Lords Sitting of 3 May 1988

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

Duchy of Lancaster Act,

Regional Development Grants (Termination) Act,

Merchant Shipping Act,

British Railways Order Confirmation Act,

Saint Bennet Fink Burial Ground (City of London) Act,

Church Commissioners (Assistance for Priority Areas) Measure.

Amroth: Proposed Chalet Complex
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy regarding the construction of a permanent chalet complex on the cliffs near Amroth in the Pembrokeshire National Park, in the light of repeated objections by the park authority.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the application referred to by the noble Lord has been called in by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales for his own decision. In due course there will be a local public inquiry conducted by a planning inspector who will report to my right honourable friend. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I must not say anything which could be taken as prejudging or affecting the outcome of the inquiry.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. As the application concerns a national park whose essential characteristic is its magnificent heritage coastline, will the Minister ask his right honourable friend to bear in mind the dangerous precedent which would be set by acceding to the application? I have in mind the possibility of further development elsewhere along our coastlines, leading to the kind of development which has gone so far towards ruining many Mediterranean coasts.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware that there is a very strong body of feeling about this particular application. However, I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I really must not comment on propositions for or against it for fear of anticipating the outcome of the inquiry.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the fact that the Minister appreciates the strong feeling which exists about this matter and that there is a strong case for the calling in of the application by his right honourable friend. Can the Minister say whether or not the employment issue is a factor in this case? How many jobs would be created if the scheme were approved?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I dare say that that is just the kind of consideration that the applicants would want to put before the public inquiry. In due course the inspector will no doubt comment on them.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, while we appreciate that the Minister is unable to say anything further about the calling in of this application, will he convey to his right honourable friend that there is great optimism created by the fact that it has been called in? We have very great faith that the Secretary of State for Wales will realise that this is one of our most attractive places and that it should be protected.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, again I have no doubt that the kind of views expressed by the noble Viscount will be put forward at the public inquiry. I am sure that they will be reflected in the inspector's report.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—he is because I told him so just now!—that I own a small property only half a mile from these chalets? Will he accept that some of the static caravans, which the developer now proposes to replace with permanent buildings, have in my view—and I mean that literally—disfigured this lovely coastline far too long? Rather than being replaced, they should be removed altogether.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can only suggest to the noble Lord that he seeks an opportunity to put those views to the public inquiry.

Arab/Israeli Conflict: US Initiative
2.40 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the United States proposal for an international conference in an endeavour to resolve the problems involving the Palestinian people in the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we support the current United States initiatives aimed at achieving renewed progress towards a negotiated settlement of the Arab/Israel conflict. An essential element in the United States proposals is the convening of an international conference.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I can understand the loyalty of the Government in supporting the United States despite its dubious action. But it has not achieved much yet. Are the Government not concerned that

371
although the United States has called for an international conference, every time that proposal is made in the Security Council the United States alone vetoes it? Can the Minister say whether it is a fact that the Israelis invaded Lebanon earlier today with 1,500 troops and that they are attacking villages and refugee camps?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that in recent months the United Kingdom view about a number of aspects of Israeli policy has been made very clear. However, we support the current United States initiatives aimed at bringing the parties together to try to reach a solution to this longstanding and tragic problem.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say why the United States vetoes Security Council resolutions which support it in these endeavours?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the United Kingdom has been supporting the resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. I agree that recently the United States vetoed such a resolution. However the United States has supported a number of other resolutions in the Security Council. I believe the way forward is to support the initiative which it is now proposing.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that there is no prospect of genuine peace in the Arab/Israel conflict unless those Arab states which are in conflict with Israel co-operate with those who seek a peaceful solution? Can he tell the House whether any Arab state other than Egypt, which has a peace agreement with Israel, or any Palestinian leader has replied affirmatively to the US Shultz initiative? What hopes does the Minister think there are for such a response from the Arab and Palestinian side?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are hoping that on reflection the Arab countries concerned will see the sense of what is proposed. But it is true to say that some elements in Israel have not accepted the proposals either; we hope that on reflection they will see fit to do so.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not opportune to put on record that Mr. Shultz, the Secretary of State of the United States, has flown thousands of miles to all the warring factions to try to solve this problem? Should we not at least put on record our appreciation of the efforts of one man to try to solve what seems to be an impossible problem?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have said we certainly support the herculean efforts of the United States Secretary of State to secure acceptance of his proposals. It is, I think, worth remembering that the first great step towards peace in the Middle East was the Camp David accord of some years ago which was likewise the result of herculean United States efforts.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that if we are ever to have peace in the region
372
Israeli administration of the West Bank and Gaza must be ended? Can the noble Lord say what was the reaction of the Government at the recent meeting of European foreign ministers to the Italian proposal of an interim Community administration under UN auspices?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as regards the occupied territories, our view is that the Israelis should withdraw from the territories occupied since 1967 as part of a comprehensive peace plan perhaps in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242. Meanwhile the Israelis should administer their occupation in compliance with international law and basic human rights standards.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I must ask what was the Government's reaction at the meeting of European foreign ministers to the Italians' proposal.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we issued a statement at the time if the noble Lord is referring to the 15th April meeting. Perhaps I can let the noble Lord have a copy.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is it not a fact that since the state of Israel came into being it has been engaged in five wars and started none of them? Has not the Foreign Minister of Israel for a long time pleaded for a conference to discuss a peaceful settlement, receiving no co-operation at all from the Arab countries? If we are to get a peaceful solution the co-operation of all is needed, and Britain, I hope, will play its part.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Mr. Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister and deputy Prime Minister, has indeed been supporting the efforts of Mr. Shultz. Unfortunately, Mr. Shamir appears to think otherwise.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the continuing cruel conflict makes the prospects of a settlement increasingly bleak? While welcoming what has been said about the Government's support for the Shultz initiative, can the Minister say, in the present circumstances, what further practical initiative Her Majesty's Government have in mind? Do they have in mind for example seeking the support of our partners in the European Community for Mr. Shultz and the American Administration in the effort to convene a conference? Does the Minister agree that a conference would not be complete without the participation of the Soviet Union?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that the acceptance at least of this conference by the Soviet Union would be an important factor. But there are many other important factors as well including that which refers to the need to accept the right of the state of Israel to exist with secure borders.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will not the Minister declare that part of the agreement gave a homeland to the Palestinians? Will he not say that our

373
Government believe that if Israel has the right to exist, so too have the Palestinian people and their country? They have no right to be foully invaded and occupied as they are now.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have certainly endorsed the right of self-determination as regards the Palestinian people. We have deplored very strongly some of the things which are presently going on in the occupied territories.

Depressed Areas: Assistance
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to assist depressed urban and rural areas.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we announced on 7th March a range of measures which build on the programmes and initiatives developed by the Government since 1979 to deal with urban dereliction and inner city decay. These measures are aimed primarily at encouraging development, raising business confidence and motivating inner city residents. In all, about £3,000 million will go to support urban regeneration in Britain through government programmes in 1988–89, bringing in considerably more than that in private investment.
In rural areas, assistance provided through the Development Commission has been increased by almost £5 million over the past two years.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, while recognising the problems of the inner cities does not the Minister agree that there are continuing major difficulties in urban and rural areas involving unemployment, housing, infrastructure and other matters? In such circumstances is the Minister satisfied, in the Answer that he has just given me, that the balance of assistance from government between inner cities and urban and rural areas is correct, particularly in those areas which are unable to attract private capital? That balance is really what I am stressing.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we always keep the split in how the money will be spent under review. We are always seeking ways to target the money efficiently. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the announcement of 7th March.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can tell the House how Her Majesty's Government propose to increase the effectiveness of their policies for assisting rural areas.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on 1st April the Development Commission merged with its main agency, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas (CoSIRA), under the title of the Rural Development Commission. The staff and activities of CoSIRA have been transferred to the commission
374
and form its small business service. The commission will continue to be the principal agency charged with carrying forward the Government's policies for diversifying rural enterprise with the added advantage of now being in direct contact with private firms in rural areas.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that until a short time ago there was concern over the slowness of assessment by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry of various schemes submitted for both urban and rural areas? Can he say whether any additional staff are being engaged in order to speed up the disposition, which is causing serious concern because of the sources of private capital which are involved?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that the new, simpler city grant for the private sector will build on the success of the urban development grant and the urban regeneration grant programme. So far, £153 million of public funds has been allocated, attracting £632 million in investment from the private sector. That has provided some 29,500 jobs and almost 7,500 homes and has reclaimed 1,250 acres of derelict land.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the urban development corporations have played an enormous part already in regenerating urban areas? Is he aware that the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation is celebrating its first birthday and has already earmarked £¼ billion in public and private funding for a remarkably small geographical area on the banks of the Tyne and Wear?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is delighted to hear that good news. As my noble friend is aware, we believe that the urban development corporations have a large part to play in revitalising parts of the country. That is why we have increased their number and now propose to do so further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister referred in his Answer to the wishes and needs of people living in depressed urban and rural areas. Without in any way underestimating the achievements of the proposals and policies he has referred to, will he recognise that the needs and wishes of the people living in depressed areas are well expressed by their elected local authorities and that the Government would do well to pay more attention to the opinions, and to seek the help of, those local authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that in the booklet Action for Cities, which was launched by my right honourable friend, a number of projects which had been undertaken with local authorities were highlighted. We consider that to |be|an|integral part of the future for inner city areas. Of course some local authorities have been remarkably slow in taking up the initiative.

Unimar: Police Investigation
2.54 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of their reply to the Question from Lord Bruce of Donington of 2nd March 1987 (H.L. Deb. col. 438), they have any progress to report concerning the outcome of the inquiries then being pursued into the activities of PCW Underwriting Agencies Ltd., Peter Cameron-Webb, Peter Dixon, Minet Holdings and WMD Underwriting Agencies Ltd.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the PCW case has recently been taken over by the Serious Fraud Office. Since March 1987 substantial progress has been made in the police investigation, and in particular Swiss witnesses have travelled to London and made statements. Regrettably, however, notwithstanding the personal intervention of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General at a meeting with the Swiss head of the Federal Justice and Police Department, it is still proving very difficult to obtain important documents from Switzerland. Strenuous efforts continue to be made.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful for that information from the noble and learned Lord. Will he give the House an assurance that there are now sufficient funds to enable any prosecution that may arise as a result of the investigations still taking place to proceed, bearing in mind the remarks of his predecessor on the Woolsack that the number of counsel potentially capable of being instructed by the defendants might be in excess of the resources available to the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's Government?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, who has responsibility for the matter, is satisfied that adequate legal, accountancy and police expertise are available to the Serious Fraud Office for the conduct of the case.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not regard it as highly dangerous that announcements should be made that defendants can afford better counsel than the prosecution? Is not that a highly dangerous statement?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am certainly not conscious of having made any such statement. I can see that such statements might in some circumstances carry a certain degree of risk.

Sir John Sainty: Messages of Sympathy
2.56 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Befstead): My Lords, it is with regret that I have to notify the House that the Clerk of Parliaments was taken seriously ill at the weekend and will be away from your Lordships' House for some time to come. The whole House will wish, I am sure, to join with me in sending a message
376
of sympathy to him and his family at this very worrying time. Until Sir John's return I know that the House can be confident of receiving their usual high standard of service from the Clerks of the Parliament Office.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in sending our very best wishes to Sir John Sainty for a speedy recovery and an early return to the House.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I endorse the sympathy and hope which have already been so well expressed.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to associate ourselves with those remarks and wish Sir John a very speedy return to health.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, perhaps I may associate those on these Benches with what has been said and assure Sir John of our prayers for a speedy recovery.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Education Reform Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1988 and the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1988 will be taken.

Abortion (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Sections 1 and 5 of the Abortion Act 1967. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Petition: Local Government Finance Bill
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the residents of central Newcastle-Upon-Tyne which prays that this House will vote against the Local Government Finance Bill.
Petition presented.

Court of Session Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education Reform Bill
3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Duties with respect to the curriculum]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("them with respect") and insert ("the Secretary of State to establish and on local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers of maintained schools to have regard").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 26, 52, 85, 91, 123 and 129. The amendment stands in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Seear. Indeed, I believe that the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, should also be attached to the accompanying amendments.
I wish to emphasise from the beginning that we are not seeking to destroy the concept of a national curriculum; this is not a wrecking amendment. We seek to remove the detailed prescription, the straitjacket to which the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and others have referred, and to prevent the accumulation of quite unprecedented power in the hands of the present and future Secretaries of State for Education.
The present Secretary of State has implied that there is a consensus in favour of this kind of detailed, extensive national curriculum imposed by diktat. There is not. On the contrary, deep reservations have been expressed by every shade of educational and political opinion. According to a parliamentary Answer at col. 574 of the Commons Official Report of 16th February there were 13,800 responses to the national curriculum consultation document. Mr. Julian Haviland, one of the few people actually to have waded through much of that mountain of paper, says in his book Take Care Mr. Baker:
"I cannot recall one response that endorsed without reservation the structure for the curriculum which the Government was proposing".
Let us be clear what the amendment achieves. It leaves intact the general aims for the whole curriculum in all maintained schools established by Clause 1 of the Bill. It also leaves intact the framework for establishing a national curriculum and setting up a National Curriculum Council and a School Examinations and Assessment Council. It leaves intact the duties to provide religious education by agreed syllabus and the additions to Clause 6 to be
378
moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. Instead of allowing the Secretary of State to force the national curriculum in every detail upon every maintained school, upon every classroom and upon every teacher, it provides an essential flexibility. Head teachers, governing bodies and local education authorities will have to have regard to the national curriculum.
That is not, as no doubt will be suggested, a recipe for educational anarchy. The Committee will remember the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which your Lordships passed just two years ago. That Act built on the great Butler Act and placed clear duties towards the curriculum on head teachers, governing bodies and LEAs. It added specific safeguards against abuses of the curriculum. If the amendment succeeds all parties will have to have regard to the national curriculum in carrying out those duties.
If parents are unhappy about the curriculum offered to their child or about the way the national curriculum is being implemented they will be able to complain under the procedures set up by Clause 16 of the Bill. We would wish to strengthen those rights for parents—which at present are rather narrowly drawn in the clause—and will move amendments to that effect later in Committee. In addition the Secretary of State has powers to intervene under the 1944 Act if duties are not being fulfilled or LEAs or governing bodies are acting unreasonably.
What are the effects of the detailed central prescription envisaged in the Bill? Firstly, there is an unacceptable accumulation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, described in a leading article in The Times Education Supplement on 15th January this year as,
"a totally unnecessary step in the direction of over-government and totalitarian government. It is no argument to say that these powers will never be used oppressively. However much we may like Mr. Baker, there is no reason to take his word on this; he is only the temporary incumbent".
I invite the Committee to look at the effects of the Secretary of State's approach within the Bill itself. First, there are the limits on experiment and development, so strongly condemned by Miss Sheila Browne, former Her Majesty's Senior Inspector of Schools. Clause 9 imposes a detailed bureaucratic process before any maintained school can deviate from the national curriculum in any way. Any deviation has to be with the specific approval of the Secretary of State. Clause 9 would be entirely redundant if these amendments are accepted.
Look at Clauses 10, 11 and 12, and in particular at Clause 12. Here is a clause which takes almost two pages simply to set out a framework for regulations to allow head teachers to exclude individual pupils from the whole or parts of the national curriculum. Clause 12 is perhaps the best illustration of the rigidity of this whole approach and the bureaucratic absurdities to which it leads. It is time wasting and deeply insulting to those who have to try to work within it.
Of course those clauses which allow exclusions from the national curriculum are essential if it is to be prescribed in detail from the centre. The suggestion in line 3 of Clause 2 of the Bill that the national curriculum is for all pupils is bogus. Many pupils, including some with special needs, would have to be

379
excluded, setting back the clock on integration. I am sure that we shall hear later of the deep concerns of many organisations representing children with special needs about the likely negative effects of imposing a rigid system and then inventing new exclusion procedures for those it does not fit. Here again, Clauses 10, 11 and 12 become unnecessary if these amendments are accepted.
By naming a list of subjects and prescribing attainment targets, courses of study and testing arrangements for them, the Secretary of State is relegating many other vital components of education to a lesser status and possibly forcing them out of the school timetable altogether. Again I shall not list them; I am sure that other speakers will pursue their particular concerns. However, perhaps Members of the Committee will look at the new schedule in Amendment No. 109 which shows both the number of subjects others have asked to be added to the foundation subjects and also the subjects which are being taught in some schools now. That is illustrative of the great breadth of education in our schools just now.
Organisations concerned with Catholic education and other denominational schools have expressed concern at the effects of the prescribed national curriculum on the distinctive ethos and character of their schools. I see that the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, has tabled an amendment reflecting those concerns. All those and many other express concerns about the national curriculum can be met if the amendment I am moving is passed and thus schools are allowed an essential flexibility. That was, after all, the approach which the Government themselves favoured two years ago when this Chamber debated the 1986 Act. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, told us then:
"We have certainly worked towards establishing a national curriculum policy which informs the Secretary of State in carrying out his responsibilities and to which LEAs have regard. But it is central to our policy that local authorities will have their own curricular policies in order to plan and manage the service at the local level in response to local needs and circumstances and the preferences of parents; and that schools will have their individual curricular aims. Such a fluid system is likely to be much more responsive and flexible than one which looks to the centre to impose priorities".
Increasingly, over the past few months as the crescendo of opposition to the Secretary of State's plans has mounted in the educational world and the public has begun to understand the real implications, we have heard the Secretary of State and others reassuring us that the content of the imposed national curriculum will allow the necessary flexibility; that it will be all right on the day. Let us be quite clear what this Committee is debating. It is a legal framework which, if implemented unchanged, allows incredibly detailed control over what is taught, how it is taught and how it is tested and examined. Predictions about what is in the mind of the present Secretary of State are not relevant to the debate on the framework.
We must return, as the amendment seeks to do, to a legal framework which is within the traditions of the British education system, which can command the respect of those who will have to make it work and which can genuinely be used to raise standards where they are not high enough. The Bill's present approach is that of curriculum by detailed central
380
government diktat. One cannot build an effective national education system in that way. It must be built on partnership—partnership with parents and pupils, head teachers and teachers, governing bodies and LEAs. Of course it is right to have safeguards and we think it is right to have central curriculum guidelines but we must not be led down a path towards sterile inflexibility.
These amendments would put us back on a path that could lead through partnership to better schools and higher standards for all our children. I beg to move.
Lord Joseph: I want with great enthusiasm what the Government want in bringing forward this Bill. In fact I agree with virtually every part of the Bill except that part now criticised by the noble Baroness who has just spoken. My problem is this. If it be necessary to achieve what I and I am sure many other people want, I shall have to support the amendment of the noble Baroness. But I should far prefer to see the Government accept the group of amendments standing in my name and the names of others; that is, Nos. 16 and 17 and those amendments which come a little later in the Marshalled List.
The distinction is this. Whereas the noble Baroness by her amendment seeks to remove the statutory element from the whole of the national curriculum, I want to remove the mandatory element from the foundation subjects, leaving the core subjects subject to mandatory requirement. It may well be argued that I am being inconsistent. It will be said that I am content to have centralisation for three, or even four subjects taking into account religious education, and that I balk at the other eight foundation subjects. I wish to make the case for this apparent anomaly.
I want, as do the Government and I am sure all Members of the Committee, a broad curriculum for all children. I want to avoid the early specialisation which has been criticised over the decades and which is pervasive in this country. I want to achieve what so many of our neighbours in North-West Europe achieve: a broad curriculum that prepares children for adult life, civic life and work and which stocks them with a knowledge that will make their life anything other than boring. I want all that. For that reason I strongly support the Government's intent to make the core subjects mandatory.
It will be difficult enough to make that mandatory requirement effective in achieving better education—witness the problems that the Government are facing over the report they have requested from committees on English and on maths—and I even hear rumours that there will be a problem among the science community when the working party on science reports.
Imagine what will happen if we have to face similar dilemmas in the programmes of study recommended by the working parties that the Secretary of State proposes to set up in connection with all the other foundation subjects. Even if the Government hold in reserve a mandatory requirement for foundation subjects, it may be as well to pause to see how the programmes of study of the core subjects are implemented before taking that decision.
I must emphasise to the Committee that I am very strongly in favour of having the core subjects tested;

381
no doubt there will be some discussion of the testing procedures. But I am hostile to what others, as well as I, have called the straitjacket imposed in this part of the Bill on the curriculum precisely because I share with so many Members of the Committee an extreme worry about the non-academic proportion of our population. There is no question of better or worse. Academic is not better than non-academic; it is different. Many people are academic in some subjects but non-academic in others. Besides, I am not only worried about the non-academic; I am also worried about the very gifted—those children who have special gifts in particular areas.
I dislike intensely the thought that for all these categories—the non-academic, the partly non-academic and the very gifted—we are to impose a straitjacket on the head teachers and the governors. Of course I accept that the Secretary of State has tried to meet our worry by the procedures for exception mentioned later in the Bill. But I have to agree with the noble Baroness that they are a very bureaucratic set of processes and they will impose upon those people who know the child's needs best—the teachers, working with the parents and the head teachers—what seems to me to be a quite intolerable burden.
The Committee will perhaps be sympathetic when I say that when I was at the department I was slightly envious of some of the achievements of countries in North-West Europe. I thought that I admired the French system, and therefore I became interested in how their so-called national curriculum worked; but I found when I went into the matter that their national curriculum was not imposed centrally. As is well known, the examinations consist of papers in a whole range of subjects which are prepared for by that large proportion of the child population that intends to sit for the baccalaureate—and very impressive the results seem to be.
The French of course say, as most countries do today, that their education is in decline, but from our point of view it seems to educate a very large proportion of the population. I am not quite sure, and I am sorry to be unsure, whether it is one-third or a half of their child population that attains nine successes in the baccalaureate. It is not as deep as our A-level but it is far broader, and we should like to have a broader test for our children.
Therefore, I am a reluctant supporter of this group of amendments. I hope that I can be told—and that the Minister will intervene in time for those of us who are interested to know—that the Government will look kindly upon the later amendments that retain a mandatory requirement for the core subjects, with tests, and convert the foundation subjects into discretionary subjects. I think that most schools, most head teachers and most governors will in fact adopt all the foundation subjects. I shall be amazed if most of them do not. There is all the difference in the world between being encouraged to adopt them and being required to adopt them.
There is one other point that needs to be made. It appears—although I am not quite sure of all my facts—that, whether by intent or by chance, English school children and English teachers are required to spend rather fewer of the hours of the week and
382
rather fewer of the weeks of the year at school than our neighbours in North-West Europe. Let us accept at once that we compel our children for 11 years to be subject to a legal requirement to go to school. Eleven years should be enough. It should be enough to give them at least the basis that we all want. But it so happens that the French, the West Germans, the people from the Low Countries, the Scandinavians, the Swiss and the Japanese impose upon their children a requirement of longer hours at school for more weeks in the year.
I recognise the implications of any such proposal. There will be all sorts of implications. I wonder only whether the Government, in their deep concern for the non-academic, for the gifted and for those who have a different balance of requirements than is met by the national curriculum, might look kindly upon considering an extension in the working week or in the weeks of the year of required schooling.
I hope that I have made my position plain. I put down my name to this amendment. I must honour that inscription, but only if I do not get the amendment that I should prefer; namely, the tested core curriculum as mandatory and the rest as discretionary.
Baroness Seear: I support this amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, I am very much in favour of the objective of an improved level of education for all our children, as I am sure we all are. I also go a long way with the noble Lord when he says that he wants the core subjects imposed. However, I cannot but believe that in practically every school those core subjects are already being taught and will continue to be taught without their being imposed. I believe that this is almost a distinction without a difference between us. No one is going to say that one should let loose into the world young people who are not competent in English, maths and science. Whether there is the staff to carry out the obligations laid down in this Bill is another matter which noble Lords will discuss on another clause.
I beg the Committee to look at the rigidity that is built into the Bill as it now stands and the dangers inherent in this rigidity. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has pointed out the needs of the non-academic child. How is such a child to be adequately taught with a laid-down curriculum which is as rigid and as detailed as this? I know that when the noble Baroness comes to reply she will say that there is plenty of time in the school week to cover the core and foundation subjects and still leave time for other subjects to be studied. Surely it is the experience of all of us from when we were school children, and also that of school children today, that if a subject is being examined one spends one's time on that subject. Not only does the child do that, but the teacher prods the child into doing so because of the results, and the parents are behind the teacher prodding the child along as well.
What is left receives a marginal degree of attention. In my day it was the subjects of cookery and religious knowledge that were not examined; and precious little attention they got in consequence. I do not accept the argument that because there is a little spare time left over the other subjects will be adequately dealt with for the non-academic child or for the gifted

383
child; that was also a very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph.
A second reason for supporting this amendment is the great importance of relying upon and developing the professional skill of the teacher. It all turns upon the teacher, as we all know. A good teacher will develop what is necessary for the particular children he is teaching. He will know of the needs of a child and he will place the emphasis and guidance to direct the child to study those subjects which he, the child and the parent believe are the right syllabus for that child.
There is another point arising from respect for and encouragement of the professionalism of the teacher. If these subjects are built into legislation they are there and they are fixed until they are altered by some other Act of Parliament. Like any other subject, education is a growing and a developing matter. It may be that in five years' time some subjects should be played down while others should be played up. Are we to have another Act of Parliament each time it seems that emphasis should be put in a different place?
I should also like to remind the Committee of the very impressive point made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York during the debate on the local government Bill. Noble Lords were talking about the notorious clause—is it 27, 28 or 29? I have forgotten because it has been backwards and forwards so often. The most reverend Primate said that he had the gravest doubts about the wisdom of allowing Secretaries of State to say what should be taught in schools and, by implication, what ought not to be taught in schools. I ask the Committee to reflect for a moment upon the kinds of requirements that would be laid down if we had a Secretary of State who was not a moderate, decent and (dare I say it?) liberally-minded man, but who was of the extreme Right or of the extreme Left. What kinds of subjects would appear then? Do we really want Secretaries of State saying precisely what is to be taught in our schools? I beg the Committee to support this amendment.
Viscount Eccles: This is a very important amendment because it strikes at the purpose of the first part of the Bill. At present there is no authority strong enough to see that the subjects that should be in the national curriculum are taught and well taught in all schools except for a very few. Therefore Clauses 1 to 18 are designed to fill that vacuum in authority and the full powers are shifted to the Secretary of State.
The amendment would reduce those powers to a degree where it would be possible to delay the introduction of the national curriculum and in some cases, I believe, render it quite ineffective. There is no denying that far too many boys and girls are failing to reach that level of proficiency in basic subjects like English and mathematics which they could reach were they better taught. That is the first reason for concentrating the power in the hands of somebody who is able to deal with this quite unacceptable situation.
384
A second reason is that the post-war advances in science and technology called for parallel advances in the teaching of those subjects and allied subjects; for example, craft and technical courses, and so on. Some schools—and all credit to them—have moved with the times, but others have not. Given our wish to bring our education up to the level of that in other countries, and to maintain it, it is very urgent that the responsibility should go to someone who can see the schools as a whole.
Under the amendment, LEAs, school governors and teachers are not to be obliged to implement the national curriculum but only "to have regard". Therefore the amendment opens the door to negotiations with authority after authority, school board after school board. We do not know how long the negotiations would take; we do not know whether they would be successful. The mover of the amendment, and I believe my noble friend Lord Joseph as well, fear that if the government powers are not limited in this manner, the national curriculum could become a straitjacket. They ask therefore for more flexibility.
There are two answers to that point. First, my honourable friend did not dream up the national curriculum in his bath. He took—and he has undertaken to go on taking—the very best professional advice. That is all in the Bill. His advisers will watch how the curriculum works and they will advise him how to modify it when those modifications appear to be necessary to the best judgment of those experts. That is the guarantee of a great deal of flexibility. Of course, teachers will be told which subjects they must teach, but there is not the slightest intention of telling them how to teach those subjects or what time they have to spend on any one of them. That is left to their professional judgment. The results of their teaching are to be monitored, and the reason for that is that without testing and assessment any national curriculum would be an exercise on paper.
The second answer to the mover of the amendment is that in practice there is bound to be much more flexibility than we can possibly envisage now. That comes out of the experience of how the other education Acts have been carried out. There is not a single section in the 1944 Act which has not been substantially modified in practice. Education is not a subject which can be set in concrete with rules, regulations and models. It never has been and it never will be. The motto for schools, I have always thought, should be "solvitar ambulando" within a framework either derived from tradition or worked out by authority. We have this Bill precisely because there is no framework today and the purpose of the Bill is to provide one.
The Committee should ask: who is objecting to the concentration of power in the hands of the Government? I think I can say. The main objectors are those local authorities and schools which most need to improve their results. Those are the schools which fear testing and assessment. The good teachers have nothing to fear. Indeed, the Bill will enhance their prestige and make their schools more popular. But the weaker schools and the weaker teachers are vulnerable. The teachers' unions know they are vulnerable. Therefore it is understandable that they

385
should want to find ways to limit the powers of the Secretary of State to insist on changes which they view with justifiable alarm. This concession asked for—to have regard instead of having to put the curriculum into practice—is a concession which will let them off the hook. They will then be able either to put off the introduction—for a long time if they argue long enough—or at least to whittle it down.
It is important to realise that experience shows, particularly in relation to the religious sections in the 1944 Act, that local authorities and schools will not have regard to instructions of that kind if they do not want to. Any noble Lords who vote in an hour or two's time on amendments put down by the right reverend Prelate and by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, should take into consideration that if those amendments are passed, and if the local authorities and the schools only have to have regard for them, we shall have the same thing happen as happened under the 1944 Act: a minority only will do it.
I have kept the Committee for too long. Whatever the movers of the amendment may say, it is a wrecking amendment. It mutilates the power to carry out firmly and quickly the central purpose of this part of the Bill. If it comes to a vote I shall vote against the amendment, and so should any noble Lord who wants every child—I mean every child, not just the clever ones—to have the best possible start in life.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I have great sympathy with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, about the absolutely vital significance of the core subjects, which I differentiate, as he does, slightly from the foundation subjects for the reason of flexibility that has been called in aid by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. While I agree with him that this is a very important amendment, I feel he does less than justice to those who are putting it forward and especially to the teachers' unions. I have no connection with the teachers' unions or with anyone else, except parents and grandparents. But my experience, such as it is, from visiting schools and from the voluminous correspondence that I, like so many Members of the Committee, have received, is that this objection is shared not merely by teachers' unions which have something to fear but by a great many people who are concerned with the changing patterns of education.
We are living in a period where there are changing patterns. I confess that I was not fully aware or cognisant of the changes that were taking place until I applied myself to this subject a year or so ago. It is because there are changes of this nature that there is—I think the noble Viscount Lord Eccles, said that the subjects were not set in concrete—this difference, precisely because this country, and indeed the world, is going through a very difficult transitional period. In circumstances such as this I believe it is absolutely essential that we should not have subjects set in concrete whatever we may do about the core curriculum. It is clear that every child living in this world should leave school with a facility for English, mathematics and science.
It is not so clear that all the other subjects are necessarily subjects upon which there should be
386
concentration. Many changes in education have taken place in the past 20 years. Most of them in my judgment are more fitting to the modern world than to the world of the 21st century into which the children who are now at school will have to grow up. We need flexibility in order to achieve this.
I put exactly the contrary view to that which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, explained to the Committee. Those of us who want, as indeed all of us do, the best education for our children should ensure that there is a degree of flexibility in the curriculum which can be used by everyone who is educating our children.
I wish to say two more words and then I shall sit down. First, I find among a number of people at the moment a belief that the education system and those who are teaching somehow are not capable of facing these issues and are looking at them only as a matter of advancing their own interests. I believe that to be profoundly wrong. I am deeply impressed by the care and the concern which those whom I meet in education are showing in relation to the education of those in their care. I believe that in this Chamber we should have regard to those who are practising education and who have more experience than most of us about what the requirements are. There is no doubt about the weight of educational opinion.
Finally—and with this I shall sit down—I begin to think that the world is turning upside down.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I think that that intervention comes very appropriately from the Floor of the Committee, because for 60 years I have listened to the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, telling me that it is the socialists who believe in bureaucracy; it is the socialists who wish to regulate everything; it is the socialists who wish to ensure that everyone operates on the same pattern, at the same time; that there shall be no departure from it; that we wish to grind the people down in equality. It is quite insufferable, he used to say.
I used to listen to him as he became more and more passionate about the subject. It was the Conservatives who did not wish to regulate anything. It was the Conservatives who wished to allow the good ordinary common sense of the average decent Englishman to prevail in the circumstances. It was the Conservatives, I always understood, who did not want the bureaucracy that was contained in Clause 12. Anybody—I address myself particularly to those on the Benches opposite, most of whom have been my colleagues in another place—who dares to vote for the clause as it stands at present will be betraying every speech he ever made in the past 40 years.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady David, and other speakers have said about the need to allow flexibility in the curriculum. I shall not repeat the education arguments, except to stress that there is a real danger of promising developments being stifled through a perceived need to keep within a legal framework. The technical and vocational education initiative and the skills-based approach to learning are examples. That

387
is to say nothing of the pressure that is bound to arise in respect of minority subjects with their new status as third-class options.
If academic freedom is right for the tertiary level, as many Members of the Committee believe, it should not be too far withdrawn at primary and secondary levels. A valid criticism of teachers—and one to which the Bill hardly addresses itself in its concentration on systems and procedures—is that sometimes their expectations of children are too low. Do not let us put our expectations of teachers so low that at every turn we try to bind what they do. That is not the way to achieve good results; expectations can be self-fulfilling.
Paramount though I believe the education arguments to be there is another aspect that I should particularly like to emphasise. It is a consequential issue that has already been touched upon but none the less it is important. Over the past eight years there has been a stream of education legislation. The 1980 Act, which gave parents the right to information and rights of appeal, produced a host of new procedures and paperwork to match. It also involved many extra man hours not all on a temporary basis. Then came the 1981 Act with its welcome impetus to the catering for the special needs of pupils with disabilities. The paperwork, meetings and formalities introduced by that Bill were nobody's business. Indeed, it would be truer to say that they were everybody's business. Time-scales became extended, adding to everyone's anxieties, and more central staff had to be appointed all over the country. Then there was the legislation of 1986 to which reference has already been made.
I say all that with feeling because during that time it was my job, as a local authority education officer, to help to work those Acts. I am not saying that their aims were bad. I am saying that, among other things, their consequences were bureaucratic. In the authority in which I worked we increasingly saw it as our job to shield our schools from the tidal wave of paperwork and routine administration. That is becoming harder and harder.
Whatever else it is, the Bill now before us is a bureaucrat's dream or nightmare. I suspect that it may also prove to be a lawyer's dream. I should like to draw attention to what must be done if the national curriculum is to be departed from. Depending on the nature of the case, the governors must meet (as provided for in Clause 9) and the local authority must meet. They must write reports to each other and they must write to the Secretary of State. They will then have to wait, and wait, while at the DES officials will meet, write reports and consult the local inspectorate. Alternatively, as provided for under Clause 12, the head, having familiarised himself with regulations of which we as yet know nothing, must report individually and in detail to his governors, to the LEA and to the parents. We shall see a great deal more of that kind of thing as we plough on through the Bill.
What worries me about the inevitable consequences of a tightly drawn curriculum—and it worries me very much indeed—is that all that is not what education is really about. We are entangling our key people in a web of administrative complexities,
388
few of which I believe to be really necessary and we are distracting far too many people in the service from their proper focus. After all, education is largely about interaction between teacher and pupil whether inside the classroom or outside. It will seldom be tidy and it will seldom be watertight. I suggest that, as a touchstone, when looking at any new procedures of the kind with which we are here faced, the criterion should be whether the proposal will help or interfere with what is done every day in a school. If it interferes then, in the absence of any compelling reasons for change, it should be rejected. I do not believe that the educational reasons for change in this case are compelling—quite the reverse. I support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: I very much agree with what has been said about this matter by my noble friend Lord Eccles. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that, perhaps regrettably, I never had the opportunity of sharing an experience with him in another place. Therefore I am speaking from my experience in this House alone. I take my starting point from what was said by my noble friend Lord Eccles. I believe that if the amendment were to be passed it would be a wrecking amendment. The national curriculum is a major part of a major reforming Bill on education in schools. Perhaps I may have the temerity to say to my noble friend Lord Joseph, whose views on so many matters I greatly admire, that I believe he is being slightly disingenuous to suggest that this is not a wrecking amendment, even though he may turn to argue his later amendments, which he undoubtedly will. To undermine and remove the provisions as regards a national curriculum is to amend the Bill in such a way that I believe it becomes a travesty of its former state. It is a wrecking amendment.
I should like to deal with the points raised by my noble friend Lord Joseph. He said that he believed in a broad curriculum; that he wanted to avoid early specialisation; and that he wanted to see a broad curriculum such as that seen in other European countries. All Members of the Committee who know about education will know that a major criticism has been of specialisation taking place too early in our schools. When I was in the DES I visited classes where all the boys were studying maths, physics and chemistry and all the girls were studying English, French and history. I correct myself because that is not absolutely true; I think that one could say it was 90 per cent. either way. I had the remarkable experience of meeting a headmaster who said to me, "Of course, girls cannot do maths". As I was being entertained at lunch by him I restrained myself from saying more than, "Clearly they cannot in your school". We may laugh but it is extremely serious to see girls so often dropping maths and the hard sciences and only studying the humanities and biology. It is equally serious to see boys dropping modern languages. If anything will be needed it will be more modern languages post-1992.
I believe that one way in which the Government have tried bravely to meet that real criticism is in putting down the foundation subjects. As soon as the foundation subjects are listed the Government are

