (1) and (2) of our amendment therefore provide that the councils may incur expenditure for this purpose, both before and after Royal Assent.

Subsections (3) and (4) enable the Secretary of State to pay grants to the councils in respect of expenditure incurred by them in preparing for transfer and to specify the conditions that will apply. Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Minister of State announced in another place in March the Government's intention to make available to the councils specific grant of up to £3 million in 1988–89 and £10 million in 1989–90 payable at a rate of 100 per cent. The grant will be towards all legitimate preparatory expenditure: examples might include the employment of educational advisers and other senior administrative staff, the establishment of information systems, and publicity. The draft guidance issued by the department set out the way in which the amount of grant available to each council will he determined and gave a broad indication of the conditions which will apply.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would enable the Secretary of State to pay grant to the ILEA in respect of expenditure which it incurred in assisting the councils to prepare for the transfer of functions. The leader of the authority has already raised this point with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I shall explain the reasons that he has given as to why it should not be appropriate to make the grant available to the ILEA as well as to the councils.

As I have already noted, the ILEA has already made clear its intentions to he as helpful as possible during the period leading up to abolition and we welcome that. We recognise that the authority will need to undertake work during this time which it would not otherwise have had to do. However, the position of the councils is rather different from that of the ILEA. The councils start from the position of having no educational staff and will have to build up expertise very quickly to prepare and implement their development plans. The councils must obviously call upon the expertise of the ILEA's officers during that period, perhaps in some cases through dual appointments. Such appointments are likely to be financed through the specific grant which will thus provide the ILEA with resources to compensate for the loss of staff time arising as a consequence of these arrangements.

As we draw closer to the abolition date it may well be that the role of the ILEA in assisting the councils will increasingly come to be reflected in dual appointments. That will be particularly true when councils need to undertake work for themselves in areas such as preparation for school admissions after April 1990, application for capital expenditure allocations and the administration of student awards. At that time we would expect there to be some tapering off of the direct responsibility of the authority in these areas.

The Government acknowledge that the work of the ILEA in assisting in the preparation for transfer will not necessarily be matched precisely by the gradual decrease in its responsibilities as an LEA. We believe that there will be scope within the ILEA's large volume of overall resources for it to carry out its transfer-related functions without the provision of specific grant. However, my right honourable friend has acknowledged that if the authority is accepted for precept limitation in 1989–90 we shall, in setting the limit, take account of the full range of tasks to be performed by the ILEA during that year.

I therefore commend to the House Amendment No. 423GF. However, the Government do not believe that Amendment No. 423GFA is either necessary or appropriate. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.

Lord Peston moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 423GF, Amendment No. 423GFA: At end insert— ("(5) The Secretary of State may pay grant to the ILEA in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by it before the abolition date for assisting inner London councils in making their preparations for the exercise on and after the abolition date of their LEA functions.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Baroness, and I am extremely unconvinced. Her argument leads to exactly the opposite conclusion that she has reached. The amendment is completely symmetric to the argument she put forward. I hate to be ratty at this time of day but here is an instance that appears to show exactly what is wrong with the Government's attitude to the Bill. They are wilfully refusing an amendment which makes perfectly good sense in its own terms. I believe that your Lordships deserve better treatment in terms of argument than we have had. We are not idiots. We can recognise a rational argument, and it is about time that we had one on this subject. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment to the amendment negatived.

On Question, Amendment No. 423GF agreed to.

Clause 167[Financial provisions]:

5 a.m.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 423GG to 423GM:

Page 157, line 32, leave out subsection (8).

Page 157, line 37, leave out from ("to") to ("as") in line 39 and insert ("capital money received by the London Residuary Body of any description specified for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State".

Page 157, line 48, after ("to") insert ("capital").

Page 157, line 48, at end insert— ("(10A) The Secretary of State may by order provide, in relation to capital money received by the London Residuary Body of any description not within subsection (9) above, for the application of that money, or of such part of that money as may be spe cified in the order, for such purposes connected with the abolition of ILEA as may be so specified.").

Page 157, line 50, at end insert (": and (b) "capital money" has the same meaning as in section 77 of the 1985 Act.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 170 [Control of contracts]:]

Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 423H: Page 159, line 3, leave out from ("£15,000") to end of line 4.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 423J and 423K in my name, Amendments Nos. 423KA and 423KC in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, Amendments Nos. 423L, 423M and 423N in my name, Amendments Nos. 423NA and 423N L in the name of the noble Baroness, and Amendments Nos. 423P and 423Q in my name. I hope I have the grouping right.

This group of amendments deals with Clauses 170, 171 and 172. The purpose of the amendments is to deal with the extraordinarily retrospective nature of this proposed legislation. If one looks at Clause 170, which the others follow, it applies to: any contract in respect of which the consideration exceeds £15,000 and which is entered into after 22nd July 1987". I do not know why that date was chosen because that is months before anybody, even in the Government, considered putting the ILEA into this Bill.

If one looks at subsection (3), that states; Subject to section 173(3)(6) of this Act, if at any time after 22nd July 1987 and before the passing of this Act ILEA has entered into a contract which would have been in contravention of the provisions of subsection (2) above if they had then been in force, the same consequences shall follow as if those provisions had been contravened by ILEA". In other words, if before anybody had thought of abolishing ILEA it had entered into a contract after 22nd July, that contract, if this Bill is passed with these clauses in, is retrospectively illegal with the consequences that it can be dealt with by the elected members or officers and will he liable to the surcharge for having done something illegal which, at the time it was done was not illegal and is only retrospectively made illegal.

That appears to be totally against the tradition of British law, both Scottish and English. I suggest that it is also contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. No doubt the noble Baroness will be able to explain why this is necessary and why the 22nd July was chosen. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, it is difficult to see what effect these amendments, Nos. 423H to 423P, will have at this stage. ILEA has been seeking consent to contracts and disposals since last July in the full knowledge that the Government intended to bring forward these provisions. The date of 22nd July was the date on which the Secretary of State announced in the other place that these provisions would apply; originally, of course, in relation to the ILEA provisions included in the Bill as then introduced.

Without these provisions, however, it would not he possible to guard against the possibility that something of importance to the councils might have slipped through the net before the Bill receives Royal Assent. These provisions cannot in any real sense be described as retrospective, so the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, over European conventions, and other international conventions, are unjustified. The provisions were clearly signalled in advance and in fact ILEA has been operating them for nearly a year.

Amendment No. 423Q is intended to remove the penalties that may be imposed by order of the High Court upon any member of the authority who has authorised any contract or disposal in contravention of the provisions of Clauses 170 and 171. We welcome the authority's clear intention to act in a responsible way in the period up to the abolition but we should not disregard the possibility, however remote, of unforeseen and improper action, perhaps by an individual for personal reasons, that would be contrary to the interests of the councils. We believe, therefore, that Clause 173, which follows very much the provisions contained in the Local Government Act 1985, is a necessary protection against such action. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I presume the Bill will not be passed until some time later this year, 1988. 1 should have thought that is likely. If so, I should have thought that to go back to a date in 1987 in the normal sense of the word is retrospective. In any event, my recollection is that the abolition of the ILEA was not considered by the Government in the Bill in July because it only gave certain boroughs the opportunity to opt out. Therefore, the Minister's answer does not meet the point.

Knowing that the European Court of Human Rights exists, I do not intend to press the amendment and 1 beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 423J and 423K not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423KA: Page 159, line 22, after ("and") insert ("(subject to section 172(2) of this Act)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423K B:

Page 159. line 28, after ("to") insert— ("(a) a contract to dispose of land or to grant or dispose of any interest in land; or").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 171 [Control of disposals]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423KC. Page 159, line 30. at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (9) below,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 423L, 423M and 423N not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 423NA to 423NL:

Page 160, line 6, leave Out subsection (7) and insert— ("(7) A disposal shall not he invalid or, in the case of a disposal which consists of a contract, void by reason only that it has been made or entered into in contravention of this section; and (subject to the provisions of section 172 of this Act) a person acquiring land, or entering into a contract to acquire land, from ILEA shall not be concerned to enquire whether any consent required by this section has been given or complied with.")

Page 160, line 13, after ("acquire") insert ("any").

Page 160, line 13, at end insert— ("(9) this section does not apply to a disposal falling within subsection (8)(a) above if it is made in pursuance of a contract entered into, or an option granted, on or before 22nd July 1987.").

Clause 172, page 161, line I, after ("apply") insert ("in relation").

Page 161, line 2, after ("(above)") insert ("by an aggrieved body (other than the London Residuary Body)").

Page 161, line 3, leave out ("ILEA") and insert ("the London Residuary Body").

Page 161, line 4, after ("body") insert ("(other than the London Residuary Body").

Page 161, line 16, after ("to") insert (", or have vested in,").

Page 161, line 18, leave out from ("land") to end of line 19 and insert ("proposed to be disposed of, or in which an interest is proposed to be granted, has been so transferred or has so vested").

Page 161, line 21, leave out from ("if') to end of line 22 and insert (", but for the disposal—

1. (i) the interest disposed of would have been so transferred or would have so vested;
2. (ii) where the disposal consists in the granting of an interest in land, the land in which the interest was granted would have been so transferred, or would have so vested, free of the interest.").

Clause 173, page, 161, line 31, leave out ("other").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord's good example, when he withdrew three amendments, and move these amendments enbloc).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 423P and 423Q not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423QA. After Clause 173, insert the following new clause:

("Charities.

—(1) Where immediately before the abolition date—

1. (a) any property is held exclusively for charitable purposes by ILEA as sole trustee; and
2. (b) the charity is primarily for the benefit of the area of a single inner London council;

that property shall on that date vest for the like purposes in that council.

(2) Where immediately before that date any power with respect to any such charity as is mentioned in subsection (1)(h) above was under the trusts of the charity vested in, or in the holder of any office connected with, ILEA, that power shall on that date vest in, or in the holder of the corresponding office conneccted with, the inner London council concerned.

(3) Where in the case of any such power vested in the holder of any office connected with ILEA there is no corresponding office connected with the inner London council concerned, that power shall on that date vest in the holder of such other office connected with that council as the Charity Commissioners may before that date with the consent of that council and the office-holder concerned appoint.

(4) Where immediately before that date—

1. (a) any property is held exclusively for charitable purposes by ILEA as sole trustee; and
2. (b) subsection (1) above does not apply to that property; that property shall on that date vest for the like purposes in the London Residuary Body or in such other person as the Charity Commissioners may before that date appoint.

(5) Where immediately before that date any power with respect to any charity, other than any such charity as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above, was under the trusts of the charity vested in, or in the holder of any office connected with, ILEA, that power shall on that date vest in the London Residuary Body or in such other person as the Charity Commissioners may before that date appoint.

(6) References above in this section to a power with respect to a charity shall not include references to any power of any person by virtue of being a charity trustee of that charity; but where under the trusts of any charity the charity trustees immediately before the abolition date included ILEA or the holder of an office connected with ILEA then, as from that date, those trustees shall instead include such of the inner London councils, or the holder of such office connected with such of those councils, as the Charity Commissioners may before that date appoint.

(7) References in subsections (2), (5) and (6) above to a charity shall not include a charity which is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985 or incorporated by charter.

(8) For the purposes of this section, a charity is a charity primarily for the benefit of the area of a single inner London council if the charity is established for purposes which are by their nature or by the trusts of the charity directed wholly or mainly to the benefit of an area which falls wholly or mainly within that council's area.

(9) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of Her Majesty, the court or any other person to alter the trusts of any charity.

(10) In this section "charity", "charitable purposes", "charity trustees", "court" and "trusts" have the same meanings as in the Charities Act 1960.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this proposed new clause reflects discussions between the department and the Charity Commissioners. Its purpose is to clarify the position of charities in respect of which ILEA either appoints the trustees or is itself a trustee. I referred to this in anticipation at a previous stage of the Bill and I hope that your Lordships will agree that these provisions are self-evidently necessary and sensible. I beg to move.

Baroness David: My Lords, we support this amendment and wonder why it was not in before.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 423R: Before Clause 174, insert the following new clause:

("Supply of educational materials.

.The Secretary of State shall promote and assist in the making of arrangements, whereby the supply of school materials and other educational goods of the inner London councils, other local authorities and public bodies may most efficiently and effectively be provided.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, though this amendment is not grouped with the next amendment, No. 423S, may I speak to both with the permission of your Lordships, because the point is essentially the same? There is a jointness of activity here which already exists within ILEA. In the first case it is in terms of the purchase and supply of school materials and other relevant education goods, and in the other with the provision of transport services.

The functions exist and the people are in post. It would be a great pity if any risks were taken of those two services disappearing. It could be argued—and no doubt will be—that we can rely on the inner London councils themselves to guarantee that the problem that I envisage will not emerge. I feel that, since the Secretary of State is creating the problem in the first place, the least he can do is to accept responsibilities to promote and assist in the way stated in the two amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, as in the case of a number of other services which we have been discussing, the Government's first priority is to discuss the future of the supplies organisation with its users and potential users: ILEA, the inner London boroughs, the outer London boroughs and others. Because the organisation has so many customers, we have not yet been able to open a full debate. But we have made it clear, in discussion with ILEA and the boroughs, that this is a service whose future, whether or not as an independent commercial enterprise, we shall wish to discuss.

The prime responsibility for ensuring the efficient and effective supply of educational goods must lie with the inner London councils, as it does in all other areas of their responsibilities. This amendment would place very wide, and continuing, new responsibilities on the Secretary of State, responsibilities which we believe should properly rest with the local authority. This does not represent any abdication of responsibility on our behalf. We firmly believe that the decisions are for the boroughs, and for this reason we cannot accept the amendment.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I believe that here we have another example of the Secretary of State creating the uncertainty and chaos that he claimed would exist if he did not abolish ILEA. The Government have made their position clear and there is no need for me to underline what they said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 423S not moved.]

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 423T: Before Clause 179, insert the following new clause:

("Funding for educational services in inner London.

. In discharging his functions under Part VI of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (revenue support grant) the Secretary of State shall take into account the need to provide for appropriate funding by the inner London councils after the abolition date of voluntary organisations providing educational services which were assisted before that date by the ILEA: and he shall make such adjustments and provision as is necessary or expedient for that purpose.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these two Amendments, Nos. 423T and 423U, are concerned with funding voluntary organisations. There is almost a complete absence of reference to the voluntary sector and to 1LEA's partnership with it in the education Bill. Therefore, these two amendments seek to secure additional finance for borough councils to enable them to take on ILEA support of local voluntary organizations—that is Amendment No. 423T—and specific provision within the existing London boroughs grant scheme to secure the future of those voluntary education services which work across inner London.

I have a long brief which explains exactly the work that ILEA does for the voluntary sector, but I will spare the House that at this time of the morning. I wish to conclude by saying that inner London has a unique community make-up. One in seven of all ILEA pupils is not fluent in English. It is essential that the work of the community in harnessing resources to meet areas of disadvantage and special education needs should not be lost. The measures proposed in this amendment are no more than the arrangements made by the Government on the abolition of the GLC, and it is most earnestly hoped that community education work in inner London can be similarly protected. I beg to move.

5.15 a.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, we recognise the importance of the link and co-operation with the voluntary organisations. Most of the help that ILEA gives to voluntary organisations is through voluntary youth organisations. Discussions are going on and we have emphasised that in their draft guidance the boroughs must focus on this area. However, the Government see no advantage in their conducting the type of review envisaged by the amendment. It will be for the boroughs themselves to assess the needs of their local communities after 1990. One of the major advantages of our proposals is that the boroughs will be able to make an appropriate and flexible response to local needs in co-operation with voluntary organisations. I trust therefore, as I too have a number of longer notes which I could have used to develop the theme, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness David

My Lords, I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied with the answer, but at this time of the morning I shall make do with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 432U and 432UA not moved.]

Clause 174 [Information and access to documents]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 423UB:

Page 162, line 13, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) Any body mentioned in subsection (2) below, and the Secretary of State, may for the purpose of discharging any function conferred upon it by or under this Part, request ILEA to provide such information relating to ILEA or its functions as that body or the Secretary of State may reasonably require, and the ILEA shall provide such information. (1A) The ILEA—

1. (i) shall not he required under subsection (1) above to provide information in breach of any existing legal duty of confidentiality or of legal professional privilege;
2. (ii) shall, where it considers that to provide any information requested under subsection (1) above would be likely to constitute a disclosure of personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1984, refer the matter to the Data Protection Registrar.

(1B) Where upon such reference the Data Protection Registrar considers that the disclosure in question would involve a substantial contravention of the data protection principles, he shall give advice as to the conditions (if any) which should attach to the disclosure of information. (1C) For the purpose of the consideration required to be given and steps taken by the ILEA under paragraph (ii) of subsection (1A) above, and by the Data Protection Registrar under subsection (1B) above, the provisions of section 34(5)(a) of the Data Protection Act 1984 shall he deemed not to have effect.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on several occasions during our discussions on Report the Minister has said how much ILEA has been cooperating and getting on with the work of communicating with the boroughs on the abolition of ILEA and the passing of education functions to the inner London boroughs. The Inner London Education Authority has made it clear on a number of occasions that it is willing to co-operate in seeking to ensure the smoothest possible transfer of functions to inner London councils and is doing so in the interests of the education of children, young people and adults in inner London.