389
criticised for not being flexible enough. However, I believe that an enormous amount of flexibility has been written into the Bill. As an example I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 6. If one looks at the many areas in the Bill where this issue arises one will note the time to be spent on the subjects in the national curriculum; the emphasis on each individual subject; extra subjects and what must be covered by them; the different rates of progress for individual pupils (a matter which I am sure we shall debate at great length in respect of children with special educational needs); the modifications of the curriculum in different circumstances and its disapplication.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said that minority subjects are likely to become third-class options. I express concern about what may happen to the classics and the other sciences, particularly physics and chemistry, and to a second modern language for those who wish to study that. We are most concerned about the last two years of school when specialisation becomes much greater. In that respect I believe that we need to look at the Bill and to the assurances made by the Government. I hope that my noble friend Lady Hooper will assure the Committee about the use of the minority time which, I believe, will amount to at least a day-and-a-half a week.
The truth of the matter is that one cannot write every subject into any kind of national curriculum. The subsequent amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David, lists approximately 40 subjects and it is designed to make the whole issue look absurd. No school can undertake all those subjects; it is a question of the choice that one must make. When talking about what is happening in schools, particularly as regards the less able, one cannot talk only about what happens in this country. We must compare ourselves with our competitor countries such as Germany and Japan. It is the less able children who are falling well behind the standards of our competitors in such subjects as mathematics. It is very serious for them when they leave school totally unable to obtain a job because they have no qualifications at all and are not being stretched as they should be.
We have all been deluged with letters. One point which strikes me about all the letters which I have received is that teachers only compare themselves with the situation in this country and not with the situation in other countries. They do not look around the world as it is—an increasingly competitive world in which our children today will grow up and with which we need to compare ourselves.
I hope that teachers will look on the proposals of the national curriculum as being designed to help them. As my noble friend Lord Eccles said, the good teachers have nothing to fear from the testing and assessing proposals because they are doing well. Many teachers are doing well. However, sadly, too many are not doing well and two cases concerning children at school today have been brought to my attention in the last 10 days. The first example is that of a head teacher of a primary school who actually said to the parents that he thought the first year of school was a period of adjustment—whatever that may or may not mean. The other example is that of
390
a head teacher who said that he did not believe in teaching any children to read until they were eight years old.
I hope that those are isolated cases, but the truth is that for the children in those schools it is very serious. It is exactly that kind of situation which the Government bravely have determined to tackle. I hope that we shall all support the Government and if it comes to a Division I hope that Members of the Committee will vote against this amendment which I believe wrecks a major part of this important reform.
Lord Glenamara: Perhaps I may intervene very briefly. I intervene largely because of the quite uncharacteristically outrageous remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. First, perhaps I may establish my credentials by stating that I started my working life as a teacher. Before I entered Parliament I was headmaster of a county secondary school. I am also one of the six or seven Members of the Committee who have served a term in the DES. Therefore I know a little about schools from a practical point of view.
I should like warmly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said. These subjects are taught in schools at present. All the core subjects and most of the foundation subjects are already taught, and taught extremely well. I believe that our schools for young children up to the age of 11 are probably the best in the world. They are taught extremely well.
Imposing a national syllabus laid down by the Secretary of State will not improve the teaching. There may be four mini eleven pluses on the way but they will not improve the teaching in any way. The same teachers will be teaching. It may actually depress standards because teachers will be teaching from a syllabus with which they do not agree. Therefore, let us be quite clear and be rid of this fallacious argument that if we impose a national syllabus standards will rise. That does not follow at all.
The glory of English—and perhaps I should say English and Welsh because it is that about which we are talking—and Welsh education has been that, in content, the schools have always been able to reconcile a high degree of freedom in curricular matters with a great deal of consensus. That freedom is especially important in a country such as ours. First, in deciding its curriculum a school must take into account its teaching force and the ability of its teachers. What can they teach? What are their qualifications? Secondly, it must take into account the locality. It may be a farming area or a heavy industrial area or an area where there is much electronic industry. A school must obviously take that into account in its curriculum. If we have a standardised universal syllabus, that can no longer be done. Therefore, schools must have that freedom in curricular matters.
However, I said that they reconcile that freedom with a very high degree of consensus which the Secretary of State completely ignores. He talks about it as though it is not there and that every school in the country is doing something different. In this country we have an excellent inspectorate of schools. As I pointed out at Question Time the other day, they do not belong to the DES. Every school inspector is still

391
appointed by the Queen in Council by name. They are independent and I know that they visit every school every year and issue a report from time to time. That report is considered by the governors of the school and by the local education authority. If, for example, the school's mathematics is deficient the report will say so in no uncertain terms. The governors will then see that that is put right. Therefore, the schools inspectorate imports a great deal of consensus into our schools: as I said before, broad guidelines for school curricula. However, they can still reconcile the freedom they have with that. Therefore, there is that consensus.
Secondly, in the secondary schools the examining bodies lay down their own syllabuses. Those syllabuses import a great deal of consensus. Therefore, it really is nonsense for the Secretary of State and the Government to argue as though all our schools are doing their own thing completely independent of everything; they are not. There is a high degree of consensus and at the same time there is a commendable and enviable degree of freedom.
This is not a wrecking amendment. As an ex-schoolmaster I am as devoted to raising standards as anybody in this Chamber. Indeed I devoted the whole of a speech to the NUT conference (in the days when it still invited me) to the raising of standards in our schools. I take second place to nobody in wishing to raise standards. This amendment is not a wrecking amendment and, if it is passed, it will be an improving amendment. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Beloff: I find it extraordinary that once again the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, gives away his case. He says, and is probably right, that our education at the primary level is the best in the world. One then has to ask how enormously bad must education be at the secondary level when it fails to achieve, on this fine basis, the kind of results which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, seem available to children of equal ability in our neighbouring countries?
Therefore, there is a problem, whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, believes it. I believe that that problem is met by the Bill and that this is a wrecking amendment because it would tear out the heart of the Bill. I should like to appeal to my noble and perhaps I may say my old friend Lord Joseph to remove his name from both these sets of amendments for one particular reason to which I shall come. Many years ago when he was Secretary of State he rightly called the country's attention to the inability of our system to do the best by what he then called the bottom 40 per cent.—the 40 per cent. who do not achieve leaving distinctions of various kinds and so on. One could argue about it. However, it was quite clear that he thought, and presumably still thinks, that while we do fairly well for the most able, we do not do well by a very large number of children. I believe we do better for children with special education needs, and I cannot see why they have been brought into this argument since they are specifically provided for elsewhere in the Bill. I should have thought that the agreement now reached in government, not opposed on a Division in another place, to have a national curriculum was precisely
392
intended to assist those pupils about whom the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, especially expressed concern.
If one looks at the list of subjects, including the foundation subjects, they are not the subjects one would choose if one intended to run a school for, let us say, the top 20 per cent. or 25 per cent., in terms of ability, of our children. One would want Latin, physics and chemistry rather than subjects which very able children might be expected to take up in their spare time. No; this is a curriculum containing subjects one would expect a child of average ability, or even below the mean, to be able to achieve with good teaching.
When the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, says he thinks those subjects might be outdated by developments in the way we live in science and technology, and when the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says—as she said on Second Reading—that those are subjects she was taught as a child, I should like a suggestion, the merest suggestion, from either as to which subjects they would exclude from the foundation subjects and which subjects they would put in if occupying the post of Secretary of State and endowed with those extraordinary powers which they think he has. Or, would they suggest that in 10, 15 or 20 years' time, we shall know the world so well that geography becomes superfluous; so modern that history becomes superfluous; and so efficient in using our calculators that mathematics becomes superfluous? I find that situation imaginary.
We have here a set of subjects which on the whole—
4 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I must interrupt the noble Lord as he dragged me into his speech. The noble Lord has given away his own case. He says that the gifted children would be given different subjects. That is precisely what those of us pleading for flexibility should like to have.
Lord Beloff: The case for dealing with gifted children—if the noble Baroness wishes me to extend my remarks—can be met by flexibility in the time taken to cover the foundation subjects. If a child is able enough to reach the 16 year-old standard at the age of 14 in, for example, history, he can then study physics or Latin. That is the way to treat the able child—not by removing the foundation subjects which should be the subjects for the whole school. On the whole I believe this to be a basic concept—with perhaps bureaucratic problems arising from children with special needs, and so on—directed towards a perceived need. Both sets of amendments which seek to change it seem to run against the main aims of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, on thinking over where his true allegiance lies educationally—that is, to those with whom he is most concerned—will see that he is not doing his best for those children by opposing the Bill.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to give my fullest support to the amendment to which I have put my name. Although I should certainly support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, should this one fail, I feel that the amendment we are now discussing is the best way of

393
achieving a national curriculum for all children, including those with special needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says that he does not see why children with special educational needs have been brought into the argument. The whole point is that Clause 2 states that the curriculum should be for all children. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said we should vote against the amendment if we want every child to have the best possible education. However, unless the national curriculum is more flexible I fear that these children—the children with special educational needs—will be the biggest losers.
There is no doubt that standards need to be raised for children with special educational needs. Under-expectation at some of the less good special schools has put the kiss of death on many a purely physically disabled but academically able child's job prospects. Indeed, it is one of the many arguments in favour of integration. I doubt very much whether the national curriculum, as outlined in the Bill, will raise standards for many children with such special educational needs. Indeed, the Bill acknowledges that fact. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, has pointed out, Clauses 10, 11 and 12 provide for the exclusion from, or modification of, the national curriculum for children with special needs.
Those organisations that should know are not happy about the situation either. They too would like a more flexible curriculum. I have with me a sheaf of comments from organisations concerned with handicapped children, maladjusted children and disadvantaged children. I shall not read them all to the Committee. I wish, however, to cite the National Deaf Children's Society which commented:
"The apparent inflexibility of the national curriculum is a particular cause of concern, with the accompanying emphasis on modification rather than an acknowledgement of the need for a developmental curriculum for special needs children".
The National Association of Advisory Officers for Special Education, which surely should know what it is talking about, says:
"The suggestion that statemented children could or should be excluded from a national curriculum which is for all pupils would be tragic. It would lead to a return to the idea that a special child be likely to under-achieve. The suggestion would undermine the whole intention of the 1981 Education Act to bring the work of special education closer to the mainstream curriculum".
The Centre for Studies on Integration in Education wrote to me last week stating that the effect of enabling these children to be denied mainstream curricula goes totally against the spirit of integration.
The likely outcome of that policy will be that children with physical or mental disabilities in special schools will simply be excluded from the national curriculum under Clause 11. In mainstream schools teachers will be so intent on concentrating on the national curriculum that pupils with special needs, who are excluded from it, may well become yet more marginalised than some are at present. Teachers will be more likely to feel involved and encouraged to draw the best out of pupils, including the academically able but physically disabled child, if they were required to have regard to the national curriculum rather than to have it imposed upon them.
Although I have the utmost respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I cannot agree that this is a
394
wrecking amendment. One must have regard to the curriculum and "to have regard" means reasonably to take into account. There are safeguards for complaints, which the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to, in Clause 16; but one also has the safeguards of the 1944 Act and Section 18 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.
On Second Reading when the Minister introduced the Bill she said:
"We want to ensure that schools and teachers are able to exercise to the full their professional responsibility within and supported by a framework of agreed national objectives. That means removing unnecessary shackles wherever we can while maintaining a framework with national currency, so that parents may be confident that, wherever they live, their children are being given a broad and balanced education and stretched to the maximum of their ability." [Official Report, 18/4/88; col. 1212.]
I do not recognise the national curriculum as spelt out in the Bill. However, I think it is a good description of what the amendment would enable us to achieve for all children. I hope all Members of the Committee will give it their support.
The Earl of Gowrie: Everything the noble Baroness has just said—we always listen to her on these matters with such attention—could be applied to the core subjects of the national curriculum. Yet, as I understand it, the purpose of the amendment to which she has lent her name is worry about the apparent lack of flexibility in respect of what are called "the foundation subjects". For just a minute, I wish to address the mind of the Committee to this rather worrying but pervasive feeling about the Bill: that it is rigid and in some way not flexible, and that such rigidity and lack of flexibility militates against children of special and exceptional ability—I think my noble friend Lord Beloff admirably dealt with that point—or the children who were the concern of my noble friend Lord Joseph. These children, while in no sense being educationally subnormal, were likely to find themselves at the lower levels of attainment.
My point is simply this. We should remind ourselves what these foundation subjects in fact are. They are within the grasp of children even of very low educational prospects and attainments. We are talking about history, geography, technology, a modern language, art, music and physical education. It has been said, not least by my noble friend Lord Eccles, that the real flexibility is at the coal face, so to speak. It is the sensitivity and professionalism of the teacher who is able to judge how his or her pupils are able to perform as they move towards the attainment levels required by the legislation. Surely one can teach history, geography, music, art and physical education in a non-academic way and so provide for the less academic child.
Speaking as one who is a long way from being a child, I can assure the Committee that if it were able to spy on my own early morning exercises it would find me of subnormal attainment in physical education. However, at least I try and from time to time I consult admirable teachers of physical education who tell me how I can improve my pathetic levels. To be serious, it is casting the less academic children of our country into a wilderness of undisciplined and inter-disciplinary subjects, a kind of lowest common denominating educational mishmash, to deny them involvement in the proposed

395
curriculum. The subjects proposed are obvious ones and there is no reason why they should not be thoroughly interesting and involving to children of all levels of ability.
If we accept my noble friend's amendments and restrict ourselves to the core, the national curriculum will effectively not come into being because, as has been said, every school deals with the core subjects now, whether adequately or inadequately. We have to deal with the three core subjects and get the right levels of testing for them. We also need the foundation subjects, without which the word "curriculum" has no meaning. It sounds simple, but it is something of a revolution in education reform. There is no way we can achieve this without defining the basic subjects by statute. I beg my noble friend to think again.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I take issue with two points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He said that it was only the bad, inadequate or inefficient local authorities and only the poor schools which resisted the idea of a national curriculum and of testing. I consider that to be a grave injustice. I have been in touch with many local authorities, with professional bodies from the highest to the humblest and with parents and teachers. In no case have I received any impression that it was the inadequate schools which were resisting the national curriculum. If anything, I would say that the situation is to the contrary and that they are the most concerned to give the best education to their children.
I should like to speak in particular on the subject of testing. My credentials on this subject are that I was for many years concerned with the teaching of children who had educational difficulties and whose attainment could not be expected to be high. I know that for them an overall standardised test was the worst experience they could have. They would be compared with their peers to their disadvantage, and that results in nothing more than further discouragement. It is most important that there should be testing but it is important that the testing should be diagnostic.
The object of such testing should be to discover why a child is not doing as well as expected. That is done by testing. I suggest that that is one very good way towards a solution of the problem which has been mentioned several times this afternoon—that of the lower 40 per cent. of our children who are failures. If one can discover at an early age why such children fail, one is half way to a cure. To say that they all have to take this test and all must achieve marks of over 50 per cent., or whatever it is, is no solution to the low achievers. It merely discourages them.
No one is suggesting that the foundation subjects should not be taught; but they need not necessarily be taught from the age of five to the age of 16 without exception. That is what seems so extraordinary to those of us who are worried about this curriculum. Of course all children should learn some history, some geography, some music, some art and so on. It is the fact that they must do so throughout their entire careers that is the mistake. It might be that at a
396
certain age it becomes much more important for a particular child to study dance rather than to study art, to study drama rather than music or to do any one of the 81 subjects (I have counted them) referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady David, instead of those subjects which are laid down. It is the overall blanket requirement that all children should study all subjects throughout their entire careers that is the mistake.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about motivation. One cannot motivate children to do their best by having tests and standards which they must all meet. The two strongest motivations for children—and I speak as an ex-teacher—are first, the rapport with the teacher and, secondly, success. Children will want to learn if they feel that the teacher understands them and their needs and if there is an understanding and a rapport between them. If children succeed they will want to go on and succeed again. Success breeds success. However, if one gives them failure or the danger of failure—again, I refer particularly to the less able children—one will get failure.
I urge the Committee to consider these matters deeply before voting on this amendment, which I strongly support.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Lord replies from the official Opposition Front Bench, may I make this point? The noble Baroness, Lady David, moved this series of amendments with no reservations; she is fully in favour of them and clearly hopes to carry them. Conversely, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has put the Committee in something of a difficulty. He told us that he really prefers another batch of amendments which we are not at the moment discussing but which, if we reach them, we shall listen to with great interest.
However, the point we must all bear in mind is that if this amendment were to be carried all the subsequent amendments which tend towards some kind of greater flexibility in the national curriculum would fall. We would not have the opportunity of discussing those further amendments. In my view, there are a number of amendments which have considerable merit. There is an amendment led by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, which proposes a menu of foundation subjects so that instead of having to take six or seven subjects there is an obligatory minimum of four subjects and the schools can have a mix thereafter. That is an interesting and helpful formula. As one who is interested in health education, I should like to see health education put into that margin.
Therefore, there are a number of alternatives before the Committee which we have not yet been able to discuss and in making up our minds on how to vote on this series of amendments we should be clear that if they are carried we shall not have that opportunity later.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I must deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. My understanding of the procedure, from what the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said, is that it is only Amendment No. 2 that falls. My understanding—and the understanding of my noble

397
friend Lady David—was that this amendment made the national curriculum advisory or a guideline rather than mandatory. It did not abolish the national curriculum or the foundation or core subjects.
I wish to raise the issue of why this is regarded as a wrecking amendment. Speaking as one who comes from Scotland where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, reminded us at Second Reading, we have in effect a national curriculum, I am puzzled as to why it is wrecking to make the curriculum a guideline. If it is wrecking to make it only a guideline why is the Secretary of State for Scotland proposing to have the curriculum only as a guideline? Why does a guideline work for Scotland but there must be something mandatory for England? It appears that a guideline works in Scotland because those who are guided co-operate far better than those who are ordered. I refer to the teachers. Such a proposal would have much more hope of success.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If the noble Lord will give way, he is, with the greatest respect, misleading the Committee somewhat about the position in Scotland. We do not call it the national curriculum. The common curriculum in Scotland covers areas of study just as the present proposals do. It is not an identical list. However, I went into this in some detail to make a comparison. What is intended here is precisely the same although it is expressed in different terms. The misleading part comes from the suggestion—as his noble friend Lord Glenamara suggested—that this was an imposed curriculum. It identifies areas of study in the way that the Scottish common curriculum does. It is not so very different.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The areas for secondary education, in respect of which the guidelines were endorsed by the Secretary of State last year, are language and communication; mathematical studies and application; scientific studies and application; creative and aesthetic activities; technological activities and application; social and environmental studies; religious and moral education; and physical education. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, may be interested in those.
I realise that I may have suggested to Members of the Committee on several occasions that Scotland is sometimes better than England. It seems to me that this proposal is a more modern approach to study. I have heard frequently from people in business and industry that what is wrong is that the people leaving education do not know how to apply the maths or the English. This is where education has fallen down. At school we have continually studied such questions as this. If two taps run water in and one plug lets it out, what is the result? When will it fill? I can remember at school being totally baffled as to why there was any purpose in that.
It is the application that is very necessary. This is where the Scottish guidelines—and I repeat that they are guidelines—are perhaps better than a mandatory "down" on subjects that I suggest are perhaps by name rather out of date.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I was
398
quite sure that he was not the man whom I knew as a very successful Secretary of State for Education, and who helped to carry the 1944 Act to its great success between 1945 and 1970. Since then there has been a disaster which as we all know has been largely due to two matters: the introduction of party politics for the first time; and the reduction of financial support from central government from 60 per cent. to 46 per cent., as it is this year.
However, there was one thing that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said that fascinated me. He could not think of anybody who was opposed to a rigid national curriculum except the people in a limited number of authorities who acted unreasonably. I thought that he cannot be so young that he does not remember Rab Butler and Chuter Ede—
Viscount Eccles: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I said that the main objectors were those who were weakest. I never said that they were the only objectors.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I can tell the noble Lord that the main objectors were Rab Butler and Chuter Ede. They had a very good reason for objecting. They were helping us to recover from a war which to a very large extent was the result of a rigid national curriculum.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: The national curriculum of Germany in 1935 required every child in every school in Germany to say every morning, "To live we must eat. To eat we must fight. Heil Hitler!" In four years Nazism was firmly established.
This Bill does not only lay down the national curriculum. It gives the power not only to the present Secretary of State to change the curriculum by order, but to all future Secretaries of State. I refer to the words that introduced the 1944 Act: on the future of the education service the future of the nation depends. If this Bill goes through without very major amendment I feel for the future of the nation.
Baroness Blatch: There are two issues at stake this afternoon. We have those Members of the Committee who want no prescription, and who say that if there is to be any prescription it should be confined to the three core subjects: English, maths and science. The other issue—and this is the genuine concern of the category of Members of the Committee to which I belong—is about flexibility. At Second Reading I joined with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, on this issue. There are those of us who are concerned about a degree of flexibility in the application of these proposals especially at the top end of the secondary schools and in particular for the less academic child.
Since that time I have spent a considerable amount of time—I am a pragmatic person—looking at how this will work in practice. I find that the way in which the school organises itself is very much a matter for the school, the head teachers and the staff. The way in which an individual child's programme is designed is also very much a matter for the school, the head teachers and the staff.

399
I have looked with some interest through the list given by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I find, for example, that the study of science does not preclude the study of botany, chemical technology, environmental science, food and nutrition; the list could go on. The study of history does not preclude the study of British government and constitution, American studies, and European studies;—I could go on. The study of art does not preclude graphical communication, dance, drama, theatre, fashion design and so on. The study of technology will not preclude engineering, office and secretarial studies, jewellery, electronics and so on. Therefore the degree of flexibility, even within the core subjects, is considerable. It is possible to consider every single subject named by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and within the core curriculum it could be studied by a school. It could be designed innovatively by staff for both the most able and less able.
Concern has been expressed about special needs children. Clauses 11 and 12 deal with exemption for children with special needs. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said earlier. She expressed concern as to why special needs children should be precluded from something that was meant for all children. I see the exemptions associated with those cases rather differently. There is provision for exemption or partial exemption, if that is appropriate, for the particular child. There is no reason why a child who may be subject to a statement for one reason or another should not be capable of following the curriculum and should not do so. The provision does not mean that they cannot follow the curriculum; it means that if it is appropriate that the child should be exempt the powers of exemption exist.
Clause 4 contains powers to modify the curriculum for those children for whom it is not appropriate for one reason or another.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Joseph: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I apologise for interrupting her, especially as we are to some extent in sympathy. Is she not unconsciously misleading the Committee? While it is true that in theory many of the subjects listed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, could be taught, the Secretary of State is taking power to lay down programmes of study for each of the foundation subjects. It is extremely doubtful whether he will, by a by-wind, allow in all the subjects mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady David, under the heading of "history" or something else.
Baroness Blatch: I take the point about prescription. I had intended to mention it. There is no doubt that there will be a high degree of prescription for the three core subjects. There will of course be a degree of prescription for technology, history, geography and so forth. There will be much less prescription for music, art, PE and religious education. Each time the degree of prescription is lowered more flexibility is allowed. That, taken with the time in school that is not taken up by the core curriculum, I am convinced, at least at this stage, will ensure that there will be enough time in the week to
400
study basically a balanced core of subjects consistent with the core curriculum and tested to see that the children are achieving. That is an important part of the proposal.
I wish to finish by expressing my concern, as did the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for the 40 per cent. of non-academic children. We shall best serve the children with the core curriculum and the foundation subjects. We know that they have a right to study those subjects. We know that they are aiming to achieve real objectives which will equip them for the world outside.
I wish to mention the two subjects that concern me. One is home economics (home making or life after school) which has to do with growing up as a responsible citizen and managing a family. I believe that that subject can be taken on board even within the core curriculum. It will be discussed in more detail later. The second subject is religious education. I shall of course support my noble friend Lady Cox in her requirement that Christianity should predominate as part of the core subject of religious education.
I am reminded of an organisation which I believe still exists—Education for Capability. The present proposals go a long way towards equipping our children for life after school. They have my support. I am satisfied at this stage that the degree of flexibility for which I showed a concern on Second Reading exists.
The Earl of Swinton: I hope that I can convince the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, by what I am about to say—I hope my noble friend Lady Blatch did—because I saw a miserable look on the face of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and when I see her looking unhappy like that my heart bleeds. I share the concern that children with special needs should not suffer under the Bill but not from the same point of view as that put forward by the noble Baroness: that children with special needs would be unable to benefit from the national curriculum. I start from the other end of the scale. Children with severe handicaps—we must remember that under our present education system no child is regarded as ineducable—should not be made to struggle through the national curriculum without being able to comprehend it.
I was therefore delighted when I read Clause 11. If I read it slowly, it may convince the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy. It provides:
"A statement under section 7 of the 1981 Act of a pupil's special educational needs may direct as respects the pupil that the provisions of the National Curriculum—

(a) shall not apply; or

(b) shall apply with such modifications as may be specified in the statement".

One could interpret that clause as meaning that if there were no modifications specified in the statement the child could go through the entire national curriculum. On the other hand, if there are some bits of the national curriculum that it is thought the child could not do, they can be left out. That provision is admirable and in no way needs amending.
Baroness Blackstone: I support the amendment, but in doing so I want to assure the Committee that I do not oppose the idea of a national curriculum. There is a strong case for trying to develop a common

401
curriculum and for ensuring that all children have access to it.
I should like to pick out something said by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. What worries many of us is the degree not only to which the proposals are prescribed but the degree to which the powers are concentrated on one person—the Secretary of State. With all the discussions that have taken place about the amendments we are in danger of forgetting just how extensive are the powers that he is taking. Without going through them all, I should like to remind the Committee of a few of the powers.
The Secretary of State can define cases in which aspects of the curriculum must be modified in various ways. He will have the power to change the core and foundation subjects, the arrangements of schools in Wales and the starting ages for particular subjects. He will have the power to specify the modern language to be taught in schools and to appoint all the members, chairmen and deputy chairmen of the National Curriculum Council and of the Schools Examination and Assessment Council. Those councils will have to comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State. They may carry out research only if requested by the Secretary of State. He will have the power to vet and veto any external qualification offered in maintained schools. He will have the power to extend that control to 16 to 19 year-olds and so on. I could go on much further. Should we be writing all those provisions into our law so that this Secretary of State, however much we may like and trust him, and any of his successors can exert that degree of detailed control over what goes on in our schools?
It is with some hesitation that I describe this measure as Stalinist. That is a harsh judgment, and I want to be fair. Giving so much power to the Secretary of State and the small group of bureaucrats who serve and advise him may well be dangerous. As many noble Lords have said, the measure smacks of a bureaucratic approach. It is controlling the timetable rather than improving the quality of teaching and the learning experience on which dedicated professionals would wish to focus.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, everything hangs on our teachers. It would be wrong to turn them into routine workers—ciphers to transmit a curriculum that had been developed wholly by other people—rather than to create genuine partners in our teaching professions. I do not believe that these proposals will motivate our good, professional teachers; I do not believe that they will increase their sense of responsibility—and we need both those features.
A number of Members of the Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, referred to what happens in other countries. I was interested in what he said about the French system. It is important for us to look at what happens in other countries. We should not be parochial and imagine that we always do things better than others. The interesting paradox is that the French have been moving fast away from a centralised system. They have come to us to find out how we operate in a more decentralised way—empowering our good professionals to play a part in deciding what children should be taught. They have done that because they believe that allowing
402
more flexibility and responsiveness will improve standards in French schools. No other country has both a centralised national curriculum and a centralised system of national assessment. The Germans and the Japanese have elements of one or the other; they do not have both. What both those countries have done, and what I believe we should do, is to focus much more on improving the pay, the status and qualifications of our teachers. This is what has helped to raise standards in those countries. It is simply a matter of common sense, not of a rigid and complicated central structure.
A number of speakers on the Benches opposite have suggested that this is a wrecking amendment. I should like to repeat what has already been said. I do not believe that it is a wrecking amendment. It will actually leave the apparatus for the national curriculum intact. It will influence what happens in all our schools and that is highly desirable. The Committee would be failing in its duty if it did not ask the Government to think again. I do not believe that the Government had a mandate for such a centralised and inflexible straitjacket of a national curriculum as the one proposed here.
It is also the case, as a number of speakers have already commented, that parts of this Bill and other legislation will allow central government to intervene when a particular local authority, or a particular school, is not performing in the way it should. I believe that we should leave it to the operation of that legislation to ensure that the standards of the curriculum are met.
Finally, I should like to say something about the issue of special needs which has been raised on a number of occasions. What is proposed will be so detailed and so prescriptive that many young people with special needs at the lower end of the ability range will be excluded. Indeed, I remind the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, that the Government have already added clauses to the Bill so that they can be excluded.
Of course, these children can learn history, geography and many other subjects. But they will not be able to benefit from the programmes of study laid down to meet the needs of the average child, the slightly above average child and the slightly below average child. I hope that we can all support these amendments.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I had not intended to detain the Committee. There is only one point I wish to make. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, have driven me to my feet. There is one argument so disreputable that I hope both sides will reject it. The noble Baroness talked about Stalinism; the noble Lord talked about Hitler's Germany. Let us get absolutely plain, beyond any fragment of doubt: whether we insert this amendment into the Bill or not, it makes not the slightest difference to what would have happened and what would happen in the future if the electorate of this country were to elect either a Hitler government or a Stalin government. That is absolute hysterical nonsense.
We live in a democracy in which Ministers are subject to Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny. We shall not be saved on the basis of whether or not we insert subordinate legislation and ministerial

403
powers. We shall be saved by remaining as we are, with Ministers responsible to Parliament and Parliament elected by the majority of the electorate.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: Perhaps I may remind the noble and learned Lord, the former Lord Chancellor, that Mr. Ken Livingstone came fourth in the election for the national executive of the Labour Party. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher was at about the same level in the Conservative Party when she was appointed Secretary of State for Education. I should not put too much money on the future when two out of five electors voted for the present Government. That is not a majority. It is a minority government.
Lord Glenamara: Although the noble and learned Lord has already sat down, perhaps I may ask him: what about the elected dictatorship?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps the noble Lord will repeat his remarks since I could not hear him.
Lord Glenamara: I asked the noble and learned Lord: what about the elected dictatorship?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: That is exactly what I was saying. Parliament in this country is legally omnipotent; Ministers are not.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may briefly reply to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. He appeared most unhappy that I should be looking miserable. He said that I had nothing to fear from Clause 11. I am afraid, my notes having been removed from me, I was pretty slow coming back to him. I think that Clause 11 needs a fair amount of amendment, even if the amendments before us fail. I am worried not only about the child with special needs who can never achieve much but also about the academically able yet disabled child who needs stretching.
If parents feel that their child could cope but the school proposes to modify the curriculum in the statement, that is, I believe, at the moment equivalent to amendment of a statement under the 1981 Act. As the noble Earl will remember, under that Act parents cannot appeal against the ruling. They have to go through the whole process of applying for reassessment and then appealing against that. I have an amendment later to achieve that for the parents, if necessary.
The Earl of Swinton: I shall leave my reply to that until we come to Clause 11.
Lord Annan: We are taking part in a debate which has been going on since 1880 when Thomas Henry Huxley drew attention to the fact that science was not taught in our schools and hardly taught at Oxford and Cambridge. Huxley called for a more balanced curriculum. Being the sensible man he was, although an agnostic, he said that it should be made compulsory for students to read the Bible in state schools. The debate took place because for years we had a prejudice against vocational teaching. Many people have attributed the decline of British industry
404
to the fact that we have the wrong curriculum in our schools. I do not believe that that is the only reason for the decline but it could be a factor. Here at last we have a chance to redress the matter.
Even when Mr. Butler as he then was passed his famous Act he had to spend his time in brilliant negotiation between the Church of England and the non-conformist communions. In the Act the structure of secondary education was left to the civil servants in the Ministry. The civil servant responsible for secondary education was extremely powerful and persuasive. The civil servant responsible for primary education was also very eloquent, but the civil servant responsible for technical education was neither powerful, persuasive nor eloquent. As a result, technical education lost out and the technical schools virtually disappeared from the structure of education in this country. I think that this distorted the curriculum, not so much for the high flyers but for the mass of the population who would benefit much more from technical education than from the subjects they are sometimes asked to learn in the secondary modern schools.
Here is a chance to redress the balance and to get a national curriculum which ensures that our children learn the basic subjects which nearly everyone would agree they ought to learn. It redresses one great imbalance. There are children today still dropping mathematics at the age of 14. That is due to a multitude of causes; the universities and the whole A-level structure are mainly responsible. However, in this curriculum at any rate, they will be asked to go on until the age of 16.
This curriculum will therefore leave children of school-leaving age literate and we hope numerate in these foundation subjects. I share the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about the position of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, on this matter. I may well be persuaded by what he has to say about preferring a core curriculum to a national curriculum but I find it difficult to understand why he has put his name down to this amendment. But no doubt that is because he is a distinguished fellow of All Souls and naturally as a Cambridge man I am way below the subtlety of a mind such as that.
As I say, I have much sympathy with the noble Lord's view about core curriculums. Therefore I do not feel that I could possibly support this amendment as at present moved. I cannot share the fear that the Secretary of State will now become a dictator in our education system, dictating what book will be read at what hour in a particular classroom all over the Kingdom. That is really a fantasy.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, that he is entirely right. The rot set in when education in schools and within local authorities became highly politicised. That is the reason why we are in these dilemmas today. The main part of our schools, however, have no need for a national curriculum. It is there already and they are carrying it out but there are some schools where it is very badly needed. It is needed because the education of teachers has been so distorted by educational theory and sometimes by politics that one cannot guarantee that in some schools these basis subjects will be taught in the way that they should be taught. That is why I shall vote against the amendment.
Lord Somers: We have spent nearly one and three-quarter hours on this amendment so I hesitate to speak. But I should like to suggest that we have rather wandered away from the amendment itself. I cannot see what difference this amendment will make to the Bill because that part of the Bill as it stands states that the carrying out of functions as regards the national curriculum shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, the local education authority and every governing body or head teacher.
The amendment will mean that those same three groups shall exercise the same functions. What is the difference?
Baroness Hooper: This particular debate may not have been going on quite since 1880 but it has been going on for a very long time. Nevertheless it has been long and stimulating, and quite rightly so, because the national curriculum stands at the heart of the Government's proposals and has indeed been widely welcomed, not least in this Chamber during Second Reading, as the means by which standards can be improved overall, low expectations raised, good teachers confirmed in their practices and parents more easily involved in what their children are doing in school every day.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, says, many of the points which we have debated in this opening debate will come up in later amendments. But to say that I was surprised by the terminal nature of these amendments is an understatement, most of all perhaps as some of them came from my noble friend Lord Joseph, who was the instigator of the White Paper Better Schools.
But the fact that the Opposition opened the Committee stage on this negative note was also a surprise. Perhaps the good sense of the Opposition in another place who chose not to vote against any one of the main elements, not one clause of Chapter 1 of the Bill, has not yet quite permeated through. As has been said, the amendments remove all obligation on LEAs, schools and teachers to put into effect the broad, balanced and relevant curriculum for all pupils which we believe is so badly needed. Successive governments of both parties have sought for many years to encourage schools and LEAs to offer such a curriculum to all pupils on a basis which recognises their different needs but also their common entitlements. We now need this Bill because what was achieved by exhortation did not go far enough. Still less did it go fast enough to keep pace with the needs of tomorrow's adults.
We have been at pains to make our proposals as flexible as possible. It is clear from the debate that there is still confusion and misapprehension about the Government's proposals, which is hardly surprising as a number of opponents of the Bill and people with their own special interests have sought deliberately to cause alarm and despondency in this way. But I should like to confirm that my right honourable friend did not dream up the national curriculum in the bath, as my noble friend Lord Eccles also said. These proposals have been considered, consulted upon and fully agreed by the whole Government as an important plank of government policy.
406
Perhaps I can start at the beginning with the White Paper Better Schools. It is a document which goes as far as, and in some cases further than, this Bill in setting out the curriculum for all pupils. For example, Better Schools said of pupils in years four and five of secondary school:
"The Government believes that every pupil needs to continue in these years with English, mathematics, science and, save in exceptional circumstances, with physical education or games; should study elements drawn from both the humanities and the arts; and should take part in practical and technological work in a number of subjects, for example in CDT … Most pupils should also continue with a foreign language".
Subjects chosen to meet this prescription should, the White Paper said, take up some 80 to 85 per cent. of pupils' time. We are not going nearly as far as that. My noble friend Lady Young asked for some assurances on this point. I can confirm that we suggest that 70 per cent. of the time for years four and five will be adequate to take in the national curriculum. We are firmly convinced of the need for this kind of flexibility.
We shall be discussing different types and degrees of flexibility more fully on later amendments. But what these amendments give to schools and local education authorities is not flexibility; it is laxity—laxity for the curriculum for individual pupils to be lopsided and unbalanced, narrow, filled with the clutter of spurious choice, geared to low expectations of pupils' abilities, and detached from the needs of the real world. Is this the kind of flexibility and choice which those who have argued in favour of the amendments wish to see? Where is the accountability when there are no clear objectives? Where is the stimulus to excellence which surely we all want to see in our schools?
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, among others, said that in effect many schools already deliver the national curriculum and so we do not need to have it imposed. But we all know that in some schools freedom and choice mean licence and irresponsibility. We know that in many schools far too many boys abandon the study of languages at an early stage and that girls drop science in large numbers and never even start technology. We know from HMI that too much teaching is directed at the middle of the ability range and does not meet anyone's needs very well—the tyranny of mediocrity. We know that the standards achieved by our pupils are poor in international terms, particularly those of middling and lower ability, and the range of subjects studied is much narrower than those expected of and attained by all pupils on the Continent and elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, says that we want the best for our children. Hear, hear! but which children? What we recognise is that most of all we need to do better by our lower attainers, by the bottom half of the ability range whose needs are not now being met in the way that they are in other European countries.
The former vision of my noble friend Lord Joseph, to which he himself referred and which was set out in Better Schools, offered them the hope of a full curriculum designed to stimulate their abilities and aspirations and to accord them the respect of presuming that they could pursue the same worthwhile studies as abler children and indeed as

407
their European counterparts. My noble friend Lord Joseph knows all those facts well. It was those facts which proved to him the need for Better Schools. That they remain facts, with no evidence of rapid progress since 1985 in response to the noble Lord's universally acclaimed policy, is what has convinced this Government of the need for legislation.
A good curriculum for all pupils is too important to be put as the end product of our education reforms. It is at the heart of them. Demonstrably, it is taking too much time for the crucial messages of, for example, the science policy statement, also issued by the Department of Education and Science during the period in office of my noble friend Lord Joseph, to make a real impact in schools. Such central exhortation, even when expressed in detail and widely promulgated, is simply not enough. It has not in the past ensured delivery of a good curriculum to all pupils throughout the maintained sector of education. I have not heard today any argument which convinces me that that will change.
If it does not change, those pupils for whom noble Lords express the greatest concern—the less able pupils—will continue to receive the worst deal from our education service. They present the greatest challenge to their teachers. It is easier sometimes not to find ways of presenting them with real but also realistic targets and assessing and recognising their achievements. But we must not leave teachers and schools that option.
That does not apply to all teachers or all schools by any means. However, it applies to enough to cause us real concern. It is no coincidence that such pupils do so much better in countries which have a national curriculum. When it is demanded by law, and therefore expected by all concerned, pupils of all abilities can and do study a full range of subjects at a worthwhile level at least to age 16.
I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady David, and others who have put their names to the amendments, have tabled them in order to find out more about the Government's intentions on how the national curriculum will work in practice. I shall say more on that subject when we discuss a subsequent group of amendments. However, I believe that it is in order for me to deal with the issue of flexibility of the national curriculum as it is expected to operate in practice.
Some of the main areas of discussion centre on the fact that the national curriculum is not a pupil's whole curriculum. There will be up to 30 per cent. of the average school week available for other subjects in years four and five and more time in schools which work longer hours. The idea of a longer school week is an interesting one, upon which we must reflect.
The national curriculum will not prescribe in great detail what schools and teachers do, as some speakers today have suggested. It will set out a framework and key objectives. However, it will not prevent considerable variation in what is offered, classroom by classroom, and school by school. Is that a straitjacket?
The national curriculum is not a series of 10 watertight compartments. Each foundation subject will contribute towards a number of cross-curricular themes, which will be capable of inclusion with other subjects in a variety of examination courses or of
408
fitting into the sort of modular programme which TVEI schemes, for example, have adopted. That is hardly an inflexible approach.
On implementation, the national curriculum will not descend fully fledged upon the education service in September 1989. We are starting, quite rightly, with the core subjects and technology, and phasing those in, starting with the primary phase, over a number of years. Some subjects—art, music and physical education—will have guidelines only and there will be no compulsory studies or assessment arrangements, which may relieve my noble friend Lord Gowrie but which would otherwise dictate that pupils would spend longer on those subjects than fits with their chosen curriculum.
Programmes of study and attainment targets will allow for considerable differentiation by ability in each subject and I draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in particular to the report of the Task Group on Testing and Assessment. They will cater explicitly for the below-average pupil and will have the objectives defined positively and not by reduction from an unrealistic goal. They will also allow the brighter pupils to progress as quickly as they are able.
For groups of pupils of particular types and in particular circumstances, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to define exceptions in any general orders or indeed exceptions from studying a particular foundation subject where necessary. That has been touched on previously. Therefore, the needs of pupils with particular problems of mobility or language development can be fully met. So can the needs of pupils who progress so rapidily that they have met the highest national curriculum targets before age 16 and need to move on to different challenges.
For individual pupils with severe problems, the Bill allows permanent modifications to the national curriculum through the statement of special needs or allows for temporary modifications by the head teacher. There are checks and balances built into the Bill to provide safeguards against any over-centralisation by any future Secretary of State.
Therefore, if the tabling of the amendments was not designed to ascertain those facts and if the proposers of the amendments truly wish to eviscerate provisions which have been so thoroughly discussed in another place without major dissent on basic principles, then I must invoke in aid my noble friends Lord Eccles and Lady Young, who in plain words said to the House that the amendments are wrecking amendments. I must ask your Lordships to join me in rejecting them.
Lord Joseph: I shall keep your Lordships only very briefly. I repeat that I support the aim of the Bill and nearly every part of it. I am amazed that the important subject of the national curriculum was not discussed in another place. To my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I say that the national curriculum will not meet the needs of the non-academic. There is not enough flexibility for that unless the school week and year are substantially and significantly extended. I believe that dilute academic subjects do not work except to bore some of the non-academic. The French offer their non-academic pupils a totally different curriculum, from which they appear to benefit.

409
I accept the Government's emphasis on core subjects. They are the gateway to every other subject. I accept that testing is the crux of the matter. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that this part of the Bill is the very obverse of the freedom, the spontaneity and the decentralisation which the Government have made their watchword in all their other policies within the framework of the law. I accept that if the amendments are passed some schools will be lax and will not adopt the core and foundation subjects as we should like. Better that than the near-token inflexibility imposed on the curriculum—uniquely, I believe, in a free society—in this part of the Bill.
Since I have not been given any hope by the Minister as regards the group of amendments numbered 16 onwards, which we shall discuss in due course, I regret that I shall have to vote for the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may ask the Minister—
Baroness David: I think that the time has come to answer the debate and I shall therefore remain standing. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for making many of the points which I might have made and which I shall not now have to make.
Perhaps I may clear up one point regarding what my honourable friend Jack Straw said in another place about the national curriculum. At col. 781 of the Official Report of 1st December 1987 he attacked the plans to impose a centralised state syllabus. At col. 788 he said:
"What we seek is flexibility, a framework; what the Government have been prescribing … is some kind of straitjacket".
It seems that the chief argument against the amendment is that it is a wrecking amendment. I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech earlier this afternoon; it is not intended as a wrecking amendment. It keeps intact the whole apparatus for establishing the national curriculum. There are many safeguards. There are the safeguards which I mentioned in the 1986 Act, the safeguards for dealing with complaints in Clause 16 of the Bill and the safeguards for complaints which can be made under the 1944 Act. We have also Her Majesty's inspectors, who can keep an eye on what is going on. The framework remains.
The powers of the Secretary of State—whatever has been said from the other side—are very great. Some of them were listed by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. As it stands the Bill is very bureaucratic, and I was very interested to hear the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, who has had extremely recent experience of working in a local authority.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that it is correct that only Amendment No. 2 falls if this amendment is passed. There can still be discussion on all the other amendments which have been tabled.
There has been much talk of flexibility and inflexibility. I have been rather puzzled by some of the speeches in which Members of the Committee seemed to say that there is flexibility in the Bill as it stands and that that is desirable. If that is so, I cannot think why they cannot support the amendment. I
410
hope that many will support me as I shall press the amendment.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 144; Not-Contents, 218.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Airedale, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Alport, L.

Jay, L.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bancroft, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Banks, L.

Joseph, L.

Basnett, L.

Kagan, L.

Birk, B.

Kearton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blease, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bottomley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bramall, L.

Listowel, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McCarthy, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mais, L.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chitnis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Meston, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Milford, L.

Dainton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Monkswell, L.

David, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Davies, L.

Mulley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Denington, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Esher, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell, E.

Fitt, L.

Scanlon, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shackleton, L.

Goodman, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Soper, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Swann, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunt, L.

Warnock, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hylton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

411

Whaddon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

White, B.

Wigoder, L.

Winstanley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Abinger, L.

Gowrie, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Greenway, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gridley, L.

Aldington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hankey, L.

Allerton, L.

Hanson, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Annan, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Arran, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Attlee, E.

Harvington, L.

Auckland, L.

Hastings, L.

Aylestone, L.

Havers, L.

Bauer, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hives, L.

Beloff, L.

Holderness, L.

Belstead, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Blatch, B.

Hood, V.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ilchester, E.

Braye, B.

Ironside, L.

Brookes, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Killearn, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Caccia, L.

Kimball, L.

Caithness, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Canterbury, Abp.

Layton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Lloyd George of Dwyfor, E.

Cathcart, E.

London, Bp.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Long, V.

Chelwood, L.

Lothian, M.

Chichester, Bp.

Luke, L.

Chorley, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McFadzean, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cowley, E.

Mancroft, L.

Cox, B.

Manton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Margadale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Marley, L.

Craigton, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Crathorne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Croft, L.

Mersey, V.

Croham, L.

Middleton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Milne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Montague of Beaulieu, L.

Derwent, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dundee, E.

Moran, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Moyne, L.

Elibank, L.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Nathan, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Nelson, E.

Elton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Erroll, E.

Norrie, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Northesk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Flowers, L.

Pender, L.

Forester, L.

Pennock, L.

Fortescue, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gibson, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

412

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Stockton, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Porritt, L.

Strange, B.

Pym, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Quinton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Radnor, E.

Sudeley, L.

Raglan, L.

Suffield, L.

Reay, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rees, L.

Swinton, E.

Reigate, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Reilly, L.

Terrington, L.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renwick, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Rochdale, V.

Trafford, L.

Romney, E.

Tranmire, L.

Roskill, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rugby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Truro, Bp.

Saint Brides, L.

Ullswater, V.

St. Davids, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Vernon, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Walston, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ward of Witley, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Watkinson, V.

Sandford, L.

Westbury, L.

Sandys, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Seebohm, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Shannon, E.

Windlesham, L.

Sharples, B.

Wise, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Somers, L.

Young, B.

Somerset, D.

Young of Graffham, L.

Stedman, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, leave out from ("them") to ("with") in line 18 and insert ("by this Chapter with respect to religious education and the National Curriculum)").
The right reverend Prelate said: With the agreement of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 93, and to Amendment No. 285, which refers to Schedule 11.
I hope that I have the general support of the Committee for the amendments, which have the good will of the Government. They are the result of very profitable and constructive discussions which we have had with the Secretary of State. The amendments also arise from agreement between the Churches. They originated in the Churches' Joint Education Policy Committee, of which I am chairman. The committee was of one mind and put its views to the Secretary of State. I also hope that I may have support for the amendments from those who would be disposed to support the later amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Her amendments take for granted, as it were, a good deal of what I propose now.
We welcome Clause 1 of the Bill with its specific reference to the spiritual and moral element in education. However, reading further, we were disappointed because it was very difficult to find any subsequent reference to religious education or indeed to worship in the Bill as originally drafted. The provision for the implementation of that phrase in Clause 2 was very inadequte indeed. The legal provision for the implementation of that phrase depended entirely on unrepealed parts of the 1944

413
Act. In our judgment it was essential to reaffirm positively the provisions of the 1944 Act with regard to religious education, both because of its intrinsic importance and because if left where it was, religious education would have become virtually neglected in the provision of resources with regard to the supply and training of teachers and for doing the work.
The amendment which I am proposing seeks to remedy that situation. Amendment No. 2 has the effect of including religious education in the basic curriculum by referring to both religious education and the national curriculum. I must confess that we hoped that religious education might have been included among the foundation subjects but we were content to have it in this place as part of the basic curriculum.
Amendment No. 11 also places religious education firmly in the basic curriculum; that is simply to ensure that it is part of the curriculum for every maintained school. I do not think I need to refer further to that.
Amendment No. 93 provides for the retention of the procedures which were produced under the 1944 Act. But they are not merely reaffirmed. As I shall indicate, they are much strengthened. No one would deny that what the agreed syllabuses have produced has not been without blemish and needs a good deal of attention. Nevertheless, I still stand by the agreed syllabus procedure as a good and sound way of determining the content of religious education for the agreed syllabus in county and voluntary controlled schools. If I may say so, I much regretted the suggestion in a letter in the newspaper this morning that what Christian element there was in the agreed syllabuses had been included somehow by a nod and a wink. That is very unfair to the many people who have worked hard and long to try and ensure that the content of the agreed syllabuses is as good as possible. However, I agree that the agreed syllabuses are not always satisfactory.
I have some difficulty in not straying into what I want to say concerning the later amendment, Amendment No. 28, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I shall try to stick to my brief, though I give notice that I shall want to say something about the agreed syllabuses and their content and the ways in which they can be improved, as I have a good deal of sympathy with her position.
For the moment let me confine myself to the way in which this amendment not only reaffirms but strengthens the agreed syllabus procedure. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the agreed syllabus procedure required an authority to set up a conference composed of four committees, each of which had to consult about the nature of the agreed syllabus. The conference then had to meet and to agree on a syllabus which was then put to the local education authority. One of the committees represented the Church of England and one represented other denominations.
The weakness of that provision was that when the agreed syllabus was produced the authority was under no obligation to use it and in some cases the authority did not use it. That was not exactly encouraging to those who had laboured long and hard to produce it. Further, if that agreed syllabus was found subsequently to be deficient, inadequate or unsatisfactory in some way, it was open to the local
414
education authority to have it re-examined, reviewed and also to convene the conference. However, it was under no obligation to do so even if representations had been made to the conference.
The effect of my Amendment No. 93 is, first, to make it mandatory to require the local authority to use an agreed syllabus which has been produced by the standing conference. Secondly, there is a requirement that it shall be reviewed. I believe that those two provisions are a great improvement upon the provisions for agreed syllabuses. Further, because Amendment No. 93 comes after Clause 6, it will bring religious education under the provisions for the complaints procedure. I believe that to be to the good.
I believe that this measure provides an adequate framework in which we can now move ahead not only to preserve what has been achieved in the past but actually to improve upon it quite considerably. However, that depends upon certain matters. I do not take such a melancholy view of the weaknesses of the agreed syllabuses as has been suggested recently. There are some that I regard as most unsatisfactory but they are in a very small minority. I believe that the great majority of them are good.
The reasons for there being some unsatisfactory syllabuses and the reasons for some not being better, are not wholly to be found in one party or another. Sometimes, as I have indicated, it is the fault of the local education authority. I must confess that sometimes it has been the fault of the Churches. I make no apology for saying that. Not all the Churches and not all the dioceses in the Church of England have taken as active and as vigorous a part as they should have done over the years—I particularly have in mind the 1960s—in taking advantage of the very great opportunity which was given to us by the agreed syllabus machinery. Neither do I believe that we have done enough in encouraging good Christian young men and women, and older people as well, to train as teachers in RE. I believe that whatever the mechanism that is set up and whatever provisions are made in legislation about religious education, ultimately it depends upon the commitment of those who are teaching it.
If my amendments are carried I accept that a very considerable obligation and a greater burden will be laid upon the Churches. I can assure the Committee that that is something that we shall accept. Some bishops have already started to anticipate the changes in a proper kind of way. They have written to their dioceses encouraging them to seek out and encourage suitable people to teach. They are taking steps to ensure that a more active and vigorous part is played in the production of the agreed syllabuses.
I feel very strongly that we in the Churches cannot expect the state to do our work for us. I believe that the duty of the Government is to provide the framework in which we are able to respond. I believe that the amendments which I now propose provide a workable and constructive way of dealing with religious education. As I have said, first, it is necessary to put it firmly within the basic curriculum. It comes before the national curriculum is mentioned. That is reaffirmed in my Amendment No. 11. The agreed syllabus machinery is reaffirmed in

415
Amendment No. 93 and I believe it is greatly strengthened in a way which can only be constructive and helpful. The last Amendment No. 285 deals with the relationship to the Education Act 1944.
As I said at the beginning, the amendments which I am proposing have the goodwill of the Government. They are agreed with the Churches and with education bodies. We have taken great pains to consult very widely over these provisions. I hope that whatever some may feel about the content of the agreed syllabuses—and they may wish to press those matters further, and I shall respond—I believe that no-one, whatever his feeling, provided he is committed to seeing religious education in our schools, need have any hesitation in supporting these amendments.
Perhaps I may make one final point. While dealing with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I wish to say how much I welcome her inclusion of worship and the ways in which she suggests that can best be brought within the scope. However, at the moment the Committee is not concerned with that, it is concerned with religious education and the agreed syllabuses. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: We do not oppose these amendments but we should like some clarification as regards Amendment No. 93 which proposes the setting up of a standing advisory council on religious education. That is wholly acceptable. However it changes Section 29(3) of the Education Act 1944 which allowed the local education authority to decide on the method of appointment of the standing advisory council for its area. Is it necessarily a good thing to have a rigid method of appointment and set-up for all the different local education authorities? We on this side of the Committee rather doubt that it is. As the right reverend Prelate is well aware, there are areas where there are different situations and different kinds of society. Would such a provision fit an area such as Bradford, for example, which has a large non-Christian population which has its own religious beliefs? On that point subsection 4(a) of Amendment No. 93 refers to "religious denominations". As a Presbyterian I am quite prepared to be described as a "denomination", but whether a Buddhist, a Mohammedan or even a Jew would like to be regarded as a "religious denomination" I do not know. I suggest that "such religions and denominations" would be a happier frame of words.
Baroness Cox: I very warmly welcome the amendment tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, especially those that refer to the inclusion of religious education as first among equals in the basic curriculum. That should at least help to remedy what is at the moment a very unsatisfactory situation whereby many schools breach the requirements of the Education Act 1944. For example, the religious education statistics' bulletin showed that 62 per cent. of fourth year children and 58 per cent. of fifth year children at the moment are not taught any religious education at all.
416
Therefore this enshrining of religious education is a significant and a very valuable measure. But I believe it is not enough to ensure that religious education is taught without any reference to the content and particularly to the safeguarding of the teaching of Christianity as the major spiritual tradition of this land. Hence there is an amendment, Amendment No. 28, in my name and that of other noble Lords, which we shall be discussing later. I have no wish to pre-empt the discussion or the debate on that amendment.
Therefore I briefly mention one or two minor reservations I have concerning the amendments before us in the name of the right reverend Prelate. I am particularly concerned that these provisions lay great store on the local arrangements for implementing agreed syllabuses for religious education and the role of Churches on those committees. But the Churches have already been closely involved, or have had the opportunity to be closely involved, in these committees which have drawn up the syllabuses ever since the 1944 Act. Many of them have been party to the developments which have caused considerable concerns; for example those illustrated in the article in The Times yesterday by Clifford Longley and in the letter by the nine bishops in The Times this morning. It is difficult to see why some of these bodies should feel inclined to change their approach. Specifically I wonder whether the new standing advisory committees or councils that will be constituted may make it more difficult to revise some of the unsatisfactory locally agreed syllabuses. I note that the right reverend Prelate agreed that some of the syllabuses are indeed unsatisfactory.
I am particularly concerned about the requirements in Amendments Nos. 93 and 94, which I believe, if I read them correctly, specify that a unanimous decision will be needed. That I would interpret as giving a power of veto to secular organisations such as the local education authorities or teachers' union representatives. I wonder whether I may ask the right reverend Prelate if he considers that to be a problem and whether he could give any assurance or reassurance on that matter. But, given such reassurances and in the hope of a satisfactory conclusion to the debate on Amendment No. 28 later, I am happy indeed to welcome and strongly support these amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is very agreeable to be able to listen to a speech from the Episcopal Bench with which one wholly agrees. I am indebted to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for giving me that agreeable experience which I hope will often be repeated in the coming months.
I rise to say how fully I support the amendment. It is right that religious education should be put in its proper place in the Bill and in the Act, as it will be, and it is extremely important that this should be so. The Bill, as it started, appeared on the face of it to go back a little on the 1944 Act in this respect and it is therefore very right indeed—I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept this—that the amendment should be accepted.
I want to add only one further matter, again without anticipating debate on a later amendment.

417
This is a good amendment. It is an improvement to the Bill, but it does not go far enough in as much as it does not lay down that religious education so given should be Christian. It is perfectly true that the 1944 Act did not so provide, but I believe the reason is quite simple. In 1944 it was taken for granted that religion and religious education meant Christian and Christianity. Now in our different circumstances today that is no longer so. Therefore it seems important that this should be spelt out. I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee in anticipating a later amendment.
Finally I very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, when he referred to the use of the word "denomination". It might give offence in certain quarters and perhaps the right reverend Prelate will look at that.
5.45 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: I rise to join in the support which has been given to the right reverend Prelate in moving this extremely valuable and important amendment. Religious education is given a primacy in this Bill by this amendment which I certainly welcome. While one welcomes a primacy, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury will recognise, a primacy is not without its ambiguities. One wonders what exactly the relationship is between the basic curriculum, the core curriculum and the foundation subjects. What are the sanctions and consequences of each? It would perhaps require a mind of Jesuitical complexity fully to fathom these relationships. One would welcome some clarification from the right reverend Prelate when he speaks at the end of this short debate.
I welcome the fact that he has used the term "religious education" precisely because it is so comprehensive. Like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I do not wish to anticipate debates on later clauses. But the religious tradition in this country on which our morality is based cannot be described as an exclusively Christian tradition. It is a Judaeo-Christian tradition of morality. That must be recognised. The Old Testament is essential to an understanding of the New. Our Christian morality is not understandable or comprehensible without the Judaeo morality which preceded it and indeed on which in so many respects it is founded.
This was brought to my mind very vividly when I opened recently an exhibition of Jewish art. At the end I was presented with a mezuzah, which it is customary in Jewish homes to put beside the doorpost. I wished to erect this in my own home, but I had some doubts as to the propriety of so doing. On consulting a noble friend, a Member of the Committee, he did not hesitate. He said, "A very great co-religionist of yours touched a similar object every day of his life". I said, "Who was that?" He replied, "Jesus". That brought home to my mind in a way that nothing else could the connection between the two dispensations. What is important is that the religious foundation of morality should be maintained.
It was the 17th century which coined an aphorism, "No Bishop, no King". Our own could coin another. "No religion, no morality", and certainly history
418
affords no example of a society which has permanently maintained morality without a religious basis.
I entirely agreed with the right reverend Prelate that whatever may be provided on the face of the Bill, however strict the legal phraseology is, they will serve as nothing unless they are clothed with a living reality in schools. That must mean an adequate supply of teachers of religion. I should like to hear from the noble Baroness how the Government intend to tackle the undoubted shortage of teachers of religious education which exists at the present time and which will be worse if the amendment of the right reverend Prelate is accepted, because more teachers will be needed. I agree entirely with his view that the Churches must take the initiative in that respect.
I should like to raise one query and it is this. What is the examination status of religious education under this proposition? Is it to be tested in the same way as subjects in the national curriculum? Unless provision is made for tests and examination I do not believe that the subject will be able to hold its own academically with other subjects and that it will be in danger of failing and withering away.
Having raised that question I should like to return to where I began. Although I am not a member of the Church of England, I am grateful for the initiative taken by the right reverend Prelate and for the skill which he has shown in advancing his views. He has done so in such a manner as to show that they are tenaciously held and shared by others but which has given offence to no one.
Lord Jakobovits: The last speech, which was for me the most heartwarming, has made it easier for me to say a few words in the debate, despite the fact that I rise with considerable diffidence because I face a double dilemma. One is purely pragmatic in that my public and communal commitments are such that, unfortunately, I was unable to attend the entire debate on Second Reading. However, I made up for that by reading through the massive proceedings—the 80-odd speeches recorded in Hansard. Because of another urgent engagement which was set many months ago, I shall be unable to stay for the whole of the debate this evening.
My second predicament is that we are touching on delicate ground. It is obviously thin ice on which Christian angels fear to tread and Jewish rabbis may sink and drown if they are not careful. Therefore I crave the Committee's indulgence in taking advantage of these precious minutes to address myself in wholehearted support of the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate and perhaps to anticipate debates which will follow in respect of other amendments, as other speakers have so anticipated.
I should like also to share a few general reflections on the place of religious education in the raising of tomorrow's citizens. Earlier in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, told those on the Benches opposite that they should not betray what they have been saying for the past 40 years. I must be careful not to betray what has been said for the past 4,000 years. It will not be easy to compress my comments into the few minutes at my disposal.

419
I am the product and the spokesman of a tradition which has cultivated a passion for education. It is a tradition which places the precept of parents teaching their children, as we have been reminded, and teaching them religion, in a scroll called a mezuzah which is placed at every doorpost of a Jewish home before you enter. It states:
"And thou shall teach these words diligently to your children".
It is a tradition which ranks the sanctity of a house of religious learning higher than a house of worship. We believe that a house of learning is holier than a house of worship. It is a religion which some 2,000 years ago made provision for communal schools for religious instruction mandatory.
As heir to that tradition I welcome with enormous delight the new Bill's striving for educational excellence in general and its enhanced emphasis on the paramount importance of religious education in particular. I am sure that Members of the Committee will not expect me to mediate or to take sides in an internal argument concerning the role of teaching a faith other than my own. However, some observations may be relevant both to the national scene and to the effect on my community and other religious minorities.
Obviously I particularly welcome a provision which would require non-denominational maintained schools to provide religious education for minority groups at the request of parents and where the number would warrant it. Also particularly welcome for the burgeoning network of Jewish-maintained schools would be the requirement for the state or the local authority to assume responsibility for providing for religious education to be included in the school curriculum.
However, as regards the main thrust of the amendment I should like to say this. The principal enemy of all religion is no longer heresy or apostasy; it is simple paganism. It is the refusal to believe in any faith or in any accountability before our Creator. That leads to the moral anarchy which is now so rampant and pernicious. Therefore religious education must be the transmission of a commitment even more than of mere knowledge. A religiously-indifferent teacher can hardly instil religious convictions and sensitivities.
Moreover, if we consider religious faith and precept as the spiritual lifeblood of the nation and all its citizens, then effective religious instruction can no more be administered by and to persons of a different faith than can a blood transfusion be safely given without first ensuring blood-group compatibility. Indiscriminate mixing of blood can prove dangerous and so can the mixing of faiths in education.
I should like to apply that in practice from a Jewish perspective. I shall do so by quoting from a "Thought for the Day" talk on Radio 4 given last Thursday by my learned colleague, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, principal of Jews' College. He described how he was raised at a primary school which was devoutly C of E and where Jewish boys had their separate Jewish asemblies. He said:
"The effect of this schooling on our Jewish identity was curious. It made us, of course, acutely aware that we were different. But because
420
those around us were taking their religion seriously, it made us consider our Judaism seriously too".
Then he added:
"So it isn't so strange that all this produced a rabbi. From living with those who valued their traditions I learnt to cherish my own".
Continuing, he said:
"What brought this to mind was the report … called Crisis in Religious Education, in which two Newcastle teachers complained that children in today's schools are losing the chance to grow up as practising Christians. They might, I think, have gone further still; for if Christianity suffers, so, in a curious way, does every other faith as well".
He continued:
"It happens with the best of intentions. How else, in a multicultural society, should we promote tolerance than by teaching children something about every religious group with which they are likely to come into contact; a touch of Christianity; a dash of Judaism; a slice of Islam; and so on through a fruit cocktail of world faiths. But the whole that emerges can be less than the sum of its parts. For it misses out on the most crucial element of all: the fact that for each of us, there is usually only one faith that resonates with personal meaning; the faith of our community, our culture, our family, our past. In trying to teach all faiths, it's possible that we succeed in teaching none".
Finally, he concluded:
"From schools that had confidence in their Christianity, I learned an answering pride in my Jewishness; and I discovered that those who best appreciate other faiths are those who treasure their own. Might not teaching children their own traditions do more for tolerance, and for faith than teaching them everyone else's?"
Of course, I want to see included in religious instruction not only what distinguishes us, what separates one faith from another, reflecting the dominant ethos for the majority and the particular beliefs and observances for the minorities, but also what we have in common. I believe that particular attention should be given to the moral dimension in preparing the rising generation for responsible marriage and responsible citizenship. For example, these days youngsters receive little if any guidance on dating, courtship, the choice of a partner and the expectations within marriage. Instead they simply rely on momentary infatuation and snap decisions with the result that so many unions contracted in this casual manner soon founder with catastrophic results for the stability of society. Broken homes cost the nation far more, socially and economically, than AIDS.
Altogether, because formal education has become largely a system of career training rather than the nurture of the total personality and its harmonious interplay with the rest of society, we develop and exploit only a small fraction of the child's mind with much of the brain remaining unused, going to waste and often to mischief. To me, religious education in the widest sense should embrace efforts to excite the intellect with the wonders of nature; to inspire the awe of the human genius as expressed in art and literature. It should cultivate an insatiable appetite for learning and a thrill in the pursuit of knowledge through reading and study for its own sake until killing time becomes as reprehensible as killing life because time is our most precious commodity next to life itself.
In such a philosophy of education, moulding the parent is just as important as teaching the child, never forgetting that the true education of a child begins 20 years before it is born. Likewise decisions made now at this late end of the 20th century will determine the quality of life and the moral fibre of our citizens in the

421
21st century. In this spirit I commend the advice of the Preacher in the 22nd chapter of the biblical book of Proverbs:
"Educate a youth in the way he should go, so that even in his old age he will not depart from it".
6 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: If possible I want to bring the debate back to the issue which is before the Committee. But after listening to the moving and exciting speech of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi, it is very difficult to come back to what we really should be talking about. We are not talking about religion and we are not talking about whether religion should be taught to children. We are talking about what should be taught about religion in state schools. The denominational schools are clearly recognised as having the duty as well as the mandate to promote their own religious beliefs and practices in the schools to which they claim a special relationship. However, I deeply regret the way in which whenever education reform comes before Parliament, the preoccupation of Parliament, and a good deal of public opinion, is with education in religion.
The Education Act 1902 was about religion. The Education Act 1917 was also about religion. The 1944 Act is much lauded by Members of the Committee as a landmark in our educational development but it was a great sadness and, to some extent, a defeat for its architect R. A. Butler. Another curious matter is that in this century the first Education Bill of 1902 was just after the Boer War. The second one was in 1917 when we were in the middle of a war. The third was in 1944 when again we were in the middle of a war. This is the first time that education has been comprehensively debated in what we might describe as a time of peace.
That is remarkable because the emotions surrounding earlier Acts were related to the conditions in which they were discussed. Let us think of 1944 and 1917. People had feelings of deep anxiety. There was soul searching as to whether they had been true to themselves and true to their God; whether in some way they had failed the Almighty and that retribution was at hand. There were deep feelings affecting the consciences of people during the debates on the Education Bills of 1917 and 1944. However, religion has come to the fore again today. It is the second subject we are debating in this long Committee stage.
This Bill was not designed to deal with religion. As far as I am aware, it was never thought that a Bill had to be promoted to deal with religion. I am also unaware that any examination results or any votes of censure upon the system by employers related to the teaching of religion. The standards of education that have been strongly criticised have been secular; namely, maths, English, understanding of the language and the mental abilities which were necessary for young people to take their place in life and industry today. Yet, when we set about the reform of the education system to meet the demand for higher standards, we find ourselves in the middle of a debate on more education in religion.
When there is anything conceded as regards the claims of religion upon the state education system, we
422
are always urged to go a little further. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, "This is all right but it does not go far enough". We have further amendments on the Marshalled List which suggest that when we have made the teaching of religion virtually a core subject, we must turn it into education in religion with a predominantly Christian approach. Thus it becomes denominational. Therefore it is not so much the teaching of children about religion—which everyone should know something about, because it is an important factor in the lives of people and has been throughout history—it is the fact that we are now coming very close to the teaching of a political denominational approach.
There is another point I should like to make in this connection. Under the amendment, and the Bill, it is proposed that the state system shall deal with the education of young people on the subject of religion before the churches are able to do so. I was taught no religion at a day school; I went to Sunday school. That is the system that denominations outside the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church, devised for themselves. There were no Methodist denominational schools. The Church of England had its own as did the Roman Catholic Church. The radical Methodists also wanted their own system which they achieved by setting up their own Sunday schools attached to their own chapels and not in the state system, or in a denominational school. That is what education in religion should be. Why are the Churches asking the state to do this for them? Why should they?
Another question is this: what will be the standard of religious teaching? The teaching of religion to adults requires clergy and institutional form. There is a great deal connected with religious observance and religious organisation for adults which it is not possible to give to children. It will not be easy for school teachers without any special training, aptitude, or possibly even belief, to teach the mystical explanation of life or the Christian interpretation of life. Children do not see religion in those terms. They see it probably in terms of some supernatural authority or some form of direction and authority which is higher than that of the parents and the teachers.
However, the earlier teaching of children—I do not know what it may be today—was not that God was a loving god: he was a god to be feared. Indeed, it was regarded as a qualification in society if one was a good man and feared God. Now it is quite different and a different approach must be taught to children which is not one of discipline and fear but one of love. Surely parents should be giving their children that teaching. It seems to me that Churches and parents are shifting their duties and responsibilities to the state education system. It appears that everyone must pay for it whether or not they are in sympathy with what is being done.
Why are the Churches not taking children into their care and doing their own thing among the young people? What do they expect teachers to do? What kind of garbled version of Christianity or of religion do they expect to come out of the state schools as the apprenticeship to better understanding

423
and, possibly, membership of the Churches themselves? What is the aim? Is the aim morality, which is so frequently mentioned, or is it belief? Do we not want better behaviour from our children rather than belief in an almightly being? Must we teach them religion in order to achieve some concept of morality, human relationship, affection and understanding?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, said that what is lacking today among young people is the recognition of accountability to something on high to which they must pay reverence and from which they might conceivably—I do not know—receive rewards or punishment according to their degree of accountability. That argument is extremely complex for children who are looking at life in primitive and juvenile terms.
If we are looking for morality—I am sure we are—let us acknowledge that although human conduct, behaviour and morality have been entrenched in the teachings of religion from the early centuries, a great deal of that has become so acceptable to secular society that it is embodied in the statute law, either criminal or civil. Therefore, why not teach children to have respect for the law by explaining to them what it is and why it was put there?
I am mystified about the approach of so many Members of the Committee to this subject. Surely what we want is not a transient belief in some mystical concept of a god from children who cannot comprehend it and who leave school with no more sense of what their behaviour or accountability to parents and society should be than they knew before.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, asked from where the teachers would be coming. From where are they coming? Further, what standard of qualifications shall we require of teachers? We assure them in the Bill that if they are not involved in it, or do not wish to be in it, they shall not suffer; they shall be open to promotion in the normal way. Therefore it is not to be a condition of appointment and presumably it is not to be the basis for extra remuneration or higher grading. They are not becoming vocational Christian teachers. They are not members of the clergy and not part of the institutional Christian or religious life of the country: they are part of the education system.
I leave those thoughts with the Committee. Perhaps I should ask myself, who am I among so many? However, I think that that point of view must be put. We cannot accept the amendment as if it were the most desirable proposition in the world; that is, to put this subject pari passu with the core subjects, although not of them. Again, the noble Lord opposite asked whether the teachers will be tested and whether they will be put through the intellectual testing system which applies to all other subjects in the core curriculum. But, of course, the amendment does not say that they are in the core. It identifies religious education along with the core and therefore
424
they receive equal priority, but not equal treatment. After all, what would the test be and who would apply it and mark the papers? We do not reach that point with religious instruction.
What then can be said of the multi-racial society of which we hear so much? The conditions of 1944 are not represented here today. Such conditions were very different indeed. We must take account of that fact. We must also take account of the feelings of resentment of young people against a good deal of the conventional life of society which they find alien to their ambitions and tastes. They wish to break away from it and create some form of morality—their own specal kind of permissiveness—for the young. All those concepts are innate in young people, but they must be given the scope, the money and the licence to develop them. How will that factor be taken care of in religious education?
I said earlier that I thought that there was no such thing as religious education, but that there was religious indoctrination. That is not an offensive description. If we are to have compulsory teaching of young people with a message that they cannot comprehend, understand or retain, how can we say that we are educating the young? It is a form of indoctrination. If you have facts to support a theory or philosophy, at least you can ask for acceptance on the basis of known evidence. But religion does not rest upon that firm basis. It is the spirituality of it and the religious experience that you have. It is not factual and cannot be taught. In many cases it can only be conveyed with difficulty.
That is all I have to say, and it was quite a lot. However, I have said it on behalf of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee who know they ought to be making this speech for me.
Lord Elton: I think it is my turn now and I should like to use it, first, to help the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, by explaining why so many education Acts have concentrated on religious issues. It is because so many people in this country regard those issues as of very great importance for young people at the beginning of life. They believe, in contradistinction to the noble Lord, that their understanding of life will be impaired if they do not receive some instruction in the religion of their country.
My noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley and the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits—for whom I understand there is no proper honorific prefix and to whom I shall therefore subsequently refer as the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi—together made a commentary on the need for a religious dimension to education which was of very great value indeed. They went far beyond—I say this not in a critical sense—the terms of the amendment we are now debating. I will restrict myself to very few words, first, by excluding any reference to the content of what is to be taught in the syllabus because that is to be the subject of debate on Amendment No. 28.
I therefore turn to the amendment before the Committee. I sympathise with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for being the victim of a now very normal circumstance in this Chamber; namely, that the first day of a Committee stage is