A number of meetings have been held with chief executives and elected council members of all political persuasions and an information prospectus is due to be published quite soon for the boroughs and the City. They have seen, and been given the opportunity to comment on, a draft of it. Yet Clause 174 as drafted is a draconian measure with criminal penalties attached to it. An absurdly short time is given to respond to what may be complex requirements for information and absolutely no protection is given to the confidentiality of the material held, however sensitive it may be to ILEA.

No clause of the Bill gives officers of ILEA more concern than this one. Unless the clause is amended, ILEA will be faced with the legal duty to provide all the information requested of it; first, by the 13 inner London councils; secondly, by the London Residuary Body; thirdly, by any other local authority which has property transferred under Clause 154; fourthly, by the staff commission; and fifthly, by the Secretary of State. The Inner London Education Authority will be acting unlawfully if one single piece of information required by any one of the above bodies, however unreasonable the request, is not provided within as short a time as one month of that request. There is no let-out clause. If the only member of staff who happens to know about an issue is either sick or away on holiday, or if every other council has agreed to wait six weeks for a piece of information but one borough demands it in less time, there is nothing ILEA can do.

In addition to all this, the ILEA must let anyone who is authorised by the LRB—not just an officer of the LRB—at any reasonable time inspect and make copies of any document belonging to or under the control of the ILEA. Such a person can also require the ILEA to deliver copies of documents to him. In other words, the ILEA officers are being required to act as the dogsbodies of the London Residuary Body. These requirements apply without any express limitation to confidential files about pupils, to medical files, to legal documents prepared for litigation, and so on.

Moreover, if anyone obstructs a person authorised by the LRB without reasonable excuse or refuses or merely fails to comply with a requirement to provide copies to a person authorised by the LRB, he commits a criminal offence which is punishable by a fine of up to £40 a day, as a continuing offence.

Under subsection (7) the requirement extends to information not kept in legible form —in other words, information held on a computer— and there is a duty to produce information in legible form. The latter may involve very complex computer programs being developed which, however justified they might be in themselves, would make the one-month deadline really rather unreasonable. The present requirements are all imposed on the ILEA at its own expense, however large the volume of requirements placed upon it.

The amendments that we are putting forward here would remove all those problems. Therefore I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept them. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I should like to repeat what the noble Baroness has kindly reminded us of; namely, that ILEA has been most helpful and I have no reason to doubt that its co-operation will continue. However, having said that, there must always remain the faint possibility that this atmosphere of excellent co-operation might slip at some point between now and April 1990. Therefore, we believe it is important that the basic provisions of this section should remain in the Bill.

With that excellent co-operation very much in mind, and while resisting the contents of Amendments Nos. 423UB and 423UD, we should like to consider further how best to secure the content of Amendment No. 423UC, and the underlying intention of Amendment No. 423UE. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, which has given me some assurance. I very much hope that she will be able to take away these suggestions, consider them again and perhaps bring forward some further minor modifications on Third Reading, which I think would reassure those officers in ILEA who are working extremely hard already—as she has said—to try to facilitate the changes. Frankly I think that the clause as it stands makes it more difficult for them, rather than easier. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 423UC to 423UE not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423UF: After Clause 174 insert the following new clause:

("Concurrent employment.

.—(1) A person in the service of ILEA may enter into a contract of employment with a successor authority for the rendering of services by him to that authority concurrently with his service to ILEA.

(2) Subsection (1) above has effect notwithstanding anything in a person's contract of employment with ILEA and neither his entering into a contract of employment with a successor authority nor anything done by him in pursuance of such a contract shall he a ground for ILEA to terminate his employment.

(3) In this section "successor authority" means—

1. (a) an inner London council;
2. (b) the London Residuary Body; and
3. (c) any local authority other than an inner London council to which functions or property of ILEA will be transferred by order under section 154 of this Act.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the intention of this amendment is to underpin the suggestion that dual appointments should be used in the run-up to April 1990. I beg to move.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, this is a surprising amendment. It says that someone who is employed by the ILEA may enter into a contract of employment with a successor authority and that the ILEA can do nothing about it. Someone can work six hours a day for the successor authority and whatever time is left with the ILEA. It seems rather hard on the ILEA that it has no choice in the matter. It is not to be consulted. Will the Minister explain why the ILEA has to accept such a joint appointment instead of taking part in making a joint appointment, if it is suitable?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, during the debate I have tried to emphasise that a careful balance needs to be struck between ensuring that the ILEA can continue to provide an effective education service in the period to April 1990 and to assist the London boroughs individually to prepare to take on the full responsibilities of local education from that date. It is clear that many ILEA staff members will provide the key to that operation. They will be needed by both the ILEA and the boroughs, and so some system of dual appointments will be necessary to facilitate that process. The amendment supports that concept by removing any contractual obstacle to having two employers.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps she can explain how a joint appointment can be made by one person who employs someone who is employed by another person but who does not consult the other person; in other words, the ILEA; and the ILEA has to accept it. That is not a joint appointment; it is a person who is doing two jobs.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have no doubt that consultation will take place. As I have said, a forum for discussing staff matters involving all the parties concerned has been set up and no doubt it will be a proper forum for formulating such action.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 423V to 423Z had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 424: Before Clause 177, insert the following new clause:

("Arrangement for non-educational provision.

. In section 7 of the 1981 Act (which imposes duties on local education authorities in relation to statements of special educational needs) there shall be inserted after subsection (2);

"(2A) Where a statement specifies non-educational provision it shall be the duty of the appropriate local authority or health authority specified in the statement to arrange that it is made for the child".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is similar to, but in some important ways different from, an amendment moved at an earlier stage of the Bill and withdrawn. It is not directly connected with the subject matter of the present Bill, but I move it now to seize the chance of legislation on education to attempt to remove an anomaly in the 1981 Act.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that where therapies are specified in a statement of special educational need there is a legal obligation on the appropriate authorities to provide those therapies. Obviously there are some objections to the amendment. I do not much like the distinction embodied in it between education provision and therapy.

I cannot understand why teaching a child the skill of the use of language is not a matter of education and why it should he described as therapy. However, at an earlier stage the Minister stated that there were good reasons for retaining that distinction although she did not then explain what those good reasons were. It therefore seems better for the moment to assume that the distinction between education provision and therapy should be retained. I move now that the 1981 Act be so amended as to place a duty on whichever other authority may be responsible for those services which are referred to in the statement.

It would be illogical if there were a legal obligation to provide only some of the things specified in a child's statement as essential to his educational development. To ensure that all the provision must be made by whatever relevant authority is the only way that the purpose of the statement can be fulfilled; namely, that a child's interests are protected and that his educational needs are satisfied.

As I have suggested, the distinction between speech therapy and language education is a totally artificial one, but the present amendment does not rely on this acknowledged fact of artificiality. Instead, it aims to ensure that whatever local authority is appropriate shall, as a matter of obligation, supply whatever is specified in a statement. A statement is a need for a child who is educationally disabled. The local authorities themselves are in consultation one with another in order to draw up a statement. Health authorities are concerned just as much as education authorities in the assessment of the child at the beginning.

Therefore the collaboration between the different authorities ought not to be impossible. I do not think unreasonable demands on resources will be made, because the assessment has been made together with the different authorities right from the start. The spirit of the 1981 Act demands that this amendment or one with the same effect should be incorporated in the Act. I therefore beg to move.

5.30 a.m.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I wish to support this amendment most warmly. I hope that we can resolve this problem because it is surely irrefutable that there should be a legal duty to ensure that any provision specified in a statement is carried out, whether it comes under a special educational provision or not. Otherwise, the statement will not afford genuine protection for the child with special needs.

It is very important to stress that it does not imply limitless resource obligations. It is the LEA that writes the statement after the full assessment of the child, and it is up to the LEA to decide what should be specified in the statement because Regulation 10 of the Special Educational Needs Regulations 1983 provides that a statement shall specify the special educational provision. Also, when it is specifying non-educational provision—this is the safeguard—it should only specify it if it is proposed to be made available by the education authority. The Statement should not specify it unless the LEA is satisfied that it will be made available by a district health authority, a social services authority or some other body. In other words, if the LEA does not think such provision can be met, it does not have to write it into the statement.

This may be anything but satisfactory from the point of view of the child concerned, but it certainly means that there are not huge resource implications. I think we should be very clear on that. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and I hope that she will be able to say something positive about this amendment or that she will be able to bring back one of her own on Third Reading to ensure that whatever is specified in the statement, whether special educational or non-educational provision, will be provided. At the very least I hope that she will manage to find some way of ensuring the LEAs may buy in speech therapy if they wish to do so.

Baroness Young

My Lords, perhaps I may say very briefly that as I intervened on a similar amendment at the Committee stage I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able if not to accept this amendment then to come forward even on Third Reading with something that meets what was clearly not the intention of Parliament originally.

This amendment arose from the Oxfordshire case. A statemented child was apparently unable to have speech therapy because it should be supplied by the health authority. My noble friend set out all this very clearly at Committee. The amendment is designed to put this right. If it is not correctly drafted, I hope that the Government can come forward with a correct draft in order to put right what seems to be an anomaly.

Baroness David

My Lords, briefly I very much wish to add my support to this amendment. It seems quite ridiculous that some way cannot he found to solve this problem, which is a very real one.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, there is clearly concern in the area of non-educational provision, in particular over the provision of speech therapy services. I undertook to look at this point following the debate at Committee stage. We have considered this matter most carefully to see whether it is possible at least to go back to where we thought the law stood before the Oxfordshire judgment in 1986.

The present amendment goes well beyond that point. Local education authorities already have a duty under Section 7(2) of the Education Act 1981 to arrange for the special education provision specified in the statement. This amendment would impose duties on local authorities and health authorities to make appropriate non-educational provision. Noneducational provision covers a wide range of services which I enumerated in great detail in Committee.

Of course we should like health authorities to recruit more speech and other therapists. But this may not always be possible even though health authorities may be willing and have the resources to do so. The Government have given high priority to meeting these needs in recent years but demand continues to rise and health authorities have to balance priorities among the many calls within the health service against the resources available.

I assure noble Lords that the Government fully recognise the importance of non-educational provision but feel that the amendment would be inappropriate in attempting to secure appropriate provision for children with special educational needs. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Warnock

My Lords, I am not altogether satisfied with that reply. It seems to me that this is a very good chance for an amendment to be introduced to reduce the folly of that part of the 1981 Act which inhibits the education of a considerable number of children, particularly perhaps children who essentially need speech therapy and for whom language is inaccessible without it. If language is inaccessible, then communication is inaccessible and education is nothing and cannot start.

There are other therapies which may be just as important for a child's education. I am not satisfied that we should simply hear that this is an anomaly and that the Government should like to do something about it but not now. This is a chance, as legislation is going through, for this to be done to the great advantage of a large number of children who are suffering considerably from the present state of the law. But this is obviously not the time further to discuss this. However, I think that there should be another chance to produce an amendment that would be more satisfactory before the final stage of this Bill. I very much hope that that will be possible. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 424A to 424F: After Clause 178, insert the following new clause:

("Loan liabilities excepted from transfer under Part II.

.—(1) The amount of any liability of a local education authority in respect of the principal of any loan which is an excepted liability in relation to an institution to which this section applies shall be treated on and after the operative date as having been borrowed from that authority by the default transferee on such terms as to repayment and the payment of interest as may be agreed between the Education Assets Board and the authority or determined by the Secretary of State under this section.

(2) This section applies to any institution conducted by a higher education corporation and any institution designated under section 121 of this Act; and in relation to any such institution—

1. (a) a liability is an excepted liability for the purposes of this section if it would have been transferred under section 118(3) but for subsection (5)(b) of that section or (as the case may be) under section 122(2) of this Act but for subsection (2B) of that section; and
2. (b) references, in relation to an excepted liability, to the default transferee and the operative date are references respectively to the body or persons to whom and the date on which that liability would have been so transferred.

(3) It shall be the duty of the authority and the Board, whether before or after the operative date, so far as practicable to arrive at such written agreements as may he necessary for determining the amount of any excepted liability and the terms to apply in relation to the liability imposed on the default transferee under this section by reference to that liability.

(4) Notwithstanding any terms agreed or determined as mentioned in subsection (1) above, any liability in respect of any sum treated by virtue of that subsection as having been borrowed from a local education authority may at any time be discharged by a single payment of a sum equal to the aggregate of—

1. (a) the amount of the principal of the loan outstanding at the time of the payment; and
2. (b) the amount of any interest accrued before that time.

(5) The Board shall notify the Secretary of State if it appears to them that it is unlikely in the case of any matter on which agreement is required to be reached under subsection (3) above that such an agreement will be reached.

(6) Where the Secretary of State has received a notification from the Board under subsection (5) above he may, whether before or after the operative date, give a direction determining the matter, and may include in the direction any provision which might have been included in an agreement under subsection (3) above.

(7) The Secretary of State shall consult the authority before giving a direction under this section.

(8) The Board shall give the Secretary of State such assistance and advice as he may require for the purpose of determining any matter under this section.

(9) The Board shall deliver any agreement made under subsection (3) above to the default transferee.

(10) Any such agreement shall be treated as made between the authority and the default transferee.").

Clause 180, page 166, line 29, leave out ("within the meaning of section 127 of this Act") and insert ("to which section 127 of this Act applies").

Page 167, line 7, after ("apply") insert ("in relation").

Page 167, line 8, at end insert ("as if references in sections 12 and 13 of that Act to every owner of the land included references to the local education authority concerned.").

Page 167, line 13, leave out ("in question") and insert ("disposed of, or the land in which the interest was granted,").

Page 167, line 19, leave out ("in question") and insert ("disposed of, or the land in which the interest was granted,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 424A to 424F en bloc

Lord Peston

My Lords, I am a little puzzled and I may have been asleep, but has Amendment No. 424A been spoken to at any point?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I am under the strong impression that it has already been spoken to under the group of amendments which started with Amendment No. 383A.

On Question, amendments agreed to

Clause 182 [Duty of Commissioners]:

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 425: Page 168, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to repeat, with the change of one word, what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said some six hours ago. I make no apology for raising a major issue at this time of the morning. When I tabled this amendment I had no idea at what time it was going to come up. If for reasons which are not primarily my responsibility we find it comes up at this time of the morning, I take the chance to speak to it when it comes. I make no complaint at that, and I hope that no one else does either

Before my intervention creates any turbulence in the usual channels, I wish to say that in this matter I speak on my own. My noble friends are not to he held responsible for anything that I may say. I shall not repeat the academic freedom arguments in favour of tenure that I developed in Committee. I shall say only that I have not yet had any answer to those arguments. Before I am urged, as I am sure I will be, to withdraw the amendment, I should like to hear an answer to those arguments with which I may engage.

For the moment, I concentrate only on the economic arguments. The government argument for the abolition of tenure concentrated on changing economic conditions. It did not draw attention to the fact that they have themselves changed those conditions. It sounded a little like what J. S. Mill describes as the inability of the unanalytic mind to recognise its own handiwork. The argument has been put forward by the Secretary of State, among others, that no good academic will be a risk from the abolition of tenure. Without prejudging the business which we will, I hope, be debating in a few minutes, if the Government continue to argue that it should be possible to dismiss an expensive academic in order to replace him with a cheaper one, that assurance is, to put it no higher, of a somewhat limited value. We need to consider the famous Adam Smith principle that a deal should be to the advantage of both parties.

We need to consider whether it is in the interests of any academic to accept employment on the terms which are now proposed. It is not a profession which many of us go into for the money. A number of us go into it out of an intense and often passionate desire to do the work involved. However, to do the work involved, one needs time. Academic lines of inquiry tend to take a very long time. If they take less time, they tend to be rather less credible. I am myself only just beginning to understand the full implications of a line of inquiry which I entered on 28 years ago. It is just beginning to come out in the wash. To do something like that, you need to have a reasonable security that you can finish what you undertake.

I shall not develop here the argument which I developed in Committee about the difficulty when there are no suitable vacancies available of redeploying an academic who loses a position. But perhaps I may say a word about the degree of specialisation which is involved. That is something which is rather more necessary than is often appreciated. It is necessary not only to research but to teaching. one is to teach effectively, one needs to be aware that knowledge has frontiers. One needs to be aware that the frontiers are not static. One needs to be able to convey to the person whom one is teaching that those frontiers are moving and to get them to see the movement in progress. If one cannot do that, one has not prepared oneself for a world in which the frontiers of knowledge are undergoing constant change.

I shall mention only one further point. It is a profession in which entry to employment comes late—normally at or past the age of 30—and in which early entry is now increasingly frequently accompanied by early retirement at the age of 55 or thereabouts. It is not a very long working life. The House may be aware that I regard my profession with some pride. I regard the fact that I am not the first generation in it with some pride. But, should my son wish to enter the academic profession with this Bill on the statute book, I shall do my level best to discourage him. I beg to move.

5.45 a.m.

Lord Peston

My Lords, Amendment No. 425CZA is grouped with the previous amendment, assuming I am still able to read at this hour, of which I am doubtful. Am I right in thinking that the two are grouped together?

Lord Morton of Shuna

Yes, my Lords.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I must start by saying how bitterly I resent the fact that we are debating what I regard as a matter of absolutely fundamental importance to the future of academic life in this country at this hour, after such a long period of time. I wish to place on record that I do not believe your Lordships have served the country—or within it, more narrowly, the academic community—in allowing this debate to proceed in this way, forcing those of us who take this matter extremely seriously into this position. I may say that I personally am extremely exhausted. I want to place that on record, because our Hansard is a permanent record and I feel that people ought to know what has happened about a matter of this importance.

These amendments are not trivial: they are absolutely fundamental so far as the academic community is concerned. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is essentially one that omits the abolition of tenure. My amendment, coupled with the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, puts tenure back in in the event of its being taken out. But it puts it in in the most stringent form. It puts it in in a way which is often referred to as "American tenure". It reassures those people who feel—in my view erroneously, but we must take their fears into account—that somehow academics get a job for life too easily and then proceed to neglect their duties, having got that job for life. Many of us, as academics, regard that as insulting, and it is not in fact the case; but in order to appease such people one puts down the amendment in this extremely strict form.

I do not want to rehearse all the arguments about tenure. I would simply draw your Lordships' attention to a letter published recently in The Times and which may have appeared in other papers as well, and to certain other statements from American academics, who essentially believe, so far as this country is concerned, that we have taken leave of our senses and that we are wilfully damaging one of the few things that we do exceptionally well and in which, without any shadow of a doubt, we are world-class.

Those of us in the business of being academics—in my own case, a former academic—have a great sense of frustration, in that it seems to be impossible to persuade the Government to understand the damage they are doing. Not only does one get no response, but one has to read the most absurd arguments which are put forward. The case of the junior Minister that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, several hours ago is not unique in its vulgarity and its total inappreciation of what this is all about.

As I have said, I am myself now quite tired and I can do no more at this stage than draw to your Lordships' attention, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has done, the peril in which the academic community has been placed. For those of us who actually believe that academic activities are some of the things that are important in our country, then it is a damaging thing for our country in general. I will refrain from going on, because I am aware that I am not the only person who is tired; but I feel it vital that these remarks are placed on record, albeit at ten minutes to 6 in the morning.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I want to say only one sentence in support of both these amendments. If the Government pass this Bill so that it becomes an Act, we can all expect a brain drain of voluminous proportions from this country, involving our best academics, who will go to those countries where they can expect tenure—possibly with the provisions as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Peston, but where they can get tenure if they do their job according to academic standards. Do we wish to promote such a brain drain?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I should like to answer briefly but still treat this matter and the arguments advanced as being of considerable importance. The fact is that tenure has not been universal in the institutions of higher education in this country. There are some which have had tenure and some which have not had it.

The principal reasons for seeking to abolish the strict form of academic tenure can be summarised, first, by saying that it is unfair to individuals. It is a privilege which some academics have by historical accident, and it can damage the interests of colleagues who do not have it. Some universities do, and some universities do not, have it. The reasons are very often matters of historical accident.

Secondly, we believe that there is at least the possibility that in such situations academic tenure serves to undermine academic standards and excellence. It prevents the university from following policies of protecting its strengths and concentrating any necessary reductions in areas of weakness. We believe that it also has a tendency to militate against innovation, and from the debates that we have had earlier in this session we know of the importance of innovation in universities.

It appears clear that there are difficulties of the kind that I mentioned as between universities and one member of staff and another that can be demonstrated. It is said that in some places—America, for example—there is tenure. I think that one has to look fairly closely at the arrangements made in some American universities which are described as tenure. In this Bill, as I sought to explain in Committee (and I do not mean to go over the ground again) we are proposing that the powers to dismiss academic staff who otherwise would have tenure in terms of the constitution of their universities will be very strict. It will at least come up to the due process that is the mark of tenure in many American universities. That is what I intended to say on the general matter.

I should like to say a few more words about the amendment referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which, as I understand it, provides for the possibility of tenure. The intention of the amendment is to give management greater flexibility in making appointments where a university wished, say, to attract a famous and distinguished scholar or to retain his services if he were known to be considering approaches from elsewhere. If your Lordships accept the amendment, it will offer him special terms; namely, a guarantee against redundancy before his age of retirement. I think that the same idea is contained in the amendment that bears the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.

This option has been considered, but on balance we have come to the conclusion that it would present several serious disadvantages. Different universities might apply provisions of this kind in different ways. I do not believe that the commissioners would readily be able to devise criteria for what is ultimately a subjective judgment which could be applied consistently over time and as between different institutions. Over-ready use of such a provision could result in something approaching the general reintroduction of tenure. Very selective use could result in the creation of a new class of academics whose special privileges set them apart from their colleagues. I understand that the Association of University Teachers would regret such a development. Surely the right way to reward continued outstanding performance is through career advancement and greater pay flexibility—approaches specifically incorporated in last year's academic pay settlement.

I have heard it suggested that individual academics might be discouraged from accepting new appointments at United Kingdom universities on account of their alleged lack of job security. I believe that this is a misunderstanding. What we are suggesting in the Bill is the provision of a situation in which it would be quite impossible for the universities in which the tenure exists arbitrarily to dispense with the services of individual members of staff. Therefore, I do not see how this could lead to the kind of brain drain of voluminous proportions to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, drew attention.

I understand that these matters have been put forward seriously. I have endeavoured to deal with them fully. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question. He began by saying that the Government propose to remove some forms of tenure. What forms of tenure will be left in the Bill if these amendments are not passed?

The Lord chancellor

My Lords, it is a form of tenure which prevents the university from dismissing someone except for redundancy or good cause.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, it includes redundancy?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, that is a form of tenure.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the care he has given to that reply and for the courtesy with which it was put forward. I cannot say that I am convinced by it but I do not think that the noble and learned Lord honestly expected that I should be. I shall not follow him into the thickets of the Oxford, East argument. My reply to that argument is on record in Committee.

I refer very briefly to two other points that he made. Of course I share the concern for academic standards. There is no attempt whatever being made here to defend incompetent people or dead wood. The amendment is carefully drafted to leave intact all the provisions of the Bill giving grounds for dismissing people. It deletes only the provision for dismissal through redundancy.

The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor invited me to look carefully at American arrangements for tenure. Perhaps I may beg leave to remind him that I have done so. American tenure is not, in the best institutions—as it has been represented—something which allows dismissal for redundancy. I know that it exists in many second-rate American institutions. In the top-rate institutions it is not so; it is tenure, as we have hitherto recognised it.

I have learned slowly that government by consent is very difficult. I think that is why Parliament in its wisdom has provided a great many procedures which may be exhausted by those who find that consent very difficult to give. On that understanding, I fear that I must ask the House to divide.

5.58 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 425) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 39.

DIVISION NO. 12
CONTENTS
Adrian, L.	McNair, L.
Blackstone, B.	Morton of Shuna, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.]	Peston, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Dainton, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
David, B.	Russell, E. [Teller.]
Dormand of Easington, L.	Seear, B.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Tordoff, L.
Flowers, L.	Warnock, B.
Gallacher, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Greenhill of Harrow, L.	White, B.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Kirkwood, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Arran, E.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Beaverbrook, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Beloff, L.	Kimball, L.
Belstead, L	Long, V.
Benson, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Blatch, B.	Middleton, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.	Munster, E.
Coleraine, L.	Pender, L.
Cox, B.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Sandford, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Skelmersdale, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Swinton, E.
Dundee, E.	Teviot, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Elliott of Morpeth. L.	Trafford, L.
Ferrers, E.	Trumpington, B.
Greenway, L.	Young, B.
Harvington, L.	Young of Graffham, L.
Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.7 a.m.

The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 425AYA: Page 168. line 21, after ("any") insert ("relevant").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, comes the dawn, as one can see through the windows, and with it the dawn chorus initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and then myself. After accompanying your Lordships across the "ILEAdeological" wasteland stretching from Clauses 149 to 180, I now lead the House to the oasis of higher education in whose waters I hope noble Lords will reflect themselves until we adjourn for lunch.

Amendments Nos. 425AYA and 425BYA tabled in my name, have already been commented on briefly by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I should like to explain that of the amendments to which I put my name some stem from your Lordships' petitioners, some from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and some from a natural sympathy I have with the authors of the tabled amendments.

The two amendments which I now propose represent the views of your Lordships' petitioners, and I believe that they should be listened to. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give a more detailed argument as to why the Government cannot support them than the argument he gave in reply to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the most important point that I should like to make in respect of the amendment is that the special exclusion for staff on fixed-term contracts—to which this would amount—would place them in an anomalous position when redundancies were necessary. It is not always easy to look forward to a situation where redundancy may be required. If it could always be predicted it might be possible to ensure fairness between the different members of staff while conferring on some a fixed tenure of this kind. However, I believe that experience has shown that sometimes situations in which redundancy arises are created quite quickly. The result of that is that one may well find that while a term has been allowed which it was hoped would survive any redundancy situation, in fact a redundancy situation has occurred while the term is running.

I believe that that could create difficulties for university management in a redundancy situation, having difficulty in being fair in choosing between the various people to whom it should be applied and also unfairness with respect to other staff not on fixed term contracts. As I said, the university may have an urgent need to make people redundant and it would make it more difficult for them to make rational decisions about redundancy.

The general provisions that we have proposed in relation to dismissal, as I said, establish very considerable protection for the people who have been given appointments in the university. I believe that this point about unfairness as between one and another is a point of substance which arises at the present time, to some extent, as between those institutions in which tenure is available and those in which it is not.

The fact that short term appointments have been given in recent years has been the subject of a survey conducted by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in respect of short term appointments of new staff in 1985-86. There was a striking difference between those universities with tenure and those without. In the case of non-clinical appointments, the tenure-giving universities made no fewer than 57 per cent. of their appointments on a short term basis. The universities without tenure made 43 per cent. of their appointments on that basis. The figures for clinical staff were equally striking. In tenured universities 76 per cent. of the appointments were on a short term basis and 55 per cent. in non-tenured universities.

It is entirely appropriate for a university to engage a proportion of its staff on a short term basis where that is appropriate to the post concerned and acceptable to both parties. However, it should not become disproportionate in the normal mode of university employment. Our proposals would help to prevent that sort of situation. However, to introduce selective tenure—and I take it from the approach of the noble Earl to the matter that he has a very selective type of tenure in mind —would create difficulties of this sort.

We agree that the matter is difficult and is a matter of judgment. However, having considered the matter, that is the way our judgment has come down.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his very considered reply. I expect that your Lordships' petitioners would be disappointed that the Government will not go further to meet their wishes, but I believe that it would be quite wrong to divide the House at this hour in the morning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 425BYA not moved.]

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 425AZA:

Page 168, line 27, leave out ("and") and insert— ("(ba) provision establishing disciplinary procedures determined by the Commissioners for dealing with any complaints made against any member of the academic staff relating to his appointment or employment,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are intended to fulfil the undertakings which I gave in my Second Reading speech. I believe that they were foreshadowed in undertakings given by the Secretary of State on Report in another place.

They provide a grievance procedure; that is to say, to deal with grievances short of dismissal where a member of the university staff is affected by some action, short of action to dismiss him, to which he objects. There is a procedure for dealing with that. There is also a procedure for dealing with discipline which is short of dismissal.

I take the view, and the Government have always taken the view, that the real protection for academic freedom for individuals—that is, freedom for individuals against the academy in which they are operating—is in fair procedures of this sort. The Bill already provides for many procedures in connection with dismissal as well as other protections. The Government amendment seems to us to contain a reasonable set of criteria for procedures of this sort to be adjusted by the commissioners. I beg to move.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

My Lords, my question to the noble and learned Lord concerns Amendment No. 425AZA, which is one of a pair which is somewhat unusual in, so to speak, industrial terms. It has been put to me by a number of people that the drafting goes wider than the phrase which I believe the noble and learned Lord used in his explanation. He said something like, "This deals with discipline short of dismissal."

In fact, the clause is to establish a procedure for dealing with any complaints made against any member of the academic staff. To be specific, one of the particular problems is whether it covers complaints made by other members of the staff, or only by the employing institutions. If the second is meant, would it perhaps be better to specify that?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the Bill already has provisions for appeal against dismissal and the dismissal aspect has been dealt with. I agree that dismissal is perhaps the highest form of discipline, so in a sense the procedure for dismissal would be included in procedures for discipline. However, this amendment is intended by way of addition to provide for procedures that will lead to results short of dismissal.

I do not think that the amendment is restricted to complaints made by the institution against any member of the academic staff. It would include dealing with complaints made by one member of the academic staff against another, but the procedure for dealing with these may well involve the complaint being taken up by the institution before it can be proceded with.

I am sure the noble Lord is familiar with the sifting procedure that exists in, for example, the medical profession. If a member of the public makes a complaint against a doctor, the doctor is not automatically summoned before the professional conduct committee. There is a sifting mechanism by which it is first decided whether there is a prima facie case. I take it that it would be open to the commissioners, under this clause, to establish a procedure of that kind. Obviously if one member of the university has a complaint against another that he is infringing his academic freedom, or some other equally heinous offence, it is right that there should be some mechanism for resolving the dispute.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 425BZA:

Page 168, line 33, at end insert (";And (d) provision establishing procedures determined by the Commissioners for affording to any member of the academic staff opportunities for seeking redress for any grievances relating to his appointment or employment").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already sought to explain this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 425CZA not moved.]

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 425ZA: Page 168, line 37, after ("unless") insert ("the institution shows than")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that with this amendment it will be convenient to speak also to Amendment No. 425AE. Both of those amendments concern the addition that the Government put into the clause and which is now subsection (2); namely, the requirement that for the purposes of the power to dismiss for redundancy or good cause there should be a sufficient reason.

The first amendment on this matter raises the question of the burden of proof and the second raises the substantive content of what is meant by sufficient reason. On the burden of proof, that is a particular reason why something more should be said. Our amendment would put the burden of proof of sufficient reason firmly upon the employing institution. The employing institution has all the facts and if there is a difference in the knowledge of the staff member and the institution it will have its reasons.

It is normal in such a situation, with one exception, for the burden of proof to be upon such a party even though it will be the employee who brings the complaint. The exception is the one that causes the difficulty because the words used in the subsection to describe sufficient reason are words which say that it is a reason which may be reasonably treated in the circumstances, (including the size and administrative resources of the institution)…as a sufficient reason". The words are borrowed directly—I make no complaint about that—from Section 57(3) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. It so happens that though until 1980 the burden was on the employer, the Government changed that in the Employment Act 1980. This is now history. They left the burden of proof neutral. For me, a burden of proof being neutral is a nonsense, but it is so in the industrial tribunals and the Government have said so.

The noble and learned Lord has made quite clear to us that if there is a legal challenge—and that is what this is about—it is more likely to be made on a judicial review in the High Court. In the High Court on a judicial review my submission would be that a neutral burden of proof is a nonsense and therefore the burden of proof must lie on one side or the other in those proceedings. It should not lie upon the staff member whether there is a sufficient reason in reasonable terms for the dismissal but it should lie upon the institution.

In view of the hour, I must pass to the second amendment. That deals with substance. What it says in effect is that for there to be a sufficient reason it must be shown that the employing body has adopted, first, a fair basis as to selection for redundancy, and, secondly, that it has done what is reasonable to take steps to avoid redundancy by redeployment in its own organisation. It so happens that those very words are from the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, which is why I adopted them, especially as it was a judgment in which the noble and learned Lord also gave a judgment. I am only sorry that I could not find words of his to adopt in the amendment, but I am sure that he will not mind that his noble and learned friend Lord Bridge has been adopted.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, there pointed out, in dealing with the case of Polkey v. Dayton Ltd. in 1988 Industrial Cases Reports, at page 142, that, in the case of redundancy, the employer will normally not act reasonably unless he warns and consults any employees affected or their representative"— we shall come to that later—and, adopts a fair basis on which to select for redundancy and takes such steps as may be reasonable to avoid or minimise redundancy by redeployment within his own organisation".

Those are the words of our amendment and this is the first time we have had a chance to come back to sufficient reason. We were able to discuss it before but it came in at the Committee stage; and in a sense this is a Committee plus Report point. We are saying that, having considered it, we think it is an excellent addition to a clause which we do not like but that it would be right and proper now to refine and hone it by dealing with the burden of proof, by putting that burden on the employing institution and by saying quite explicitly that there must be a fair basis for selection. One cannot assume that the judiciary will take the meaning from the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act and apply it here. There must be a fair basis for selection and there must be evidence of reasonable steps to avoid redeployment. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the background to the amendments is the part of the Bill which deals with circumstances in which a member of the university staff who otherwise would be protected can be dismissed. There must be justification. If the official of the university is to be dismissed it must be as a result of the exercise of the powers which the Bill gives in this context. Accordingly, the power is conditioned on the circumstance that it is either by reason of redundancy or by reason of good cause. Unless the university has either redundancy as a reason sufficient in the circumstances, or good cause as a reason sufficient in the circumstances, the person will not be dismissed or the dismissal will not stand.

The first amendment is dealt with by the context in which it appears here. I accept that the history of the employment legislation to which the noble Lord has referred makes the burden of proof in terms neutral—no express burden in the statute any longer—but as a matter of practice the influence of that is really of no practical importance.

On the noble Lord's second amendment, I should have thought that the provisions which require that it he reasonable to treat the reason as sufficient in the circumstances is sufficient in the case of redundancy to require that the steps by which the redundancy had been reached were reasonable in the circumstances. That is a rather short paraphrase of the noble Lord's second amendment.

In the light of those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord may feel that we have in fact already adopted the spirit of both the amendments in the provisions of the Bill as they were amended in Committee.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question about the noble and learned Lord's terminology. When he speaks of redundancy, does he include as a reasonable reason for redundancy the dismissal of a senior member of staff and his replacement by a junior member of staff for the purpose of saving the difference in salary?