425
always conducted as if it were the last day of a Third Reading. Instead of chopping up our questions into small pieces so that he can bob up and down and answer them one by one, as we both would wish, he is being asked to reply to a lengthy debate. As that is the style, and as Members of the Committee are becoming impatient, I shall not do what I had intended to do before the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, spoke. I wanted to ask the right reverend Prelate a second question after he had answered my first question, but I will not do so as I would not be permitted to rise again. Therefore I have one observation to make and one question to ask.
The observation is an endorsement of the almost universal gratitude and thanksgiving with which the appearance of these amendments on the Marshalled List has been greeted by the Committee. Like my noble friend Lady Cox, I am anxious about the actual content of what is to be taught. There is one aspect which cannot be left until after consideration of the amendment because the enforceability of what is to be taught turns on the machinery which allows what I term an aggrieved parent of a child who is not getting the agreed syllabus within a lesson, or series of lessons, to complain.
The right reverend Prelate said that coming within Clause 6 means that this topic could be a subject of complaint. I believe the Committee would be greatly obliged if he could point out the sequence of, first, the requirements and then the events which will result in a successful complaint by the parent of a child who is receiving throughout his course of religious education what proves to be only a fragment of the agreed syllabus—the agreed syllabus being balanced and the lessons therefore not being balanced. I should like that question answered as well as the wider question of where the syllabus is not taught at all.
I conclude by thanking the right reverend Prelate for the extensive conversations he has had, the considerable work that has gone into the drafting of this amendment, no doubt by many hands, and the admirable intentions. I for one support them with enthusiasm with the reservation that I should like to come back to the content later.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I had not intended to speak at length in this debate but to oppose the amendment and then resume my seat to see whether that would spark off opposition to the amendment. However, having heard some of the arguments put forward for the amendment, I am prompted to speak a little longer.
In 1940 I held a candle to nobody in my belief in the Christian religion and conforming to that religion. However, in 1940 I listened to a religious broadcast by a respected member of the Church, following which I wrote a letter. I asked some fundamental questions. I did not receive a reply. That was the first time I questioned the religion in which I had been raised.
Therefore, I looked further. I read The Age of Reason. I do not know how many Members of the Committee have read it but if one wants to seek for a unifying religion that also gives credence to the concept of a divine Creator I recommend it. In
426
particular, I recommend a poem which in three verses describes the Divinity of our creation. It refers to the planets, the stars and the illimitable space surrounding them. It produces the thesis that this must be the act of a Creator, and because it is so massive and beyond the comprehension of most people, that that Creator must be divine.
I do not not entirely share the view of Paine. However, it is a thesis which if adopted as a universal religion would remove the two major blots that I see upon the face of religion worldwide: first, that it is man-made and, secondly, that in regard to the history of man it has perhaps been one of the most divisive forces that could have been created.
I have listened to all the speeches. I listened to all the assumptions that the right reverend Prelate said were accepted by the majority of people in this country. I dispute that. If one measures church attendance in this country against that of some of the so-called heathen countries one finds that much greater attention is given to their religion than is given by people to our religion.
I listened to the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi who said that we are treading on thin ice. He gave an example. To me it was a telling example. He referred to the experience of some Jewish children who attended a school where the Christian religion was taught. They were unable to leave and do what they wanted in regard to their own religion. He said that seeing how seriously the Christians took their religion prompted the Jewish children to take their religion much more seriously.
I was amazed in looking round this Chamber to see that some of those people who had spoken in support of the amendment seemed to welcome that statement. On closer examination, and if they are in fact Christians, I wonder whether they should be welcoming that statement. If they are, what does it mean? If the Jewish people take seriously their religion and compare it with the Christian religion, we are heading for a clash if both sides believe that their religion is the best. Is that not the fault in all our religions? We are certainly on thin ice.
The same noble Lord mentioned the question of 4,000 years as though they were a millenium: that it was so long ago that we must be talking about the Creation. In the lifetime of humanity it is such a short period that we should not even consider it. My belief is that the Government were right: they should have left religion completely and utterly out of this Bill. This present debate is beginning to prove the kinds of division that can be created in society.
If one wants a further example of the divisions in society that have their bases in religion, do I have to draw the parallel and ask Members to look at the problems in Ireland? Is it necessary for me to talk about the problems in the Middle East? Is it necessary for me to talk about the social problems that have been caused by a belief in religion?
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: It is not necessary.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn tells me that he already knows. Paganism leads to the moral anarchy of today. If that

427
means anything it is that paganism is prevalent and the moral anarchy of today is the result.
Let us go back one-eighth of the 4,000 years and consider Joan of Arc, and witches burnt at the stake in the name of religion. Worse still, there was the philosophy that if one did not follow a certain religious belief then one had no chance of getting to a more desirable place; one went down to hell, and before reaching hell one went to perdition. This was the Christian faith. Yet we are told that in this modern time we have moral anarchy, whereas, for the first time in the history of mankind, we are at last creating a united Europe in which the elected members are looking very carefully at the question of social welfare.
This country turned its mind to social welfare in the real sense for the first time in 1945. I dispute completely that we are looking at moral anarchy; and I dispute utterly that the responsibility for it is paganism. It was not paganism that believed that if she did a certain thing, one put a woman in a barrel and rolled her down a hill. Members may dismiss that by saying that it occurred 500 or 600 years ago. But for Christians their faith is built on such issues.
I should like to ask for a reply to a few questions in this debate. Where do we stand in relation to the issues about which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham was so concerned? Where is this wonderful birth that took place? Does the Church still believe it? What is Genesis? If we are to have someting taught in our schools, is Genesis really true? Is that how mankind really was created?
The Lord Bishop of London: With respect, I suggest that if the noble Lord is going to ask questions that I assume he wishes to be taken seriously, he must realise that they are incapable of being given a simple yes or no answer, or one of a few words. I ask him to show some respect to those who have a religious belief and not to try to rubbish it. I shall be perfectly prepared to answer many of the observations that he has made. However, to subject us to a series of questions of this kind that he knows are impossible to answer I believe is showing disrespect to this Committee.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Sefton of Garston: These are fair questions. There is no need to say "hear, hear!" There is a simple answer. I have not posed a series of questions. I have asked only two.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am sorry, but the noble Lord has asked a great many questions already. I do not refer to the last two or three but many before that. I suggest that the discussion of an amendment at the Committee stage of a Bill is not the time to have a philosophical discussion.
Lord Sefton of Garston: With all due respect to the right reverend Prelate, I posed some questions about the role of religion in the history of mankind. I did not ask him any questions. However, I am asking him—
The Lord Bishop of London: The point of a Committee stage of a Bill is precisely so that people may ask questions to which they expect answers. That is precisely what I expect to have to do. But these are not the questions which it is either reasonable or necessary to expect to be answered in a debate on this amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: On a point of order, is it not time that the noble Lord opposite started taking about the amendment instead of asking questions about fundamental philosophy and history? Is it not time that we got on with the debate?
Lord Sefton of Garston: I suppose it is time for me not to give way any more and then I can get on with the debate. Let me deal directly with the amendment. This amendment introduces into the Bill a new element. Am I wrong? Of course I am not. It introduces the element of teaching religion.
The Lord Bishop of London: Perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord to Clause 1(2), which states that the purpose of the Bill is to promote:
"the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils".
That introduces the element. We are not introducing it in this amendment. It is there already. We are asking that the intention expressed in the Bill should be more capable of being implemented.
Lord Sefton of Garston: That is by a body which in effect will be controlled by the Churches. The word "spiritual" can mean anything. It need not necessarily mean the teaching of religion. The teaching of morality could be expressed as spirituality.
I revert to what I said previously. Of course if the right reverend Prelate does not wish to answer, he is perfectly entitled not to do so. However, if somebody moves an amendment which refers to religion, then another Member is perfectly entitled to ask some questions. There are two. Do we believe in the Virgin Birth?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but this is the third Second Reading speech that we have had this afternoon. We have a great number of amendments to get through. Many of us have our names down to amendments to be taken later. Perhaps I may move that the noble Lord be no longer heard.
Moved, That the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, be no longer heard.—(Baroness Seear.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Duke of Norfolk: After that, may I assure the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that I have received an enormous number of letters from priests, parents and teachers regretting the lack of importance given to religion in this Bill. I can now say that the right reverend Prelate has dealt with that problem admirably. I have no hesitation in thanking him for putting forward the amendments.

429
Secondly, it is a regrettable fact that the Catholic bishops are not represented in this place, something to which I have often drawn attention. I should like to see five or six Catholic bishops among the Lords Spiritual. It therefore falls to some Roman Catholic to speak for them. I have been informed that the Roman Catholic bishops and the cardinals support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in these amendments.
Lord Sandford: I support the amendment, but I wish to make a short Committee point. Although "subjects" are the matter of Clause 3, because of its unique nature religious education is being discussed now on Clause 1. The amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate reintroduces advisory councils. Will he say whether teachers of religious education are nevertheless free to engage in all the discussions on curriculum development, especially cross-curriculum development? We debate those matters on Clause 3.
I am aware, as no doubt is the right reverend Prelate, that the Professional Council for Religious Education is currently engaged in seeing how religious education can be introduced into TVEI. We all want to feel that religious education will not be put into a straitjacket by the reintroduction of those councils in a way that precludes the teachers being involved in curriculum development across the board.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: In a sentence, so it will not be lost, perhaps I may repeat the point made by my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley. When we pass the amendment, as I hope we will, how do the Government envisage that people who have had the instruction will be tested? The multi-racial nature of schools will make that difficult. That difficulty should not mean that those who are Christian in their approach and who have that teaching cannot be tested in some way. What thought have the Government given to that point? It will help in future amendments if we can have some indication.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I support the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. As a nonconformist, I cannot speak for the nonconformist Church. A number of nonconformists who have written to me support the amendment. Perhaps I may ask for an interpretation. One of the Opposition Front Bench speakers asked a question about the meaning of the word "religion". I have always understood that my religion is Christian; my denomination is that of the United Reformed Church.
Lord Soper: The Methodist Church agrees entirely with the amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Goodman: I shall detain the Committee only for a few minutes. I hope that it will not be regarded as an irrelevant self-indulgence if I say with what enormous pride I heard for the first time the titular head of my faith giving such a distinguished address. It is a self-indulgence, but it would have been wrong not to say it.
430
It is of considerable importance to bear in mind that if people have—I will not say a faith—a belief in some force that has brought about this marvellous creation, otherwise than by accident, they are likely to be more virtuous and easier people with whom to live. There is an anecdote well known among Jews but not I think especially well known among the non-Jews of a distinguished Jewish writer who sought an interview with the Tsarina of Russia when she was here to plead with her to moderate the pogroms that were going on. She replied to him rather frivolously,
"The problem is easy. Let the Jews become Christians".
His answer was a memorable and historical one:
"Let the Christians become Christians".
Perhaps I may venture to say that there is a great deal to be said for that adage. I believe that the minority faiths—my own and every other minority faith—are safer in a country where the majority of the people have a religion. It is for that reason that I warmly support the amendment.
Much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, needed to be said. The introduction of religion into schools requires careful arrangement so as not to be counterproductive. I can give two illustrations. One comes from the college at Oxford from which I recently retired as head. There it was disappointing to me to see the small number of undergraduates who attended Sunday chapel. Most of them had been educated in schools where there was compulsory religion and where services took place each day. It is clear that unless religion is carefully organised the result can be counterproductive.
I went to a day school. As can be judged from the excellence of my education, it was a very good day school. About one-third of the pupils were Jewish. Each day there was a religious service when we vacated the formroom or the hall and went out into the grounds. I had an enormous advantage. I became a very adept fives player because the fives courts were open to everyone during that period. I practised fives when others of a less secular disposition were busy praying on their own account. I saw that the procedure could be divisive.
I could not share the views cited by the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi that that division was necessarily one which would fortify the faith of the minorities. Religion requires to be carefully introduced. It requires some ecumenical function as well. It should not be a single faith only that is taught. Every so often there should be instruction for the entire school, of whatever faith it may be. Having made those points, I wish to say no more.
Baroness Hooper: This subject is important, and it merits our attention. It is of course a relatively easy matter for the Government of the day to testify to the importance they attach to religious education. Successive governments, of both political parties, have made such commitments since the 1944 Act came into effect. But we have also seen over those years a steady decline of the subject in schools with relatively little done from the centre to correct matters. We are now seeing in this Bill a turning of the tide with a practical demonstration of the Government's commitment to the effective provision

431
of religious education for all young people in all maintained schools.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, the Bill was not introduced to deal primarily with the subject of religious education which was already a compulsory subject. It was the only compulsory subject. The Government included a number of provisions in the Bill intended to strengthen the position of religious education because of the relative decline in the subject.
In the very first clause we have spelt out the requirement that the curriculum in all maintained schools should promote the spiritual and moral development of young people. Clause 6 places a duty on local authorities, governors, and head teachers to ensure that the statutory requirement to provide RE is upheld. Clause 16 provides for the first time a formal procedure whereby parents and others have a local avenue of complaint if they believe that the law on religious education is being flouted.
Despite those provisions, however, some people, particularly representatives of the Churches, remain concerned. The result of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's discussions with Church leaders, including the right reverend Prelate and leaders of the Catholic and Methodist Churches, was an agreement between the Churches and the Government which was announced by my right honourable friend on Report in another place. That agreement led to the amendments put forward by the right reverend Prelate. As he said, the Government have been closely involved in their preparation, and I am glad to be able to say that they have our wholehearted support. I know also that they have the full support of the leaders of the Catholic and Methodist Churches. Today we have heard that they have the support of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi. I am sure that the Committee will agree that this ecumenical unanimity is a most welcome development.
The amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate to Clauses 1 and 2 signal to all involved in the education service the clear message that religous education is to be provided for all pupils in all maintained schools and is in no way subsidiary to the requirements of the national curriculum.
The proposal that standing advisory councils on religious education will in future be compulsory in all local education authorities will strengthen the position of religious education still further. There is no doubt that where such councils already exist the subject is in a much healthier position than elsewhere. The requirement that such councils should automatically be able to require the reconvening of conferences to examine agreed syllabuses is also seen by the Government as a particularly important development. Far too often in the past agreed syllabuses have been allowed to become out of date. As a result, what has been provided in schools has either borne little resemblance to the agreed syllabus for the area, or in some instances religious education has disappeared from the curriculum altogether. The existence of the standing advisory councils and the authority given to them, can only serve to benefit the subject in schools in the long term.
432
A further significant feature of the amendments put forward by the right reverend Prelate is that they refer to the provision of "religious education" rather than the terminology of the 1944 Act of "religious instruction". I am sure the Committee will agree that "religious instruction" is today a somewhat outdated term. It is no longer in common parlance, either in schools or elsewhere, and the Government accept entirely that legislation should not be so obviously and needlessly at odds with the language of the day. As Members will recognise however, assuming the acceptance of this wording by the Committee, the Government will need to make further amendments to the provisions of the 1944 Act and to other statutory provisions, in order bring them into line. We propose to bring forward amendments to this effect at a later stage.
My noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley, and indeed others, asked what we were doing to train teachers in religious education. We are of course currently reviewing initial teacher training courses and in-service training in all subjects. But we are also positively trying to improve the position under the LEA grant training scheme. The problem however, as we see it, is one of quality and commitment and not just one of quantity. We are putting our efforts in that direction.
As the Committee will recognise, none of the amendments put forward by the right reverend Prelate affects in any way the existing arrrangements for local determination of what is taught within religious education, either by the agreed syllabus procedure or by the governors of aided schools. The Government have continually emphasised that they have no wish to remove this local discretion. Indeed, we believe that any attempt by the Government or Parliament to prescribe in detail the content of religious education could do irreparable damage to the subject. That schools in this country are able to provide religious education at all is due in no small part to the local arrangements which have existed for determining the content. That is why the Government have resisted pressure to make religious education a foundation subject, with centrally determined assessment arrangements, attainment targets and programmes of study.
However there is no reason why testing and assessment should not be agreed in a locally agreed syllabus. Indeed, some syllabuses already include testing arrangements and that is much to be encouraged. This is perhaps something upon which the new standing advisory councils can advise. I am glad to be able to say that the churches themselves are equally convinced of the need to retain local arrangements for determining what is provided, which reflect the circumstances of the authority or school involved.
In the circumstances therefore I am happy to be able to welcome these amendments, and I can recommend them without reservation to your Lordships.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am very grateful to those who have taken part in the debate on the amendment. I very much appreciate the support that the Committee has given to it. In view of the time, I should like to confine my answers to the four or five

433
specific points which were asked in the course of the debate and which were strictly relevant to the amendment.
First, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for drawing attention to the fact that this amendment does not introduce religion into the debate. It is there already. We are trying to make it more effective and to see that it meets the situation of today. However, I cannot resist pointing out that if it were not for religion in the past in this country there would be no education system. Frankly, the education system grew out of the concern of Christians for the community in which they lived and for the preservation of those qualities in the ancient civilisations which they felt should be preserved. That matter must not be forgotten if there is any implication that our education would be so much better if the Churches had not pioneered it.
I should say in reply to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, yes, that matter is being taken account of and we are in touch with the Religious Education Council on that very point. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is that "religious denomination" is a loosely worded phrase these days. We find it used also to refer to other faiths. Some people seem to mind it; some do not. However I think attention ought to be given to that. The question of other faiths will arise when we come to the debate on Clause 28 and perhaps I may leave further comment until then or even until the Report stage.
On local arrangements, being a great believer in the local education authority, I feel that there is a local responsibility to see that the content of a syllabus reflects the education needs of the area. I said that on Second Reading and I welcome such a proposal. The need for the four committees to be unanimous was mentioned. That has always been the case and frankly it has not prevented some extremely good agreed syllabus being produced. If I may say so, it is an incentive to come to a solution and the four committees of the standing committee are retained in the present Bill.
As regards the complaints procedure, I should like to glance at what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. Clause 16 refers to complaints and the duties imposed on the authority under Clause 6 of the Bill. When we come to my next amendment it will arise under Clause 6 and we shall deal with it then.
In conclusion, perhaps I may express my gratitude to the Committee. I put this forward basically for two reasons: one is that I believe profoundly that in a Christian world to be truly human must involve being faithful to the religious element in our nature as simple human beings. The religious dimension of life does not make us human, it enables us to be fully human. That is why I see it as an integral part of any education process.
Perhaps I may end with these words. Not many months ago we had a debate on children in our General Synod in the Church of England. A great deal of material for that debate was obtained from the children themselves, some very young. Far from simply repeating what they had been indoctrinated with, as some would say, what was most moving and remarkable was the religious insight and
434
understanding which were shown by very small children. That understanding is a basic human instinct and I believe that we have a duty to respond to that instinct and enable it to grow. If the Committee could have read the comments of children of very young ages particularly their comments on what happened to their parents later on, Members would have said that they would have no doubt at all that in making these additions to religious education we are being faithful to the needs of our children. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) In relation to any independent school (including the City Technology College) or non-maintained special school, it shall be the duty of the proprietor and headteacher to secure that the National Curriculum as subsisting at the beginning of that year is implemented and to secure that the curriculum of the school satisfies the requirements of this section.").
The noble Lord said: Since the Bill was published I have been at a loss to understand why the proposed curriculum for schools is called a national curriculum when it is manifestly nothing of the kind. The national curriculum is to be fully applied only in the public sector. Private schools will continue to be able to provide a curriculum which their authorities feel matches the needs of their pupils. That without the slightest doubt will include the requirements of higher education. One is tempted to dwell on this aspect for a while. Certainly if one thinks of the better known public schools I doubt whether any Member of the Committee would dispute the contention that much of the curriculum is guided towards Oxbridge and indeed some of the other universities.
A national curriculum should be truly national—that is, it should be for the whole nation and it should promote a whole nation. The Secretary of State and the Government have poured out millions of words in their documents, in newspapers, on television and on radio telling everybody including parents—one hears so much about parents in this debate—why a certain curriculum structured in a certain way is not only best for pupils but also for the good of the nation as a whole. They tell us that it has been devised only after the most careful thought, consultation and research, but then we are suddenly told that after all this thought and preparation it is not really suitable for some of our schools. There are some institutions, they say, in our society which are not really part of our one nation.
There is supposed to be healthy competition between the public and private sectors. Indeed this Government are constantly preaching the virtues of competition, yet here we have one sector offering any curriculum it chooses and the other being compelled to provide only that which is laid down by the Government. We need to consider another aspect of this matter. At present 8 per cent. of the school population is in independent schools. But in discussing this amendment it is relevant to point out that a large proportion of those children are helped by the assisted places scheme. That scheme was introduced by the present Government some years

435
ago and it was very strongly opposed by many of us in another place. There are no fewer than 35,000 pupils in the scheme and in 1986 the average fee paid under it was £1,776. The average net expenditure for secondary school pupils was £1,202. So we have the interesting situation that the Government spend almost 50 per cent. more on children in places in independent schools than local authorities are allowed to spend on places in their schools.
When so much public money is spent on so many pupils in independent schools is this not one more reason why the national curriculum should apply to all schools? Of course the brutal fact is that there are two nations. I make no apologies for saying that. Nowhere in our society is that more vividly demonstrated than in the education system. The proposals on the curriculum are simply yet one more confirmation of that fact.
The tragedy, as I see it and as I am sure my noble friends see it, is that the Government, instead of grasping this splendid opportunity for breaking down the barriers, choose to consolidate the division in our society. I have to say that the Government's logic in this matter baffles me. If they have after so much work and deliberation come to the conclusion that this form and content of curriculum are the best that can be devised, surely it is wise, prudent and proper that that curriculum should apply to all pupils.
One is driven to the inescapable conclusion that it is a deliberate action in an attempt, which I have to say will probably succeed, to perpetuate the divide between our two kinds of education. An eminent professor of education, Ted Wragg, who I am sure is well known to many Members of the Committee, has written of it:
"Another piece of political ideology was revealed when it was announced that independent schools would not have to implement the national curriculum".
I am afraid that that is exactly what it is—political ideology wrapped up in the name of progressive educational practice.
The proposal is based on the assumption that the pupils in private schools are somehow different from those in state schools. That must be the logic of it. Will the Minister therefore say why the law will apply to the finest comprehensive schools in the land but not to the worst private schools? Presumably she would agree that there are such things? What are these differences which compel the Government to take such a drastic step? We are entitled to know the basis on which such an important and far-reaching decision has been taken.
We are also entitled to call into question the conviction of the Secretary of State himself on this issue. He sends his children to private school, as he is perfectly entitled to do. But if he chooses the freedom of curriculum for his children, I submit that I am entitled to choose freedom of curriculum for my grandchildren. They should enjoy that freedom too.
If the curriculum is good enough to impose on other people's children, why is it not good enough to impose on fee paying schools? That is the basic question and one which has not been answered. If I had been able to discover even the slightest
436
educational justification for this part of the Bill I might at least have been able to understand what was in the Government's mind. But for the reasons I have given I find the proposal not only educationally unwise but repugnant and offensive, and I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: I wish to ask a factual question about the amendment which is puzzling me. In the fourth line as printed it refers to the "beginning of that year". Will the noble Lord explain to me to which year that refers?
Lord Dormand of Easington: That is a question for the Minister as my amendment has been adopted. However, speaking as a former education administrator, my short answer would be the beginning of the school year or as soon as possible—I think that is the normal phrase used in legislation—after the implementation of the Act.
Lord Beloff: If I had been trying to keep out, as the noble Lord suggests, any form of ideology from a discussion on this point I would hardly have quoted Professor Ted Wragg, who is a notable exponent of a perfectly legitimate Left-wing ideology as regards education. That does not fortify in any way the noble Lord's case.
I am also a little surprised that the noble Lord, who I believe went into the Lobby in favour of Amendment No. 1 and therefore disapproves in principle of the imposition of a national curriculum, should lend his name to an amendment which seems to—
Lord Dormand of Easington: I think that the noble Lord has misunderstood the situation completely. That is not my view.
Lord Beloff: Then the noble Lord is in favour of imposing a national curriculum. If I have been mistaken perhaps he will explain where he stands on the national curriculum; otherwise it is very hard to deal with his amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I answered the question quite clearly. Perhaps the noble Lord will get on with his speech and we shall see how it compares with mine.
Lord Beloff: In that case let me confine myself to the amendment as it is put down. I find it difficult to reconcile the speech made in its favour with the text of the amendment, since the speech indicated that the noble Lord believes that the national curriculum should be imposed on all schools outside as well as within the maintained sector. However, he talks about the duty of the proprietor.
Most independent schools—all the good ones—have no proprietor. It is difficult to see on whom the obligation is to be laid. It is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, thinks of himself as the proprietor of Eton. But I think that that would be much contested. Therefore, it is not clear whether only the proprietary schools, which exist but which are in a minority and largely confined to the primary sector, are affected or whether it affects all

437
independent schools. In the latter case, something should be said about the trustees, the governing bodies or the legatees of the wills of past benefactors in that respect.
Secondly, the amendment states:
"including the City Technology College".
So far as I know—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—there is no City Technology College. There is a proposal for the creation of a series of city technology colleges, none of which has so far opened its doors and only a few of which are in active preparation. Therefore, the words relate to a nonexistent institution.
I further point out that the whole purpose of the city technology colleges is to make it possible, within the maintained system, to try out a highly technologically directed form of education. That is, or may be, a perfectly legitimate exception to an exact conformity with what other schools, lacking technological or industrial bias, would be supposed to do.
The most important point—I leave out the flaws in the drafting and concentrate on the speech made in moving the amendment—is the suggestion that some kind of privilege is being conferred on independent schools by a government which in some way prefers them to the maintained system. That seems to me to be trying to make a point where none exists.
I think that even the noble Lord will agree that the national curriculum is covered normally in the independent sector as it is covered normally in the maintained system. No doubt it is true, as the noble Lord has said, that there are bad schools in the independent sector which do not live up to that objective, just as it is agreed that there are bad schools in the maintained sector. That is the reason why the national curriculum is being imposed.
The noble Lord is suggesting that the Secretary of State should assume additional powers and administrative burdens in order to make sure of something which is likely to be enforced, not by those methods, but by parents. What differentiates independent schools from maintained schools is the fact that parents have to pay to send their children there. The noble Lord has referred to the cost. Therefore, if they are dissatisfied and they say: "Look, we are not even getting anything like what we could get for free in the maintained sector", they will take their children away. That is probably a more powerful sanction than the Secretary of State could contrive.
The noble Lord is making a general point but, when one thinks of it in terms of the schools themselves, there is less in it than he gave your Lordships to believe.
7.15 p.m
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have nothing to do with this abominable amendment. The noble Lord who proposed it said that he could only assume that the Government's exclusion of independent schools was a deliberate choice. I hope that it was. He went on to say that he supposed that it was an ideological rag-bag masquerading as liberal or democratic or
438
progressive—I cannot remember the word which he used—education theory.
If ever there was an ideological lecture on education, it came from the noble Lord who has proposed the amendment. His observations reminded me of nothing so much as the man who, rather late in the evening, said to his friend: "You must be drunk, you've got two noses." He was guilty of the grossest ideological interference with the right to independence.
I sent all five of my children to independent schools. First, I did not want to educate them at the expense of the rates and taxes of people poorer than myself. And I did not. I paid for them myself. I also had views about education which are not identical with those of the table d'hôte of the maintained system. I have religious views and I sent my children to religious schools with a particular denominational bias. I think that the curriculum practised in all the schools to which I sent my children was, if anything, superior and certainly the equal of anything in the proposed national curriculum. I chose it for myself and my dear wife.
The idea that even my noble friend on the Front Bench should dictate to me how I should educate my children within those parameters is absolutely revolting to me. The Minister has all my admiration and my fullest support. However, as an educator of my children she does not compete with me.
The noble Lord who proposed the amendment was something less than candid with the Committee in two respects. First, he compared the cost of a place at an independent school with the cost of a place at a maintained school. He omitted to tell the Committee—perhaps he assumed that we already knew—that much of the cost of keeping a boy at Eton is due to the fact that he wears special clothes and eats and sleeps in the college. He therefore has to spend money on things which are not included in the cost of a place in a maintained school.
The noble Lord also failed to tell the Committee—perhaps again he assumed that we all knew—that in order to be approved as efficient the independent school has to undergo examination by inspection. If that is so, I cannot understand why I should not continue to send my children to Eton, St. Paul's and other schools of my choice. The truth is that this is a class warrior's amendment and it ought to be rejected out of hand and with contempt as an invasion of liberty.
Lord Aldington: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. As I disclosed to the House at Second Reading, I am chairman of the Independent Schools Joint Council. I regret the ideological bitterness in the speech of the noble Lord who moved the amendment. I shall not follow him in that. He seems to me to have been properly chastised from a number of quarters already.
I ask the Committee: if a school is to be independent how can it be responsible to the direction of the Secretary of State? It is either independent or it is not independent. Once we begin with the thin end of the wedge to direct independent schools through the orders of the Secretary of State—because that would be the result of the

439
amendment—it seems to me that we are moving towards the end of independence.
The Committee has to make up its mind whether it wishes to continue with independence of education as part of the national system of education. As my noble friend Lady Young said in 1984—and I quoted her the other day—there is one national system of education in this country and two sectors. The independent sector is free from direction from the Department of Education and Science or the Secretary of State. It is, as my noble and learned friend has just said, subject to registration and to inspection. That has been going on for decades, but it does not mean that it has lost its independence. My objection to the amendment is that it invades the independence of schools.
As to what the independent sector will do with the national curriculum, I do not know whether the noble Lord who moved the amendment was present when I spoke in the Second Reading debate. I said then that, subject to being satisfied as to flexibility—on which we are satisfied and have been again this afternoon—I would expect most of the independent schools to adhere to the national curriculum in a broad sense. Many of them would wish to take advantage of the flexibility provided by various clauses in the Bill from Clause 9 onwards. How difficult it would be for them to do so if the amendment were adopted. They would have to wait for the Secretary of State to give directions to them in the way prescribed in the Bill.
Subject to that proviso, it would be my expectation that the independent schools would adhere to the national curriculum. That is broadly what the parents would want. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, reminded the Committee, it is the parents who are the masters of the independent sector. The parents will want the national curriculum because the national examination system will be based on it. They will want it because the national curriculum has been devised as the best practice, and that is the practice that most independent schools follow. I cannot speak for all independent schools because independent schools by definition are independent of the Government and also of each other. I hope that the Committee will resist the amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to make three very brief points from these Benches. I am not sure whether I speak on behalf of my noble friends, but I speak on my own behalf and possibly on theirs as well. I think that brevity is important at this moment.
I do not support the amendment, for three reasons. The first is because, as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said, schools must either be under the control of the Secretary of State or independent. If they are independent they are independent and must not be interfered with in that respect. Secondly, I believe that the national curriculum as it stands is a straitjacket and I would not wish to impose that straitjacket on schools which do not need it. Thirdly, very important pioneering work sometimes comes out of the independent schools. That may apply to only a small proportion but we can very often see the seeds of the future in what is done in independent
440
schools. I think that the imposition on them of a national curriculum would inhibit their most important work. For those reasons I shall not vote for the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I do not think that my noble friend Lord Beloff was at all remiss in asking the mover of the amendment to give us his view of the Bill as a whole and the national curriculum in particular. At the Committee stage of a Bill one ought not to look merely at the words on the Marshalled List. One has to try to take into account the motive behind the words. I believe that it is essential that the noble Lord should answer my noble friend's question.
For example, does he think that this is a very good Bill indeed and that the national curriculum as set out is so excellent that for the independent schools to risk not having it because they are not required to by statute is robbing them of something that they ought to have? Does he think that they are being robbed of something that he believes is good and worthwhile, as I do? Or does he think that the Bill is so awful that it ought to extend beyond the maintained schools only because he wants to spread the misery? If he thinks that it is awful, he is advocating with his amendment that the misery is passed on. If he thinks it is a good Bill he is saying that the independent schools are being robbed of something that they ought to be made to have.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has answered that point. The independent schools are quite capable of taking what they think is good, and the national curriculum is something that they would take. Because motive is important when we make up our minds, can the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, tell the Committee whether it is a good Bill that is worth extending or a bad Bill and that the misery ought to spread to everyone for the sake of equality?
Lord Peston: I thought that this was a serious subject but one or two of the interventions did not suggest to me that it was serious. However, we shall now try to deal with the matter.
The crux of it is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. Indeed, earlier in the debate today we argued that schools ought to have regard to the national curriculum. Those are the exact words. We favour a national curriculum and schools ought to have regard to it. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said that that is what he wants for the independent schools. I have to tell the Committee that that is exactly what we want for the maintained schools. This nonsense that you can have what you want if you pay for it seems to me an abysmal principle to apply to education and it is certainly not one that I should follow.
Let me tell the noble Lord who raised the subject that my children went to maintained schools. I pay taxes and rates; as far as I am concerned I paid for my children's education. The fact that I did not pay at the point of payment is neither here nor there. Those noble Lords who have used the tax system to finance their children's private education also ought to ask who finances that.

441
Our point in discussing this matter is very much to clarify the logic behind the national curriculum. We want to know—and we shall pursue this point later after dinner—why it is mandatory for the schools to which we send our children but only optional for other schools. What is there that makes it mandatory? Will those who will reply on behalf of the Government answer the noble Lord's point about the large number of excellent schools in the maintained sector? Why is it mandatory for them?
I hope that my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, was not implying that experiment in this area comes largely from the fee-paying sector, because it certainly does not. Experiment in this area has come overwhelmingly from the maintained schools in the country.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I was by no means implying that. I am well aware that it also comes from the independent sector to an extent.
Lord Peston: It is more than also; it is almost entirely.
While I am in this mood perhaps I may also make another point. I take exception to the suggestion that on that side of the Committee Members have an educational philosophy, while on this side we have an ideology. I assure Members opposite that we have an education philosophy and we are trying again to make it clear in regard to this Bill. Essentially we are trying to get into the Government's mind. We are trying to find out the basis of the national curriculum—not why there should be such a thing because my noble friend Lady David made it very clear that we strongly favour it. We are concerned with why it should be mandatory. What is there about the maintained schools that should make it mandatory? Let me take the other point, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, raised it. Why should freedom of choice on curriculum be restricted to the independent schools? Why should that be the case?
I am no longer a parent who has children at school, but supposing I were and had views on the kind of curriculum that I should like for my children, why should there not be any response to that in the state system? Let us take a view which I do not hold. Let us assume I have a very narrow view of the curriculum that I should like to have. Why should I not be allowed to have that within the state sector if I as a rational parent wished to choose it? Let me add—and I shall come back to the noble Baroness in due course—that the noble Baroness used two expressions in her winding-up speech earlier which, I must admit, I hoped would horrify Members opposite. She referred to "the clutter of spurious choice" and she said "freedom and choice mean licence and irresponsibility". I find that an odd view to come from that side on the subject of choice and when we come to the core curriculum I shall be pressing those points. I favour choice; I also favour a national curriculum. The problem is how to bring those things together. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will understand at least that we also are wrestling with these matters.
442
Finally, I do not want to impose anything on the independent sector in this sense and the amendment is not for that purpose. I repeat that this amendment is to clarify the Bill. But I ought to warn noble Lords opposite—the warning was given earlier—that if the Secretary of State starts to operate in this way there will come a day when another Secretary of State will say, "I have a perfectly logical base for what I want to do in interfering with the independent sector. It was given to me by a Conservative government who laid down (a) the right of the Secretary of State to interfere directly in schools and (b) the right to lay down a mandatory national curriculum". It is too late to affect the earlier Divisions that we have had but when noble Lords opposite come to consider how they will vote on other occasions later tonight they may think again about these matters. Therefore, speaking for this Front Bench, I believe that this is a worthwhile amendment. I am glad we have had a debate on it because it has brought out very clearly where we differ on some of these matters.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before the noble Lord sits down, it may help the debate on the following amendment if he advises his noble friend that when he puts down an amendment with the idea of it being a probing amendment—which is healthy and good—he ought to say so. This was presented as a formal amendment intended to be part of the statute.
Lord Peston: I cannot speak for my noble friend but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will bear with at least one or two of us who are still relatively new at this game—certainly I am. Sometimes one does not remember to make the appropriate remarks. Having said that, it is certainly my view that what we are trying to do here—and just to anticipate there will be many other attempts late into the night—is to understand what is happening.
Lord Walston: I came into this debate with complete ignorance of education. I do not pose in any way as an expert in this matter. I came to this particular amendment with a very open mind, and no idea of how I would vote if there were a Division. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, my mind was still undecided. He was persuasive but did not convince me. However, the two noble Lords who followed him—the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—were completely persuasive. They made up my mind to come down entirely in favour of this amendment. I think they made absolutely clear that they were advocating—and presumably they speak with a great deal of authority for their own colleagues—in very blunt words one law for the rich and one for the poor. The rich are those who can afford to send their children to what we call public schools, to the independent schools, and who will be exempt from the Secretary of State's dictate. The poor are the rest of the people who do not understand about education, do not have any views worth holding and do not have any money with which to pay for their children's education. They must be subjected to this autocratic rule from the authorities.