6.30 a.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for asking that question because it enables me to say in advance what we are proposing to do in relation to the later amendments which deal with this question. There is a famous set of eight words—they have become famous so far as I am concerned—in the provisions of the Bill. The phrase, or members of staff of a particular kind is the foundation for the kind of additional redundancy, to which the noble Lord has referred, that enables the university, as the Bill presently stands, to dismiss a member of staff at a senior level if a junior member of staff could do the same work. In other words, the job remains, but at a junior level. That is the situation as it is in the Bill which is arrived at by use of the phrase, or members of staff of a particular kind". Having considered this matter carefully, in the light of all the representations that were made in Committee, the Government have decided that those eight words should be deleted. Therefore, I propose in due course to accept Amendments Nos. 425AB and 425AC which are tabled on the Marshalled List in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton and Lord Adrian; the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. So the answer to the noble Lord's question—I am sorry it is such a long one—is that once these amendments are given effect to, redundancy will not include that particular circumstance.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response to the amendments. I especially appreciated the point with which he ended; namely that the spirit of these three amendments, with two points, is already in the Bill. The problem is that I must suggest that it might be worth spelling it out. The reason I say that is that these are words in another Act, manifestly borrowed, where the burden of proof and the substance would not be entirely the same as that which the noble and learned Lord suggested would be the spirit of the Bill.

I agree that our disagreement puts me in the bizarre situation of suggesting that the Employment Act 1980 had some effect, when the noble and learned Lord is rather suggesting that it had no practical implications. At least, I think that that was what he said. But I am sure that that need be no obstacle to his looking at the matter further, so naturally I shall withdraw the amendment. However, in doing so, I ask him to look especially at the burden of proof point for Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Russell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 425A:

Page 169, line 10, leave out subsection (5) and insert— ("(5) For the purposes of this section redundancy shall have the same meaning as in section 81(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, if it is in order I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord very warmly indeed for what he said. In the circumstances, I do not wish to move this amendment.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I must say that I am not sure whether it is in order. However I am grateful to the noble Earl and I shall take it that the amendment is not moved.

[Amendment No. 425A not moved.]

Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 425AA: Page 169, line 11, after ("shall") insert ("except when the member of staff is replaced by another person to carry out the same work at less cost'').

The noble Lord said: My Lords, having sat in this House now for some nine hours in order to move this amendment, I am delighted to find that it is apparently unnecessary. However, I hope that before I withdraw it, the noble and learned Lord will assure me that the amendments which the Government are accepting—which follow mine—would have exactly the same effect as mine, since my amendment contained wording which was suggested to me by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and I think they would like that reassurance. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I think that the amendments which I propose to accept have the same effect as the one proposed by the noble Lord. I am clear that the right result is obtained by deleting these eight words, because they are the words which distinguish the redundancy provisions of this part of the Bill from the redundancy provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. That is why I prefer to do it this way. To the best of my understanding of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, it would certainly have the same effect in practice. However, if any doubt is raised in the noble Lord's mind by subsequent consultations—before the Third Reading stage of the Bill, of course—I shall certainly desire to give effect to them.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 425AB: Page 169, line 19, leave out ("or members of staff of a particular kind").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak briefly also to Amendment No. 425AC to put the matter on the record. Amendment No. 425AB relates to the eight words in the expanded definition of redundancy disliked in the university world because they would put university academic staff at a disadvantage in regard to their legal status faced by dismissal as against every other employee in the land. The Association of University Teachers and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals have now agreed that the words should go.

I do not wish to let the moment pass without saying that I do not pretend that my profession—it is a profession— is content to swap those eight words for tenure. I wish to make that point clear. As I understand it, the eight words which would have made possible the more extreme instances of easy dismissal in the university world are to go because the Government accept the amendment. I hope and believe that when the Government accept the amendment it will have the effect that the noble and learned Lord suggested in his earlier reply.

I should like to add the thanks which I am sure all of those within the House and the university world generally feel for what we know to be the noble and learned Lord's interest in the matter. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, as I said. I accept the amendment on behalf of the Government for the reasons that I have given. I do not entirely accept all that the noble Lord said about the previous position. but we need not go into that now. I am grateful for what he said in thanking me. Let us try to end the matter on that note, unless someone else has something to say.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 425C: Page 169, line 20, leave out ("or members of staff of a particular kind").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 425AD:

Page 169, line 34, at end insert— ("(6A) Where an institution proposes to dismiss one ormore members of staff by reason of redundancy within the meaning of this section. Part IV of the Employment Protection Act 1975, shall apply as it applies to employees dismissed as redundant under that Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment asks that there should be added to the Bill a statement that the same consultation obligations are owed by universities to their academic staff union representatives as to all other employees. It might have been that the noble and learned Lord's acceptance of the previous amendments could have dispensed with the need for this amendment. But that is not so. The definition of redundancy in the Bill will still differ from that in Section 81 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, the word "business" being replaced by the word "activity".

Since there is still a different definition, I suggest that there is a need to establish the consultation obligation. One further reason for that is the consultation obligation that arises from the 1975 European Community directive. We should be in breach of our obligations if we did not clearly extend the same obligation to university institutions as a matter of law. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, there is perhaps still lurking behind the amendment some previous misunderstanding. The provisions in the Bill in relation to tenure or to conditions of employment— to use an alternative phrase—of academic staff are additional to their rights as employees under the ordinary law. There never was any intention to detract from the rights of the university staff as employees in terms of the ordinary rights that an employee has under the Employment Protection Act and other employment legislation. The result of that is that the Employment Protection Act applies to staff who are academic employees just as much as to any other kind of employee.

Therefore this amendment is quite unnecessary, but it is symptomatic of a kind of misunderstanding that we were trying to substitute the ordinary law in relation to redundancy, for example, in academic cases. We were not doing that; we were seeking to give academics additional protection to that which they would enjoy under the ordinary law. Of course we have done that even more fully than before.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

My Lords, I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord says, and I thank him for it. However, with great respect, although there is additional protection in the Bill, there is also an additional vulnerability. That would have been a wide vulnerability when we had the eight words in, but now that the eight words are not there it is scarcely of any importance except that there is a requirement that in any case where an employer can dismiss for redundancy, the consultation obligation should apply. That is in the directive.

There are two circles, and the normal circle, as the noble and learned Lord says, is where the redundancy is covered by the normal law. But outside that there is a slightly different circle, a very small one now, by reason of the different definition. It is necessary to cover that in community terms by simply adopting this in the schedule. That is probably its proper place. I shall leave it with the noble and learned Lord and his advisers, especially on community law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 425AE not moved.]

Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 425B:

Page 169, line 50, at end insert— ("( ) Nothing contained in this Part of this Act shall prejudice the rights of the Church of Scotland as set out in the Universities (Scotland) Acts of 1932 and 1966, and it shall he the duty of the Commissioners to secure that the statutes of each qualifying institution shall include in relation to any ordinance which relates to the purposes mentioned in section 2 of the 1932 Act the same provisions for consultation and for consent, mutatis mutandis, as are set out in the Acts of 1932 and 1966.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved this amendment at Committee stage and in view of the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I asked leave to withdraw it at that stage to find out the views of the Church of Scotland in regard to the attitude of the noble and learned Lord.

I now have to come hack with the amendment, which perhaps says something about the attitude of the General Assembly Board of Nomination to Church Chairs to the assurance. I wish to assure the House and in particular the noble and learned Lord that it shows no lack of trust in his assurance, but that his assurance is not binding on the commissioners who will have the duty of applying this section of the Bill.

The amendment is to add at the end that the rather complicated statutory provision that relates to the connection between the Church of Scotland and the four older universities in relation to the appointment of Church chairs shall continue to exist. At present they are controlled by Acts of Parliament of 1932 and 1966. The amendment says that they shall continue to be the controlling Acts which provide for consultation between the two bodies. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said, identical amendments to this one and to Amendment No. 429 were put down at Committee stage. As I indicated, I was sympathetic to the importance and the distinctive character of the institutions of both religion and law which characterise Scotland. I believe it is unthinkable, as I said then and will repeat, that the commissioners would ride roughshod over those institutions. I expect they would give sympathetic consideration to the constitution of the universities as they are related to the Church of Scotland.

Your Lordships have, I think, very little reason to suppose that the Scottish dimension will he overlooked. It gives me the greatest possible pleasure to announce to your Lordships that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, has accepted an invitation from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to serve as chairman of the commissioners, subject to parliamentary approval of the legislation.

The Government have already indicated that one of the other commissioners is likely to have special familiarity with the Scottish system. The Church of Scotland has every reason to suppose that the commissioners will he extremely well informed about the law of Scotland and the Church of Scotland in the matters which they are considering. I hope that in the light of that further assurance which I was not able to give in Committee, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.

6.45 a.m.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I am totally delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, should have this appointment, subject to the approval of Parliament, which I have not the slightest doubt he will get. But the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has not explained why this amendment is wrong or should not be put in. There was not one word explaining what is wrong with the amendment.

The Bill is quite thick already. We have spent quite a lot of time trying to keep the Church of England happy—if I may so express it—so why not add seven lines to keep the Church of Scotland happy? I do not think we have received an answer to that.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I thought it would be reasonably happy. But the point is that the Bill as it stands does not impinge on the rights of the Church of Scotland as those rights are given in statutory provisions. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to seek to re-enact, as it were, the statutory provisions which are in existence already. On the other hand, it may be that when the commissioners examine the situation in relation to these universities, they may find it necessary and desirable in the light of their work to make appropriate procedural arrangements, which they would have power to do, for the Chairs to which these particular provisions apply.

I can certainly assure the Church that its rights will be taken into account most thoroughly. It seems to me that the government Amendment No. 428B, which I hope to move in a reasonably short time, will make explicit on the face of the Bill that the commissioners will have the obligation to consult persons who would be affected by the modification. Therefore, the interests of the Church of Scotland would be before them. In a sense, if we have taken time pleasing the Church of England, we have also in Amendment No. 428B provided some degree of protection for the Church of Scotland, although, as I said at the beginning, I very much doubt whether any additional protection is necessary.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply, which, although delivered with his customary courtesy, if I may say so without intending in any way to be discourteous, did not seem to me to meet the point which was worrying me. But I do not wish to press this point any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 183 [Powers of Commissioners]:

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 426: Page 170, line 9, leave out ("20th November 1987") and insert ("2nd October 1988").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the date at which the abolition of tenure comes into operation. It is at present, as in the Bill, 20th November 1987. The amendment proposes to move it to 2nd October 1988—in fact to bring it to the beginning of the new academic year. The point is of some importance. Academic procedures are careful. Appointments take long time going through the pipeline; promotions take even longer. It is, I think, on the whole a good thing that people entering such an obstacle race should come out with what they thought they were applying for in the first place. If the rules of the game change in midstream, that may not work out.

The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in Committee that people would know where they were. In relation to there not being tenure, yes they would. But I may say that we have, during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, clarified the law on this matter very considerably. For that, I believe that we owe the noble and learned Lord a great deal of thanks. Therefore, the picture has changed.

Finally, I think that it might be argued that there was some fear of a rush to make appointments before the deadline. Had that matter been argued a little earlier in the academic year, there might possibly have been some (though not very much) substance in that point. At this stage of the academic year, if the Government were to accept the amendment and I wished to rush an appointment through, I could not do it. You cannot convene that many university committees in the middle of the long vacation. On that matter the Government can set their minds at rest. They can safely afford to accept a reasonable tidying-up amendment. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, it has been the Government's intention all along that staff who on or after 20th November 1987, the date of the introduction of the Bill, are appointed, or who enter into contracts of employment or who are promoted should lose tenure when the modifications to the statutes of their institutions are approved.

This amendment would delay the effective date from 20th November 1987 to 2nd October 1988. The Government's policy objectives in relation to tenure have been known for several years. The Government now wish to achieve their objectives as quickly as possible without actually removing tenure from those who continue in the posts that they have held on 19th November 1987.

Staff who accept or have accepted a new appointment or promotion on or after 20th November 1987 will do so or have done so in the knowledge that they will in due course lose any right they may have had not to be dismissed for redundancy as defined in the Bill. There is of course no possibility that they can be so dismissed, where they could not otherwise be, until the necessary changes made by the commissioners to the statutes become effective.

The amendment has the effect of delaying the provisions. Once the decision was taken and clearly intimated so that people felt that it was wise to act upon it, it would not be wise to change it. The only effect of the amendment is to delay the effectiveness of the Government's policy, without any advantage, except possibly a coincidental advantage to some who had thought that they would not have tenure and who would have it. It seems fair to stick to the date orginally fixed in the Bill when it was produced and widely publicised. I hope, in the light of that explanation, that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I must admit that that reply causes me a certain amount of disappointment. However, at this hour of the morning and after the major concession which we have just received and welcomed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 427: Page 170, line 9, leave out from ("1987") to end to line 26.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 427 is a proposal to delete a part of the Bill which deals with loss of tenure on promotion. The amendment attempts to clarify the meaning of the Bill which in this area remains in doubt. The basic principle that tenure should be lost on promotion is clear and understood. What is not altogether understood is what constitutes promotion.

The question on which many of my colleagues are in considerable doubt concerns the pay scale for lecturers. That is a single grade which has recently been divided into two pay scales. It seems likely that a large number of members of the profession will move from one to the other fairly early on. Does moving from lecturer scale A to scale B constitute a promotion within the meaning of the Bill? I look forward to a clear reply. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the general provision, so far as the Bill is concerned, is that the attaining of a new rate in a scale on which a person was operating would not amount to a promotion. Therefore, if scale A has rates in it which are attainable by people who are in class B, then it would not he a promotion. If, for example, scale A— the particular detail has not been given to me—is a scale with a higher set of limits on it than scale B, then the situation in which a lecturer moves from the scale he was on to a new scale at a higher level altogether and not attainable under his old scale, would be a promotion. That is a new condition of employment. If he is a lecturer, for example, who is entitled to gradations in a given scale—scale A, with grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3—to go up within the scale that is attainable by him would not be a promotion. I hope that is reasonably plain.

In a moment I am going to put forward amendments to deal with general pay improvement, because these points were raised last time and I want to clarify the position. It may be that this will help to give to the noble Earl the clarification for which he has asked me. I think the safe answer to the general question as he put it is that, going from scale B to a completely higher scale A would be a promotion.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I will study that reply with care when I have more leisure than I can give to it at this hour in the morning. However, I admit that I am somewhat disappointed. I hope I may say, without appearing ungracious, that it might have been better if this matter had been made clearer at an earlier stage of the Bill. Nevertheless, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 427ZA:

Page 170, line 10, at beginning insert ("he is promoted on or after that date. (2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above a person shall he taken to be promoted on or after 20th November 1987 if (and only in").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment I take along with Amendments Nos. 427DA, 427DB, 427DC, 427DD, 427DE, 427DF and 427EA. The most important amendment here is No. 427DB. That amendment seeks to make it clear that a person holding an office or position of any description shall not be taken to be promoted by reason only of any general variation of the terms of appointment or of contracts of employment of persons holding offices or persons of that description. In other words, putting it shortly, if all the lecturers get a rise, that is not a promotion. That was a point of difficulty earlier.

The other amendment of substance among the ones I have listed is No. 427EA, which provides that a person who is promoted on a temporary basis for a particular purpose, in the expectation that he will resume his former post when that purpose is accomplished, will not lose tenure. In other words, for example, if a lecturer is appointed head of a department, acting temporarily he will not lose his tenure on that account, because it is assumed that he will resume the previous position.

These amendments are intended to clarify the position on matters that were doubtful before. This is part of the refining system that our procedures allow, and I am grateful to the noble Lords who drew our attention to these difficulties on the last occasion. I hope we have now satisfactorily dealt with them. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

My Lords, in welcoming this amendment, I have to declare an interest. It means I could accept the headship of my department without losing my tenure. Whether that interest makes me more or less grateful for the amendment is a matter about which I shall have to think. Nevertheless, this a good amendment and I am glad to see it.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

My Lords, I too should like to welcome these amendments which quite overtake the amendments that my noble friends had put on the Marshalled List. In particular I welcome the new subsection (3A) which deals with the new pay rise which has caused so much concern.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments' Nos. 427A to 427D not moved.]

7 a.m.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 427DA to 427DD:

Page 170, line 23, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("2A").

Page 170, line 26, at end insert— ("(3A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above a person holding an office or position of any description shall not he taken to he promoted by reason only of any general variation of the terms of appointment or of contracts of employment of persons holding offices or positions of that description.").

Page 170, line 30, leave out from ("that") to end of line.

Page 170, line 31, at beginning insert ("he is appointed to, or employed in,").

The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 427DDA: Page 170, line 31, leave out from ("institution") to ("or") in line 35.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another of the petitioner's amendments. The effect is to alter subsection (4) so that it reads:

1. "(a) a different office or position at the institution; or
2. (b) an additional office or position at the institution which carries no remuneration".

I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I think that this amendment proposes to do the same as the amendments with which we have just been dealing. It seeks to exclude from this provision those who are promoted on or after 20th November 1987. That is what Amendment No. 427 sought to do.

As I understand Amendment No. 427DDA, it is probably aimed at the same objective. The explanation which I gave earlier would also apply here. It is difficult to distinguish between promotion and a new appointment. It is rather unfair for two people in exactly the same position who reach that position after 20th November to be distinguished simply on the grounds of the route by which they reached it, one by promotion within the institution and another by appointment from without the institution.

I am also advised that there is something technically defective about Amendment No. 427DDA, but perhaps I may be allowed to deal with it in principle in the way that I have done.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, naturally I accept the assurance from the noble and learned Lord that this matter either has been or at some later stage will be dealt with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 427DE and 427DF: Page 170, line 35, leave out ("or"). Page 170, line 36, at beginning insert ("he is appointed to, or employed in,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments already. I beg to move them en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 427E not moved.]

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 427EA:

Page 170, line 37, at end insert ("or (c) he is promoted or is appointed to, or employed in, a different office or position at the institution if he is so promoted, appointed or employed only on a temporary basis for a particular purpose with an expectation that the promotion will cease to have effect, or that he will resume his former office or position, when that purpose is accomplished.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 428:

Page 170, line 37, at end insert— ("( ) Modifications made for the purpose of securing that the Statutes of a qualifying institution comply with the requirements of section 182(1)(a) of this Act shall not apply to any person whose appointment shall be certified by the University Grants Committee or Universities Funding Council to be made for purposes of restructuring.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that this amendment is in the interest of both the Government and the universities. If so, I hope that it may be widely welcomed.

I should explain to the House what is meant by restructuring. It happens in many places where there have been significant reductions in staff. Perhaps I may take an example. One has a lecturer in Italian in Southampton and two lecturers in Italian at University College London. Neither university has what constitutes a viable department; neither is able to accept student entrants; neither is able to teach over the range of a course. That is a collection of pieces of wreckage. However, if one can put all three lecturers in Italian in one place through the good offices of the university grants scheme, or, no doubt, its successor, one then creates a viable department. This is a process in which the Government have taken a great deal of interest and one which the universities are prepared to welcome and help. So it would seem a great pity if restructuring should come to a stop. However, it depends on moving people from place to place. That requires consent. And consent, if it involves losing your tenure in conditions of financial stringency, is something that a great many people are not prepared to give. We may perhaps be told that it is all in the future. That is not the case. The earth sciences review which is restructuring departments in geology and kindred subjects had a good many projects that meant moving people from one place to another. We are now told, through the review, that 30 per cent. of those involved indicated that they would not be prepared to move if it involved losing their tenure. For my part, I am interested that the figure is so low. I read it as showing that the Oxford, East effect is still continuing. It will no doubt wear off.

Similar things have happened in other subjects. There were arrangements for two lecturers in Russian to be moved to Manchester. Those arrangements were called off after the 20th November deadline was made known. It was decided, amid considerable confusion to appoint those people as visiting lecturers to Manchester. That is a long and cumbersome way round the problem, one which will not necessarily be available in all cases.

If the Government were prepared to accept this amendment they might save themselves a considerable amount of money. They might keep open a number of student places which will otherwise disappear. And they might enable a number of academics to continue to do a job that they are willing and eager to do. Those seem to me good and sufficient reasons for recommending this amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the amendment, as the noble Earl has explained, will result in tenure being retained by staff on transfer to another institution where it is certified by the funding council or the UGC as being for the purposes of restructuring.

I can certainly see possible advantages. On the other hand, it seems to us, the disadvantage is the unfairness between one member of staff and another reaching the new institution by somewhat different routes. We feel that some kind of line has to be drawn and kept. We have sought to keep it by reference to new appointments and a restructuring, when it involves another appointment to another university, is a new appointment. Therefore, we feel that the line must be held as a matter of fairness. I hope that the noble Earl may feel able to withdraw the amendment in the light of that explanation.

Baroness White

My Lords, may I say a word before the noble Lord gives us the benefit of his decision? I am not advised upon this amendment, but it is very relevant indeed to the University of Wales. What I understood the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to say was that if there is a movement within the institutions of a federal university—which is the case in the University of Wales—then this difficulty would not arise because it would still be an appointment within the university.

We have a rationalisation committee. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos is not here, as pro-Chancellor of the university, but we have considerable restructuring taking place within the different institutions of the University—not only in Cardiff, but in some of the other constituent colleges: Swansea, Aberystwyth and Bangor in particular. I take it from what we have been told that they would not be affected, provided that they were already on the books as one of the constituent institutions.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, in answer to that question by the noble Baroness, I was really dealing with a person moving from one institution to another. I said that where that happened the benefit of tenure would not be obtainable in the new appointment if it happened on or after 20th November 1987. I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of the situation facing the noble Baroness to know whether it could reasonably be said that all that is happening in her situation is that a person is being moved within the same appointment to a new place of work.

If something of that kind could be said then tenure might be obtained, but I do not know enough about it to give a very concluded view. It must depend on the circumstances. A person who has had an appointment as a lecturer in a university and is required to do different jobs under the same description would not, I believe, be subject to losing tenure. If what is happening in the restructuring in the universities that the noble Baroness is asking me about is something of that kind, then tenure might continue. If it is more than that, if there is an appointment from one body to another so that the employer is different, I should expect tenure to be lost on the transfer. I hope that answers the question.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the care of his reply. I appreciate the force of the point about unfairness, but it seems to me that there will be an unfairness if there is a cut-off point anyway. I cannot see why the unfairness is greater under the proposal that I was offering than it is at 20th November 1987. Nevertheless it seems to me that this is a proposal which cannot operate unless the Government wish it to operate.

I think we have here a case where the Government's principles conflict with each other. I wonder whether in not accepting the amendment the Government are perhaps cutting off their nose to spite their face. But in these circumstances—that the amendment could not work without Government good will—I can see no point whatever in pressing it to a Division and beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 184 [Procedure for exercise of Commissioners' powers]:

7.15 a.m.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 428A: Page 171, line 12, leave out ("and").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 428A and 426B are the amendments I referred to when answering the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and stem from a commitment I gave at the Committee stage in response to the Church of Scotland's concern that it should be consulted if modifications to statutes affecting its interests were to occur.

This amendment goes somewhat wider than that, but it includes the Church of Scotland and takes in all bodies affected by the Commissioners' modifications in that respect. I beg to move.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting forward these amendments. If my recollection of the Committee stage is correct, they were in answer to the amendment which is now Amendment No. 429 in the same group.

I am perfectly willing to undertake not to move Amendment No. 429 if I can have a satisfactory assurance from the noble and learned Lord that if someone in the position of the various institutions, such as the Church of Scotland, and who should be consulted were not consulted, by mistake or otherwise, they would have a remedy; or would the commissioners be able to say, "Well, we considered this but we did not consider that you were a person appropriate to consult"? That appears to me to be the difficulty. Someone who should be consulted has no way of saying, "You must have decided to consult me, otherwise you are in error". The commissioners can always say, "We considered the matter and we did not consider that you should have been consulted". What remedy have the institutions which are in the position that they are not consulted? It is on that question that I should like assurance from the noble and learned Lord.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, it appears to me that the situation that the noble Lord asks about would be this. The commissioners may consider the matter and have reasonable grounds for supposing that the body in question was not one whose interests were sufficiently affected to make it proper for them to intimate to them. If they could reasonably reach that decision they could take it and there would be no remedy for it.

On the other hand, the way in which the noble Lord opened the matter suggested that it was some kind of mistake. For example, if the commissioners, while intermitting with the chairs of the Church of Scotland, by mistake did not send a note to it at all but tried to say afterwards that there was a good reason for doing so which they did not have at the time, I think there may well be a remedy, although I should not think that appropriate for commissioners of this standing. If it were as plain as a pikestaff that the body in question had a very striking interest in the matter, and it was just a mistake that they were not consulted, I would expect them to have a very strong remedy.

The reason for choosing this form of phrase is, as your Lordships know, because the decision on who has an interest and who should be consulted on a matter which may be of wide-ranging public interest is a matter of judgment. That judgment must he taken by someone, and we thought it right to commit it to the commissioners. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to agree that they are valuable amendments.

Lord Morton of Shuna

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say that I accept that. However, I am unclear of the remedy available to someone who feels that they should have been consulted but have not been. Is it a judicial review?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, it is not for me to advise the noble and learned Lord of the remedy he would have if giving a client advice. However, if I had to advise, I believe that judicial review is the most appropriate remedy. What is more, in the circumstances that he figured I should expect it to succeed.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 428B:

Page 171, line 13, at end insert ("; and (e) such other person appearing to the Commissioners to be concerned as they consider it would be appropriate to consult;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 185 [Exclusion of visitor's jurisdiction]:

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 428C and 428D:

Page 171, leave out lines 34 and 35.

Page 171, line 37, at end insert— ("(1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to any dispute which is referred to the visitor of a qualifying institution before—

1. (a) the relevant date; or
2. (b) the date on which this section comes into force;

whichever is the later.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are intended to deal with the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the visitor in respect of any dispute relating to a member of academic staff that arises on or after a relevant day. The purpose of the amendments is to define with precision the cut-off point, and the effect is to exclude the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor from such disputes as are not referred to him prior to the relevant day. That gives a definite cut-off point and I believe that it is an advantage. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 428E, 428F and 428G:

Page 171, line 40, after ("appeals") insert ("or— (b) from hearing or redressing grievances;").

Page 171, line 41, after ("(c)") insert ("and (d)").

Page 171, line 45, after ("(c)") insert ("and (d)").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 428E I shall take Amendments Nos. 428F and 428G. The effect of Amendments Nos. 428E and 428F is to extend the provision to hearing or redressing grievances. Amendment No. 428G is purely consequential.

The provisions in their present form—that is, unamended—do not prevent the visitor from hearing or determining appeals against disciplinary action and dismissal in accordance with procedures established by the commissioners. This amendment would add to that so that the visitor would not be prevented from taking part in the grievance procedure which was the subject of a government amendment in Clause 182(1). I hope that your Lordships will feel that these amendments are advantageous. I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble and learned Lord for his letter about the matter of visitors. I was one of those who spoke on the matter in Committee. I am grateful for the letter and I believe that this is a satisfactory outcome.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 186 [Power to make incidental, etc., provisions by Order in Council]:

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 428H and 428J:

Page 172, line 6, leave out ("(or").

Page 172, line 8, at end insert ("; or

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendment No. 428J. Clause 186(1) as drafted permits Her Majesty by Order in Council to amend Acts and charters where that is necessary to enable the commissioners to exercise their powers. This amendment would enable Acts and charters to be amended in the same way as a consequence of the ending of the visitor's jurisdiction.

The commissioners have powers to make procedures and the view was taken that the present Bill might not give proper effect to the taking away of the visitors' exclusive jurisdiction and that the provisions should be extended to cover that. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 429 not moved].

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 429A: After Clause 189. insert the following new clause:

("Grants in respect of special provision for immigrants 1966 c.42.

The power conferred by section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 shall apply in relation to the payment of grants by the Secretary of State to —

1. (a) the governing body of a grant-maintained school;
2. (b) any person who in pursuance of undertakings under an agreement under section 98 of this Act maintains and carries on or provides for the carrying on of an independent school known as a city technology college; or
3. (c) the governing body of an institution within the PCFC funding sector;

who, in his opinion, make special provision in consequence of the presence within the locality of the school or the institution of substantial numbers of such immigrants as are described in section II of that Act as it applies in relation to the payments of grants to a local authority who in his opinion are required to make such provision in exercise of any of their functions in consequence of the presence within their area of substantial numbers of such immigrants.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause empowers my right honourable friend to pay grant to the governing body of grant-maintained schools, to institutions within the new polytechnics and colleges sector and to city technology colleges. I believe that this amendment will be welcome to the House; it further strengthens the Government's intention that such schools should be firmly rooted in their local community, and should have the necessary funding to do their job effectively. The same holds for polytechnics and colleges, which, in addition to their important national functions, have a valuable local role to play in encouraging the widest possible access to higher education by students of Commonwealth origin. I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, who had tabled Amendment No. 445, she has asked me to say that she is very grateful for this amendment. However, she wants an assurance that the discretion given to the Minister in the amendment would be used in such a way that there would be no diminution in the use of Section 11 funding to the new PCFC institutions as compared with current levels.

Perhaps I may also ask whether the Secretary of State mentioned in the new clause is the Home Secretary. I assume that that is so, but I should be grateful for clarification on those matters.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I can respond positively to both those points.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 191 [Grants: miscellaneous]:

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 430: Page 174, line 18, at end insert ("provided that the activities of such a body do not include the encouragement of the development of grant maintained schools.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to restrict the new, wide grant-giving powers of the Secretary of State so that the powers cannot be used to encourage schools to opt out. The noble Baroness said in Committee that Clause 191, is a purely technical change to existing grant-making powers intended to put beyond doubt the power of the Secretary of State to give grants to such bodies as the Royal Society and the British Academy". I had previously stated that, Subsection (3) amends [Section 100 of] the 1944 Act to allow the Secretary of State powers first to provide grants for expenditure connected with educational services and, secondly, grant for proposed educational provision. The power to provide grant for proposed educational services is no doubt necessary for the Government to assist the body they intend to set up to provide advice and so on for schools wishing to achieve grant-maintained status. This body was referred to in the consultation paper on grant-maintained schools issued in July 1987. Paragraph 7 states: 'The Government also intends to assist the creation of an association or trust [independent of] the DES to promote the development of grant-maintained schools"".—[Official Report, 19/5/88; col. 551.] The noble Baroness did not respond to that point. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether the Secretary of State has the power to give grants to the proposed trust which will promote the development of grant-maintained schools under Section 100 of the 1944 Act. Will the Secretary of State use the powers in Clause 191 to be able to grant aid to such a body?

The proposed trust was recently announced. An article in the Times Educational Supplement of 10th June states that, the trust will be independent of the Department of Education and Science but that, Mr. Baker is expected to make a formal announcement of the formation of the trust next month". How independent of the Secretary of State and the DES will this trust be? Will it receive money from the Government?

In a Commons Written Answer on 13th June the Secretary of State for Education stated with respect to the proposed trust: If such a body were in due course to make an application to my Department for financial assistance towards specific activities intended to provide support or advice for schools which had acquired grant-maintained status, the Department would be prepared to consider it."—[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/88; col. 8.] Will the trust be independent of the DES? I shall be pleased to hear the answer to that and to my other question. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I have to say that I find this amendment totally restrictive. The Government are aware of plans to establish an independent trust which has the aim of supporting the development of grant-maintained schools. We welcome that initiative. If the proposed trust or, indeed, any other body makes a case for financial support for a centre offering information and advice to grant-maintained schools the Government will consider that case on its merits.

I should add that the implications of this amendment, as drafted, would be far reaching. Any organisation which encouraged the development of grant-maintained schools would be ineligible to apply for grant under this clause, even if that application had nothing whatever to do with the grant-maintained schools and even if the organisation was also concerned with many other educational initiatives. I can therefore see nothing to commend this amendment and I urge the House to reject it.

Baroness David

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she answer my question on whether the Secretary of State has the power to give grants to the proposed trust which will promote the development of grant-maintained schools under Section 100 of the 1944 Act?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe I said quite clearly that if a proposed trust or any other body makes a case for financial support the Government will consider it on its merits. That implies, I should have thought, that the Secretary of State has the power to do that if he considers that it fulfils the requirements.

Baroness David

My Lords, I do not find that answer at all satisfactory but I am certainly not going to divide the House at this hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.30 a.m.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 430ZA: After Clause 195, insert the following new clause:

("School and further and higher education regulations.

.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

1. (a) for requiring persons employed as teachers at schools, subject to such exceptions as may be provided for by or under the regulations, to be qualified teachers;
2. (b) for requiring persons employed as teachers at institutions falling within subsection (10) below to possess such qualifications as may be determined by or under the regulations;
1555
3. (c) for requiring persons employed as teachers at schools anti such institutions to serve probationary periods;
4. (d) with respect to the teaching staff to be provided in schools and such institutions;
5. (e) for requiring the approval of the Secretary of State to be obtained for the use in schools and such institutions of such materials or apparatus as may be specified in the regulations, being materials or apparatus which could or might involve a serious risk to health;
6. (f) with respect to the keeping, disclosure and transfer of educational records about pupils at schools and such institutions and the supply of copies of such records to such persons, and in such circumstances, as may he determined by or under the regulations;
7. (g) with respect to the duration of the school day and school year at, and the granting of leave of absence from, any schools.

(2) In subsection (1) above "qualified teacher" means a person who—

1. (a) is a qualified teacher in accordance with any provision made by or under the regulations; or
2. (b) is determined to be a qualified teacher by the Secretary of State in accordance with any provision so made;

and the regulations may provide for any determination by the Secretary of State under the regulations with respect to a person's status as a qualified teacher to be made so as to have effect, in such cases or circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, from a date earlier than the determination.

(3) The provision authorised by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above with respect to exceptions from any requirement imposed by virtue of that paragraph includes in particular provision permitting the employment as here mentioned, in such cases or circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be specified in or determined under the regulations, or persons licensed to teach by the Secretary of State in accordance with any provision made by or under the regulations.