443
That made me feel that this amendment, whether or not it has the right form at the moment, has in it the germs of something which is fundamental and very important indeed. Obviously, in whatever form it is presented at whatever time, those who believe that wealth confers privileges which are denied to those who do not have wealth, and that those who have wealth have the right to decide how their children should be educated whereas those without wealth and the intelligence which goes with it should not have that right, will vote against any amendment of this kind. But for those who do not agree with that point of view, it will be very hard not to support an amendment of this kind whenever one comes up.
The Earl of Arran: The point of the amendment that lies before us is now fairly obvious. It seeks to apply the provisions of the national curriculum to independent schools as well as to maintained. In fact, since the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, has not tabled a consequential amendment to Clauses 9 and 12—the clauses that allow the national curriculum to be disapplied in certain circumstances—the effect of the amendment before us would be to apply the national curriculum to independent schools with a rigidity that we have sought to avoid imposing upon the maintained sector. However, we shall assume that the proposal of so draconian a measure was not intentional.
This issue has been raised many times during the Bill's passage through Parliament. I shall spell out again our reasons for limiting this legislation to local authority and grant-maintained schools.
Let me deal first and briefly with the position of city technology colleges. We have already made it quite clear that as a condition of grant, these schools will be obliged to meet the substance of the national curriculum, within their own distinctive ethos. As they will be working longer hours than most schools, they will find no difficulty in meeting national curriculum requirements alongside their own more particular objectives.
The purpose of the national curriculum is to lever up standards in maintained schools. It is to pupils in these schools, educated at the expense of the state and whose parents may at present have very little choice as to how their children may be educated, that we owe the prime duty to guarantee high standards and a good curriculum for all. We are improving competition in the state sector, but there will not be the sort of free market to which those offering independent schooling must respond if they are to survive. We therefore need to establish in law the entitlement to the best possible curriculum in maintained schools.
I reject any idea that the national curriculum is somehow an infliction or imposition on pupils in maintained schools. Its purpose is positive, not negative. Its objective is to guarantee all pupils in maintained schools a broadly based and balanced curriculum which prepares them for adult life. That is something that is not on offer to all pupils in those schools now. Furthermore, its objective is also to raise the attainment of those pupils to the best they are capable of, and to lever up the standards of all
444
maintained schools—to make the best, better, and to radically improve the performance of our weaker schools.
I had believed that noble Lords opposite shared these objectives for the national curriculum with us. Do they not want pupils in schools to reach the highest attainments they are capable of? Do they not want the standards of those schools to improve? Do they not want pupils in maintained schools to be guaranteed a balanced and broadly based curriculum to equip them for the immense variety of opportunities and challenges they will face in adult life?
We are offering benefits to pupils in maintained schools; not imposing penalties. We are guaranteeing them the freedom, which comes from a broadly based education which makes the most of their abilities, to have real choices about the pattern of their adult lives. And we are offering parents the information they need about the performance of the schools in their area, so that when it comes to choosing a school for their child they can know how well each of those schools is doing by its pupils.
There are good reasons why the Bill's provision for the national curriculum should not extend to independent schools. We know that the pressure of parental choice has already led the best independent schools to offer something very like the national curriculum. But the point about independent schools is that they are independent.
The Government's responsibility is to ensure that schools maintained by public money offer the education which pupils need. But the discipline of independent schools is largely that of market forces. Parents are free to send their children to them if they wish—that is a fundamental freedom—but they will only do so if the education an independent school offers is that which they require for their children; and if it is better than what is on offer in other schools. That discipline of market forces is a real one. As the benefits of the national curriculum are increasingly achieved in maintained schools the less good schools in the independent sector will have to make changes if the competition from the maintained sector is not to drive them out of business. The best independent schools have been quick to spot this already, and we have heard from them how they wish to offer the national curriculum, and demonstrate success in it, in order to attract and maintain parental support.
Of course I do not deny that there are some less good independent schools. These will be most vulnerable to competition from the state sector as parents begin to see the improvements brought about by our reforms. I agree that not everything should be left to market forces. The parents, and the children themselves, should have some form of guarantee. But we already have a safety net for independent school pupils. We already have the basic safeguard in the provisions of the 1944 Butler Act that provision being made is acceptable in all the circumstances of the school and the pupils. The Secretary of State is allowed to take action against any independent school which is not offering an efficient and suitable education, and ultimately to remove it from the register.

445
We are not leaving independent schools free to ignore the national curriculum. We know that the majority will be obliged, if they do not already offer such a curriculum, to do so or to lose pupils to those who do. But where the free market does not achieve that end, and where pupils are seen to suffer as a result, then the Secretary of State's powers, over registration, exercised with Her Majesty's Inspectorate's advice will come into play.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, raised a question about the assisted places scheme. Schools in the assisted places scheme are independent and therefore will not be required to follow the national curriculum. However, all schools participating in the scheme are required to satisfy a rigorous set of criteria covering curriculum breadth, examination success and general academic merit. This ensures that only the very best independent schools are able to offer assisted places. To illustrate the point, last Summer APS pupils achieved a 91 per cent. pass rate at A-level and an 87 per cent. pass rate at O-level. Most people would regard that as outstanding, not least the parents of the pupils who are benefiting from this excellent scheme. It is a scheme which is widely welcomed. In view of that point and the arguments that I have deployed before, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Annan: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he can confirm not only that logic is on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, but that the law of the European Community would make this amendment null and void? If that is not so, perhaps I may add that the exhibition of bourgeois triumphalism from the Benches opposite will make many on this side of the Committee agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston.
The Earl of Arran: I am not absolutely certain about the point that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, raises as regards the European situation, but it is a point that we shall certainly look at.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am very conscious of the fact that we are now in the most important hour of the evening. I shall therefore be very brief. At least three noble Lords opposite used the word "ideological" and applied it to my speech. I make no apology for that. It was put very succinctly by my noble friend Lord Peston. I happen to be a Member of this House and I was a Member of the other House because I am a socialist. I make no apologies for that. In the same way noble Lords opposite should not make any apologies for their conservatism. That is what I thought parliamentary democracy in this country was all about.
The politics of this country can apply to nothing more than to education. As I mentioned previously, I speak as a former chief education officer. I have seen it at work on the ground, if I may use that phrase. I should also like to support very strongly what the noble Lord said to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie: that experimentation certainly has sprung from the public sector. I am a little surprised that he should make that an important point in his submission.
Perhaps I may say that the speech from my old friend—if I may call him that—the noble Lord, Lord
446
Harmar-Nicholls, I did not take very seriously. If he wants a straight answer to the question whether I am here to cause misery, the obvious answer to that is, no, I am not here to do that. My aim is the same as that of noble Lords opposite. We want to raise the standard of education in this country, whether in the private or the public sector. This debate is about how best we can do it. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for whom I have a very high regard, should get down in his contributions to rather unimportant details, for instance when he talked about a proprietor. Perhaps I may concede that a better word should have been used. It is not really related to the principle which we are discussing tonight.
I end by calling in aid the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who said that he does not want the Secretary of State to dictate to him about his children. That is what we are debating. I do not want the Secretary of State to dictate to me about my children, either. In view of what has been said—I am sure that the Government will have taken some note of the contributions which have been made from all sides of the Committee—I am convinced that at some point in time there will be a change. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: This might be a suitable and convenient moment at which to break for dinner. Perhaps I may suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage of the Bill until 8.45 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1988
7.46 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order, which is being made under powers in Sections 149 and 153 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, is concerned with the basis on which redundancy payments are calculated in the field of local government service. It amends the Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) Order which the House approved in July 1983. The 1983 order was previously amended in 1985 primarily to take account of changes arising from the Local Government Act 1985.
I should explain that under the provisions of Part VI of the 1978 Act an employee who is dismissed as redundant after at least two years' continuous service, is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment, calculated according to, among other things, his period of continuous service. Local authorities and related institutions are legally distinct employers, so that on the strict basis of the statutory scheme on its own, an employee would be entitled to a payment

447
every time he was dismissed as redundant, even though he intended to move on to a post elsewhere in local government.
This situation would not, however, correctly reflect the realities of local government service, in which a normal career progression commonly involves moving from one authority to another, perhaps several times during an individual's working life. Local government collective agreements therefore provide for local authorities to base their redundancy payments on total aggregated service in local government, and the 1983 order secures a similar effect in the statutory redundancy scheme by replacing service with one employer with total "relevant local government service".
Because there is no convenient and comprehensive definition of what constitutes local government employment, it is necessary to list in the order all the employing authorities and bodies with which service counts as local government service. Two lists are necessary. Before the right to a redundancy payment can arise, an employee must first be made redundant by the authority which employs him, which must of course be one of those local authority or related bodies currently in existence. These are listed in Schedule 1. Secondly, it is necessary to consider the total period of service on which the payment will be based. This may be service with the current employer, or another employer still in existence, or an authority which has ceased to exist as a result of past reorganisations. The Appendix to Schedule 2 therefore lists all those employers with whom employment may constitute "relevant local government service".
The amending order simply adds to the lists in Schedule 1 and the Appendix to Schedule 2 to the 1983 order a number of bodies which were omitted in 1983 and 1985 or have come into existence since the last amendment was made. It is essentially a tidying-up measure. The number of employees likely to be affected is small. I trust that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that these are necessary and innocuous amendments. I commend the order to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his very clear explanation of what this order is all about and to say that from these Benches we support it because we believe it to be a sensible measure and entirely uncontroversial. It is my understanding also that the unions involved in local government support the order.
The only point I should like to make, as we are talking here about redundancy and redundancy payments, is that I hope the Minister will agree that redundancy payments are very much a fallback position. One would hope, particularly in public employment, that the first consideration will always be given to retraining and redeployment rather than to redundancy payments.
448
Having said that, we accept that this is a reasonable and non-controversial measure and from these Benches we support it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I shall be even briefer than the noble Baroness. From these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for the clear way in which he has explained this order to us. Like the noble Baroness we have no objection to its passage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1988
7.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 30th March be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this scheme is presented in accordance with the requirements of Section 13 of the Agriculture Act 1967, as amended by the Agriculture Acts of 1970 and 1986. The order replaces the maximum charges set out in the schedule to the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1987. In doing this, the order increases the maximum charges payable for cattle and sheep in respect of general expenses. This is the first increase in these maximum rates since 1981. The maximum charges for calves and pigs in respect of general expenses remain unchanged. Similarly, the maximum charges in respect of species promotion expenses—that is the "bolt-on" levy introduced last year—remain unchanged.
Thus, overall, the order would enable the MLC to increase its income to meet its general expenses by increasing the scope for the levy charge on cattle and sheep within new maxima. The levy is shared equally between producers and slaughterers. I should stress that the actual amounts within these maxima will continue to be determined in the normal way by the MLC in consultation with the appropriate representatives of the industry.
Before submitting its scheme to Agriculture Ministers, the commission consulted widely within the meat and livestock industry on its proposals for new levy maxima. The proposals have been broadly accepted. Agriculture Ministers too have consulted the industry separately.
Your Lordships may find it useful if I recall briefly the background to this order, say why the increases are being limited to cattle and sheep alone and tell you why these provisions were not included in last year's order. I shall also mention the MLC's new corporate plan, which is centrally linked to the changes now proposed in the draft order.
Last year's order introduced a completely new levy—the so-called bolt-on levy for species promotion. This was payable by producers alone. It was right that this be examined as a separate issue at that time. The bolt-on levy is now raising substantial sums to help the work of the promotion councils of

449
the MLC for each of the three main species: lamb, beef and pork.
I should like now to tell your Lordships about the MLC's corporate plan. The MLC entered into discussion with the industry over the adoption of a corporate plan covering the three year period 1988–91. The draft plan was well received by the meat and livestock industry. It has now been finalised. It is in our view an important document and its main thrust is to ensure that the MLC is doing all it can on behalf of the industry to respond to consumer demand in meat quality and consistency through better gearing of production to that demand, and by better marketing and merchandising. Further, the plan envisages increased spending on export market development. As your Lordships will no doubt be aware, exports are terribly important for our industry. For example, one in five of our lambs go for export. The figure is one in six for beef.
The MLC's corporate plan sets out details of the implications for income and expenditure. In drawing up the plan, the MLC took account of the degree to which its income for general expenses was being met by each of the species. It was felt by the commission that the pigs sector was contributing a somewhat more than proportionate amount to the levy income and that the relativities of the charge on each of the species ought to be examined and rebalanced to reflect the current species share of the MLC's work. Thus, the plan envisages increasing the levy rates on cattle and sheep above the current maximum rates to meet the MLC's general expenses, but no increase in the maximum amount chargeable on pigs is proposed. I am sure that this will be welcome news for pig producers. It is the requirement to increase the rates for cattle and sheep above the current maxima that prompts the need for the current order. The new maxima in the order are not expected to require revision before 1991 at the earliest.
As I have said, the MLC has worked within the current maximum levy rates for general expenses since 1981. In fact, the MLC has not raised the actual levy rates applying to meet general expenses since 1983–84, despite inflation. And they continue to look for yet further improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and economy in the crucial work they are carrying out on the industry's behalf. This order—linked to the corporate plan—represents an important and central measure in setting the basis for future income and expenditure plans to 1991 on all MLC activities for the British meat and livestock industry. It has the support of Ministers and of that industry. I ask your Lordships to support the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th March be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I begin by saying how nice it is to see the noble Baroness in her place again. I should like to thank her for her explanation. However, I have to declare an interest—I do so every time there is an agricultural levy—as a substantial payer of these levies.
As the noble Baroness said, the MLC has produced the new corporate plan which I have studied. The
450
organisation has a considerable role in the future development and promotion of the meat industry. We all recognise that. The noble Baroness will be aware that farmers are not all that happy at having to pay more for anything at any time, but particularly at the present time. However we all recognise the need for increased funds for the MLC.
As the noble Baroness said, there is an extremely important role in the use of the bolt-on levy for promoting the consumption of British meat both here and abroad. I am particularly pleased that in the pig sector the decision has been taken not to increase the amount levied because, as the Minister knows, this sector is extremely hard pressed. From these Benches we support the Motion. It will play an important role in the future organisation.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his very kind personal words and for the warm welcome he has given to the order. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8 to 8.45 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 23, after first ("of") insert ("all").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 62, 64, 76 to 78, 115 to 119, 121, 122, which is not included in the groupings, and 142. This is an important group of amendments which has been tabled with all-party support. It deals with the question of special educational needs. That description applies to approximately 20 per cent. of the school population at one time or another in one form or another.
I believe that all Members of the Committee will agree that education for children with special educational needs should be child-centred, flexible and sensitive. These amendments are designed to produce the changes in the Bill which will enable the education of such children to take account of the national curriculum while not being put in a straitjacket by it. They are intended to enable the positive provision of suitably designed and tailored special education for such children.
For example, the amendments will allow perhaps the only handicapped child in an ordinary class to have a curriculum which does not exclude the child but includes him or her in a sensitive and caring way. They will allow the teacher flexibility in the education that such a child demands. They will give positive help to the aim of the 1981 Act, which was to integrate children with special educational needs into ordinary schools wherever possible.
As it stands the detailed prescription of a national curriculum consisting of attainment targets, courses of study and assessment arrangements means that many individual children and groups of children—particularly those with special educational needs—must be excluded from all or part of the curriculum. I should like to quote from a statement made by a group of organisations with a particular concern for pupils with special educational needs. It was submitted to a meeting organised by the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children. It stated:
"We welcome any intention that all children should have access to a full curriculum. However, we believe that the national curriculum, as it is currently constituted, will not provide this access to all children and that therefore a greater flexibility is needed to meet these individual needs".
Amendment No. 4 is designed to ensure that the broad aims for the whole of the school curriculum, including the national curriculum, as set out in Clause 1, should apply to all pupils. The description of the whole curriculum of a maintained school in Clause 1 is impeccable as an objective so long as it applies to all the children in a school. The amendment is designed to ensure that the objective applies to all children, particularly those with special educational needs. It is designed to guarantee for all children access, in a form which is geared to their particular needs, to the kind of knowledge and skill which is essential if they are to play a full part in society.
I am sure that that is the Government's intention. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment and so underline the Government's responsibility for the proper education of all our children. I can assure the Minister that by accepting the insertion of the one word "all" in Clause 1 she could do a great deal to reassure all parents, teachers and voluntary bodies in the special education sector who have expressed a deep concern about the effect of this Bill on children with special educational needs.
The point was put extremely well by the Warnock Committee in 1978 when it said:
"The purpose of education for all children is the same and the goals are the same. But the help that individual children need in their progress towards these goals will be different".
As I said, and as the Warnock Committee said, the broad aims of the curriculum must apply to all children.
When we turn to Clause 2 and Amendment No. 13 I have the curious experience of successively referring to amendments and wishing to include the word "all" in Clause 1 and to remove the word "all" from Clause 2. The reason is that the proposed national curriculum is not for all pupils because there are many, including children with special educational needs, who will have to be excluded from it. This amendment emphasises that the national curriculum is not for all children, as the clause currently suggests, because of the existence in the Bill of four provisions—Clauses 4(4), 10, 11 and 12—which enable those children to be excluded or to have the curriculum modified for them. It seems to us to be quite wrong that Clause 2 should give the impression that the national curriculum is for all when it clearly is not.
452
The drafting of Clause 2 seems to be rather muddled. That is perhaps a hangover from the Bill as first published, when it hardly dealt with special educational needs at all. Indeed, I believe I am correct in saying that the words "special educational needs" appear only twice in the Bill—namely, once in Clause 11 and once in the side note to Clause 11—where they are incorrect. That is perhaps an indication of the hurried drafting of some of these clauses. We know that in another place the Government had to go into considerable contortions involving the introduction of one sub-paragraph and three clauses to deal with children with special educational needs where problems with the national curriculum had not been thought of when the Bill was first drafted. Many of us believe that these clauses are inadequate and we shall be seeking to amend them. We feel that the Government are illogical in Clause 2 when they suggest that there should be a basic curriculum for all registered pupils and then in Clauses 4(4), 10, 11 and 12 describe in great detail how children with special educational needs are either to be excluded from the provisions of Clause 2 or those provisions are to be modified to meet their particular needs.
When we come to Clause 4, Amendments Nos. 62 and 64 are designed to place special educational needs firmly at the heart of the clause, which requires the Secretary of State when exercising his powers under it to modify the national curriculum to ensure that special educational needs are taken into account in establishing a national curriculum. It is intended to require the Secretary of State to give children with special educational needs the positive right to a curriculum modified to suit their requirements rather than the essentially negative exclusions and modifications which appear later in the Bill.
It could be argued that the clauses I have mentioned make this amendment unnecessary, but that is not the case. The amendment ensures that special educational needs are treated positively from the outset. As I said at the beginning, 20 per cent. of the school population have some form of special need in one form or another and at some time or other. These amendments ensure that the Secretary of State has a duty placed on him to modify the national curriculum to take a proper account of those needs.
Other amendments in this group are intended to ensure that children with special educational needs who are excluded from the national curriculum are given a positive entitlement rather than essentially negative exclusions. They are intended to give a flexiblility which is lacking in Clause 4 as drafted and provide a flexibility and sensitivity which are essential requirements for special educational needs.
The last group of amendments, to Clauses 10, 11 and 12, are to deal with parental rights and professional help. They are intended to ensure that parents will have a right of appeal. We know, and some of us have personal experience of this, the concerns and worries of parents of handicapped children. We should not add to them in this Bill by increasing their concern and their worry about the education of their children. We must give parents the right of appeal as provided in Clause 12, and this should be provided under the previous clauses.
Clause 12 deals with children without statements. The amendments place a requirement on head teachers to consult parents and then to seek the professional advice which is vital in those circumstances for children without statements. It also brings in an obligation to consult the local education authority and to obtain access to the specialised and central services which the LEAs are able to provide.
Returning to Amendment No. 4, as we know, Clause 1 relates to the overriding purpose of the school curriculum and the principles on which it is to be based. This amendment ensures a proper provision of the right education for children with special educational needs. If we are to have a widely based curriculum it must be available to all our children. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the noble Lord. These amendments are all grouped together and I shall later move Amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 119. Perhaps I may underline what the noble Lord said because I have dealt a great deal with handicapped children, young people and students. One child said to me one day, "Oh, Miss, aren't people silly? They think I am silly". It is the tendency of everybody to think of a handicapped person as not being mentally able. I was talking to a handicapped doctor the other day, and he told me that he had the greatest difficulty getting through his course because everybody thought he was mentally backward. That is the tendency in schools, colleges and universities. The one thing that handicapped people do not need is to be made doubly handicapped by those who are dealing with them.
Let us be fair to the teachers. It is very often their way of being unable to deal with a child to think that he or she is mentally backward. I remember in Oxford one of our most outstanding law dons was blind. The other day I gave the prizes away at a blind school and two of the children were going to Cambridge University. Therefore, these amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, and my own are to ensure that the handicapped and those with special educational needs receive their due and their right. They may not be able to work as quickly as others but they are able to work, and they must be seen to be entitled to the same rights as everyone else.
My second point in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on this amendment is that there are others who are not quite so bright but who, given a special curriculum with special treatment and understanding, are able to attain a good standard of education. That is the spirit behind all these amendments. The other spirit behind them is that the parents should be involved in the curriculum which is planned for a child with special educational needs. The future amendments cover those points. Therefore, as I have already said, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
9 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I too should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I wish to speak primarily about visually handicapped pupils. I am the president of the Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind and also sit on two national committees
454
which deal with the blind. When we are considering the visually handicapped we must remember that the vast majority of children who are blind or severely partially sighted receive their education in special schools. It is true to say that practically all those schools are charities. Therefore they are a most cost-effective way of providing education from the Government's point of view, because the charity obviously takes care of the maintenance of the buildings—extending them when necessary—develops the grounds and provides all the facilities that are required for training the blind and seriously visually handicapped. It would perhaps be worth while to suggest—in connection with any new funding arising from the Bill—that in view of the most generous donations that are given to the charities which provide such education for the visually handicapped the Government should seriously consider paying an equal amount.
Nearly all the students come from local authorities and, consequently, are funded by them. It is a most expensive form of education. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has just said, there are various categories of blind and visually handicapped pupil. I think she mentioned two of them who are going on to Cambridge. The Worcester College for the Blind, which I know extremely well, is what one would call, in the old terms, a grammar school for the blind. It has perhaps some of the better educated pupils; that is, those who probably have greater capabilities. Some other colleges are offering a different form of education, but it is nevertheless a good one.
Most of those establishments are teaching the national curriculum as we know it now. However, we should recognise that not only must they implement the national curriculum which is in the Education Reform Bill but they must also concentrate on teaching braille. Every pupil who attends such a school for the blind and severely visually handicapped starts to learn braille from the age of four. I speak with great experience of the school which belongs to the Birmingham Royal Institution for the Blind. Every little child there has a brailler and starts to learn braille at the age of four. So that is a subject additional to the national curriculum that every child will be taking in the state schools.
Not only do those children have to learn braille but part and parcel of their curriculum is mobility. It is no good training such children in educational needs if they cannot make their way about. Mobility therefore forms a large part of this curriculum and must be added to the national curriculum. In other words, those schools are doing something extra.
Similarly, those children must acquire another skill: independence. Once you are trained to use the "long stick" you must have the confidence to move round and use it. I am most gratified when I use the tube trains in London to see those who have passed through the institutions which help blind people to travel on public transport. Both the aforementioned subjects are added to the national curriculum.
It is also true to say that however capable you are or have been as a brailler, not only in printing the word but also in reading it, you will, when you are coming up to the age of 14, 15 or 16, be approximately two years behind the majority of

455
students of the same age. All through your life up to 18 or 19 years of age, you will be two years behind the others. That is because as children and adults we learn a lot from sight. The very fact that you can see explains things; the very fact that you can see helps you to absorb knowledge. In short, the very fact that you are able to look teaches you to learn. Therefore, those who suffer from blindness or serious visual handicap are at a loss because they cannot learn, as we say, through looking. It is important when we look at the curriculum and how it affects those children that we should take those matters into consideration.
I know that there are other considerations for handicapped pupils, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter has said. However, I referred to the blind and visually handicapped because nothing was mentioned in the other place about special education until it was raised by members of the Committee. Even then, the words "visually handicapped" were used only once.
We should consider this particular type of pupil, but let us also remember that, with integration, many visually handicapped children are in local authority schools and are therefore part of the general education system. However, it is unfortunate that there are very few qualified teachers, even advisory teachers, who are helping the severely partially sighted children in ordinary schools following integration.
To teach in schools that are run for the blind—again, most of them are charitable schools—one must have special qualifications, and that means two years' study at university level. Therefore, it is important to consider also those children who have severe visual handicaps who are doing the integration schools, if I may use that expression. In that respect, it is important that the Government look at the qualifications that are necessary if they want to do their best for these children.
We heard earlier this afternoon that the standards of education in this country are perhaps not so good as in other countries mentioned. I should like to say that in the international field of the visually handicapped Great Britain is recognised as the world leader. That comment was made at the international conference by Miss Elizabeth Chapman, OBE., who is the European chairman of the International Council for Education of the Visually Handicapped. If Britain is good at that, let us make sure that in this Education Reform Bill we endeavour to retain the best that can be given to such children, not only in this field but in all facilities for the handicapped child.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As I have put my name to some of the amendments in this group perhaps I may briefly give my warm support particularly to Amendment No. 118 to Clause 11. That amendment will give some positive curriculum entitlement to those statemented children who are excluded from the national curriculum or subject to a modification of it, and will give the parent of a child who already has a statement the right to appeal against a direction to disapply or modify the curriculum without having to go through the whole reassessment process.
456
I particularly support also Amendments No. 119, because that would amend the Education Act 1981 to close what is an acknowledged loophole and allow a parent to appeal against a decision by an LEA to amend or cease to maintain an existing statement.
I should like to back what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about the margin heading to Clause 11. I hope that the noble Baroness will look at that because, apparently, one cannot amend a margin heading. It refers to children "with special educational needs" but actually means statemented children.
Lord Peston: I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 64, which has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Carter and myself. I did not take part in the debate on religious education but I am bound to say that I believe that in considering children with special needs we have a moral imperative. Those of us who, in a sense, are self-sufficient in what we do have a particular obligation to take such children seriously in educational terms and also to bear in mind the problems that their parents and families in general have in these matters.
During the course of the day the Government have been rather negative about our amendments in rejecting them and not approving of them. However, I look forward to the reply from the noble Baroness in regard to children with special needs, who I believe need a more explicit statement in the Bill. The noble Baroness may well say that their case is implicit in the Bill and that everything is okay. My only comment is that, even if that is the case, the Government would give an enormous boost to the morale of parents and children if the Government would be willing to consider those amendments which include an explicit statement
I say that partly as an economist, because my own subject is based entirely on the assumption that everyone is self-sufficient and is capable of taking decisions for himself and of coping. I find it salutary to remember that there are children who will become adults without being entirely able to do that. We have a responsibility in that respect, so in referring to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Carter and myself I emphasise that the Secretary of State should include in his duties under the national curriculum the need to take account of children with special needs and, where necessary, to modify that curriculum. This is a moral decision and it is a decision which I hope the noble Baroness and her noble friends will be willing to take.
Baroness Faithfull: Can my noble friend the Minister answer a small query? I have tabled Amendments Nos. 77, 117, 118, 119, 126 and 136. Do I speak to them together, as they have been grouped together, or do I speak to them individually as we come to them?
Baroness Hooper: If the amendments are within the grouping then I take it that my noble friend has already spoken to them and will simply move the amendments when we come to them in due course. However, if my noble friend wishes to add something now, I shall be happy to hear what she has to say.
Baroness David: It is not at all clear. General speeches have been made; we have not had the specific amendments spoken to. That is absolutely vital. We need the specific amendments explained as well as a general statement.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: In that case, I have no option but to speak to all the amendments. However, they are individual, different amendments which cannot be spoken to generally. And there are a great number of them. I cannot speak to one alone. Looking at the groupings, Amendment No. 77—
Baroness David: Can I interrupt the noble Baroness? I gather that the groupings are supposed to enable a general, overall view to be given of that group of amendments. However, there will be the chance to speak to each one when it is called. That is very much more satisfactory.
Baroness Hooper: All the amendments to which we are speaking relate to the need for the national curriculum to meet the individual needs of all pupils in maintained schools, some of whom will have very special needs but all of whom will be different from each other in their patterns of abilities, aptitudes and enthusiasms. I understand the concerns that have been expressed and welcome the opportunity to discuss them further. However, I am not wholly convinced that all these amendments are necessary to secure that such needs are met.
Because this is an important matter, and because I had understood that we were speaking to all the amendments, I may speak at some length. However, I should like for convenience to divide my response to the amendments that have been tabled into three distinct parts. First, I should like to deal with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and those in which he has been joined by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. These are essentially declaratory additions to the Bill. They are Amendments Nos. 4, 13, 62 and 64.
I am informed that Amendments Nos. 4 and 13 have no effect on the meaning of the Bill. As the noble Lord suspected, I understand that "all" registered pupils are not included explicitly in the national curriculum by Clause 2 but they will be included implicitly except, as now, where specific arrangements are made elsewhere in the Bill for exemptions from, or modifications to, the general provisions. Similarly, although the phrase "all pupils" is not stated explicitly in Clause 1, it is there implicitly and the clause would be interpreted as if it were included.
Amendment No. 64, to which the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Peston, have put their names, is also essentially declaratory. It seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State in making national curriculum orders modifies the provisions to take account of children who have special needs.
We accept wholeheartedly the need for the national curriculum to cater for pupils of all abilities and in a range of circumstances; in particular those with special needs whether as defined in the 1981 Education Act or otherwise. To this end we have in
458
the Bill made provision for their needs to be catered for in a variety of ways, for not all of which the Secretary of State will have direct responsibility. For example, under Clause 11 a statement of special educational need, drawn up by the local education authority, following a lengthy programme of assessment, may modify or disapply the national curriculum in respect of an individual pupil. A pupil who has temporary needs may be withdrawn from all or part of the national curriculum at the head teacher's discretion under regulations to be made under Clause 12. I shall address specific points on these provisions later in my remarks.
With regard to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, he will be reflecting the requirements of groups of pupils with special needs in regulations under Clause 10 which will establish the national curriculum and its flexibility of operation. He has the power to define modifications and to allow the disapplication of certain provisions in specified circumstances, and because the orders and regulations will be subject to full statutory consultations under Clauses 13 and 14 there will be every opportunity to ensure that the needs of all groups are adequately reflected.
The amendment of the noble Lords by itself therefore adds nothing to the Bill, which already gives the Secretary of State power to deal with special needs and establishes mechanisms through which he will consult on his intentions. The amendment also implies, I believe misleadingly, that it is only the Secretary of State on whom the obligation to take account of pupils' special needs should be placed whereas, as I have explained, it can sometimes be the local authority or the head teacher.
The second group of amendments that I have identified includes those in my name, and also most of those in the names of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Ritchie. These address the flexibility built into the Bill to deal appropriately with pupils whose needs cannot be met under the general arrangements set out in orders and for whom specific modification may be justified. These are not pupils with statements of special need whom I shall come to later but pupils with perhaps a problem in language, or of mobility, requiring special treatment.
The government amendments I put before the Committee are relatively minor amendments but ones for which I know we can expect general support. Indeed they meet the very point behind Amendments Nos. 77 and 116 which others have tabled. Their combined effect is to bring together on the face of the Bill in Clause 10 the powers of the Secretary of State to modify or disapply elements of the national curriculum as they affect such groups of pupils.
To recap briefly, the national curriculum orders will offer a range of programmes of study and targets of attainment for pupils at each key stage; but we recognise the need for flexibility to deal with particular groups of pupils who may need these requirements further modified or even disapplied. We quoted in our consultation document the example of pupils with difficulties in English who may need to be introduced later, or in a different way, to the study of

459
a foreign language. And there are those at the other end of the spectrum who have particular abilities rather than problems, who may reach the highest levels of attainment within the national curriculum before the age of 16 and whom we might wish to allow to go on to study a different mix of subjects to meet their particular circumstances.
At present the power to modify the national curriculum for such groups of pupils is found in Clause 4(4) of the Bill while the power to disapply was added to the Bill in another place and has become Clause 10. The government amendments bring these related provisions together in a revised Clause 10.
The Committee will have noticed that we have also taken the opportunity to tidy up the wording of the two provisions so that the Secretary of State may make regulations modifying or disapplying national curriculum provisions in specified cases or circumstances. This is a helpfully wide expression; and it also avoids the reference to categories of pupils previously included in Clause 10 which has been the subject of some criticism.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. She used a phrase that interested me. She said that the Secretary of State might wish to allow brighter pupils who had achieved the levels required before the age of 16 to go on and study other subjects. Surely, there will at least be flexibility when you have achieved the standard to do what you or the teachers choose that you should do rather than that the Secretary of State might allow you to do it.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Baroness can take that phrase as positively as she has interpreted it.
It was never our intention to revert to the crude categories of handicap as has been suggested. The wording was an attempt to distinguish these collective exceptions from the individual exceptions which will be achieved under Clauses 11 and 12. I believe that the new wording captures our intentions even more effectively, and without any echoes from previous provisions. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
I must however speak against Amendments Nos. 78, 117 and 142 which would add a new machinery of consultation, appeal and complaint to the implementation of the national curriculum for pupils in these special groups.
The intention that modifications to the national curriculum shall only be offered to pupils if they cannot sensibly be offered the full programme is of course understood. Indeed, it is the Government who have been arguing loudest today for such a full curriculum to be available to all pupils and others who have perhaps doubted our commitment to flexibility. In practice it will be the teacher's judgment which will determine which case or circumstance is deemed to apply to the pupil, and hence which modification, if any, should also apply.
The parents will already have a right of appeal under Clause 16 if they feel that the school is not offering their child the national curriculum in an appropriate way. They will of course be able to
460
discuss at any stage what is being offered and why. But I do not think we need to build in the need for prior consent before a modification is brought into play which might cause delay, or add explicitly to the right of appeal to the governing body and local education authority. We have done some of this for temporary exceptions because these will be acute, short-term cases and parents will need to be kept informed about how problems are to be resolved, and perhaps even involved in future action. But most cases of modification will be very adequately dealt with under the existing information and complaints provisions of the Bill, and I therefore see no reason to accept these amendments.
Finally in this second group of amendments I must mention the proposed addition to Clause 12 set out in Amendment No. 121. As I have said, this is the clause which empowers head teachers to disapply all or part of the national curriculum to pupils on a temporary basis because of their short-term needs or because because they are awaiting a full statement of special need. The Bill already has full provision for appeal against such a disapplication. But to add to this the need to consult with parents would be to detract from the ability of heads to act quickly to meet acute short-term problems. We shall in our regulations, on which there must be consultation, and in guidance, of course, be stressing the need for parents' views to be taken fully into account. Heads will be obliged to give information about their reasons and intentions to parents once they have made such an order and, if it is feasible, will see the wisdom of doing so in advance. But we must not hedge their professional judgment in such cases with a legal requirement for consultation which may be impractical and so negate the very purpose of the clause.
As for the need for heads to take advice in such cases from other professionals such as psychologists and doctors, again I do not think this is a matter for primary legislation. It may well be covered in guidance. Indeed that would have the same effect as the proposed addition to the Bill, since it only requires the head to consult as he considers desirable. If he considers consultation desirable, he is hardly likely to need to be required by law to carry it out!
I turn now to the third group, a small group of amendments which would affect the implementation of the national curriculum for children with statements of special educational needs. Perhaps I could usefully start by setting out the current position. The Education Act 1981 provides a right of appeal by parents against the special educational provision specified in the statement of special educational needs at two stages: first, where the child is first assessed; and secondly, if the statement is subsequently revised as the result of a full re-assessment. There is no right of appeal where the local education authority decides to amend the statement, though parents have, under the 1981 Act, 15 days within which to state their case to the local education authority calling upon it to reconsider. Nor is there any right of appeal where an LEA decides to cease to maintain a statement.
That has been the situation since the Act was passed in 1981. Some of the speeches we have heard today argue that the national curriculum throws a

461
new light on the situation envisaged in 1981. In so far as Clause 11 will allow for modification to, or in acute cases disapplication of, aspects of the national curriculum, this is true. Critics of the effects of this change have said that merely to modify or disapply is not enough. What is needed is a positive alternative programme. I would not disagree with that sentiment for a moment. Where I would disagree is in the way in which this amendment seeks to achieve that end. Consider for the moment the practicality of a statement which details all this in a positive form, and consider what the schools will make of it. To descend to the level of prescription, which appears to be implied here, would severely restrict the school in its creative approach to the individual child, in its need to provide a programme in which all the class can share (where appropriate) and in its need to respond to the developing capabilities, or in some few sad cases the deteriorating capacity, of the child to respond.
While I would not want such a prescriptive and in the long term stultifying provision on the face of the Bill, I am happy to recognise the argument for a more positive approach, but I believe the right place to discuss and resolve this matter is not here today on the face of the Bill, but in consultation with interested bodies about the published guidance on the implementation of the Bill.
Members of the Committee have asked for a parental right of appeal against the amendment of a statement in the light of the provisions of the national curriculum. Parental involvement in the education of their children is crucial to their educational success. This Bill recognises that. The Education Act 1981 and the Warnock Report which preceded it regarded parental involvement as central to the identification and implementation of the most appropriate educational provision to meet the child's special educational needs. Neither parents nor LEAs have found this relationship easy. Nor should it be. The aim is to stipulate in the statement what is best for that child in all the circumstances, not to reach an easy compromise. Certainly the national curriculum changes the impact on the child with special needs. Whether the statement is a very detailed prescription or a broader indicator of what will be modified or disapplied, the national curriculum requirements are giving a significant new function to the statement of special educational need.
There appears to be some unfairness in the position under the Bill as it stands, in that parents have a right of appeal against modification or disapplication contained in a new statement, or in a statement revised as a result of reassessment, but not in the circumstances where the LEA decides to amend the statement as a result of the national curriculum and the gradual application of its requirements. We have received very little comment from the special needs lobby on this point, but I shall look carefully at what it has to say and at the arguments put forward today in this Chamber.
Before finalising I now turn to another aspect of appeals as raised in the second amendment. To seek a right of appeal where the LEA decides to cease to maintain the statement is not on all fours with the previous point. The 1981 Act did not create such a
462
right, there has been no subsequent lobby calling for such a right and the national curriculum has no bearing whatever on this point. The parents of children with statements have every opportunity to discuss their child's progress with the LEA and with the school and I see no need for this proposal.
I have gone on at some length for which I apologise, in a sense, but I did want to make it clear that I recognise that careful thought has gone into the arguments expressed today about the unfairness of the new position regarding amended statements and the national curriculum. On the basis of what I have heard I should like to examine further the detailed implications of those arguments and perhaps come back on Report with my detailed reactions. Given that undertaking from the Government I hope that the various Members of the Committee will not press the amendments tabled today.
9.30 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I hope that the noble Baroness can clarify one point. I am concerned about the very talented child who may possibly be a musician and who may need to practise for a number of hours a day at his or her instrument or possibly the ballet student who may again need to practise for a considerable number of hours a day. Will their special needs be met under Clause 12, which seems to me to be very temporary in nature, or if not under what clause? Perhaps this is not the moment to ask that question and if not I stand corrected but I should very much welcome clarification on this point.
Baroness Hooper: I think perhaps that those cases are not included in the group of amendments dealing with special needs which we are discussing at this point. But I should like to stress that the arrangements for the implementation of the national curriculum are intended to take account of the fact that certain schools and perhaps certain individual children may wish to specialise in some way. That is why the arguments I put forward earlier about the means of implementing the provisions of the national curriculum I believe allow for those possibilities.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness for dealing with all the amendments at the same time. However, I have found it somewhat confusing. I am due to move six amendments with two of which, as I understand it, the noble Baroness will not agree. I therefore think that when we come to those amendments it will be wisest for me to withdraw them. I shall then consider them and perhaps bring them back at Report stage.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to answer the particular points which I raised regarding the blind and the partially sighted. I accept that those are special needs. However, they are special needs of a different kind. Those who wish to follow the national curriculum and are already following it will be in grave difficulties in assessing pupils at the ages that are recommended for children in state schools. As I said previously, there will be a delay in learning because of loss of sight. Will that matter be covered in the published guidance which the noble Baroness mentioned or will it be covered by