(4) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1)(f) above may authorise persons who in pursuance of the regulations supply copies of any such records as are there mentioned to charge such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply) in respect of each copy so supplied.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for imposing requirements as to the health and physical capacity of—

1. (a) teachers at schools and institutions falling within subsection (10) or (11) below;
2. (b) teachers employed by local education authorities otherwise than at schools or such institutions; and
3. (c) persons employed—
1. (i) by local education authorities; or
2. (ii) by the governing bodies of schools or such institutions;

in work otherwise than as teachers which brings them regularly into contact with persons who have not attained the age of nineteen years.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for prohibiting or restricting the employment or further employment of persons—

1. (a) as teachers at schools and institutions falling within subsection (10) or (11) below;
2. (b) by local education authorities as teachers otherwise than at schools or such institutions; or
3. (c) by local education authorities or by the governing bodies of schools or such institutions in such work as is mentioned in subsection (5)(c) above;

on medical grounds, in cases of misconduct and, as respects employment or further employment as a teacher, on educational grounds.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring his approval to be obtained for the provision of new premises for, or the alteration of the premises of—

1. (a) any school or institution falling within subsection (10) below; or
2. (b) any boarding hostel provided by a local education authority for pupils attending any school or any such institution;

and for the inspection of any such hostel.

(8) In section 63(2) of the 1944 Act (exemption from building regulations, etc.) references to plans approved by the Secretary of State shall include references to any particulars submitted to and approved by him under regulations made by virtue of subsection (7) above.

(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

1. (a) with respect to the fees to be charged for courses of further education at institutions falling within subsection (10) or (11) below;
2. (b) for requiring his approval to be obtained for the provision at such institutions of courses designated by or under the regulations as courses of initial teacher training;
3. (c) for enabling him to give directions for the discontinuance of any such course at such an institution or as to the number and categories of students to be admitted to such courses at such institutions; and
4. (d) with respect to institutions in Wales falling within subsection (10) below—
1. (i) for requiring his approval to be obtained for the provision at such institutions of courses of higher education; and
2. (ii) for enabling him to give directions for the discontinuance of any such course at such an institution or as to the number and categories of students to be admitted to such courses at such institutions.

(10) An institution falls within this subsection if it provides higher education or further education (or both) and either—

1. (a) it is maintained by a local education authority; or
2. (b) it is designated by or under the regulations as an institution substantially dependent for its maintenance on assistance from local education authorities or on grants under section 100(1)(b) of the 1944 Act.

(11) An institution falls within this subsection if it is an institution within the PCFC funding sector.

(12) In this section "school" means any school maintained by a local education authority, any special school not so maintained or any grant-maintained school.

(13) Section 27 of the 1980 Act (which is superseded by the preceding provisions of this section) shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 430ZA, I speak also to a number of consequential amendments, Nos. 440A, 447AZA to 447CZA and 450B to 450D. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State published last month a consultation document which included proposals for the reform of the arrangements for granting qualified teacher status for teachers who have not been trained in England or Wales. At that time my right honourable friend gave notice that the Government would be tabling an appropriate amendment to the Education Reform Bill. The principal objective of the amendment now before your Lordships is to secure that appropriate statutory authority exists for the new qualified teacher status arrangements as these may be implemented in the light of the process of consultation which is currently taking place. I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, I understand that these regulations are proposed to take account of the Government's consultative document on qualified teacher status. I am not quite clear about what is to happen. It seems that the making of the regulations on the matters covered in the amendment do not create a new power. I ask why the matter is brought up now in this way and I ask the Minister for assurances that there will be the fullest consultations with all the relevant interests, including in particular the local authority associations representing the employers of teachers, on the new regulations, which certainly embody considerable changes to existing practice.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, in drawing up regulations to give effect to the new arrangements, we shall, having consulted very fully, consider carefully the responses to the consultation document including points made in your Lordships' House on various occasions as well as in the course of deliberations upon this Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 196 [Powers of Secretary of State in relation to certain education institutions]:

Baroness Hooper moved amendments Nos. 430A, 430B, 430C and 430D:

Page 178, line 34, after ("99") insert ("(1) and (2)").

Page 178, line 37, leave out from ("school") to end of line 39.

Page 178, line 41. leave out from ("school") to ("and") in line 42.

Page 179, line 3, after ("a") insert ("county or").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of government amendments Nos. 430A to 430D put right a minor technical error in Clause 196. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 431: After Clause 196, insert the following new clause—

("Statutory Nursery Provision.

It shall he the duty of every local education authority to make provision for nursery education and pre-school facilities for those children under the statutory school age whose parents desire them to receive it, and to ensure that all those children who are admitted to primary school before the statutory school age benefit from appropriate facilities, space, equipment and staffing provision; and section 24 of the 1980 Act is repealed.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it seems an odd time to begin talking about nursery provisions, but I feel quite strongly about this. Nursery provision gets no say in the Bill at all and it is an extremely important matter. Very briefly, I feel that this new clause is self-explanatory, so I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the Government recognise the benefits of school and other collective experience for children under five, but our view is that it would be totally misconceived to impose a general duty of this kind upon local education authorities. Publicly-funded education for the under-fives, important and desirable though it is, must compete with other education needs and sectors for the finite resources available.

My right honourable friend has powers to deal with certain space standards and other standards, which include specific teaching and recreation space standards on the basis of pupil age groups. Those are set out in the Education (Schools Premises) Regulations 1981. It is for local education authorities to ensure compliance. In the light of those observations, I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, while I do not agree with it I accept fully what the noble Baroness has just said about not having national provision for nursery education. Does she recall that in Committee I asked whether the Government had any plans either to extend schools and build new nursery class rooms, or indeed to build new nursery schools? That would not necessarily conflict with what she has just said. Can she answer that point now?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House, so far as I am aware the Government have no plans to impose requirements of that kind, but there is nothing to prevent local education authorities, as they do now, pursuing further developments in this area.

Baroness David

My Lords, that was not an altogether unexpected reply, and I am disappointed with it. However, I shall not press the matter now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 198 [Avoidance of certain contractual terms]:

[Amendment No. 431A not moved.]

Clause 199 [Application of employment law during financial delegation]:

Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 431B: Page 180, line 24, after ("expedient") insert ("so as to extend the operation of any such enactment to persons who have to any extent the powers, duties and responsibilities of employers").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment uses the words "extend the operation" in an attempt to avoid the difficulty of disputes identified by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he replied to the amendment which I moved at the Committee stage. At that time the clause in question was Clause 186. It is now Clause 199.

By extending the operation of any relevant enactment, it is only where that original enactment would have given rise to dispute that uncertainty will continue. The new wording will still allow the Secretary of State for Education and Science to transfer those duties and responsibilities contained in any such enactments, which currently fall on local authority employers, to school and college governors "as he considers necessary or expedient"—the words in Clause 199. It will, however, prevent any future Secretary of State for Education going that stage further and removing from school and college staffs the rights built up over more than 20 years of legislation.

It will not come as any surprise to noble Lords opposite that we on these Benches regard hard won trade union rights as one of our most valuable possessions. In the debate on Clause 186 on 19th May the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that he hoped that I would accept his assurance that there is no secret purpose behind the clause which would in any way affect the rights of employees. It may well be that this Government have no secret purpose; but it is worth repeating that at some time there will be different governments and different Secretaries of State.

The Government's assurances are welcome of course, but good intent does not provide the necessary lasting protection that can come only from words written on the face of the Bill. I can express the same reservations about the Government's amendment on consultation. We welcome the change. Statutory consultation is valuable but, without being too cynical, we all know that it can be only too easily ignored or reversed by those who later assume responsibility. This aspect assumes greater importance at present because relationships between the Government and various staffs in the education service are as bad as they have been for some time.

Cynicism and distrust are widespread among the teaching and non-teaching staffs, and the acceptance by the Government of a more explicit and tighter definition of what can be done through the clause would go a long way to improving that deteriorating relationship.

If the Minister has any idea about what is happening in schools he will know that this is no mere debating point; it is a matter of deep concern to teaching staff. If the amendment were accepted it would permit the Government's stated intention of protecting employees' rights to be plain for all to see. It would offer the necessary protection for the future which statements of intent, however well-meaning, simply cannot do.

It is inevitable that members of staff in the education service will have in the forefront of their minds, when examining this measure, the five trade union Acts put on the statute book by this Government. Many will accept that some improvements have emerged from that legislation; but underlying it all will be the thought—even the suspicion—that further restrictions are being placed on employees, whose desire is to play a full part in the education of our young people.

Those of us who have spent so much of our lives working in education—there are many in this House who have done so—cannot have failed to be impressed by the dedication, even devotion, to the work done by so many of our teachers and non-teaching staff. Theirs has always been more than a job to be done; they have gone the second mile.

If local management is to become a reality, the transfer of so much power, as envisaged in the Bill, must mean—as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said in the debate on Clause 186—that: power and responsibility for the governing body go hand in hand". We are all aware that the form of delegation which is such an important part of the Bill is to a large extent unknown territory. That is not a criticism. But the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, when responding to the constant probing which has taken place on this aspect of the Bill, has merely repeated each time that the Government are confident that they will succeed. If we are to avoid unnecessary disputes, we need more than generalised statements of that kind when dealing with the rights of employees.

It is perhaps not too much to say that this clause is the most important part of the Bill. I say that because it affects virtually every other part of the measure. The human element is, almost by definition, the most important part of the education service. Therefore it is of crucial importance that legislative provision on the service given by teachers and non-teaching staffs be clear, unequivocal and in accordance with hard-won rights. There must be no going back on improvements made over the years. I believe that this amendment will achieve those goals and I therefore commend it to the House. I beg to move.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. This seems to be a case which arises from the ambiguity about who is the employer under local financial management—a subject upon which we have already touched. I appreciate that there was need for legal tidying-up to deal with that point. But it seems to me that this clause has been drafted in a way which is a good deal too sweeping and which would have the effect of depriving people of a great many legal rights of which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, told us the Government have no intention to deprive them.

Therefore there is a strong case for arguing that the clause could be quietly and quickly tidied up and, perhaps, was drafted in rather too great haste. There is a maxim which I commend to the noble Lord the Chief Whip: legislate in haste, repent at leisure.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

My Lords, I too shall not detain the House for long; but I must detain noble Lords for a moment. Clause 199 is one of the most worrying parts of the Bill, as well as one of the most important. It is of course a constitutional issue rather than an educational one. Indeed, I spoke about it under an earlier amendment so I shall simply repeat the principle I quoted then. I said that: No Minister, even if all-wise and all-good, is to be trusted with one ounce or one word more of statutory power than he can show he needs to discharge his duties". As the wording stands, the holder of the office of Secretary of State can do virtually anything he likes with the Race Relations Act 1976, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Employment Protection Act 1975, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and others.

Of course we accept the present Government's intentions, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, said. But that is no basis upon which to proceed in such a far reaching and sensitive area. Our amendments in Committee were rejected for what seemed like legalistic reasons.

Amendment No. 431B takes account of those reasons and allows the Secretary of State to transfer the necessary duties and responsibilities from LEAs to governors, but is worded so as to prevent the diminution of employees' rights. Without some such wording there will be continued anxiety and suspicion throughout the teaching profession. With it, the Government will be no worse off than they were before.

I hope that the Minister, whose Amendment No. 431D we welcome (as far as it goes), will see the force of the constitutional argument even at this late hour, and will agree to what we are putting forward.

7.45 a.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, the clause does not give the Secretary of State a free hand. He will have to demonstrate that it is reasonable to believe that a particular modification is necessary or expedient as a result of financial delegation.

We cannot at this stage foresee every eventuality. It may be necessary to modify employment law in ways which do not fit the definition set out in the noble Lord's amendment. We have given frequent assurances that there is no secret agenda or sinister purpose behind the clause. It is a technical provision designed to enable necessary detailed changes in the law in the light of financial delegation.

Amendment No. 431D will ensure that the process of making an order under Clause 199 is always entirely public. The Government always intended to consult carefully before making any order and the amendment will make it a statutory requirement to consult the associations and organisations listed in subsection (3). Those bodies include, as your Lordships can see, the local authority associations, the teacher unions and bodies representing governors of aided schools. The amendment is therefore an important safeguard, ensuring that no government can use the clause to make important changes to the law in a low-key way. It is an important provision which I commend to the House, together with the technical amendment, Amendment No. 431C.

I appreciate the concern which has led to the tabling of Amendment No. 431B, but we believe that that amendment would place too precise a constraint on the operation of the clause and is unnecessary in view of the restriction introduced by the government amendment and therefore built into the clause. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, the interpretation which the Minister has put on Clause 199 is not that assumed by all my noble friends and myself. The Minister has moved since I spoke on this matter in Committee and we obviously welcome the arrangements that have been made for statutory consultation.

The Minister said that she was aware of the concern felt about the provisions of the clause. I doubt whether that is the case, although I hope that it is. From now on we can only hope for the sake of all education, not just teachers, that her views will prove to be correct. In view of the fact that there has been some movement, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 431C and 431D:

Page 180, line 27, leave out ("and Schedule 2") and insert (", section 42(1), (2) and (4), Schedule 2, paragraph 4 of Schedule (New schools) and section (New schools) so far as relating to that paragraph;").

Page 180, line 28, at end insert ("and subsections (1) and (3) of section (Costs of dismissal, premature retirement or voluntary severance). (3) Before making any order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—

1. (a) such associations of local authorities;
2. (b) such bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools; and
3. (c) such organisations representing staff required to be covered by schemes under section 28 of this Act or institutions required to he covered by schemes under section 129 of this Act;

as appear to him to be concerned.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 432 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 432A: After Clause 201. insert the following new clause:

("Recoupment as between local education authorities.

.—(1) Notwithstanding the repeal by the 1986 Act of section 31 of the 1980 Act and section 31(8) of the London Government Act 1963 (which relate to recoupment by local education authorities in respect of provision for education in respect of out of area pupils and were replaced by section 51 of the 1986 Act) those provisions shall (subject to subsection (2) below) have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, in relation to recoupment by local education authorities in respect of any provision for education made by them before 7th January 1987 (the coming into force of section 51) as if the 1986 Act had not been enacted.

(2) Where a local education authority makes such a claim as is mentioned in subsection (1) of (3) of section 31 of the 1980 Act (whether before or after the passing of this Act), in determining for the purposes of that subsection whether the claim has been made within the prescribed period no account shall be taken of the period beginning on 7th January 1987 and ending on the day on which this Act is passed.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 433: After Clause 201. insert the following new clause:

("Assistance to education of children of British nationality residing for the time being outside the United Kingdom in another member state of the European Community.

.—(1) For the purpose of facilitating the free movement of families to take advantage of employment opportunities within other member states of the European Community, the Secretary of State shall take action as specified in subsections (2) to (5) below to assist in maintaining and improving educational standards at British schools situated within other member states and to facilitate access to such schools by the children of British expatriates for the time being residing and working in those states.

(2) The Secretary of State shall establish a category of school situated in another member state of the European Community having such characteristics as are specified in subsection (3) below and in regulations which he may make.

(3) The characteristics mentioned above are that the school—

1. (a) provides education for pupils who have attained the age of five but not the age of nineteen years and are of British nationality but are residing in another member state of the European Community; and
2. (b) has a curriculum approved by the Secretary of State and which is broadly similar to the curriculum the pupil would follow if receiving an education in England and Wales.

(4) For the purpose of maintaining and improving the standard of education at such a school, the Secretary of State shall—

1. (a) make arrangements for the inspection of such a school at appropriate intervals by H.M. Inspector of Schools, with the school being responsible for the Inspectors' travel and local expenses;
2. (b) provide on a regular basis to such a school information on educational development in England and Wales and also facilities such as in-service training for teachers as he may consider necessary or desirable to enable the school to continue to offer an education broadly comparable to that available in England and Wales; and
3. (c) take such measures as he deems appropriate to facilitate the recruitment of British teachers by these schools and in due course their re-employment in the United Kingdom.

(5) The Secretary of State shall make an order to establish a Grant Scheme for the purpose of enabling children of parents of British nationality for the time being residing and working in another member state of the Euroepan community, who might otherwise not be able to do so, to benefit from an education at a school in the category described in subsection (2) above and so facilitate their return to a school or institute of higher education in the United Kingdom.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have retabled my amendment because I think this issue is very important. I should like to start by thanking all those noble Lords who have come and sat through the entire night waiting to reach this amendment. It covers a point which has not been touched on in any of the 16 hours of debate that we have had since we started early this afternoon—I beg your pardon, yesterday afternoon.

I shall not repeat the arguments that I made at the Committee stage. I think everyone is familiar with them. First of all, I wish to apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Limerick, who stayed in your Lordships' House until 6 o'clock this morning but had to leave as he had a board meeting at 9 o'clock. I also give apologies from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who is away on business in Greece.

The noble Earl, Lord Limerick, asked me to make the following points. First, the United Kingdom now sends over 50 per cent. of its exports into the European Community. We as a country want to increase this amount and believe that we shall do so, particularly after 1992. In the course of carrying on all this business we want exports not only from large firms but also from the medium and smaller firms and from the self-employed. In the course of this, many people will go to stay for long periods of time within the European Community.

The first question that anyone will ask when asked to go and live and work overseas will be, "What about the education of my children?" If the businessman or businesswoman wants a British-type education for his or her children it will be a very expensive business, varying from £3,000 to £5,000 a year. Some will be fortunate because the firm will pay for them. Some will be fortunate because they can pay themselves. Some will simply not be able to afford to pay such sums of money at all. My amendment is to meet that problem.

Our European community competitors spend considerable sums of money on the education of the children of their nationals when they are working abroad. It is estimated that France spends some £130 million, the Federal Republic of Germany some £19 million, Italy £12 to £13 million, the United Kingdom nothing.

We are putting our businessmen and businesswomen at a distinct disadvantage vis-àvis their European competitors. Yet this is not a problem that is new to us. If we look at what we do as a government with our own employees who, because of the nature of their work, are obliged to work abroad, we make provisions for the education of their children, whether it is by an allowance for members of the Diplomatic Service, or whatever. We look after the children of servicemen serving overseas, those of people working for the British Council and, I have no doubt, others. And quite rightly. We do so because people want the assurance that their children will enjoy continuity of education, which is very important in the world today.

We know perfectly well that it would be very difficult to get people to work abroad were such provisions not made for them. Yet this Government, a Government of which I am proud to say I was a member for eight years, have said time without number that we depend on the initiative, enterprise and hard work of our business people. We depend on their going into Europe and making a success of it. We depend on all of this for the economy. When it comes down to doing something which would help so many of the new, young enterprising firms, we decide at that critical moment that we are not going to do anything at all about the issue of education.

It seems to me to be quite inconsistent. In the interval between Committee and Report, I went to visit my noble friend Lord Young and he kindly gave me one of the pamphlets about the single market. I am sure that all your Lordships have seen it. One only has to see inside what the Department of Trade and Industry is saying: The Government have launched a major campaign so that business can compete effectively in the single market". At the back of the booklet are printed the rather nice words: Think single, but act on the double". That might apply to every Government department.

The Government should speak with one voice on this matter. That is what I am asking them to do. I have read very carefully the reply of my noble friend Lady Hooper of 19th May. I am of course very pleased with what she has said about the European schools. The latter part of her reply contained some misunderstandings which I have tried to unravel in a letter of some length which I have written to her.

But in order to clear up other misunderstandings I wish to make five points. First, this amendment applies only to people working in the countries of the European Community. It does not apply to countries in Western Europe which are not members of the European Community, nor does it apply to schools or people working anywhere else in the world where there may be British schools. Those are different problems, but my amendment is not concerned with that. Secondly, my amendment is concerned to help families; it is not a subsidy to schools.

Thirdly, the amendment does not represent an assisted places scheme. If it were to be expected, it would be very different in two important ways. It is not based on an academic test for children and it applies, or could apply, throughout the age range five-18.

Fourthly, I have been asked whether the European Community will do something about this situation. I have no doubt that the Department of Education and Science, and my noble friend in particular, are looking at the great problem of the equivalence of qualifications. I have not the slightest doubt that there is not one Member of your Lordships' House today who does not welcome those proposals and who does not believe that they are all very important and, naturally, need to be worked on. But, nevertheless, it will inevitably take some time before that should happen, and in the meantime parents still have the problem of the education of their children. Even if that were to come about, they may not be satisfied with the results. There may be all kinds of complications which we cannot foresee.

Fifthly, British schools in the European Community would clearly have to reach an appropriate standard. They are already inspected by an arrangement whereby they pay for the inspections. But I entirely accept that the schools would have to come up to a standard. What, then, is the problem? It is clearly not, I am sure, a disagreement with Government policy. This amendment is entirely in line with the Government policy of trying to promote British exports and business in the big single market coming in 1992. The difficulty, I think, is that there is of course a price tag on it. I want to be helpful upon this. The amendment does not require an immediate expenditure of money. It does not ask for the scheme to be brought in by the September term 1988.

I myself would be perfectly satisfied if my noble friend would say that she would take this away and bring forward a solution in the next year and well before 1992. In the first instance, whatever scheme was brought in would have to be limited by the number of places available in the British schools. So there is a second limitation on it. Already, and indeed in the future, a number of the places will be taken by firms who will pay for the children; others will be paid for by people who can afford to pay for themselves. It would only be the remaining places which could possibly be reserved for parents who could not afford the fees.

Perhaps I should say that I shall not speak further. This is a matter about which I feel very strongly. I hope very much that my noble friend who I know—having herself been a Euro Member—understands the position, will be able to meet my request that if the Government are unable to accept the amendment they will undertake to bring forward a solution to this problem. I beg to move.

8 a.m.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, since the amendment does not contain any names from these Benches, I wish to make it clear that it has our wholehearted support. Having had experience of colleagues working in a multinational organisation, many of whom worked in Europe, I realise that there are problems. Parents are faced with the choice of leaving their children behind in the UK or possibly allowing their children, during a few short years as they move into Europe and move out again, to get out of touch with the educational system in the UK. Those children may find it difficult to re-enter the system or to enter the next phase of education. This provision is essential in such cases. I hope that the Government have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

My Lords, I also support the amendment from the Back-Benches. This is the first time that I have intervened in this whole Bill, and it will be the last. The importance of the amendment is considerable. It has wide support from British industry, commerce and banking. As my noble friend Lady Young has pointed out, two of the noble Lords whose names are on the amendment represent industry and banking in no mean measure. I believe that they, if they had been present, would have spoken very widely about the importance of the measure to our nation.

The Department of Trade and Industry, as has been pointed out, is preparing the nation for 1992. If we are to go into Europe fully committed, we must go in on all fronts. Education must be part of the armoury. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she has sufficient support from all sides of the House. In normal circumstances there would have been many more speakers in this debate. However, the hour is, to say the least, very late. I therefore hope that she will feel constrained to press the amendment vigorously. A great many people feel very strongly about the matter.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I supported the amendment moved by the noble Baroness at Committee stage. Throughout the course of our debates on this Bill the Government have stressed the importance of parental choice. Why, then, have they not given parents who work abroad more choice? My experience has been that the predominent worry of parents who work abroad, for whatever reason, is how they will educate their children. I was supported by the padding of the Diplomatic Service and therefore finances were available to send our children abroad. But more and more parents do not want to send their children abroad and they are educated in another language and probably suffer as a result.

We must remember that up to now service parents have had no choice. They have gone abroad and done what they could for their children. The new type of workers going abroad will have a choice and they may choose not to go because they will not be able to make suitable arrangements for their children. Therefore, as the noble Baroness has said, she is asking the Government to make only the most modest commitment at this stage. It is infinitely smaller than the commitment of so many other countries in the European Community. But at least it is a beginning. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer in a positive way, realising the importance of the question for the House.

Lord Benson

My Lords, I support the amendment and particularly the conviction with which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has spoken about it. I do not wish to weary the House at this time of day. However, I wish to point out that if Britain is to hold its position in the Community, more and more British citizens will have to move into the Community. They will need to be satisfied that their children can be properly educated so that they can take advantage of university and other forms of higher education when they return to this country.

It has been pointed out that other countries in the Community have met the situation and dealt with it. We alone have not done so. At the Committee stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, was sympathetic but not very constructive. I hope that, in the light of the very strong views that have been expressed from every quarter of this House, she will be able to satisfy the House that some positive and constructive steps are being taken to solve this problem.

Lord Greenhill of Harrow

My Lords, I should like strongly to support this amendment, for the reasons which have been so clearly stated by previous speakers.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to do the same. My name is attached to the amendment and I feel I should just say that I support it strongly. The noble Baroness moved it extremely ably, and I hope we shall have a warm response from the Minister.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this amendment in her usual clear and helpful way. I should like to reiterate that we understand and welcome the efforts of the British schools in the European Community to provide a sound education for the children of British citizens working in Europe. It is because we do so that we have agreed already to provide help for them in a number of particular and practical ways, which I enumerated at the previous stage.

My noble friend and others have referred to the challenge of 1992 and to the need to make sure that we provide the proper conditions to allow British businessmen to play their full part in the new situation. It is a powerful point and one with which I certainly have every sympathy. The Government are anxious to ensure that education can make an effective contribution in this area and we are pursuing that with vigour.

The proposed new clause suggests that the Secretary of State should set up a grants scheme to assist British parents working abroad. That is of course an interesting proposal and it ought to be further examined. We are satisfied that support could not be offered through the existing assisted places scheme, which is limited to England and Wales. My noble friend has in fact acknowledged that; and before we could decide to introduce fresh legislation to provide for a new scheme we should need to consider whether we could overcome a range of practical difficulties which, on the face of it, look formidable but which nevertheless should not be insurmountable—for example, the establishment of suitable residence qualifications and questions of extra-territoriality of legislation, which are fraught with difficulties. We should have to consider whether a scheme could be designed in such a way as to encourage companies to continue their present levels of support, which are in many cases very generous, for the education of their employee's children.

Within the timescale of the Bill, we cannot hope to explore these problems fully, but we are very willing to consider what progress we can make outside the framework of the Bill. In this context we shall be looking at reciprocity of provision between member states and at other ways in which transferability will be eased. As a result of our national curriculum proposals, I may add, I firmly believe that we shall be going some way towards facilitiating this. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw her amendment on that understanding.

Baroness Young

My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have supported this amendment. I think I can really say that it has had very strong support from all parts of the House, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on behalf of the Social and Liberal Democrats; to my noble friend Lord Montgomery, who I think made the important point that the amendment has wide support from British business, commerce and banking; to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who supported the proposal so ably at the Committee stage and whose practical experience of the kind of problems faced by families who have to live abroad is very valuable; to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, who I believe made, as a businessman, the important point that if the United Kingdom is going to hold its own in the highly competitive post-1992 market we must not put our business people at a disadvantage; to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, who gave it his strong support—and after all he is someone who, both from his own experience and from professional life, knows the kinds of problems faced by people living abroad; and to the noble Baroness, Lady David.

I have of course listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lady Hooper said. I am glad that she understands and appreciates the great efforts made by the British schools in Europe. I am grateful for the help that the Department of Education and Science has provided, in particular over the question of school inspectors and in other ways into which I shall not go. I fully appreciate that the Government are anxious to ensure that education makes a positive contribution to 1992.

Before deciding what I shall do, I should like to ask my noble friend whether what she said about needing to overcome a range of practical difficulties means that the Government will come forward with a scheme, or whether she meant that they are simply looking at reciprocity of provision. If I may say so to my noble friend, I do not think that the latter answer will do. But if I can have an assurance that the Government will come forward with a solution to this scheme, I shall of course withdraw my amendment.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, with the leave of the House, what I can say is that we shall certainly look and seek to find a solution through a suitable scheme, and I very much hope that a suitable scheme can come out of that. But of course I cannot give any copper-bottomed guarantee at this point.

Baroness Young

My Lords, my noble friend places me in a considerable difficulty on this matter. I should very much like to be able to withdraw the amendment because I should like to work with the Government to find a scheme. I very much appreciate the difficulty in which my noble friend finds herself: in fact I have found myself in similar difficulties in the past. So it is a true feeling from the heart. I feel however that I should like to test the feeling of the House on the matter. It is too important to leave to something which, at the end of the day, may not be satisfactory. I think that this is very much in the interest of our effort in regard to 1992. However, I appreciate all that has been done and said on behalf of my proposal.

8.12 a.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 433) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 21.

DIVISION NO. 13
CONTENTS
Baldwin of Bewdley, E.	Pender, L.
Benson, L.	Peston, L.
Birdwood, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Blatch, B.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Sandford, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	Seear, B.
David, B.	Teviot, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Tordoff, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	White, B.
Gallacher, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Greenhill of Harrow, L.
McNair, L.	Young, B. [Teller.]
Montgomery of Alamein, V. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS
Arran, E.	Hooper, B.
Beaverbrook, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Belstead, L.	Long, V. [Teller.]
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mersey, V.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.	Munster, E.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Skelmersdale, L.
Dundee, E.	Strange, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Ferrers, E.	Trafford. L.
Fortescue, E.	Trumpington, B.
Harvington, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 203 [Transfer of property to grant-aided institutions in Wales]:

8.19 a.m.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 433A and 433B:

Page 182, leave out lines 23 to 29.

Page 182, line 29, at end insert— ("(7A) Section (Loan liabilities excepted from transfer under Part II) of this Act shall apply to an institution designated under this section; and for the purposes of that section as it applies by virtue of this section subsection (2) of that section shall apply as if paragraph (a) defined an excepted liability as one which would have been transferred under subsection (3) of this section but for subsection (5) of this section.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 433C: After Clause 203, insert the following new clause:

("Power to make different provision for Wales in regulations under the 1944 and 1967 Acts.

.—(1) After section 111 of the 1944 Act there shall be inserted the following section— Regulations: different provision for Wales.

1l1A.—(1) Regulations under this Act may make in relation to Wales provision different from that made in relation to England.

(2) Subsection (1) above is without prejudice to any express or implied power to make different provision for different cases or circumstances."

(2) In section 4 of the Education Act 1967 (loans for capital expenditure for purposes of colleges of education), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3A) regulations under this section may make in relation to Wales provision different from that made in relation to England." ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause would enable the Secretary of State for Wales to make different provisions in relation to Wales from those made in relation to England in regulations made under Sections 10, 70, 80 and 81 of the Education Act 1944, and under Section 4 of the Education Act 1967. I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, I was asked to say on behalf of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies how pleased he is that this amendment has been made.

Baroness White

My Lords, I should like to express gratitude for the distinction between Wales and England. I hope that it will always be exercised to the advantage and not to the disadvantage of the Principality.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Supplementary provisions with respect to transfers]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 433D to 433J:

Page 211, line 22, leave out paragraph 1.

Page 212, line 25, leave out paragraph 3.

Page 213, line 26, leave out ("3(3) or").

Page 213, line 31, leave out ("3(3) or").

Page 216, line 7, leave out ("required agreements and instruments") and insert ("agreements and instruments required to be made or executed in pursuance of paragraph 4(1) above or in pursuance of a direction under paragraph 5 above").

Page 216, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

After Clause 204:

[Amendment No. 433K not moved.]

Clause 205 [Orders and regulations]:

[Amendment No. 434 not moved.]

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 434ZA: Page 184, line 10, leave out ("or regulations under this Act") and insert ("under this Act, and regulations under any provision of this Act other than section (School and further and higher education regulations) ( 1 )(a),(b) or (c), (5) or (6),").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 207 [Meaning of "assisted" for the purposes of the 1944 Act and Acts construed as one with it]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 434A and 434B:

Page 184, line 40, at end insert— ("(2A) In paragraph (b) of that subsection—

1. (a) for the words "training college or other institution which is not so maintained" there shall be substituted the words "institution other than a school"; and
2. (b) the word "college", in the second and third places where it occurs, shall be omitted.").

Page 184, line 42, after ("section)") insert ("— (a) the word "college" shall be omitted; and").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendments No. 434A and 434B; I also speak to Amendments Nos. 449A, 4491B and 449C. This group of amendments is designed to clarify the distinction between colleges which are maintained by local education authorities and colleges which are assisted by local education authorities. It is a tidying-up group of amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 208 [General interpretation]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 434C and 434D:

Page 185, line 18, at end insert— (" "statutory provision" means a provision of an enactment or a statutory instrument;").

Page 186, line 13, at end insert— ("(4A) Any reference in section 67, 118, 122, or 203 of this Act to liabilities incurred by a local education authority shall not be read as including liabilities of such an authority to make payments to or in respect of any person in pursuance of any duty imposed on the authority under any statutory provision.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these are technical amendments to the interpretation clause of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 209 [Commencement]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 434DA to 436.

Page 186, leave out line 21 and insert— ("section 1; section 2( I )(b) and (2); sections 3 and 4;").

Page 186, line 26, leave out ("44") and insert ("42").

Page 186, line 26, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("Schedules 2A and").

Page 186, line 28, at end insert— ("section 109").

Page 186, line 28, at end insert ("section 111;").

Page 186, leave out line 29.

Page 186, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert— ("sections 127 to 140; sections 142 to 146 and (Information with respect to educational provision in institutions providing further or higher education);").

Page 186, line 32, leave out ("149") and insert ("148").

Page 186, line 33, leave out first ("Schedule") and insert ("Schedules 7 and").

Page 186, line 38, leave out from ("198") to end of line 39 and insert ("to 201").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of government amendments, from Amendment No. 434DA to Amendment No. 436, concerns the commencement of various clauses in the Bill. They are minor technical amendments and I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 437 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 437A:

Page 186, line 39, at end insert— ("sections (Recoupment as between local education authorities) and 202(1);").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 437B to 437D:

Page 186, line 40, at end insert ("and Schedule 4").

Page 186, line 42, leave out ("paragraph 75(2)(d) and (3)") and insert ("paragraphs 55, 74A, 75 and 91A").

Page 187, line 14, leave out from ("Sections") to ("shall") in line 15 and insert ("2(1)(a) and (3). (Collective worship), (Religious education required in the basic curriculum: further provisions), (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions), (Duties with respect to certain requirements) (1), 7 and 8 and Schedule A1").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 438 and 439:

Page 218, line 1, leave out paragraph 2.

Page 218, line 14, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 440:

Page 219, line 38, at end insert— (" 17A. In paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (transitional exemption orders for educational admissions) after the words "the Education Act 1980" there shall be inserted the words "or section 81 of the Education Reform Act 1988".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment temporarily exempting grant-maintained schools in certain circumstances from the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which we have otherwise extended to them. Similar exemption is already available to other maintained schools. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 440A:

Page 220, line 29, leave out paragraph 25 and insert— ("25. Section 27 of that Act shall apply to any grant-maintained school; and subsections (2)(c) and (3)(c) of that section shall apply in relation to persons employed, and the employment or further employment of persons, by the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools in such work as is mentioned in subsection (2)(c) of that section as they apply respectively in relation to persons employed, and the employment or further employment of persons, in such work by local education authorities,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 441 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 441A and 441B: Page 223, line 18, at end insert—

(" The Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (c.78)

46A. In section 216(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (procedure in anticipation of planning permissions, etc.) for the words "a joint planning board or the Inner London Education Authority" there shall be substituted the words "or a joint planning board".