463
further observations which she may make at Report stage?
Lady Kinloss: Did I understand the Minister to say that she did not agree with Amendment No. 121? Is that one of the amendments which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will bring back at Report stage?
Baroness Hooper: I spoke against Amendment No. 121. No doubt my noble friend will speak to that amendment when we come to it. Perhaps I may make it clear that I intend to move the government amendments when we come to them. I assume that there will be no objection to that course.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, we aim to cover in terms of guidance the specific areas of disability which the noble Baroness mentioned. Otherwise, we believe that the framework provided by the national curriculum and the exceptions which are provided by Clause 12 in particular will enable the more difficult cases to be dealt with. People who are able to follow the national curriculum will of course be covered by the guidance.
Lord Peston: I do not feel that a topic such as this is one on which the Committee should divide. The subject of children with special needs is such that we ought to work the matter out by debating it and getting it straight. Although, as I had already anticipated, I accept the view that somewhere implicit in the Bill are concerns corresponding to my amendment, I should be a great deal happier if the Minister felt able to say that she would think further about Amendment No. 64. An explicit statement by the Government of a commitment by the Secretary of State to take account of children with special needs would be an enormous boost. Even if it simply makes what is implicit explicit, I argue that that is a good thing.
It will take a lot to persuade me to divide the House on a subject of this kind. However, I should like to hear something a bit more encouraging from the Minister.
Baroness Hooper: By bringing forward the amendment the noble Lord has gone a long way towards making what is implicit explicit. The growing tendency to make declaratory statements on the face of the Bill is to be deplored. Therefore, I stand by the comments I made at an earlier stage.
Perhaps I may also take the opportunity to make it clear that in my reference to taking back certain amendments I was referring to the so-called third
464
group of amendments to which I have spoken—Amendments Nos. 118 and 119—but I shall reject the others.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may make another comment about the way in which this whole matter has been handled. I believe that it has been profoundly unsatisfactory. Probably this grouping should never have been agreed to. I hope that perhaps tomorrow the Minister and some of us could get together and discuss how we are to carry on the Committee stage. I feel that it cannot go on like this. It has been very frustrating to all of us.
Lord Carter: Earlier today we debated Amendment No. 1. I think that those Members of the Committee who voted the amendment down can now start to see the kind of problems which will arise because of the very narrow prescriptive nature of the national curriculum. The problems of the national curriculum for children with special educational needs are only an exaggeration of the problems which will face all children.
When the Minister said that Amendment No. 4—by which we wished to include "all" in Clause 1—had no effect on the meaning of the Bill, it is interpreted as being included. I simply ask, why not include it? That would give the kind of explicit statement that we have been seeking. When I moved the amendment and spoke to the group of amendments I spoke of the contortions which the Government have had to go through with Clause 4(4), and with Clauses 10, 11 and 12, which all deal with the problems of children with special educational needs. I think that the answers that the Minister has given have emphasised the fact that the word "contortions" was perhaps not too strong.
Throughout we are required to take the Secretary of State on trust. All through the discussion of this group of amendments we have been referring to flexibility. However, I have not yet seen the flexibility which the Government also say that they intend. I do not believe that the Minister has been able to satisfy us on that point.
I welcome the avoidance of the use of categories. I understand that the Government did not intend to use that term in the old sense and I welcome its exclusion from the Bill.
The Minister's answer with respect to appeals and professional help for parents, teachers and local authorities was unsatisfactory. However, I am aware of the confusion which has arisen because of the way these amendments have been grouped. Perhaps it would therefore be as well if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and bring these matters forward on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 23, leave out second ("and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 8. Before doing so I should like to take this opportunity to say how sad I am and I believe many other Members of the Committee will be at the absence of Fenner Brockway. Undoubtedly a few months ago he would have been one of the speakers supporting the amendment. We shall all miss him very deeply. He fought for what he believed in throughout his life and he had a very long life. He would certainly have supported the amendment that I now move.
I should also say that although the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has his name on the amendment he has asked me to give his apologies as it is quite impossible for him to be here tonight. I very much hope that he will be here at Report stage.
The object of the amendment is to strengthen the Bill and particularly to strengthen that section on page 1 which speaks of a "balanced and broadly based curriculum". I do not imagine that there is any Member of the Committee who would not accept that one of the supremely important issues in every form of education is consciousness of our membership of the human race and our responsibility for its survival. It has become a cliché to talk of the global village. It is our task to enable our children to become citizens of that village. I hope very much that when the noble Baroness comes to reply she will be able to accept this amendment. It is an amendment which is couched in exactly the terms that have been used previously by this Government. In the March 1985 White Paper Better Schools, paragraph 44(5) reads:
"to help pupils to understand the world in which they live, and the interdependence of individuals, groups and nations".
I thank the drafter of that phrase. I am more than happy to take it exactly as it was written in the White Paper.
Perhaps I may point out that last year, when the Government published their consultation document in July 1987, they said:
"A substantial measure of agreement has already been achieved and there is now widespread support for the aims of education which were set out clearly in the White Paper Better Schools".
I think it is fair to take it that the statement made in the White Paper last year had the endorsement of the Government.
It is commonplace nowadays to recognise that many of the problems that we all face are global problems which cannot be resolved by sovereign nation states. I remind the Committee that 1992 will see the passage of the Single European Act. Although I have always been a critic of the EC, nevertheless that Act will be passed. This country is way behind the rest of Europe in preparing its children for participation when it is passed in 1992. Surely the European Community itself bears witness to the international character of the world in which our children and grandchildren will be living.
I should like to quote from Willi Brandt's noteworthy book produced by his commission whose members, the Committee will remember, were drawn from all over the world:
"The Commission feels that schools all over the world should pay more atttention to international problems so that young people will see more clearly the dangers they are facing, their own responsibilities and the opportunities of co-operation globally and regionally as well as within their own neighbourhood".
I do not need to prove to this Chamber the extent of the global dimension of the problems which we all face today and which are certainly going to be faced with even greater gravity when we are gone and our descendants (who are now at school and who will be at school under this Act) have to face a totally different world from that in which we were brought up.
It is not only those of us who are accustomed to talk about internationalism who recognise this need. The teachers recognise it.
It was from the University of York that it emerged from a random survey of teachers that 69 per cent. of teachers think that environmental and developmental education is relevant to their subject areas. Secondly, 88 per cent. of primary and secondary school teachers think that the children they teach are not too young to develop a global awareness or empathy with people from other lands and cultures. Thirdly, 78 per cent. of primary and secondary school teachers think that development and environmental education are central to achieving an understanding of and active participation in the world today. Is education not primarily designed to give a child the opportunity to be active in the world in which he lives?
I should like to make two points dividing the sense of this amendment. First, it begins by saying:
"… helps pupils to understand the world in which they live".
In this Committee many times we have debated and discussed the problems of CFCs; the destruction of the rainforests; the problems arising from the burning of fossil fuels and of living in a nuclear age. This is the world and this is the environment in which we live today. It is going to be a much more dangerous and complex world in which our children live. Secondly, the amendment refers to,
"the inter-dependence of individuals, groups and nations."
Again, I need to say virtually nothing to convince the Committee that every major problem that faces the human race today comes under that category. It comes under the category of the vital necessity of recognising interdependence both between individuals in social life and individuals in their contact and communication with other human beings. We are all members of groups. I am sure that the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish here today will accept and agree with that. All over the world we are members of groups, and we are all members of nations. The interdependence of the individual, of the group and of the nation lies at the very root of understanding the world in which we live and in which our children and our grandchildren will live.
I hope that the Government will recognise the wisdom of the words used in 1985 and 1987 and that they will accept this amendment. Perhaps I may ask

467
the noble Baroness who is to reply one further specific point. I understand that working groups have been set up on each subject listed in the curriculum. Can the noble Baroness tell the Committee that instructions are going forth to each of those groups to ensure that in each the international dimension of the subject is fully recognised, fully discussed and fully reported on? I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said that his object is to strengthen the Bill. He referred to the many global problems that there are. I approach exactly the same point from a slightly different but equally satisfactory angle. In every nation in the world there is concern to a greater or lesser degree about the changes in the universe: the damage through the release of chlorofluorocarbons to the ozone layer on which our world climate depends; the destruction of the tropical forests, which also affect our climate, which contain still unexplored treasures of animal and vegetable life; the danger of acid precipitation, acid rain, which kills the trees and poisons the lakes and which appears to be caused by industry and transport. The nations are concerned about the protection of those animals and plants now in danger of extinction and about growing desertification, much of it caused by the ever-increasing world population.
These are facts. They cannot be said too often. Mankind has in the last 20 years realised that unless action is taken the world as it has evolved over the ages will cease to be the varied and pleasant place we now know.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, made the point that most of today's decision-makers will be dead before the planet feels the heavier effects of those known events to come. But today's pupils will be alive. In this situation the Bill must ensure that the education of our pupils takes full account of their personal involvement in the troubles that are coming.
Here I quarrel with Clause 1(2), which should state the basic intention of the Bill. In subsection (2)(a) a teacher:
"promotes the spiritual [and other qualities] of pupils",
and of society. The Bill refers to England and Wales, and that is presumably how society is to be interpreted, although the Oxford Dictionary gives a wider interpretation which I quoted in full on Second Reading on 18th April (at col. 1319 of Hansard), that in effect society is a community with common interests. But the word "society" does not include the whole world. Even if to meet the amendment "society" is interpreted as meaning the whole world—as it could be through an addition to the interpretation clause—that would make nonsense of the Bill, as the teachers could not be expected to promote the world's well-being as required by subsection (2)(a).
So Clause 2 intentionally is made inadequate by its reference to society. It states now an intention to produce men and women who are able to take their place as members of their own English or Welsh
468
society, but only by implication—in this grave matter implication is just not good enough—as members of the society of mankind.
The noble Baroness will tell me that the subsection as it stands does all that the amendment is asking for. It does not. It prepares the pupils for the vagaries of their own adult lives, but it makes no mention of the needs of this planet which must be met by these pupils if the planet is to survive as it is now. The world is already in grave danger. Can the curriculum in the Bill be balanced and broadly based unless it prepares the pupils for an adult life as world citizens as well as members of society? Do we really want to attach to the future a preparation for adult life without guidance, without any reference at all to what the opportunities and responsibilities are or ought to be for saving the world from unnecessary or irreparable damage?
The amendment in no way alters or limits the rest of the Bill, but the Bill must face the facts. Our horizons are wider than they were 20 years ago. We are now, whether we like it or not, citizens of Britain and the EC and only at our peril do we ignore our citizenship of the whole world. So let us set the tone for the content of modern education and even perhaps set an example to other nations.
10 p.m.
Lord Soper: I am irresistibly attracted to this amendment. Without it the framework of the curriculum is flawed and imperfect, in as much as it takes little account of the content of the speech to which we have just listened. I should like to give a personal experience which is somewhat to my shame. I was educated at a public school, thereafter at university and finally at a theological college. In my first ministry in 1926 I repaired to an open-air site called Tower Hill. I offered myself for such questions as might be asked feeling furnished with adequate answers in terms of the education that I had received. The first question I was asked was about Karl Marx; I had never heard of him. I had perhaps heard the name but, if so, it had passed through my mind. It had not lodged there. I told the heckler that his was a difficult question, that I did not want to give a hasty answer and that I would respond the following week. I have been endeavouring to continue that conversation ever since. My confidence that the amendment is necessary is confirmed by that experience. It revealed to me that, without the commitment to the wider issues of a world which changes so fundamentally and so dangerously, almost in the blinking of an eye, all education must necessarily be flawed.
I should like to give two illustrations of problems arising today which were more or less concealed from our forefathers. There is an area of acquaintance that has never been anything like as overall and comprehensive as it is today. Our children learn not ideas but words. And they are constantly reminded on the television screen and from the radio of all kinds of issues. They have little competence to understand a great many of them, and unless that area of acquaintance becomes an area of understanding I believe that their education will be fatally flawed.

469
Moreover, if it be generally true that politics is the way things happen—and I believe that to be an incontestable generality—it is also true that unless attention is paid to those matter included within the framework of this amendment, those in this global village who probably are well educated in personal matters and in local affairs may have little competence to understand the problems that they must face and the problems with which they are already challenged in a world of ever-changing and ever more dangerous conditions.
One issue which arises relates to the debate on religion which took place this afternoon in this Committee. I found it almost impossible to remain in my seat. I have a great deal of sympathy for the observations of my noble friends Lord Houghton and Lord Sefton. I believe that there are instances of the need for religious education. However, I can well understand their reaction. It could have been avoided. It could be avoided now if, within the framework of religious education, there were a clear distinction between the dissemination of information and the inculcation of the moral responsibilities which go with the Christian faith, for example.
Within a wide world of a great deal more religion—it is a curious anomaly that the decay of official Christianity in this country has been matched by a widespread increase in Moslem conviction, to say nothing of the born-again religion which proliferates across the Atlantic—it is quite proper that we should inculcate the Christian faith provided that we are prepared at the same time to lay a foundation of understanding on the part of those who will be invited to subscribe to it rather than assuming that in their ignorance they will somehow come to accept the dogmatism which is invariably associated with the Christian proclamation.
I entirely agree that we have a perfect right to proclaim Christianity which is our official religion, and to proclaim it not only in terms which are dogmatic but, more than that, in terms which are compassionate. However, at the same time I believe that within the framework of this amendment there is a saving grace. We have no right to communicate as if it is on authority a faith such as we believe or the majority of us are called upon to believe unless we are equally well prepared to give evidence of what is the general survey that can be undertaken of religion throughout the world—religion which is inescapable and such an indelible part of the paintwork of our civilisation that it is impossible to ignore.
There is no way in which religion can be obliterated from the education scheme. There is every reason to believe that in an enlightened understanding of what is religion and in the education of the facts that belong to that understanding coupled with a commitment to which we are perfectly well entitled, we can proclaim our conviction that religion at its highest and noblest and best resounds in the teaching and spirit in the resurrection and victory of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In that regard the amendment is a great help to me and to many others who feel that it is not fair to represent the authority of the Christian faith without some kind of religious teaching which can give the basic facts of a world which is religious in so many ways—some desirable and some not—but
470
nevertheless a world in which choice must be made. Having examined the evidence, we make that choice. I want that examination to be available to the children of this generation for the sake of what is to happen in the future but, above all, I want it to be a prelude to the proclamation of the saving grace of the Christian faith.
Lord Elton: If I were—and thank goodness I am not—in the Minister's position my reaction to Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 inclusive would be a general feeling that there must be an enormous temptation to put everybody's hobbyhorse into Clause 1(2) in order to establish its primacy in the minds of the Committee and educators in general.
I shall not detain the Committee for more than a moment but I should like to ask the noble Baroness at least to listen with interest to what is now being said because it rests on events which happened to me in the last 22 days. First, I attended a conference of which the short title was the Global Forum for World Survival in which spiritual and political leaders of all countries, colours and nationalities came together to discuss shared problems and over which hung a large photograph of the world as seen from space.
The next event associated with that was a conversation which I had with the first woman in space—the Russian astronaut. The next event which was entirely coincidental and resulted from other circumstances altogether was that I had a longer conversation with one of the three American astronauts who 16 years ago last Wednesday walked on the face of the moon.
What was borne in upon me with great sharpness from those three encounters was this. The human race is a rather small collection of infinitely small creatures who cannot be distinguished from each other at a great distance. They inhabit a very beautiful, fragile and fairly small place which they are in a position to destroy by many methods less dramatic than a nuclear explosion. Moreover, they spend most of their time at each others throats, trying to destroy each other and, incidentally, their environment.
If my noble friend does not entirely throw these proposals out of the window at first blush, she would have my sympathy because I think that we must come to terms with these perceptions whether through curriculum committees or whatever and eventually they will come to the top of the heap. I am not sure that the moment is right now and I am not sure that my noble friend will concede to the general principle being brought forward but I beg her not to block the way forward to that essential recognition within the next few years.
Lord Young of Darlington: Perhaps I may briefly support what Members of the Committee have said. I am very much in favor of this amendment and hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to accept it. Not to have any mention of the wider world in the whole of this Bill and in the reference to the national curriculum seems to be quite wrong. At this point in the Bill the national curriculum should include some reference to the international issues and the wider world of which this nation is part.

471
Whatever the outcome of the amendment, I would ask whether the noble Baroness is prepared to look at the English inherent in the clause under discussion. We have heard a good deal about the quality of English in schools. But, surely, we should be concerned, at least to some extent, with the quality of English in the Bill. Clause 1(2)(a) provides that the curriculum,
"promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society".
The phrasing "and of society" is indeed most odd. It is implied that the curriculum should promote the moral, cultural, mental and physical development of society. I suggest that society cannot have a mind or a body. Those words are both adjectives and qualities that appertain to a person and not a society. For that reason those three words are just hanging and do not carry—to my mind, at any rate—any clear meaning. I hope that at some later stage it will be possible to consider improving the quality of the English which we shall endow on the schools of this nation when the Bill is enacted.
Lord McNair: The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, made one of the best speeches on Second Reading and I was determined to support him on this amendment. I cannot help thinking that a more wide-awake and forward looking drafter of the Bill would not have overlooked the obvious fact that our stewardship of this planet will be our major preoccupation during the next 25 to 50 years. I shall leave aside the speech that I had intended to make in support of the noble Lord. However, I am sure that a provision along the lines proposed should be put in the Bill and that Clause 1 is the place.
I suggest that it would be possible to combine Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 neatly to read,
"as members of a multi-racial and multi-cultural society and inhabitants of the earth".
I am not sure whether Amendment No. 7 has yet been moved but that wording would seem to cover both.
Lord Rea: I should briefly like to support the amendment. Amendment No, 7, due to be debated shortly, is the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead; so perhaps this is not quite the right moment to try to amalgamate the two amendments. The wording is definitely an improvement on the language in the Bill because it draws our attention to the need to co-operate with each other—whether in a school, in a local community or with people in distant parts of the globe. It takes into account the social aspects of the environment and the people in the world as well as the physical aspects which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, wanted to tackle in his amendment. The amendment is slightly superior, although I should like to encompass all the sentiments which the noble Lord put forward when he moved his amendment. As it stands it rightly enjoys the support of at least one bishop—who is not with us tonight—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and one very notable cleric, my noble friend Lord Soper, who has just spoken. It is eminently Christian in spirit but, at the same time, it encompasses members of all other religions and those people with no religion.
472
As other speakers have said, a recurring and damaging part of the human history is the continuous recurrent hostility of one group to another with intolerance to other systems built into the prevailing culture. The education system tends to perpetuate that if we are not very careful. The additional words will help to direct schools towards increasing children's tolerance and understanding of the rest of the world and reducing tension. As such, I strongly support the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I seek the guidance of the Minister. I apologise for intervening but this is a matter of procedure. Reference constantly has been made to "this amendment". As I understand the position, the proposed grouping covers Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 and Amendment No. 15. Is it the procedure that all those whose names are linked with those amendments, as my name is to Amendment No. 15, need to speak to their respective amendments during the general debate? In that case, when one refers to "this amendment" one must be careful as to which amendment one is referring to. If at some stage during the debate I am able to speak to Amendment No. 15, the argument will be disparate from the arguments on Amendments Nos. 5 to 8. There is a difficulty here.
Lord Sandford: I rise to support the general thrust of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Craigton but to say that in my opinion it will not make a tremendous difference whether or not the amendment is accepted at this stage.
My feelings on this amendment are the same as on Amendment No. 2. It is much more important to have clear assurances from my noble friend on the Front Bench as to the kind of guidance that she and her colleagues are giving to the subject working parties in order to ensure that the curriculum, and particularly the cross-curriculum, themes are taught in an effective way. My belief is that environmental education is currently taught in a manner which fully meets my noble friend's point. I should like assurance when we reach Clause 3 that nothing in the structure of the national curriculum will cause any diminution in what is being done at the moment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No. 7.
Lord Elton: On a point of order, I do not think that the noble Lord can move an amendment at this stage. The amendment now being discussed is Amendment No. 5. He can speak to his amendment and the discussion now is whether he can speak to it later. On that I remain silent, but certainly he cannot move his amendment now.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I should prefer to move my amendment when it is called, but it was being referred to during the course of the debate so perhaps I should speak to it now.
I am a little worried about the grouping. I regard this amendment as of the utmost importance. It is of the utmost importance to the cohesiveness of our society. Therefore, I invite the Committee to affirm

473
that this is a multi-racial and multi-cultural society and to recommend that all children be educated to accept that fact and to work to make it a success.
The United Kingdom has always been multi-cultured but during the past 400 years, as a result of the British Empire, there has been an additional dimension. Until now this racial dimension has been separated from this country by oceans. Therefore, the people in this country have been able to enjoy Britain's influence overseas, and even to accept the fact that there were British citizens overseas, and still remain unaffected by it.
The Second World War changed all this. During the Second World War many of these British overseas citizens came here. They joined the forces. Some of them worked in the factories that provided the sinews of war. Then after the war there was a labour shortage and many of these ex-servicemen stayed to supply the required labour. Others also came from the overseas British territories to fill the need. It is that fact that has transformed society, because it has now established a visible minority of a different colour and often of a different culture. It is quite easy to accept a difference when it is separated from us by oceans; it is much more difficult when it is on one's doorstep.
This country now has to decide how best to meet that challenge. It has not yet decided. The truth of the matter—and it is something that we are all overlooking—is that this country has been given the opportunity of showing the world how people of different races can live together in equality and friendship. That is one of the biggest problems confronting the world today. We are privileged to be able to give an example to the world and to show how this problem can be solved. I regard this amendment as important because I am inviting Members of the Committee to seize the opportunity to accept this challenge. If we are going to do so, it is essential that our young people should see it as a goal to be achieved and should be motivated to work to reach it.
Clause 1 gives us an opportunity, in that it requires the Secretary of State, the local authorities, the governors and the head teachers to use their influence to ensure that there is a balanced and broad-based curriculum and that it prepares pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. I am asking the Members of the Committee and the Government to add the words "in a multiracial and multi-cultural society". I know that it can be argued that it is unnecessary; that it is implied; that since society is already multi-racial and multi-cultural, they are going to be trained for adult life, they will be trained for adult life in this society. However, even a cursory reading of the Swann Report will show why it is necessary to express this and not merely to accept the implications.
There are areas of this country where there are all-white schools. All the evidence suggests that those schools do not regard themselves as being involved in multi-cultural education, since they are monocultural. The concept of being part of a multi-racial society appears not to impinge one iota on the consciousness of these schools. However, if we are to establish a good, viable and worthwhile pluralist society, efforts are required from both the majority
474
and the minority communities. Therefore if the children from the majority communities are allowed to believe the fact that this country is multi-racial and multi-cultural has no bearing on their lives, they will be done a disservice. The schools will be failing in their duty if they do not prepare those children for the realities of adult life.
Moreover, the whole question of the curriculum, on which we have spent seven hours of debate, is affected by whether consciously the decision is made to add the words of my amendment to the Bill. If my amendment is accepted, appropriate instructions will have to be given to the working groups. They must prepare their recommendations with that provision in mind. The examining boards will be affected. The HMIs, the most important factor of all, will be affected because they have to assess the extent to which schools are responding to the challenges of educating children to play their proper role in society.
The provision will affect the way in which subjects are taught, especially history, geography and the social sciences. It will affect the attitude adopted to minority languages and religions. Above all, it will affect the way in which teachers are trained.
Any changes in the content, approach and overall direction of the curriculum can only be achieved with the co-operation and support of the teachers. In return, those teachers must be adequately trained to respond to the task. All students in colleges of education will have to be trained to teach in a multi-racial society. I conclude with a passage from page 324 of the Swann Report:
"The reality of British society now and in the future, is that a variety of ethnic groups, with their own distinct lifestyles and value systems, will be living together. It is perhaps inevitable that conflicts may arise from time to time between the aspirations and expectations of these groups. It is also possible that there will be some degree of cultural interchange, with individuals adopting or adapting elements of the other group's cultural styles as part of their own. The aim of education should be to ensure that from their earliest years children learn to accept the normality and justice of a variety of points of view without feeling threatened, and are indeed encouraged to find this variety of outlook stimulating in itself. Schools should offer their pupils the skills needed to contribute to a resolution of any conflicts which do arise in a positive and constructive way".
I endorse those sentiments. By my amendment I invite the Government to endorse them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may—
Baroness Seear: I should like—
10.30 p.m.
Lord Trafford: We on this side have had very little to say on this subject. We have allowed the Opposition a fair crack of the whip. I have some sympathy with many of the sentiments that have been expressed although it is difficult to encompass them. We have been to the stars and back on this amendment which seemed so simple when it was moved.
The Bill covers the whole complex about which we have talked. How can we educate people properly, in the terms of the Bill, if they are not brought up properly to appreciate the problems we have had of living in a multi-racial society, of the environment, or of our ability to converse with the astronauts of various origins about whom we heard earlier?

475
I am a little concerned about putting into legislation good intentions which, when applied to the very letter, can lead to problems. It may be improper in some respects to quote an as yet unpublished report, but I understand from the press, and I am sure all other Members of the Committee will have read this, that the slavish adherence sometimes to the letter of the law can lead to unfortunate consequences. Therefore, I myself should not wish to see that written into the Bill at this stage. I have great sympathy with the sentiments expressed. I also have some difficulty in understanding how it came about—as we were told earlier by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—that small children could not understand the concept of religion or God. Now we are told that they can apparently understand the concept of the global village and internationalism. What an identikit drawing of the child we are talking about would look like at the end of the day makes the mind boggle.
Be that as it may, I cannot see any good reason why we should amend a fairly broad definition of what the education of our children is trying to achieve. We can, so to speak, "overcook the pudding". With due respect to all those who have quite reasonably, properly and modestly put forward their special points, I think we could make this somewhat counterproductive. It seems to me that we have covered most of these points. What is the purpose of the proper use of education, or history and geography, if most of the points just made are not covered? Surely this is the point of teaching good, proper and accurate history, accurate geography, accurate analysis of what happens. As children grow older, they appreciate these things.
There is the implication behind some of the remarks in favour of this amendment that schools will correct everything that happens outside and that somehow people can be taught how to think. Up to a point that is true, but it is in the home that we are taught how to feel about things. Much of what we have heard is not what we learn at school; it is what we are taught to feel about how to appreciate other people, other races. If the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will forgive me saying so, this is not taught by rote; it is something which is inculcated as a respect for the human race. That is how it should be.
In all sincerity, I cannot see that making much change to the broad definition which is already in the Bill will help any of those very estimable sentiments that have been expressed by those who have proposed these amendments.
Baroness Seear: I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, that if your father happens to be Alf Garnett you would need rather a lot of education at school to counteract what you have learned at home.
I rise in order to support the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, in asking that we should include the phrase "multi-racial and multi-cultural". I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said about being global, international, inhabitants of the earth and so on. But would it not be humbug to teach children in schools to appreciate the whole wide
476
world, if we were making a thorough mess of dealing with the racial groups that we have here on our doorsteps? Surely, that is where we start with the problems and the issues which we have and which we encounter in our daily lives.
For that reason, this amplifies and is a stepping stone towards the wider understanding that we should be teaching about the multi-cultural, multi-racial society in which we live. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has now suggested that we should include the words "multi-cultural" and "multi-racial". If the Committee decides that it will not include those words, think what an interpretation will be put on that rejection by a very large number of people in this country.
Lord Beloff: I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. I believe that one of the tasks of education in this country must be, whether or not we put it in the Bill in so many words, to improve relations between the races.
But I am very doubtful whether the coupling of the very vague and to my mind rather troubling phrase "multi-cultural" with "multi-racial" is likely to assist that process. We are a country in which, as the noble Lord has reminded us, many racial ethnic groups now live. We are, as we learnt earlier today, a country in which many religious beliefs are held. Sometimes they coincide with these ethnic groups and sometimes they cut across them. But when we say "multi-cultural" do we really envisage a country which is divided among a number of different cultures?
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: If the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, I wish to say that this country is already multi-cultural. There is an English culture, a Welsh culture, a Scottish culture and an Irish culture. All that I was suggesting is that there should be respect for the other cultures that are now in our midst.
Lord Beloff: I take the noble Lord's point. My point is rather that where we see in the world within a single political structure genuine multi-culturalism in its full sense we have a recipe for political disaster or at least for political tension. No one has yet found how one can have a working democratic political system—if supreme power is held in a few hands one can do anything—which is not underpinned by the sense of having a single culture.
I should have thought that the right way to approach this matter is to say that we have these different races. We have these different religions and beliefs. Clearly they will modify the culture which existed in this country before these phenomena occurred. The culture that we will have will not be the culture which we were bequeathed by the Victorians. But to say that we want it, or even that it is multi-cultural in the sense in which Indonesia or Malaysia are multi-cultural, would be calling into question one of the main purposes as I see it of the education system, which is to create a national frame of reference to which all pupils, whatever their ethnic origin or religious convictions may be, can ultimately refer. Only in that way can we have social and political peace.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 15, which is a genuine attempt to assist the Minister and her colleagues in defusing a proposal which, it has been put to me, causes grave unease not least in the teaching profession but also among many others.
That unease is that whatever criticisms can be made of Clause 1—we know from the contributions from all around the Chamber that it is flawed in the eyes of many people—what concerns those outside who have spoken to me is the difficulty in linking its aspirations with the rest of the Bill.
This amendment is perfectly straightforward. It seeks to amend Clause 2 by adding the words on page 2 in line 6 after the word "which":
"satisfies the requirements of section 1(2) above and the requirements of this section".
The point to which I am referring occurs at the bottom of page 1. I am sure that what is set out there will not cause much dispute. The provision states:
"prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
Various Members of the Committee have said what they anticipate will come out of the working parties to be included in the national curriculum. I am inviting the Minister to recognise that if she will accept the amendment—or, if it is not worded correctly, accept the sense of it—that will go a long way towards easing the minds of those who feel that flesh needs to be put on the bones of Clause 2.
In Clause 1 we are told that we are looking for a broad balance. The Minister said this afternoon that what we already have will be added to bit by bit. Perhaps she will contemplate the possibility that the wrong bits may emerge at the wrong times. If there is a linkage between the important parts of Clauses 1 and 2, that will satisfy many people as to what the Minister and her colleagues are seeking to achieve in Clause 1.
I ask the Minister to dispel the fears which pervade the teaching profession and many other professions, that they will be sold short in what they are asked to achieve. Clause 1 as it stands is full of laudable objectives. The rest of the Bill may be said to be pervaded by the sense of Clause 1. My amendment seeks to give strength to Clause 2 in line with the spirit of Clause 1. I seek some indication of the views of the Minister and her colleagues at this stage.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The grouping of the amendments is such that it is difficult to follow a straight line. Perhaps I may say a word about the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, which I heartily support.
I support the amendment on very simple grounds. I do not altogether agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. It is the task of schools to teach pupils how to think. If that is not their task, I do not know what is. One of the advantages of thinking is to allow one to recognise facts. It is a fact that this country is now a multi-racial and multi-cultural society.
It may be said that in the Bill it is obvious that the Government have implicitly recognised that. It seems to me that throughout the Bill too many implicit assumptions have been made. The fact is that English
478
people—I do not refer to Welsh, Scottish or Irish people—have an amazing capacity for failing to recognise the most obvious facts. It was, after all, Lord Nelson who put his telescope to his blind eye. That is a national characteristic.
One of the facts which we have failed to recognise in our practice, no matter what our intentions may be, is that we are living in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. The second fact that we have failed to recognise is that in such a society the confidence of minorities is essential if integration is to be secured. The confidence of those minorities depends on the attitude not of themselves but of the majority. What this amendment does is offer a gesture of reassurance to those minorities indicating that we recognise their existence and their anxieties and that we want to give them the confidence which they deserve and without which they will not become the fully integrated citizens whom we desire.
One of the things which all education worthy of the name offers to pupils is knowledge of the world in which they live. It was for that reason that in the 18th century (and partly from self-indulgence) the English went on the Grand Tour—they went to find out what was happening on the continent from which their multi-cultural culture emerged. It was for that reason that people of my generation felt it their bounden duty to try to go to America, because without understanding America they could not understand the world. It is for the same reason that in our schools we should teach people not only about the continent of Europe and the United States and the USSR but about the minorites who live beside them and their cultures.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said, in white schools in white areas pupils are largely deprived of that knowledge, not through any malevolent intention on the part of those who teach them but just through failure to recognise the facts of life. The amendment will help to remind people to teach their pupils about a fact of life which they will encounter when they leave school and that they will possibly find themselves somewhere where other people of other origins and cultures exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, raised an interesting and philosophical point—on which I do not intend to dwell at this hour of the night—about the possibility of having a cohesive but multi-cultural society. I do not think that the dilemma which he posed is quite so acute as that which he expressed. I do not believe that European culture could have the qualities which it possesses unless it was multi-cultural. I profoundly hope that in the future the European Community will become a genuine community. If it is to become such a community it must be multi-cultural.
If a confrontation or combination of cultures automatically means instability and that is to be the pattern, which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, thinks is inescapable—I do not say that it is necessarily false: it may be realistic—it is deeply pessimistic for the future of the world. I notice that the noble Lord laughs, but I do not think that it is a very happy outlook if we cannot overcome that problem and cannot enrich ourselves by a combination, a confrontation, a competition of cultures.