The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 ( c.65 )

46B. In section 72(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (expenditure which authorities may make) for the words "paragraphs (i) and (j)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph (j)," and for the words "either of those paragraphs" there shall be substituted the words "that paragraph".

The Broadcasting Act 1981 ( c.68 )

46C. In section 4(6) of the Broadcasting Act 1981 (certain provisions of that Act not to apply to programmes broadcast by local authorities etc.) for the words from "the Common Council" to the end there shall be substituted the words "and the Common Council of the City of London".").

Page 223, line 24, at end insert—

("The Health Service Joint Consultative Committees (Access to Information Act 1986 ( c.24)

49. In section 1(1) of the Health Service Joint Consultative Committees (Access to Information) Act 1986 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority" for the words from "the Common Council" to the end there shall be substituted the words "or the Common Council of the City of London".

The Disabled Persons ( Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 (c.33)

50.—(1) Section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 (Persons discharged from hospital) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(c) for the words "or authority" there shall be substituted the words "of that local authority".

(3) In subsection (9) the following definition shall be substituted for the definition of "the appropriate officer or authority"—

" "the appropriate officer" of a local authority is such officer discharging functions of that authority in their capacity as a local education authority, or in Scotland an education authority, as may be appointed by the authority for the purposes of this section;".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving these amendments I also speak to Amendments Nos. 441B, 448B to 448P and 450A. The amendments are consequential on Part III of the Bill, the abolition of the ILEA. They remove references to the ILEA which become redundant when the authority is abolished. The amendments come into effect only upon the abolition of the ILEA. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 442 and 443:

Page 224, line 15, leave out paragraph 54.

Page 224, line 29, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Education Act 1946").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London I beg to move Amendments Nos. 442 and 443 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

8.30 a.m.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 444:

Page 224, line 43, at end insert— ("57A. Each of the following bodies, that is to say—

1. (a) the National Curriculum Council;
2. (b) the Curriculum for Wales; and
3. (c) the School Examinations and Assessment Council;

shall be an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1960, and paragraph (e) of Schedule 2 to that Act (institutions connected with institutions which are exempt charities for the purposes of that Act by virtue of the preceding provisions of that Schedule) shall apply in relation to an institution administered by or on behalf of any of those bodies as it applies in relation to an institution included in that Schedule above that paragraph.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is simply to afford to the new councils being set up under the Bill the benefits of charitable status now enjoyed by the School Curriculum Development Committee and the Secondary Examinations Council whose work and property the new councils will take over. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 445 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 446:

Page 226, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 38 and insert ("After that subsection there shall he inserted the following subsection— (1 A) Expressions used in subsection (1)(aa) and (b) above").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment corrects an erroneous reference in paragraph 64(4) of Schedule 10. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 446A and 446B not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 447:

Page 227, line 44, at end insert—

("74A. In section 16 of the 1980 Act (provisions supplementary to sections 12 to 15 of that Act), the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3)— (3A) For the purposes of section 12, 13 or 15 above proposals under that section shall be taken to have first been published—

1. (a) on the date on which the requirements of regulations under this Act with respect to the publication of the proposals are satisfied; or
2. (b) where different requirements such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above are satisfied on different dates, on the last of those dates; and references to the first publication of the proposals shall be construed accordingly.

(3B) Where any such requirement imposes a continuing obligation with respect to the publication of any proposals, the requirement shall for the purposes of subsection (3A) above be taken to be satisfied on the first date in respect of which it is satisfied." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 447AZA: Page 228, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 14 and insert ("At the end of paragraph (d) of subsection (1)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee we discussed this area. These amendments are consequential on the question of safeguards for parents in cases where a local education authority proposes to amend existing statements of children with special educational needs on account of the national curriculum. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy (De Knayth)

My Lords, I should like to welcome this amendment particularly warmly. In giving the parent the right to appeal against an amendment of statement under the 1981 Act as well as against modification or disapplication of the national curriculum, the Minister has gone beyond what she said she would try to do in Committee. That is very satisfactory as she is closing an acknowledged loophole in the 1981 Act.

Perhaps I can ask the Minister two questions. First, why will one not be able to appeal against ceasing to maintain a statement? There is still a little loophole there. Secondly, and this is very important, are the Government planning to write into the 1981 Act that a parent shall be informed of his right to appeal? I cannot see that anywhere. I believe that it should probably be at the end of paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act. I believe that that is very important. I hope that the Minister will look at the matter if she is not already planning to write it in. I should like to thank her once again.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, on the latter point, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, that parents should be told of their right to appeal, not only against modification and disapplications of the national curriculum but also against any amendments to the statement made under the 1981 Act. I can undertake to ensure that that point will be covered by the guidance which we shall be issuing on the implementation of the provisions. I hope that that will help.

Baroness Darcy (De Knayth)

My Lords, the 1981 Act says, on the face of it, that one can appeal against a new statement. Should one not put into the Act that one can also appeal against amending a statement? Perhaps the Minister will consider that matter.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, yes.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 447BZA: Page 228, line 16, leave out from ("regulations") to end of line 17.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 447CZA: Page 228, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 on page 229.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 447ZA: Page 228, line 27, at end insert—

("The Education Act 1981 (c. 60)

75A. In section 8(1) of the 1981 Act (appeals against statements) for the words from "following" to the end there shall be substituted the words "against the special educational provision specified in the statement—

1. (a) following the first or any subsequent assessment of the child's special educational needs under section 5; and
2. (b) where the authority make any amendment to the special educational provision specified in the statement otherwise than on the making of any such assessment." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 447A: Page 229, line 27, at end insert—

("Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980(c. 65)

In section 54(4) of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—

"(e) the increased expenditure of an authority responsible for

1. (i) the provision of a concessionary fares scheme pursuant to section 93 of the Transport Act 1985, or
2. (ii) the securing of the provision of public passenger transport services by means of service subsidies pursuant to section 9A of the Transport Act 1968 or section 63 of the Transport Act 1985, 1575 where such increased expenditure is attributable to the parent of a child exercising a preference as to the school at which he wishes education to be provided for his child.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the Bill parents will have a much greater freedom of choice about the schools to which they send their children. At present in many areas local education authorities have a policy of allocating children to the school nearest their homes. In this way transport costs are minimised. When parents exercise greater freedom of choice they will not always wish their children to attend the nearest school. Thus, pupils will be travelling further to and from school and school transport costs will increase as a result.

I understand, but would appreciate confirmation from my noble friend, that the law relating to the provision of school transport will not be changed by this Bill. In effect, this means that education authorities are only obliged to provide free school transport where the nearest school is more than the statutory walking distance (three miles in the case in question) from the pupil's home. That distance has applied for a long time. Thus, granting freedom of choice to parents will not necessarily increase education authorities' expenditure on school transport.

However, a major cost increase will fall on transport authorities, largely through concessionary fares schemes established under Section 93 of the Transport Act 1985. Many of these provide concessionary fares for children or, at the very least, for children travelling to and from school. The amount of travel under these schemes will increase as children begin to attend schools further from their homes. In addition, the proportion of children travelling by public transport will increase and the average distance they travel will also rise.

Because the cost of the concession depends on the two factors, an increase in expenditure is inevitable, even where the statutory distance is not exceeded. If the education authority can minimise its costs by basing school transport assistance on the distance to the nearest school rather than the school actually attended, the cost on concessionary fares schemes will be even greater.

As if that were not enough, school children making longer journeys to school will give rise to demand for more socially necessary bus services to be provided by the transport authorities under Sections 57 and 63 of the aforesaid Transport Act 1985.

To illustrate the scale of the problem to your Lordships, I have read with interest the study carried out for the Passenger Transport Executive Group. This compares school transport costs in two districts in Greater Manchester—Bolton and Bury. In Bolton, the education authority already allows freedom of choice of secondary school but in Bury it does not. From this comparison, which allows for other factors affecting expenditure, it has been estimated that the costs of education transport could increase by a factor of three with freedom of choice.

I would not wish the House to have the impression that this is purely an urban problem in the metropolitan counties. It will affect shire counties too. The impact of this additional expenditure may mean that other expenditures have to be sacrificed and the result may be that concessionary fares schemes for both children and the elderly have to be curtailed in scope.

Before concluding, perhaps I may alert the House to the magnitude of the cost involved. I estimate that the secondary school population in England and Wales alone is over 4 million. If 25 per cent., or 5 per cent., of these pupils travelled further at an extra cost of 20p per journey in concessionary support, the cost would be over £70 million or £14 million respectively. Even the latter figure is not a bagatelle.

My amendment therefore provides that the Secretary of State for the Environment must take this extra expenditure into account when setting rate support grant. I readily confess that I am not an expert in these matters. I am sure that there are many other ways in which the Government can ease the financial responsibility falling on local authorities as a result of the Bill. I am therefore most anxious to learn from my noble friend what the Government propose. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking my noble friend for giving me notice of the points that he was proposing to make. He has raised a matter of some importance and I can confirm, in answer to his question, that the Bill does not change the law relating to school transport. That law applies principally to the functions of local education authorities. They will retain the flexibility to adopt school transport policies suited to local needs within the overall rules laid down in statute.

My noble friend's amendment addresses a rather different point; namely, the implications for school admissions of the Bill's provisions on transport authorities. My noble friend argued that these implications, in terms of expenditure, could be quite significant and that, accordingly, provision should be made for this factor in rate support grant settlements. I listened with particular interest to what he had to say about the comparison between the situation in Bolton and Bury.

However, I say to my noble friend that time alone will tell whether the provisions in this Bill will have the effect that he suggests. Indeed, I find it hard to see how a clear link of the kind envisaged by the amendment could be established between increased costs for a transport authority and the exercise of parental choice. We shall monitor the situation following the implementation of the school admission provisions in the Bill and I shall draw my noble friend's amendment to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I have no doubt that he would wish to consider carefully the implications of any effect such as that which my noble friend foresees.

I believe his amendment which, in any case, falls doubtfully within the scope of this Bill, would be premature. In view of the comments I have made, I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I shall withdraw it. I find it rather difficult because we are at the happy hour when there is a good deal of noise outside and my noble friend answering me must have found it very difficult. I believe that this amendment is within the scope of the Bill. It follows quite a good deal of discussion on this matter and I believe it has produced an important issue. I am not quite sure whether I have got absolutely the right answer and I shall have to read it. I probably will not raise the subject again.

When one deals with a Bill of this magnitude, practically every kind of issue arises. My noble friend spoke about bringing in the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I should have thought it was the Secretary of State for Transport. However, without any further ado, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 448:

Page 232, line 47, at end insert— ("91A. In section 54 of that Act (change of status of controlled school to aided school), the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (12)— (13) For the purposes of this section proposals under this section shall be taken to have first been published—

1. (a) on the day on which the requirements of regulations under this section with respect to the publication of the proposals arc satisfied; or
2. (b) where different requirements such as arc mentioned in paragraph (a) above are satisfied on different days, on the last of those days.

(14) Where any such requirement imposes a continuing obligation with respect to the publication of any proposals, the requirement shall for the purposes of subsection (13) above be taken to be satisfied on the first day in respect of which it is satisfied." ").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 448A: Page 233, line 47. at end insert—

("The Local Government Act 1988 (c.9)

94. In paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1988 (catering to which the competition provisions of that Act apply) for the words from -for which" to the end there shall be substituted the words "which is maintained by a local education authority and provides higher education or further education (or both)".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this minor amendment is consequental upon the new definitions of further and higher education contained in Clause 112 of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule II [Repeals]:

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 448B to 448P:

Page 234, line 5, at end insert—

("2 & 3 Eliz. 2. c.56.	The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.	In section 69(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".
9 & 10 Eliz. 2 c.62.	The Trustee Investments Act 1961.	In section 11(4)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
		In Schedule 1, in Part II, paragraph 9(h).
10 & 11 Eliz. 2 c.56.	The Local Government (Records) Act 1962.	In section 2(6) the words "to the Inner London Education Authority".
		In section 8(1) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".").

Page 234, line 6, column 3, at beginning insert—

	("In section 5(3) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
	Section 31(10).").

Page 234, line 6, column 3, at end insert—

	("In section 75(4) the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".
	Section 81(9)(a).
	In section 83(2) the words "or by the Inner London Education Authority".
	In section 89(1) the definitions of "Inner London Education Area" and "Inner London Education Authority".").

Page 234, line 7, at end insert—

("1966 c.42	The Local Government Act 1966.	In section 11(3) the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".
1967 c.88.	The Leasehold Reform Act 1967.	In section 28(5)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority"
		In Schedule 4A, in paragraph 2(2)(b) the words "the Inner London Education Authority or".
1969 c.2	The Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969.	In section 1(2) the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".
1969 c.48.	The Post Office Act 1969.	In section 86(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
1969 c.57.	The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969.	In section 3(2) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
1970 c.39.	The Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970.	In section 1(4), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
1971 c.78.	The Town and Country Planning Act 1971.	In section 215(8) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
		In Schedule 20, in paragraph 1(3), the words "the Inner London Education Authority".").

Page 235, line 4, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 100J, paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and, in subsection (3), the reference to that paragraph.").

Page 235, line 7, at end insert—

("In section 142(1B) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".").

Page 236, line 18, at end insert—

("1973 c.35.	The Employment Agencies Act 1973.	In section 13(7)(Q the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
1974 c.7.	The Local Government Act 1974.	Section 25(1)(cb).

1974 c.37.	The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.	In section 28(6) the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".
1976 c.57	The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976	In section 19, subsection (4), in subsection (5) the words "or the Inner London Education Authority", the words "by a local authority for the purposes of, in the first place where they occur, and the words from "or as the case may be" to the end, and subsection (5A).
		In section 44(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".
1976 c.57.	The Race Relations Act 1976.	In section 71 the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".
1976 c.80	The Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976.	Section 5(3)(ba).
1977 c.42.	The Rent Act 1977.	Section 14(ca).
1977 c.49.	The National Health Service Act 1977.	In section 22(2), in the Table, the words "Also the Inner London Education Authority, if wholly or partly in the area or district of the Authority".
		In Schedule 5, in paragraph 5(1)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
1979 c.55	The Justices of the Peace Act 1979.	In section 64(6) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
1980 c.20.	The Education Act 1980.	In paragraph 10 of Schedule 3, the words from "and" to the end.
1980 c.65.	The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.	Section 2(1)(1). In section 20(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
		Section 71(1)(i).
		Section 99(4)(da).
		In Schedule 16, paragraph 5A.
1981 c.67.	The Acquisition of Land Act 1981.	In section 17(4), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
1982 c.30.	The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.	In section 33(9), in paragraph (a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority" and in paragraph (b) the words "in relation to the Inner London Education Authority means the Inner London Education Area".
		In section 41(13), in the definition of "local authority" paragraph (d) and the word "and" immediately following that paragraph.
		In section 45(2)(aa) the words "or III".").

Page 236, line 19, column 3, at end insert—

	("In section 19(7) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
	In section 20(1) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".").

Page 236, line 20, at end insert—

("1982 c.41.

The Stock Transfer Act 1982.

In Schedule 1, in paragraph 7(2)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".").

Page 236, line 51, at end insert—

("1984 c.28.	The County Courts Act 1984.	In section 60(3), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
1985 c.47.	The Further Education Act 1985.	In section 3(10), in the definition of "rate fund", paragraph (a) and the word "other" in paragraph (b).").

Page 237, line 4, at end insert—

("Section 84(2).").

Page 237, line 9, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 14, paragraph 53(a).").

Page 237, line 9, at end insert—

("1985 c.68.	The Housing Act 1985	In section 4(e) the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".
1985 c.69.	The Housing Associations Act 1985.	In section 106(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".
1985 c.70.	The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.	In section 38, in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".
1986 c. 10.	The Local Government Act 1985.	In section 6(2)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
		In section 9(1)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
		Section 11(5).
1987 c.31	The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.	In section 58(1)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
1988 c.9.	The Local Government Act 1988.	In section 1(1)(j) the words "and the Inner London Education Authority".
		In Schedule 2 the words "and the Inner London Education Authority".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 448B to 448P en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

8.45 a.m.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 449:

Page 237, line 15, column 3, at end insert— ("Section 25.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 449A to 449C:

Page 238, line 12, column 3, after ("(1)") insert ("the word "college" in the definition of "assist" and").

Page 238. line 14, column 3, leave out ("and").

Page 238, line 18, column 3, at end insert ("and in subsection (2)(b) the word "college" in the second and third places where it occurs.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 450: Page 238, line 21, column 3, at end insert—("Section 7.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 450A to 451:

Page 238, line 22, at end insert— ("1963 c.33. The London Government Section 31(1) and (4)."). Act 1963.

Page 238, column 3, leave out lines 52 and 53 and insert ("Section 27").

Page 238, line 54, column 3, leave out ("35(3)") and insert ("35, in subsection (3)").

Page 238, line 56, column 3, at end insert ("and in subsection (5) the words "section 27(1)(a), (2) or (3) or").

Page 239, leave out line 28.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 211 [Citation, extent, etc.]:

[Amendments Nos. 452 to 453 not moved.]