479
I think that if that is what one believes one should start in one's own country. I believe that there would be no harm and could only be good in the Government making a small concession to these arguments and to the minorities who live here by including the words proposed in the amendment—which do not mean anything more than they say and in no way damage what I am sure we shall be told is implicit in the Bill—and acknowledging that those words would add to the Bill and to the prospects of integration in this country.
Baroness David: There has been support from all sides of the Committee for this group of amendments. I should like to add our support. I cannot say that I am altogether happy about the wording of some of the amendments, or indeed the wording of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said, and in particular with the word "society" which seems to hang. I very much hope that when she responds the Minister will say that she will think about these amendments and come back with some form of wording at Report stage which covers the various points which have been made by a number of speakers. I believe that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned, if the Government turn down the amendment it will look very bad indeed to the outside world unless something is put into the Bill.
The Earl of Arran: Before I say anything else perhaps I ought to make it perfectly clear that I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 15. This has been undoubtedly a lofty and noble debate. I am truly grateful to all Members of the Committee for their contributions and for their obvious and genuine desire to improve Clause 1 of the Bill together with their strong commitment to the worthy objectives that they would have us specify. Nonetheless, I am afraid I must disappoint them by speaking against these amendments.
The wording of Clause 1 of the Bill is very general. This is done on purpose. We wish our wording to stand the test of time in the way that the very similar words in Section 7 of the 1944 Act have done. It is through this general wording that we achieve the broadest possible scope for the clause, and allow it to reflect not only our present concerns but also future generations developing understanding of what "the responsibilities of adult life" or "the needs of society" involve.
Amendment No. 6 of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and others, are very similar in tone and content. One proposes that we make explicit mention of educating pupils to be "members of society and inhabitants of this earth", the other of "helping pupils to understand the world in which they live and the interdependence of nations".
These are of course very important aims for the school curriculum. But I fear that the words that the noble Lords would have us add, since they cannot reasonably extend the scope of the clause, might be taken as in some way constraining its application. I know that that is not their intention. But can it seriously be suggested that,
480
"the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life"
to which Clause 1 refers do not already cover life as members of society and inhabitants of the earth, or the need to understand the world and the complicated and diverse relationships on which our existence depends? I think not.
What the suggested words do is to reflect certain important concerns, but only some of the important concerns, which the school curriculum must address. We intend that it shall do so and indeed within the national curriculum shall take steps to ensure that these issues are appropriately covered. They will be dealt with in many subject areas. For example, the science working group has already been reminded of the need to help pupils develop,
"respect for the environment and the care of living things"
and we can expect relevant attainment targets to be developed in geography, in history, and elsewhere. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that both mathematics and technology working groups are to be set up.
But we do not want to give emphasis in Clause 1 to any subject, or cross-curricular theme, however timely and important. Nor should we wish to appear to devalue pupils' individual experiences and achievements by emphasising only the social and collective. Clause 1 has struck what we believe to be the right balance between the various objectives of the school curriculum. We resisted in another place the attempt to hang upon it additional embellishments, however worthy the cause in question, and we remain convinced that this is the right approach.
With regard to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, while the Government have particular sympathy with the intentions behind his Amendment No. 7, which seeks to include in Clause 1 the explicit objective of educating pupils for life in a multi-racial and multi-cultural society, I must speak against this amendment also, and for similar reasons. Given the nature of our society it would be difficult to argue that preparation for adult life, and indeed the promotion of the cultural development of our society, do not already cover those attitudes and activities which this amendment seeks to encourage. As I have said, we do not wish to start on the road of separately identifying particular skills, or particular attitudes, which might he given a boost by a mention in the Bill, however laudable they may be.
I should like to make clear that our unwillingness to accept this amendment is no reflection on our commitment to its underlying objective. This Government have, in the light of the Swann Report, set in hand a number of initiatives to meet educational needs in a multi-ethnic society, including projects supported through education support grants and a new national priority area for in-service teacher training. In addition, the need to take account of ethnic diversity has been included in the criteria used by the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education for the approval of initial teacher training courses, and the national criteria for the GCSE.
In the context of the national curriculum, the first subject working groups have been asked, in drawing up attainment targets and programmes of study, to bear in mind the multi-ethnic nature of society. I

481
know that the task group on assessment and testing has also considered these issues very carefully. We shall certainly ensure that all future detailed work follows these same principles.
Finally, I shall speak about Amendment No. 10 to Clause 2 which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. It seeks to ensure that the national curriculum conforms with the requirements of Clause 1.
Noble Lords: Amendment No. 15.
The Earl of Arran: Forgive me, I should have referred to Amendment No. 15. The national curriculum will be established by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and implemented by local authorities, governing bodies and head teachers. All of these parties are explicitly and unequivocally required under Clause 1 to carry out all their functions in a way designed to meet the requirements of the clause. That being the case, the national curriculum could hardly fail to be designed and implemented so as to meet those requirements. I hope again that this assurance will persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and persuade other noble Lords, in these circumstances, to withdraw their amendments also.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: The noble Earl has made what sounds to me like a very weak case. He does not appear to have read the documents produced by his own Government. If he had done so he would not have referred to Amendment No. 8 as simply dealing with groups. Amendment No. 8 specifically mentions "the inter-dependence of individuals". If we consider the argument that the noble Earl has put before the Committee, why is it that when the Government produced their White Paper they included in it all the points that were mentioned about helping pupils to develop lively, inquiring minds and to acquire understanding and skills relevant to adult life?
The Government then found it an advantage to add to the skills necessary for adult life. The amendment which I have tabled uses the direct words in paragraph 44 of the White Paper, and refers to helping pupils,
"to understand the world in which they live, and the inter-dependence of individuals, groups and nations."
If the Government found that to be an advantage in 1985, why have they changed their mind in 1988?
The noble Earl had nothing to say about that. At this late hour, despite the fact that there has been support for the amendment from all sides, I do not propose to divide the Committee. But I put down a marker that such has been the support behind Amendments Nos. 5 and 8 that we shall certainly return to them at Report stage. On that occasion we shall hope to have a clearer and more intelligent answer to the mass of feeling and thought that has been expressed during the debate than we have heard from the Minister tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
482
Page 1, line 25, at end insert ("as members of society and inhabitants of the earth.")
The noble Lord said: I feel like Winston Churchill must have felt before the last war. When he said there was going to be a war nobody would listen to him.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert—
("(3) The authorities named in subsection 1(a), (b) and (c) above shall make adequate arrangements to enable the reasonable exercise of judgment by teachers in pursuance of their professional duties including, in particular, the progressive development of the curriculum.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to emphasise the importance of the teaching profession in the development of the syllabus and the curriculum. It must be well known to the Committee that a very large number of members of the teaching profession are deeply disturbed by the Bill. They feel that their professional contribution is not being fully recognised, has not been fully recognised and that their status is not what it should be.
As many of us have said during the discussion on the Bill, the whole success of the implementation of the Government's intention turns on having the support and the professional commitment of the teachers. They would be greatly reassured if on the face of the Bill the need to be in touch with them as well as the Secretary of State, the local authorities and the head teachers, and the need for them to be consulted in the development of the curriculum, was recognised.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will tell me that there is no need, that it is implied and that everybody understands that teachers have to be deeply involved in the work. But I assure the Committee that they do not see it that way. Other Members must know from the letters they have received how undermined the teachers feel, how neglected and how scorned in many cases. To give this recognition to them by building it into the Bill would go a very long way to giving them the confidence that they must have if the Bill is to work. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: Clause 1 is a very odd clause indeed. It reads more like a model homily or a sermon than the opening of an Act of Parliament. If this is to be the pattern for legislation from now on I cannot wait to get my hands on a copy of the Local Government Finance Bill. Another very odd thing about the clause is that it is apparently the curriculum and nothing but the curriculum which is expected to promote the:
"spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils"
and in some unexplained way "of society".
It is also the curriculum which has to prepare pupils:
"for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
I suppose the curriculum at the school which I attended had something to do with my mental and physical development. Culture, in so far as it existed, was strictly ex-curriculum and the less I say about my

483
spiritual and moral development the better. What about our preparation for the:
"opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life"?
That comes hardly at all from the curriculum. If one is lucky it comes from the example of one's teachers and from the whole atmosphere and ethos of one's school, which in turn are created by one's teachers.
It is most odd that this most odd clause virtually ignores the teachers completely. The word "teacher" creeps in in line 14 where a head teacher is mentioned as a possible alternative to a governing body. In this introductory and homiletic clause that is the sum total of the recognition that teachers have some part to play in education. We must send a signal to the teachers indicating that, whether or not we admire and respect them—and I do—we know that we cannot do without them.
Baroness Young: I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that the amendment is not necessary. I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and with many other Members the real importance of obtaining a greater understanding of what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill through the teaching profession. Like many Members of the Committee I have not only received a large amount of correspondence from teachers but have also taken the opportunity to talk to a number of them. I believe that a great deal of misunderstanding has arisen in respect of the Bill. I agree with the view shared on all sides of the Committee. If the Bill is to succeed it will be through the teaching profession and it is important that it understands what is happening.
I began by saying that I hoped my noble friend would be able to say that the amendment was not necessary. As I see it, the needs of the teachers are implicit throughout the Bill but certainly in Clause 1. I strongly suspect that time will show that there will be a great involvement of teachers in how the curriculum evolves, particularly in new subjects such as technology, which is far less defined than any other subject. However, it will obviously be a crucial subject underlying the Bill and we shall require the input and expertise of teachers in order to make a success of it. Although I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that the amendment is not necessary, I underline what I and many other people believe. It is important to recognise that the role of the teachers will be crucial to the success of the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: The amendment seeks to establish in law the professional rights of teachers. I believe, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the teachers' professional role must be safeguarded. The importance of the teachers' role has been fully recognised, as has been emphasised by my noble friend Lady Young. I am not convinced that the amendments are necessary or workable.
The amendment would have the effect of allowing the teacher who did not wish to defer to his head teacher's professional authority to seek judicial review of any decision made within the school with which he disagreed. That is not the way in which professional disagreements could or should be handled, and I do not believe that any other
484
profession expects the courts to arbitrate in disputes between professionals and their employers about professional judgments, as is implied here.
I recognise and support the sentiment behind the amendment, but it is not necessary to amend the Bill in order to achieve it. The Bill and the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 establish a framework which does not threaten the professional status of teachers and which gives head teachers specific responsibilities in respect of the school curriculum. In the Bill before the Committee the Secretary of State is not empowered to make national curriculum orders which would in any way constrain teachers' freedom to choose their own teaching styles and methods or the materials that they wish to use. We are quite clear on that point, and had it not been so we should have amended the Bill to secure that effect.
We amended the Bill in another place to state that orders to be laid before Parliament to implement the national curriculum cannot themselves determine the time to be allocated to any one subject, nor the way in which it is to be timetabled; for example, whether in combination with other subjects, as a distinct module in a TVEI course, or as an individual examination subject—again, leaving a lot to the professional judgment of teachers.
Therefore, the professional discretion of teachers is in no way threatened by the provisions of this Bill or by the proposed powers of the Secretary of State. Under the 1986 Education (No. 2) Act the articles of government of any county or controlled school must give the head teacher control over the determination and organisation of the curriculum. The only constraint is that he must act in a way compatible with the local education authority's curriculum policy, or that policy as modified by the governing body. Again that leaves ample room for professional freedom.
In aided schools the curriculum is under the control of the governing body, but again the head must be allocated powers to determine and organise the curriculum. So in all maintained schools there must be delegation of the key professional elements of curriculum organisation and delivery.
It is apparent, I think, that the ability of the Secretary of State, of the LEA and of the governing body to limit teachers' professional discretion is already very severely circumscribed. The dangers against which this amendment purports to protect the teacher are not real ones, and the protection is not therefore necessary. There will remain genuine professional debate within schools, LEAs, and nationally about teaching methods and approaches and about curricular organisation. It is a sign of a healthy professionalism. However, we should not atttempt, as does this amendment, to bring the full panoply of the law to bear in an inappropriate way.
Having said that, I wish to emphasise again the words of my noble friend Lady Young—and, indeed, my own words at Second Reading—in saying that we recognise that teachers will have a crucial role to play in the delivery of the national curriculum. For that reason I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for tabling this amendment but I ask the Committee to oppose it for the reasons I have given.
Baroness Seear: I am not surprised by that reply and I cease to be disappointed because I do not expect anything now. As the noble Baroness must know, the fact remains that a great many members of the teaching profession are extremely disillusioned with this Bill and the attitude of the Government and some gesture of encouragement built into the Bill would be of the greatest value. However, the Government are adamant and it is quite clear that they are not giving anything away. They believe that they are right, although people all over the country are telling them that they are wrong. However, at this time of night I shall not divide the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The National Curriculum]:
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 6 and insert ("The curriculum for every maintained school shall comprise a basic curriculum which includes—

(a) provision for religious education for all registered pupils at the school; and

(b) a curriculum for all registered pupils at the school of compulsory school age (to be known as "the National Curriculum") which meets the requirements of subsection (2) below.

(2) The curriculum referred to in subsection (1)(b) above shall comprise the core and other foundation subjects and specify").
The right reverend Prelate said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("purpose or') and insert ("purposes of fulfilling the duties specified in section I above and, subject thereto").
11.15 p.m.
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to speak at length at this time of night. However, I should just explain the change, which is a little obscure and perhaps somewhat difficult to follow. Clause 2 begins with the words:
"The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect for the purpose of securing that there is implemented",
and so on. The proposed change is that the provisions of the chapter shall have effect for the purposes of fulfilling—
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord forgive me if I intervene? I may be quite wrong in this, but he appears to be addressing an amendment which has just been removed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. If that is the case, surely he is attempting the impossible.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): The noble Lord is right and I must accept full responsibility. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, to accept my apology. Amendment No. 10 has, in effect, fallen and that is also true of Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 inclusive because they in one way or another have already been discussed and have in any event been pre-empted. Therefore that brings us to Amendment No.—
Lord Peston: I wonder whether it is in order for me to ask a question. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are fundamentally important amendments which I was proposing to move with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. I should like to know when those amendments were suddenly destroyed. I have been sitting here for most, although not all, of today's debate and I fail to see how such an important issue can suddenly disappear, so to speak, by magic. At the very least I require an explanation—
Lord Elton: If it is proper for me to intervene I would say that the amendments disappeared at the moment when the noble Lord did not object to the acceptance of Amendment No. 11.
Lord Peston: I must say that I did not even know that Amendment No. 11 had been accepted. In those circumstances I should have thought that some explanation would have been in order. I must appeal to someone who is concerned with such matters and say that to allow such an important amendment to disappear on a Bill of such importance is not the way to conduct business correctly.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I assure the noble Lord that I put the Question as to whether Amendment No. 11 should be agreed to and it was agreed to without dissent. That being so, and under the rules relating to pre-emption, the amendments which followed have fallen including Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 inclusive. Amendment No. 18 was discussed—
Lord Belstead: Perhaps the Government should accept some of the responsibility for the confusion which has arisen, because we offer the groupings to the other Whips' Offices. There is a difficulty in ensuring that the numbers of the groupings reach individual Peers. However, stopping short of that fact, the groupings which we sent to the other offices this morning made it clear that having disposed of Amendment No. 10, which accompanies Amendment No. 27, the next grouping would be 16, 17, 30, 34, 50, 59 and 67. That would mean that Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 have been disposed of. However, with respect to the Chair, Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, in the opinion of the Government, have not been disposed of. Therefore I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right.
Lord Joseph: Is the Committee willing that I should now speak to Amendment No. 16?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am sorry to have to disagree with Members of the Committee, but the advice that I have been given, and I have no reason to doubt it, is that as Amendment No. 11 has been agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 10—and I think that is already well understood—or Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 inclusive because of the rule relating to pre-emption.
Lord Belstead: I apologise to the Committee. I now understand what the Deputy Chairman is saying: that is, that Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 simply fall because they have been cut out of the text of the Bill. In that case I withdraw what I said.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The amendments have been overtaken by the acceptance of Amendment No. 11. That is the true technical position and I am bound by it, for better or for worse.
Lord Joseph: Is it improper to ask how that can be when no warning was given that Amendment No. 11 would carry with it the elimination of a later batch of amendments? In an earlier speech I expressed my preference for Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 over Amendment No. 1 when the Committee divided in large numbers. I ask the Committee whether the rules involve the elimination of a group of five amendments which some of us on both sides of the Committee take intensely seriously. Of course if that is the ruling of the Committee, I shall abide by it.
The Lord Bishop of London: I should like to say a few words as the mover of Amendment No. 11. I had not appreciated that my amendment would have that effect. However, I must say that I was in danger of suffering precisely the same effect earlier today. If Amendment No. 1 had been carried I should have been precluded from moving an amendment which I had agreed with the Government with the intention of including religious education in the national curriculum. I would have been prevented from doing that, so those who are affected by my Amendment No. 11 are therefore not alone in suffering the effects of pre-emption.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Chair is bound entirely by the rules of the House. Under the rules of the House, if an amendment is moved and carried which has the effect of making other amendments redundant—I hope I use a non-committal phrase—because they fall, there is nothing that the Chair can do about it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is it not incumbent upon the Chair—
A noble Lord: Order!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is it not in order that, when there is as a result of accepting Amendment No. 11 the consequences now advised, the Committee should be informed of those consequences before the amendment is moved?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: As the noble Lord rightly says, it is frequently the case that the Chair gives a warning that if one amendment is accepted the Chairman cannot call another or others. But that is not a condition precedent. The position is that the rules relating to pre-emption have to be accepted because they are rules of the House.
Lord Peston: Under no circumstances do I wish to criticise the Chair or go against the rules. However, I hope that the Committee realises how fundamental this set of amendments is. In terms of the curriculum for me these are the most important amendments. I am sorry that we should have been debating them so late, though it appears that now we are not going to debate them at all. It is an absurd state of affairs that an issue as important as this can be ruled out by rules
488
of procedure or, if I may say so, speaking for myself, because I am relatively new (the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is even newer) from our sheer inexperience. A subject as important as this in the world of education should not be allowed to go by the board. There must be a set of rules to get round this set of rules—there always is!
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may from the point of view of the Government and of the Committee point out that it is not a question of procedure. It is a fact that Amendment No. 11 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has removed the words which are the subject of Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. With the best will in the world there is nothing Members of the Committee on either side can do about that.
Lord Peston: We can carry this on almost endlessly. However, may I ask this question? Does the core curriculum stay in the Bill? Is there any possibility that we can argue that the core curriculum ought to be in the national curriculum? That is what this point is about. As I understand it, the core curriculum is in the Bill. I simply wish to argue that point. I believe that somebody ought to find a way to enable me to do that, if not now, at some other time.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Perhaps I may be of some assistance to the noble Lord. He may raise any matter that is relevant on Clause 2 stand part.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: There is one further matter that I still do not understand. Why was Amendment No. 11 called before Amendment No. 10?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Unfortunately, the line reference was wrongly printed on the Marshalled List. I am afraid that that is the answer to the noble Lord. It should have read, "Page 2, line 2," instead of "Page 2, line 1".
Baroness Seear: I think that we are in order to protest very strongly about the confusion in this Committee. I have been in the Chamber since 1971. I have never heard such a muddle from start to finish.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that that is a little less than fair. It is a very well established rule of the House, which the noble Baroness and I know perfectly well, that if an amendment is agreed to—and in this case it is Amendment No. 11—which removes words from the text and puts other words in, then it is not possible to move an amendment which relates to the words which have been removed. That is a fairly simple principle.
Lord Kilmarnock: Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House help us further? He has explained to us the technical reasons why it is not possible for the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Joseph, to move these amendments. Can he give us an assurance that through the usual channels attempts will be made to see that these amendments, or their equivalents, can come up at Report stage at a suitable time so that they can be fully discussed?
Lord Belstead: Let us be absolutely clear. The words to which Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relate have been removed from the text because they have been removed by Amendment No. 11. If the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend Lord Joseph wish to put down the effect of Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, they will need to relate those amendments to the text as it is now revised.
Lord Winstanley: The noble Lord the Leader of the House, in an earlier intervention, made comments with regard to the groupings.
Lord Denham: Order!
The Lord Bishop of London: May I point out that in the text of Amendment No. 11, which was passed, the words "and other foundation" still remain in the text. I therefore see no reason why the amendment should not be considered on Report because they remain there. It is not quite the same with Amendment No. 17. However, it would certainly be possible for Amendment No. 16 to be dealt with because those words are still in the revised text.
Lord Rochester: Greatly daring, and fearing the lash of the Chief Whip again, perhaps I may support what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, said. He asked why Amendment No. 11 was allowed to precede Amendment No. 10. The noble Lord the Deputy Chairman responded by saying that Amendment No. 10 was wrongly billed, in the sense that it should have related to page 2, line 2. However, if one looks at the text of the Bill, it is plain, as I read it, that it is line 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If the noble Lord will allow me, I have already explained that there is a misprint in relation to Amendment No. 10. It should read,
"Page 2, line 2, leave out ('purpose of')".
In Amendment No. 11 we have,
"Page 2, line 2, leave out from beginning".
That comes before "leave out ('purpose of')", which gave rise to the difficulty that we are discussing. There is no doubt that the position is as I have stated. Amendment No. 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, was correctly pre-empted by Amendment No. 11.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I do not know whether I am being helpful, but it seems that the words spoken by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London have some relevance. Amendment No. 16, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is to leave out "and other foundation". That is referred to in Amendment No. 11, which has been carried. We could perhaps regard Amendment No. 16 as an amendment to that amendment. All it is doing is altering the line number of those words. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has his amendment down as an amendment to the amendment which has just been carried.
Lord Joseph: I beg to move that in Clause 2, as amended, in line 9, as it now is, on page 2, the words "and other foundation subjects" be omitted.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: To which amendment is the noble Lord referring?
Lord Joseph: I am moving a manuscript amendment which I have given to the Clerk. It amends Amendment No. 11, which has just been accepted. I am following precisely the excellent advice given by the right reverend Prelate, to amend the last words of his own accepted amendment, which achieves the same purpose.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have not yet seen the manuscript amendment and I am therefore at some disadvantage.
Lord Elton: While the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman is looking at this matter perhaps I may intervene as a perplexed Back-Bencher. I have been in this place since 1973 and I can remember many muddles worse than this one. I suggest that we follow a simple procedure and deal with the Bill as it is. When we amend the Bill, an amendment which touches part of the Bill which has been swept away is swept away with it. With the greatest respect and deference to participants who have been injured by that procedure, the onus of anticipating whether the bit of the tree on which they want to carve their name has been lopped off before they get to it rests with those who want to carve their name on it. I have been in that difficulty in the past on the Opposition Front Bench. I sympathise. If we start making special rules as we go along because we see in difficulty good and honest friends who wish to speak, we shall be setting difficult precedents for the future.
I believe that the Committee will be best advised to continue in its ordinary way and to deal with the matter on clause stand part or on Report, if that is appropriate. We should not unscramble our ordinary standing orders, which most of us have learnt with great pain and sorrow in the past, to accommodate ourselves and those who are not familiar with the procedures.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If the noble Lord will allow me, I should point out to him, with the deepest respect, that the amendment to Amendment No. 11 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, cannot now be accepted, because, if the noble Lord wished to move it as an amendment, notice should have been given before the right reverend Prelate moved his amendment. We therefore move on to Amendment No. 18.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may at least ask for a modicum of clarification. It seems to me that the Bill must take precedence. One may disagree, but the fact is that, as the Government have said, this is a major, if not the central, piece of legislation in the education field for a generation. I refuse to believe that the rules will be such that the consideration of the Bill would be damaged. I should simply like some explanation of when we can discuss the point at issue.
Noble Lords: Order!
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 17 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I now call Amendment No. 18, in the name of Baroness David.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 10, after ("as"") insert ("individual").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 23 and 25. The purpose of the amendment is to replace the term "attainment target" with the term "individual attainment target". The "attainment target" implies a pass/fail type of testing. The amendment that I am proposing would modify the current wording by prefacing it with the word "individual".
The intention is to show clearly that the kind of assessment envisaged will be designed to help the progress of each individual pupil rather than setting standards against which to judge the success of pupils. We all know that each child is very different. In other words, the amendment would ensure formative or diagnostic testing as opposed to summative testing.
Diagnostic as opposed to summative testing is advocated by the report of the Task Group on Assessment and Testing, often referred to now as TGAT, set up by the Secretary of State to advise him on the assessment aspects of the national curriculum. In its introduction, the report set out general criteria for a national system of assessment including the following:
"the assessment results should give direct information about pupils' achievement in relation to objectives: they should be criterion-referenced; the results should provide a basis for decisions about pupils' further learning needs: they should be formative; … the ways in which criteria and scales are set up and used should relate to expected routes of educational development, giving some continuity to a pupil's assessment at different ages: the assessments should relate to progression."
The danger of the kind of testing proposed in the Bill or what we assume is proposed in the Bill is that it would lead to a sense of failure among many of the pupils who did not achieve the national assessment target. However, if the assessment target is individually determined then the likelihood of success is substantially improved for all pupils and their sense of achievement is greatly enhanced. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said earlier today, for children to feel that they have been successful is a tremendous help and encourages them to go on.
The TGAT report makes the point that:
"When assessment and testing are carefully aligned to the curriculum as in Graded Assessment Schemes, one of the outstanding benefits that teachers report is the enhanced motivation of pupils. Many pupils seem to need short-term objectives which are clear and which they perceive to be attainable. The possibility of achieving these builds enthusiasm for progress in learning."
The only purpose served by establishing national attainment targets would be to publish statistics about national achievements at the key stages of education, and to make it possible for schools to publish results so that the achievements of pupils in one school could be compared with another. Neither of these serves a useful purpose for the educational progress of individual pupils nor for the quality of education. So I hope that this word will be accepted.
492
It would make clearer, I hope, what the Government's aims are or should be and would be nearer to what the task group report recommends. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The three amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady David, are somewhat ambiguous. In the context of attainment targets the word "individual" could mean either "single" or "related to each particular child". The former interpretation would add nothing to the meaning, so I take it that the noble Baroness intends by these amendments to ensure that attainment targets and assessment arrangements are individually described to suit the personal needs of each child being assessed. Clearly, such an objective is not quite practicable.
I might also add that it is incompatible with one of the main aims of the national curriculum. One important objective is to make it possible to obtain a clear indication of the progress which each child has made in relation to nationally agreed targets. A system which acknowledged no communality of purpose of the kind that the noble Baroness appears to be advocating would be as unsatisfactory to parents and teachers as it would be to the Government. They all have good reasons for wanting to see pupils' attainments in a recognisable national context.
Of course it is very important to know whether the pupil has achieved to the best of his or her ability and made real progress over the year or term. Programmes of study need to meet the requirements of the vast majority of pupils over the full ability range and attainment targets also need to reflect the different levels of performance we can expect to find at any age.
These are objectives we set our subject working groups and which underlay the work of the task group on assessment and testing to which the noble Baroness referred and about which I shall have more to say on later amendments. But the need for differentiation of this kind does not amount to a case for individually expressed targets or assessment arrangements. It calls for flexibility and common sense, and these will not be lacking in the application of our national curriculum provisions.
The fact of the matter is that the amendment as it stands has no impact at all on the effect of the Bill. It makes a terminological change and no more. The definitions of attainment targets and assessment arrangements would be unaltered and they are the things that count. For this reason, if for no other, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: I cannot say I am entirely convinced by what the noble Baroness has said. I shall read very carefully what she has said and then decide whether to come back on Report. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
11.45 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert ("having full regard to the additional costs, resources and staffing necessary to a proper recognition of pupils as individuals and with varying abilities;").
The noble Lord said: I propose to speak also to Amendments Nos. 29, 58, 61 and 84. All are amendments essentially to do with resources. I am making the assumption that the national curriculum will be brought into practice in the form as stated in earlier parts of the Bill including those parts it has not so far been possible to debate and amend. I simply make the point that if the national curriculum is brought in in that form, then we would all regard ourselves as fully committed to seeing that it was successful. We may debate our preference that it should be flexible and I shall in due course discuss the importance of the core as opposed to what is called the foundation.
But let us assume that the Bill goes through in that sense unamended. What follows logically, it seems to me, is first that there will be drastic changes in our education system. Indeed I take it to be the Government's view that drastic changes are required and that they will introduce such changes. If we ask ourselves what drastic changes we have in mind I suppose we would say that there would be important changes in teacher training, in teacher retraining and in connection with teacher recruitment. I am bound to say, in terms of new disciplines and the change in existing disciplines, there would be significant changes in the equipment requirements.
We have argued on other occasions about the poor state of education building in the maintained sector. I should have thought, again as a minimum, that a Secretary of State anxious to make a success of education would also see to it that whatever was required on the building side was made available. In other words, quite independent of any other changes that may be occurring in the education system, it seems to me that there will be considerable developments affecting resources. In some ways one could view the amendments as saying that the curriculum changes should not go forward without resources. I would prefer to argue that in order that the curriculum changes should go forward, whether or not we agree with them, and become a success, one of the preconditions is that the appropriate resources should be made available. My reading of the Bill is that it does not come to grips with the enormous impact on resources that the changes will make. In saying that, I am taking a fairly minimalist view.
I wait to hear what the DES thinks on those matters. However, as I am advised and having done some of the sums, it seems that we are talking in terms of some three-quarters of a billion pounds per annum in addition to the DES budget. That is a conservative estimate. Indeed, to make a success of it I believe that one would want to err on the generous side. In that case, we are talking in terms of £1 billion per annum.
I have introduced the amendments to probe and to clarify the resource pressures. I believe that I am being extremely cautious in considering the matter. Many noble Lords have mentioned the importance of teacher co-operation and the fact that, whatever happens, the changes will not be determined by the Secretary of State or his officials but by the teachers.
494
We shall require an amazing expenditure in that direction, although I save for another occasion the question of teachers' salaries which will add to the figures I have mentioned.
We have introduced the amendments in order to point out that you do not get anything for nothing. If the Government want the reforms to go forward—at the moment I hold back from stating my view of the reforms as such—they have a duty to support them with appropriate resources. The purpose of the amendments is to indicate in several ways the nature of that duty.
Lord Kilmarnock: The amendment is important in that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has introduced for the first time this evening the question of resources for the implementation of the national curriculum, assuming that it stands in the form that the Government propose.
My recollection is that the National Association of Head Teachers calculated a need to recruit in the region of 10,000 additional teachers specifically for the implementation of core subjects. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum in the Bill mentions some relatively small sums which the Government propose to make available. I seem to recollect from the winding-up speech of the noble Baroness on Second Reading that she mentioned some grants which the Government propose to make. If memory does not betray me, I believe that those were of the order of £100 million.
At this stage it would help the Committee if the Minister gave the Government's view on how they will help with the implementation of the national curriculum and what sums they will make available.
Baroness Lockwood: Amendment No. 84, which stands in my name, also refers to resources. However, it points to the fact that a responsibility will be placed on head teachers to carry out the national curriculum. My amendment would add the words,
"so far as is reasonably practicable".
In the light of the arguments which have been put forward by my noble friend Lord Peston and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, it seems unreasonable to place on head teachers the unqualified responsibility for carrying out their duties in relation to the curriculum regardless of the difficulties which they are likely to encounter. To quote the National Association of Head Teachers once again, they have, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, estimated that some 3,000 additional qualified language teachers will have to be employed, along with an additional 2,500 science teachers and an additional 3,500 CDT teachers.
I put down the amendment with some diffidence because I believe that it is important to have a national curriculum. I hope that the national curriculum will be so amended as to comply with an amendment which I shall be moving later. Nevertheless, I support the whole idea of a national curriculum and I hesitate to give anyone a loophole to get out of adopting the national curriculum. On the other hand, I do not think that we can expect head teachers and others who are given the responsibility under Clause 6 of the Bill to carry out those responsibilities if they do not have adequate resources to do so.
Lord Northbourne: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness to explain how the rigidities which will be imposed by the national curriculum can be reconciled with the present immobility of teaching staff. I know that in Kent at least we have a policy of no redundancy other than voluntary redundancy. In the secondary school with which I am personally connected, due to reducing rolls we have a situation in which we have two and a half teachers over establishment, yet we are short of a maths teacher. What are the Government going to do to increase the mobility of teachers to meet the requirements of the new curriculum?
Baroness Hooper: The group of amendments deals with two related points. Dealing with consultation first, Clauses 13 and 14 already require the Secretary of State to consult the NCC as respects England and the Secretary of State for Wales to consult the CCW before making orders covering attainment targets, and programmes of study and certain other matters. Wide consultation is also to be conducted in England by the National Curriculum Council, which is to report the results to the Secretary of State. It is only after this that my right honourable friend may draw up a draft order. He then has to consult on that draft order with all interested bodies. Only in the case of orders about assessment arrangements is there no requirement for consultation, but those orders will flow from the proposals for each subject on which there will have been consultation and would be of a technical and administrative nature. The assessment tasks themselves will have been piloted in schools.
Therefore, the Bill contains definite safeguards to ensure that consultation takes place. What the noble Lord now seeks is accordingly unnecessary and I must ask the Committee to reject it.
On resources and the speed of implementation, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that before introducing any part of the national curriculum he will want to be satisfied as to the availability of suitably qualified teachers and other resources. It is unthinkable that a responsible Secretary of State would do otherwise. If some future Secretary of State did not, then that is certainly something that would be brought out in the consultation processes to which I have referred and which are required by Clauses 13 and 14. It is also something which would no doubt catch the eagle eyes of Members of this Chamber and of those in another place when orders were laid before us to give attainment targets, programmes of study or regulations their legal force.
The figure that has been suggested in terms of resources for the national curriculum is £65 million over three years, which is to be provided to fund work in support of the Government's proposals, including that of the NCC and SEAC and the development of assessment tasks. Local education authorities will not be charged fees for the provision of those tasks or for moderation. The Government will also support the national curriculum through education support grants, on which our proposals for 1989–90 were announced as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, in the course of the Second Reading—or maybe it was
496
the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock—and indeed through training grants for teachers. It would be for the local education authorities in schools within the planned level of resources to ensure that staffing, as well as spending on support services, books and equipment, was directed towards achieving the national policy.
I should like to say in relation to teacher supply that the ratio of pupils to teachers is currently at its lowest ever level. The Government's expenditure plans allow for it to fall still further to 17 to 1, which will provide LEAs collectively with scope to redeploy teachers to prepare and implement the national curriculum.
We want the introduction of the national curriculum to be sure-footed and fast enough to bring its benefits to the pupils in our schools as quickly as possible, but not so fast as to disrupt the education of the children already in school or to outdistance the availability of the teachers and other resources needed to secure those benefits. What we have said so far is that we expect to require all primary schools to teach all the core and other foundation subjects to their pupils for a reasonable time from September 1989.
We have also said that we expect to introduce attainment targets and programmes for study in mathematics and science for the 5 to 7 key stage from the same date; and now that we have established the working group for English and have asked it to report this autumn on attainment targets and programmes of study for the 5 to 7 and 8 to 11 key stages, we hope to be able to bring in English for the first of those key stages from September 1989.
We are considering too whether to bring in mathematics and science for the third stage for 11 to 14 at the same time. Thereafter we expect to proceed incrementally—subject by subject and key stage by key stage—as proposals are prepared and resources, including teacher supply, permit. In each case, assessment and testing arrangements would begin to be introduced a year later. That is what we expect, but it would not be right for us to make final decisions now about the detailed pace of introduction. Those decisions need to take account of the advice of the various working groups as well as TGAT and the views of the curriculum councils.
I assure the Committee that we shall want to be satisfied that when the duties are imposed on local education authorities and schools, they can be carried out in an orderly and effective way within the resources available. This is one reason why Amendment No. 84, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, spoke, is unnecessary. The other reason is a more technical one. If a requirement cannot reasonably be complied with in a particular school, this would be a defence against legal complaint that the requirement was being ignored.
We believe that the Bill contains sufficient safeguards on consultation, and we are well seized of the fact that the introduction of the national curriculum must keep pace with resources. I assume that on this basis the presenters of the amendments will choose to withdraw them, since the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that they were in the nature of probing amendments. If they are not so inclined, I must ask the Committee to reject them.
12 midnight
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness has made a very important statement if I understand it correctly. I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I ask one or two more questions in order to make sure that I understand what she has said. Am I right in assuming that with regard both to the core subjects and to the foundation subjects at the different stages, the Government are saying that in no case will these become mandatory until it is clear that the available resources are there?
To take an obvious example and one that concerns us, I am as committed as anyone to an improvement in mathematics teaching and the rise of numeracy generally in our country. We are all perfectly aware of the fact that there are not the maths teachers around. I object very strongly to having non-trained people teaching mathematics. It is not the case that anybody who can do sums can teach mathematics satisfactorily. Am I right in assuming, for example, that if there are not mathematics teachers around, even for stage 1 let alone for stage 5, then stage I will simply not be introduced? Therefore, to anticipate one of the later amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph—and I must say I wondered whether the date of 1998 was a misprint—am I to assume that if the maths teachers are not there until 1998, mathematics will not be part of the compulsory national curriculum until then and that the same point applies mutatis mutandis to all the other subjects? It would be enormously helpful to the Committee if the noble Baroness can tell us whether that is the Government's position. It would considerably ease one's attitude towards the Bill if that were the Government's position.
Baroness Hooper: The Government have always made clear as regards the implementation of the national curriculum that they would lay emphasis on the core subjects first and then follow them with the various subjects which form the foundation part of the curriculum. The Government are already doing work in terms of shortage subjects which affect mathematics and science teaching. I believe that the noble Lord can be assured that everything is being done to ensure that the mathematics part of the core curriculum has a suitable supply of teachers well before 1998.
Lord Peston: I do not really want to continue; I was asking a negative question. If the maths teachers are not there, will the Government agree that this aspect of the matter cannot go forward? I fully accept that if the teachers are there it can go forward, but that is not really the interesting question. The interesting question is the negative one. I use maths teachers as an example. If they are not there will the Government hold back until we get them?
Baroness Hooper: I was trying to give a positive answer to the noble Lord's negative question by saying that we intend to ensure that the maths teachers will be there.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may ask a further question. When the noble Baroness was answering, I believe she said that it was expected to get in the first
498
stage for the five to seven year-olds for certain subjects by 1989. I thought the task group report said that would be extremely difficult for several years for the tests to be prepared and so on. Can the Minister clarify that matter?
Baroness Hooper: I should like to clarify what I said. We expect all primary schools to teach all the core and other foundation subjects, as appropriate, to their pupils for a reasonable time from September 1989, but not necessarily in line with attainment targets and programmes of study which may not have been worked out by then by the relevant task groups.
Lord Peston: In view of the very important contribution to this debate by the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 18, after ("stage") insert ("for constructive diagnostic purposes only").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment perhaps I may begin with a quotation from a great educationist, Christian Schiller, who was a Cambridge mathematician and an HMI as long ago as the 1920s. More than 50 years' ago he said:
"If a minimum of attainment is fixed such that it is within the power of all, it is demonstrably irrelevant to the vast majority and of no practical value. If a minimum is fixed such that some only can reach it, it must demonstrably be beyond the powers of the rest and its imposition will undoubtedly lead to a distortion of their powers. In my view the goal of a minimum of attainment is incompatible with continuity in the learning process."
In other words, what is implied here is that what is now known in the jargon as "minimum competency testing" cannot improve the quality of education because it focuses on reaching the minimum, usually in relation to over-emphasised basic skills, rather than in reaching the optimum.
It has been widely discredited in the United States as the result of very clear-cut evidence that the overall quality of education has actually fallen, mainly because of an excessive concentration on teaching to these tests. Evidence from leaked letters from No. 10 Downing Street suggests that it has not been widely enough discredited in this country.
What is required instead is differentiated testing for diagnostic purposes—that is, forms of assessment which take into account the very wide range of ability which inevitably exists in any age group of children and which diagnose both the strengths and the weaknesses of individual children with a view to trying either to build on those strengths or helping to eradicate those weaknesses. The personal characteristics and circumstances and the rate of progress of individual pupils vary enormously. Meaningful assessments of their achievements must take this into account and try to capture the complexity both of the education process and of the attainment of all pupils.
We must be both aware of this and very clear about the purpose of testing. Assessing children's performance, building up profiles which indicate their levels of attainment in a wide range of skills, requires a totally different approach to monitoring

499
the performance of the system through tests or comparing schools through tests. In my view, neither monitoring the system nor comparing schools' test scores is likely to increase standards, which we all want to do. However, well thought-out diagnostic tests can be of great help to parents, to teachers, to the pupils themselves, but especially to teachers. The reason they can be very helpful is that they can provide extremely useful information, which can be acted on. If one can act on that information and do something about it there is some hope of increasing standards.
If the Government intend to try to combine these very diverse aims of monitoring local education authorities and schools with the quite different aim of assessing individual pupils, what we shall get as a consequence is pressure for terribly simple tests and, indeed, for over-simple tests. The reason that we shall have that pressure is because tests are easier to use for a variety of different purposes if they are simple. But I am afraid to say that tests of that kind simply cannot reflect the complexity of learning, nor can they provide very useful measurements. They have very many dangers.
First, they can be used as league tables on individual schools or on individual teachers. As we all know there is a terrible risk that once one sets out league tables of that kind they will be misinterpreted. Some schools which supposedly have very poor results may actually be doing extremely well if one takes into account the nature of their pupil intake. Other schools which may look as if they are doing rather well may be doing very badly because their pupil intake is such that one would have expected them to do very much better.
The tests are, of course, also much too crude to provide the kind of information needed to help teachers to improve the standard of performance of individual pupils. But perhaps most important of all, these oversimplified tests will impoverish the curriculum in the end—which I am sure that all Members of the Committee will want to avoid—by encouraging teachers to teach to the test, rather than teaching the range of subjects that we would hope that they would cover.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, I am extremely concerned about the bottom 20 per cent. of the ability range. I agree with him when he says that we have, above all, failed this particular group. Many of them are very disadvantaged in other respects besides their educational experience and their educational attainments. They are quite often concentrated in inner city schools. Would it really be in the interests of these children and of their parents if we published tables showing that their school was at the bottom of the league, even though their school might be doing quite a good job in the light of the circumstances? No, instead the focus must be on school-based assessment, where we can capitalise on the much closer view of the pupil and his attainments which the teachers already have.
That is broadly what is recommended in Professor Black's TGAT report. However, the Government have given little indication of their intentions as regards their response to that report. They have given no indication as to whether or when they will publish
500
the second report which Professor Black has now completed. I hope that the Minister will reply to that.
It is extremely important that we build on the system of records of achievement which the DES has already initiated. One of the great advantages of records of achievement is that they involve the pupils with their teachers in building up profiles of performance. I believe that the initial evidence from an interim evaluation report carried out on the pilot schemes suggests that the records of achievement have been successful in involving pupils in their work at school and in creating a better relationship between pupils and their teachers. Such records can fit in very well with a system of diagnostic testing. However, they do not fit in well with paper and pencil tests, which focus on minimum competence.
The amendment is designed to ensure that we concentrate our efforts on a system of assessment which will raise standards. It can provide the guidance about progress over time rather than a crude snapshot involved in some of the other types of tests I have described. Moreover, I believe that it will save us from an expensive model by setting a clear goal of focusing on the single form of assessment which will help our children and young people. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I appreciate the concern expressed about the possible nature and effects of the national assessment arrangements which we intend to introduce in association with the national curriculum. However, I believe that the Government's actions so far show that concern to be unfounded. We are now familiar with the fact that the Task Group on Assessment and Testing was established last year to advise on arrangements for a national assessment system. The group brought to bear on the subject an impressive weight of educational expertise. It produced a report which has been widely welcomed, not least by the Government, as being both sound and innovative in education terms.
When publishing the report last January the Government welcomed the broad framework which it proposed for a national assessment system. They promised to consider its detailed recommendations in the light of comments received and of further advice which they then commissioned from the task group. That advice was recently received and I assure the noble Baroness that it will be published in due course when consideration of it is complete.
In general terms TGAT confirmed the Government's view that an effective assessment system lies at the heart of promoting good learning and teaching; that such a system relates to the key ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16 and is both practicable and desirable; that it can replace much ineffective testing which is now carried out in schools; and in doing so will enhance standards; and that results should be reported to parents and in an aggregated form locally and nationally.
More specifically the task group confirmed that the main purpose of the national assessment arrangements, including testing, should be formative. That is, say, to enable teachers and parents to discover the stage that children have reached in relation to agreed attainment targets for the national

501
curriculum foundation subjects and to make informed decisions about the next step in their education. Testing should also be summative, enabling teachers and others to record in a systematic way the pupil's achievement overall, especially compared with attainment targets for each subject, and should contribute to an evaluation of the work of the education service and its various parts in the light of pupils' achievements.
As to the nature of the tests, TGAT proposed that assessment should be by a combination of continuous teacher assessment and a wide variety of externally prescribed assessment tasks or tests, including pencil and paper tests which are useful in some contexts. To keep teachers' ratings in line with national standards and to improve their professional knowledge and skills, group moderation based on GCSE practice is recommended. In other words, assessment need not relate simply to the result of tests—however sophisticated those tests may be—and both kinds of assessment should derive from the curriculum itself rather than determining the way in which it is taught.
The task group also recognised that some assessments or tests will be partly diagnostic in nature since they will indicate learning problems which need to be further investigated. However, it pointed out that such further purely diagnostic investigation will involve the use of highly specialised tests, necessarily relevant only to a limited set of circumstances and pupils. Since we intend that the main purpose of the national assessment and testing arrangements should be to indicate the stage which every child has reached in relation to the agreed targets, I feel that I cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: The noble Baroness mentioned that the next report will be published in due course. It would be very helpful if available when we are discussing this part of the Bill. Can the Minister give an assurance that it will be published in good time for Report stage?
Baroness Hooper: I am afraid that I cannot give any guarantees, but I hope so.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps the noble Baroness could say whether the Government have abandoned the idea of multiple choice paper and pencil tests designed to create league tables within schools or local education authorities? It was not entirely clear from her answer. However, I believe it would be in the spirit of the TGAT report, which she implied the Government have accepted, to abandon that kind of testing.
Baroness Hooper: It is not the Government's intention to create league tables in any event. However, the inclusion of paper and pencil tests as part of the arrangements was supported by the task group because it has a value in certain contexts. However, it is not to be the only basis on which children are assessed and tested and certainly not at the first stage of seven years.
Baroness Blackstone: I must beg to differ with the Minister. I do not believe it is the case that the TGAT report accepted that those kinds of tests should be
502
used; nor did it recommend them. I am rather disappointed and slightly worried by her response.
Baroness Hooper: I can only agree to differ. My understanding was that the task group said that paper and pencil tests had their place.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall want to return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 27 not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert—
("(2)(a) Subject to subsection 2(b) below, Religious Education in all maintained schools shall be predominantly Christian.
(b) Where a maintained school has been established as a denominational school, Christian or non-Christian, the Religious Education in that school shall be of that particular denomination.
(c) Parents have the right to withdraw their children from the Religious Education at a maintained school.
(d) The governors of non-denominational maintained schools, whilst ensuring that the Religious Education in that school is predominantly Christian, shall make such further provision as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances, where requested to do so by the parents, and where the number of children involved is appropriate, for the Religious Education of children of other faiths, according to their own faiths.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may welcome once again the agreement which has been reached that religious education should be included as first among equals in the basic curriculum. However, as I said during the debate on the amendment of the right reverend Prelate, it is not enough to ensure that religious education is taught without any reference to the content. There has been widespread concern over recent developments in what is often taught in the name of religious education.
Many parents and teachers are deeply worried for two reasons. First, both worship and religious education are often secularised and politicised, sometimes to an extent which amounts to little more than crude political indoctrination as illustrated, for example, by a syllabus for GCSE given to me by a teacher in Yorkshire, a copy of which I shall place in the Library rather than take up the time of the Committee at this late hour by explaining its contents. I think Members of the Committee will see the cause for concern if they take the trouble to look at it.
Secondly, and perhaps more insidiously, in many cases Christianity has been diluted in a multi-faith approach which is so confusing and so superficial that it trivialises not only Christianity but other faiths as well. Some agreed local syllabuses for religious education which have been developed and approved by committees with representatives of the Anglican and other Churches recommend, for example, the teaching of non-theistic life stances. I believe that the Birmingham agreed syllabus, which I seem to remember was commended on Second Reading by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, includes non-theistic life stances. It is perhaps interesting to note that Dr. Montefiore, as Bishop of

503
Birmingham, in a foreword to some of the accompanying notes to that agreed syllabus, expressed his reservations about using religious education to teach secular, and indeed anti-religious, world views.
Dudley local education authority's syllabus actually specifies Marxism as a subject to be taught and also includes the occult. In other parts of the country parents have complained about the way in which religious education has included teaching about witchcraft and the occult. In London a number of religious education inspectors found the situation so serious that they wrote to every head teacher warning them that such teaching on witchcraft and the occult was having an adverse psychological effect on some children.
The book Beginning Religion, which was given to me by a teacher, which I am told has been very widely used and which the publishers themselves say has been a best seller, illustrates some of that type of teaching. I shall place it in the Library of this place for Members of the Committee to look at, and I urge them so to do. It will be seen that it contains macabre, grotesque pictures which I believe could actually give some children nightmares. It also discusses shamanism and the Lord's Prayer on the same page.
Of course the situation is not all bad. There are some excellent agreed syllabuses and many dedicated and competent teachers. However, increasingly many teachers are feeling the pressure in certain local authorities to play down Christianity and to teach a multi-faith curriculum. Some teachers have even been reprimanded for mentioning the name of Jesus Christ in the classroom. Similarly some children are being forbidden to speak about the essence of Christian faith.
In one primary school at Easter time children were allowed to talk about Easter eggs, bunnies, flowers and holidays but they were not allowed to talk about the Christian meaning of Easter. This book produced by the Christian Education Movement on spring festivals is 24 pages long. It reaches Easter on page 20, with pictures of Easter eggs at the centre of the page, and then after a brief discussion on Easter concludes on how to make mobiles for Chinese new year.
As Clifford Longley argued in yesterday's edition of The Times:
"Religions lose their inner coherence when broken into bits for the sake of comparison. Most religions have elements which can only seem absurd to those not of their faith when taken out of context".
Of course I recognise that such developments in teaching in multi-faith may be motivated by a wish to respect the sensitivities of people of other faiths. However, representatives of other faiths, especially those of the Jewish and the Moslem communities, emphasise that they do not wish us to destroy our Christian birthright in this way. I am most deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, for making that point so eloquently and so inspiringly this afternoon.
Representatives of other faiths have also stressed that they would infinitely prefer their children to attend a school where the Christian tradition is respected rather than to be exposed to secular or multi-faith approaches which belittle all faiths. One
504
Moslem described to me how he visited schools where religious education is denigrated and teachers swear in front of the children. This offends him deeply because as a Moslem he respects the person Christ. Recently at a mosque the imam led Moslems in prayer that the name of Christ would once again be revered in Britain's schools. I cannot help wondering whether our Church leaders have been heard offering the same prayer.
Eighty-five per cent. of our population claim to be Christians. Only 5 per cent. adhere to other faiths; but they are not asking us to give away our faith on their behalf. Unless and until we restore a coherent presentation of the Christian faith and the opportunity to experience Christian worship, which is the subject of a later amendment, we deny our young people their spiritual birthright. Because our laws, our democratic institutions, our art, literature, architecture—indeed, our entire culture—have been profoundly influenced by Christianity, all future British citizens can benefit from knowledge of the spiritual tradition which has inspired our country for nearly 2,000 years.
Clifford Longley was absolutely right when he pointed out in the article that what is at stake in the amendment before us is more than a platitudinous phrase in a Bill: the amendment is actually intended to call into question the whole philosophy currently behind religious education in many state schools.
It may be argued that where developments have occurred which have caused concern to parents and teachers—and perhaps the public—the complaints procedure could be a safeguard. However, unless the provision of predominantly Christian teaching, or something on those lines, is made explicit on the face of the Bill there will be no clear reference point against which to appeal. Virtually anything can go under the rubric of religious education, as we have just seen.
Perhaps I may say briefly that I have considered the reply of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London to my earlier question about the procedures for improving unsatisfactory locally agreed syllabuses. Regrettably, I was not convinced by his answer, especially concerning the opportunity of powers of veto which may be exercised by secular authorities or representatives of those on the councils. I am not asking for a reply now but I should welcome an assurance before Report stage.
As I draw to a conclusion I emphasise that the amendment before the Committee is so worded that the right of parents to withdraw their children will still be enshrined. There will also be provision for pupils of other faiths to worship and to receive teaching according to their own faith. The word "predominantly" allows some teaching of other world religions; but many people throughout the country of all political persuasions believe that we must restore in our schools the centrality of Christianity as the major spiritual tradition of this land.
Finally, I say a few words on practicalities. It may be argued that the proposed amendment would be unworkable because of a lack of qualified teachers. There are several answers to that question and I briefly give just three. First, as I have indicated, many Christian teachers now feel unable to teach the new

505
style religious education because it betrays the integrity of their faith. I know that many of them would be willing to teach again with the definition of religious education that is given in this amendment. Secondly, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has suggested in another place, it should be possible to draw on the expertise of local religious leaders. Thirdly, if religious education is to be allowed to develop on the lines that would be indicated by the words of this amendment, more students might enter teacher training with a view to teaching it. But until or unless the subject is restored to its original integrity there will be no chance of breaking the vicious circle of decline and shortage.
I conclude by emphasising that this amendment has no party political connotations. As Members of the Committee will have noted, it is supported by noble Lords from different parts of the Chamber and many more have told me of their strong endorsement. I believe that it may be a little sad that the initiative for this amendment has had to come from the laity, but I am deeply grateful to those nine bishops who gave their support in the letter to The Times this morning. I know too that many thousands, literally, of other Christians, and many representatives of other faiths, support us. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London: As I have already said, I have very great sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I have been accused of a good many things in my life, but I can immodestly say that I do not think that I have ever been accused of lack of conviction or orthodoxy. It may therefore be convenient if I make some response from these Benches to this amendment.
In passing, perhaps I may say that I am not altogether sorry that the initiative has had to come from a lay Member of this Chamber. It is often forgotten that so much depends upon the laity, both in the supply of teachers and in their taking places on education authorities, standing conferences and so on. Too often the bishops find themselves left with laymen who are agitating for proposals such as this but who show singular lack of commitment themselves to their own religious practices. I do not include the noble Baroness among such people, but nevertheless that is the situation.
I passionately desire to share my faith with others. At the same time I have to recognise that they must be free to respond. In reflecting upon this amendment, two points come to my mind. As a Christian, when I look at the cross, it says to me most powerfully again and again that God chose to redeem us in a way that still leaves us free to choose. Therefore I am naturally hesitant to think in terms of compulsion—of trying to impose religion by legislation, for example.
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that the Church of England has good reason to be a little chary in this respect. In the 16th century our forebears attempted to enforce church attendance by law. They also attempted to make people receive holy communion regularly by law. The results were quite disastrous in many respects. One cannot compel anyone to be a Christian by the very nature of the faith. One can only seek to love them and to win them. Of course at the same time it is absolutely
506
essential that they know what the Christian faith is. That is where the crunch comes. People must know it. Dorothy Sayers turned from writing her novels about Lord Peter Wimsey, much to the disappointment of many of her admirers, to writing books about theology because she said that too many people dismissed Christianity without having the faintest idea of what it really was.
I entirely endorse the need to ensure that the Christian faith is taught and experienced to the full so that at least the response is possible and, if it is rejected, what is rejected is the Christian faith and not some poor, dim reflection of it. My concern is to ensure that there is a proper framework which enables people to respond, which informs and which encourages, but which does not, in a sense, compel.
My second reflection on the amendment is that any provision such as this—I think that the noble Baroness agrees that the wording of the amendment needs attention, although we need not spend time on that now—as a matter of courtesy, which is a Christian virtue as well as a human virtue, must take place after consultation. I know that consultation such as we would normally expect with other Churches and with other faiths has not taken place in the way that we would expect. It is essential that time be given for that consultation to take place, and that if possible whatever is agreed, if not acceptable to all, is at least understood by all.
I do not believe that the agreed syllabuses are as bad as they are portrayed to be. I have looked at them. One might suppose from some of the literature we have received that half are good and half are bad. I believe that relatively few are very bad, as I said yesterday, and that there are many that are quite good. What matters, of course, is how they are taught. I was sorry that in one pamphlet I read there was no reference to the agreed syllabus of Hampshire, which is used by about 20 other authorities. That is a good sign. It is a good syllabus.
Some disparaging remarks have been made about the GCSE. I can only remind the Committee of what I said on Second Reading about the totally committed Christian head of RE who praised the syllabus because it contained the option of choosing Christianity. She said that for the first time in her whole teaching career—she was well on in it—she was able to teach Christain doctrine, Church history and the sacraments.
I do not take such a dim view of the proposal. I believe—agreed syllabuses will not necessarily help this—that there are great pressures on teachers, in one way or another, to conform not so much to agreed syllabuses but to other ideologies and other outlooks. I agree, as I said earlier, that all that is due to lack of concern in the Churches.
I have been involved in Christian education at times full time, since 1952. I have been speaking about this constantly over the years. I have done what I can as a diocesan director of education; as secretary in London; and now as chairman of the board to remedy the situation. But we depend, as I said earlier, upon Christian lay men and women to enable what is advocated to be put into effect. I believe that we are still a Christian country.

507
A statement made by a noble Lord at the end of an earlier debate is constantly being quoted as if it were official government policy. I hope that when the Minister replies we shall hear from her lips what I have heard, for example, from the Secretary of State; namely, that he does not regard this as no longer a Christian country. I do not believe the statement made by the noble Lord. As T. S. Eliot said, this does not cease to be a Christian country until people positively embrace another faith. The great majority of people in this country have certainly not done that. I hope that an affirmation could be given to that effect.
I understand from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that she intends to treat this as a probing amendment. I am very happy indeed to respond to her in that fashion. I have already been consulting with other Churches about possible ways in which this amendment could come in and win general acceptance. I can give an undertaking here that I shall pursue that course. It is a course which I have already discussed with the Secretary of State himself, with the intention of bringing forward an amendment on Report which I hope might be acceptable to the House. Such an amendment would provide what is sought; it would ensure that the Christian faith, so far as we can ensure it, is taught to parents who do not withdraw their children for other teaching. I support what was said earlier. In my own diocese we have many people of other faiths who seek to come to our Church schools precisely because they are Church schools in which the faith is taught. I think the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury will correct something which Mr. Longley said in that article, but I shall leave it, as I properly should to the most reverend Primate. We have parents asking for their children to come to our schools because true religion is taught there.
I hope that what we bring forward will be administratively workable. It will not, I hope, be divisive, but will recognise the nature of our community today. I hope that what we bring forward will be agreed and will be the result of further consultation and that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will accept this undertaking. She has said that she intends asking leave to withdraw her amendment, so perhaps she will feel that we are responding to her initiative in a positive way.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps before the right reverend Prelate sits down I may ask a question and make an appeal. He has set great store by the standing advisory council for education advisory committees at local level continuing with the agreed syllabus, leaving the responsibility to them. Unless an amendment comes back to the House which inserts the word "Christianity" somewhere on the face of the Bill, many of us will find it very difficult to support it. The requirement, as the Bill stands and as the religious education requirement stands, is that the agreed syllabuses can be drawn up. There is no requirement whatever for teaching Christianity at all. Many of us are concerned not so much with the mechanisms for drawing up a syllabus but with the content. That is the appeal that I wish to make to the right reverend Prelate. I hope that he will come back with an answer.
12.45 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: I shall reply to that point. I forgot to turn over my notes earlier and there is one point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton will ask me, so perhaps I could anticipate him.
One of the committees which has to be composed for the standing conference is the Church of England committee. I take responsibility for doing all I can to ensure that that committee, which has a veto in a sense—the four committees have to agree—insists on Christianity being named, as it were, in the agreed syllabus. That, I would hope, would be accepted as the normal result of agreed syllabus procedures.
The problem arises in regard to one of the committees which is representative of what is called other denominations. The question is raised as regards what is meant by that and whether it means other faiths. I can give an undertaking that that matter will be looked at.
I know that some Members of the Committee are afraid that on that fourth committee there could be a majority of non-Christians who would be able to stand out, as it were, in seeking to arrive at agreement. I undertake to look at that point in the discussions which I hope will lead up to a satisfactory amendment on report.
Lord Elton: The latter part of the right reverend Prelate's major intervention was of enormous help not only in encouraging the Committee but also in getting it quicker to bed. I do not wish to delay things unduly but I wish to confirm that I was concerned about the composition of Committee A as it were, of the standing conference because it has happened, and in Manchester did happen in 1985, that of the members 23 were non-Christian and 22 were Christian.
I should also point out to the right reverend Prelate that our concern springs in part from the fact that the admirable procedure which he brought in in his amendment today in such a turmoil of procedural difficulty is a paver to his Amendment No. 93. The procedure there is that the committees composed as set out in the amendment can trigger a review of an agreed syllabus but the review is carried out under subsection (8) of the clause by exactly the machinery which produced the existing situation. Therefore all the examples which my noble friend Lady Cox mentioned are entirely relevant unless there is some other long stop.
It is the need for that long stop which has given rise to this amendment, which I have signed as a probing amendment, because we would feel a real pang of conscience if we were to let this opportunity go without putting that long stop in. There are difficulties in it and I would commend to the right reverend Prelate in his conversations and reflections the very caution to which he referred on Second Reading. That was mentioned by the noble Lord sitting in the place of my noble friend Lady Hooper all those years ago in 1944. He mentioned that we did not want the secular courts to debate what Christianity is.
We should in the first part of this amendment—subject to subsection (2)(b) below—have put in words to the effect that the principal

509
component of religious education in all maintained schools shall be a study of the development of the Christian religion as revealed in the books of the Old and New Testaments. That is the effect which I believe, and I think I speak for my noble friends here, we wish to achieve.
I shall not go into why because that is now accepted and if it is not it should be debated on another occasion. I conclude by saying that I am delighted by the commitment which the right reverend Prelate has given. Can he please add to his kindness by allowing us to see the product of his consultation and drafting in sufficient time to formulate a constructive critique of it before it is debated in this Chamber? Otherwise we might be faced with a choice between the imperfect and nothing at all.
The Lord Bishop of London: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord. I shall try to give more time for consultation before Report than we have had for some documents for consultation in connection with the Bill.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, explained the reasons for the amendment with her customary clarity and conviction. I listened to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said with deep respect and considerable encouragement.
In joining in sponsoring the amendment, I do so not only for myself but also as president of the Prayer Book Society, which is a great honour. It will not altogether surprise the Committee to learn that the executive council of that society, which consists of representatives from all the dioceses in the Church of England, is wholeheartedly in favour of Christianity being taught and practised in our schools before all other religions.
It is in some ways unfortunate that the matter of religious education has to be considered before that of the daily act of worship. Some might think that that is putting the academic cart before the spiritual horse. However, that is the way it must be. I feel confident that those who support this amendment will be equally in support of the other amendment, which says that a daily act of worship should always be predominantly Christian. The two must go together.
I understand that the main argument against making religious education in schools in the maintained sector predominantly Christian is that, to quote the noble Earl, Lord Arran, when he was winding up the debate on 26th February:
"We are no longer a predominantly Christian nation and our schools reflect the multi-faith nature of Britain in 1988".—[Official Report, 26/2/88; col. 1486.]
If that is true and we really are no longer a predominantly Christian country, I can only say that it is a pity. It is high time that we tried to do something about it in a positive way.
No doubt there are some honest atheists as well as less honourable people who would rejoice at the prospect of Britain no longer being predominantly a Christian country. But surely the great majority of people must wish otherwise. The great majority wish
510
this country to remain predominantly Christian because that is our tradition, our history and our inheritance.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who asked during our debate on Clause 1 of the Bill whether the teaching of Christianity would lead to good behaviour, I answer yes. It will not do so overnight but rather over the course of time. It is certain that the study and practice of Christianity in our schools will tend to curb evil and promote the good. That is what we need.
I believe that we are basically much more Christian than we are given credit for. The extent to which we are no longer a Christian country is probably largely a result of Christianity not being sufficiently taught in our schools. I understand the dilemma of the multi-faith approach to religious education. I think that it is a mistake and dangerously wishy-washy. It is altogether too academic. It is like studying different specie of birds; children will learn a lot about them but their spirits will never learn to soar like eagles. In religious matters they will be jacks of all trades and masters of none. It is absolutely right that children should learn about faiths other than their own and learn to respect them. But unless they really know about one, they will not really know anything worth knowing about any.
I believe we have a great opportunity to redeem the past. If we fail to grasp it future generations will not easily forgive us. I hope very much that the Government and the right reverend Prelates will give this matter most serious consideration. I hope very much that the question can be settled without dividing the Committee. However, I must say, and I think that many will agree, that we would not be able to accept without dividing the Committee any amendment that did not specifically pinpoint Christianity on the face of the Bill.
1 a.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: This is an important amendment and therefore I hope the Committee will forgive me for adding to the words from these Benches. However, I would not want it to be thought that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was in any way a lone voice and that he did not have wide support on these Benches both for the steps he has taken in strengthening the position of religious education in the curriculum and also for his attitude to this particular amendment. I have a good deal of sympathy for that attitude because I too share a widespread disquiet about much that passes for religious education.
I have three aims in my own aspirations in this area. First, all children at school here should be given a proper understanding of the Christian religion regardless of their faith. I say this for the rather obvious reason that Christianity is a part of our history. The understanding of our institutions, the development of our law and ethical framework demand some understanding of the Christian religion. It is woven into our literature and into our art. In short, the Christian religion is part of the national story. A national story is an important part of the cement of society. It will, of course, develop but there are continuities which we neglect at our peril.
Secondly, we should aim to give all children some religious insight, not just historical knowledge. In

511
religions people and societies are changed. The one-time orthodoxy that religious movements were in irreversible decline has taken some savage knocks in recent years. Certainly in this country, Christianity has been and remains a profound force in our society. Pluralism, multi-culturalism and secularism are words that reflect contemporary facts. They are not in themselves religions. Sometimes people speak as if in learning about pluralism people were learning about a religion. Of course the school is not the place to aim to secure conversions. That is not to say that I do not hope that it will sometimes happen. But it is, I believe, the place for communicating what it means to have a faith, what it means to worship and to comprehend the connection between faith and morals. That is why the Churches must recruit and give opportunities for training and retraining teachers who are serious about their own faith.
Thirdly, I believe schools should teach that bigotry is a disease which is no respecter of faiths. All education is, or should be, directed against closed minds. But children need to discover a respect for faith by understanding it and must not confuse true tolerance with apathy or indifference. I must say how much I agreed with the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi in his words about the way in which faiths can feed each other.
Such aims as these three are not easily achieved, but, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I believe that they will best be achieved by a high degree of local understanding between the interested parties. That is why I attach special importance to the standing advisory councils on religious education under a new dispensation.
But I am doubtful about this amendment as it stands. There is a danger of introducing into the Bill an element that, in my view, could be counter-productive. Whether or not it represents a further element of central direction, there can be no doubt that it seems to take power away from the local areas. I do not believe that agreed syllabuses in general are all quite so bad as some of those which have been illustrated. There has been a good deal of universalising, not by the noble Baroness in her speech but in some pamphleteering which I think has grossly overstated this case.
Although there is much wisdom in Mr. Clifford Longley's article which is quoted, there is one point where he says:
"What religious education does not provide, except in Roman Catholic schools, is any systematic exposure of the mass of children to the Bible, church history, Christian morality or theology".
I have to say that, in my study of agreed syllabuses, there are many which do provide that, apart from the fact that they are provided in all Church of England schools. But I do not pretend that the Church of England or the Churches generally have always played their proper part in the construction of agreed syllabuses. But, given the amendment proposed to Clause 6, it will now be in our power to do more about the examples which have been quoted and which I deplore.
We now have in this country—and I think that we must be deeply grateful for it—a unique consensus among what might be called the religious parties which makes it possible for us to give the subject the
512
central place it ought to have. That is a particular achievement of this country. Moreover, I fear that were this Committee to approve this amendment, it might be taken as an unwelcome signal by other faiths, not least because they have not been consulted about it. I do not reproach the noble Baroness for that, but it is a factor that should be taken into account. In some ways the Archbishop of Canterbury is seen as something of a protector of other faith communities in this country. I feel it my duty to point out that accidental, unintended damage might be done if we were simply tonight to approve the amendment as it stands. In the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Home, made a speech that was as thoughtful as one always expects from him. He said then that:
"The question that will face us at the Committee stage is whether to insert into the text of the Bill words that will steer the local bodies which will create the syllabuses for religious teaching in the direction of teaching the Christian religion and the Christian story."
He went on to say:
"At present I am inclined to think there is a place for putting in some additional words if we can find the right wording. That is not easy."
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Home, precisely summed up the dilemma facing the Committee. I share the noble Lord's aspiration, but I do not yet think that we have found the right wording. I believe it will be possible for an amendment to be made on Report which will better achieve the objectives which I have in mind and have stated as well as the spirit in which they can be furthered. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has given an undertaking that he will introduce an amendment to this end on Report. I should like to assure him of my own support and, I believe, that of the bishops generally.
I conclude by assuring the noble Baroness and her colleagues that I am as concerned as they that religion, and not some substitute for it, should be taught in our schools. I believe it should be clear that the Christian religion will be the main but not the exclusive means of doing so.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I believe that the whole Committee will have listened to the speech of the most reverend Primate with relief. Surely, I am not alone in greatly admiring the diligence with which my noble friend Lady Cox has sought to find words to express our wishes in the Bill. I believe that to be important. It is the wish of a number of your Lordships that the story of Christianity and the values which derive directly from Christianity should be taught in our schools.
This is not a question of indoctrination, because that is in none of our minds. It is a matter of knowledge. The knowledge of Christian values and of Christian teaching should be given to our children. As the most reverend Primate has reminded us, at Second Reading I spoke of the values which we are commanded by the Founder of our religion to embrace for life on earth in striving to lead the good life according to certain principles and values. A great many of the children in our schools do not know anything at all about those values. They should know.
I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Elton who said at Second Reading that it was another

513
spiritual debate, and that is true. It also strikes me that a great many of our children do not know and have no idea of the stupendous claims made by the Founder of our religion that man should qualify to be the equal of the Sons of God. That has inspired a great many of the greatest citizens of our country through the generations. Our children should have that knowledge. If they do not have it too many will be handicapped in life.
We are dealing with an amendment and the question is, has my noble friend found the right words, and the best words, to express what so many noble Lords wish? I confess that I am not entirely happy about one word and that is the word "predominant". It has a slightly exclusive flavour and I do not believe we necessarily want to use that particular word. I believe that possibly a clue to a better formula may be found in the word "primacy" which was used by my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley a good many hours ago.
I would rather let the guidance given to those who construct the syllabuses be expressed in terms of the prime importance of the teaching of Christianity or, possibly, in the words used by the most reverend Primate just now, that the children should be given a thorough understanding of the meaning of the Christian religion. I am glad that we have more time to think about a different way of presenting this matter. I agree with my noble friend that something should be put into the Bill and it is important that we get it there. I hope that between now and Report stage the combined efforts of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and those representing the Government and my noble friend Lady Cox will be successful in finding the right word.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may be forgiven for borrowing a phrase which has been used elsewhere. I feel I rise as a lion in a den of Daniels for I rise with rather more trepidation than I would wish to express the voice of the honest atheist. I express it with some trepidation because these have been shown today to be dangerous waters for atheists.
Let me say first that I am in profound agreement with the remarks made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury about the importance of Christianity for understanding history. I say this in a professional capacity. I find that I spend much of my time explaining to undergraduates the finer points of the theology of predestination. I would find that much easier if they knew more about the theological tradition from which it came.
But it is one thing to tell people what Christianity says, another thing to teach them by the authority of the state that it is right. The most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London touched, I thought extremely delicately, on the record of the state in enforcing religion. It is not in all respects a happy one.
I have the experience of having attended primary school in another country—the United States. I was required at the beginning of the school day to salute the flag and I refused. I said it was not my flag. That was an uncomfortable experience. It had an enriching effect, however. It helped me to understand, among many other things, what Christians mean when they use the word "idolatry", but it also helped me to understand what it is to be in a school which is
514
devoting its authority to a creed one cannot share. It is perhaps a more uncomfortable position than some Members of the Committee may imagine.
I know the right to withdraw is there. That right is vital, but it does not altogether confer what I should like, with the voice of the honest atheist, to ask for—that is equality before the law.
Lord Thorneycroft: I rise for just a few moments as a most imperfect Christian, but a layman, to offer a short contribution to this discussion. My aim is a rather simpler aim than some have stated. I should like to see, in what is acknowledged to be a Christian country, Christian children being brought up as Christians in the schools and that they should, as we shall discuss on a later amendment, have an act of Christian worship daily when they are there. It seems to me that those aspirations are shared by millions of my fellow countrymen and they find it difficult to understand why there should be any problem or any doubt about it.
Up to now, the case against the kind of amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has moved has been that we were not a predominantly Christian country. I have never thought that that case could be argued. I was delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London effectively withdrew it. I hope, and indeed I am sure, that it will not be urged from the Front Bench.
I do not know whether anybody has ever tried to tell Mrs. Thatcher that we are no longer a predominantly Christian country, but I think we must face the real situation. Of course there has been widespread immigration from the new Commonwealth, but to take that as an argument that somehow we should abandon our faith and our culture in the schools and be fearful of what we teach there would be an appallingly dangerous argument to accept. It would verge on a racist situation and it would be utterly untrue. In fact, the West Indians in this country have brought an enormous addition to the weight of Christian witness. It has sometimes been more than their white brothers have brought but it has certainly existed. No Moslem is asking us to abandon Christian teaching in the schools.
Today the Committee heard the great speech from the Chief Rabbi urging us to return to our faith and have confidence in it. He assured us that it did no damage at all. He said that what is required in this country is not for Jews to become Christians but for Christians to become Christians. With the West Indians clamouring for it, with the Moslems praying for it, and with the Jews urging it in this House, what case is there for not having Christian education in the schools?
What is the alternative? I ask that deep thought be given to this matter. It is not playing with a few words or having a little compromise. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, goes to the root of the alternative, which is some kind of multi-faith education. I beg the Committee to think carefully before going too far along that road. The Chief Rabbi called it a "kind of religious cocktail". The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said that he is nervous of compulsion. So am I. I would be most nervous of compelling people to have a multi-faith

515
education. Of course there is room for the teaching of comparative religion in a pluralist society. It is a fascinating subject when dealt with by men of great ability before intelligent audiences. However, for amateurs to try to teach it to kids of 12 and 13 is asking rather much.
Amendment No. 19 sets out the way in which an agreed syllabus will be set up with men of all faiths and of none drawing up some hotchpotch of ideas. I do not wish to be too critical. I know how difficult things are and I understand the efforts that have been made to reach compromises and agreements. However, it is a million miles away from the Sermon on the Mount. It is a long way from the simple faiths that ought to be taught in our schools, as I hope and trust they will be.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I warmly support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and other Members of the Committee. I heartily endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. I have the impression that the noble Baroness does not intend to divide the Committee tonight so I shall await the amendments which are promised at Report with bated breath.
I cannot help feeling that the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate are a little too diffident in selling their wares. If I were marketing a product I do not believe that I should employ either of them as a salesman.
Baroness Strange: I should like to support the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lady Cox, Lord Elton and Lord Charteris of Amisfield. It is too late to make a speech but I should like to say what a great support the Christian religion has been to me thoughout my life. I should like others in the future to enjoy the same comfort and support as I do. When I travel or go away I often say a little prayer to myself:
"Matthew, Mark and Luke and John,
Bless the bed that I lie on;
And when I wake and when I sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
Four corners to my bed,
Four angels there be spread,
Two to foot and two to head,
And four to carry me when I am dead.
I go by sea, I go by land,
The Lord takes me in his right hand;
And when I die and when I wake,
I pray the Lord my soul to take".
Viscount Buckmaster: We have heard the voice of Judaism in our Chamber today but we have no Moslem voice. I am not a Moslem but on various occasions I have spoken on behalf of the Moslem faith. I rise briefly to endorse what the noble Baroness Lady Cox, has said; namely, that the Moslems feel very strongly that Christian education in our schools should be given a more positive image. I have heard that from a great many of them and those that I have consulted—the eminent Moslem divines—feel that Christian teaching does not necessarily clash with Islamic teaching. Both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions and Moslems recognise Christians as people of the Book.
Lord Swinfen: I support my noble friend's amendment. Although the number of people going to church seems to have been declining over the last few years, I believe that if one checked on many forms in the space where people are asked to state their religion, the vast majority in this country would say that they were Christian or some form of Christian denomination. Most of those people do not feel capable of teaching Christianity to their children and rely on schools to do the job properly, particularly those who do not attend church, because they do not think of sending their children to Sunday school. Either with this amendment or in a replacement amendment at a later stage we should put the word "Christianity" in the Bill.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: Perhaps I may be forgiven for a brief personal intervention. Many years ago when I first went to a boarding school there was a lady called Mrs. Mullis who was known as the lady housekeeper. She gave a prize for divinity. Perhaps I may say without boasting unduly that I won it. When I went home in what was nearly my first term I was greeted with respect by my parents. It was a number of years before I discovered that that respect to my face was tempered with a good deal of hilarity in the background that I should have been awarded a prize at the age of nine for a subject which is really reserved for doctorates for bishops and high officials of the Church.
As Members of the Committee will see, I did not become a Lord Spiritual as a result of that. I am as temporal a Lord as one could wish to see. However, it taught me a lesson which has not yet been mentioned in this debate. Whether or not it is called divinity, in those days it was not called RE as though it was something on all fours with PT. I hope I shall be forgiven for introducing the idea of divinity into this debate. I have no wish to cause embarrassment.
The point that I am trying to make is simply this. Religious education, if I can bring myself to use the term, is not merely another classroom subject like French, geography, "stinks" or whatever it may be. It is uniquely different from all those subjects because they are directed to the mind, to the intellect and to the brain in the form of information handed out by a teacher. Religious instruction is uniquely different—I repeat those words—uniquely different from those and is not directed solely to the mind and intellect but to the soul, the spirit or whatever word one chooses to use according to the jargon one fancies. It is utterly and totally different. It partakes of the nature of divinity whether we like it or not.
It is the function of the Church—by the Church I do not mean only the clergy but also the laity—to mediate God to man. In the debate on this amendment we are talking about the relationship between man and God. I suspect that it is probably one of the most important amendments that we are discussing in the whole of the debate on the Bill. I hope that when we redraft it—I think my noble friend will probably agree to form a redrafting of the amendment—this fact will not be forgotten. I hope it will be borne in mind that we are talking about religion.

517
Religion as taught in British schools should be Christianity. It is obviously appropriate even for reasons of commonsense, if nothing else, that when a child is taught a subject of this nature he should be able to discuss it. He should be taught it and be able to discuss it with people to whom the subject is familiar. He lives in a Christian community—indeed, it is Christian—and the subject which he has to discuss when he goes home or when he talks to his friends is Christianity.
I take great comfort, and I think most Members of the Committee do too, in the undertaking and the remarks from the spiritual Front Bench, which I so narrowly escaped, especially those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London regarding his proposals for the future and also the words of the most reverend Primate of All England.
When children leave school they will grow up with a grounding of divinity behind them. Perhaps they will come, as I have come, to attach great weight, attention and importance to, for example, the Bhagavadgita—however, as my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft indicated in rather different words, not until they have grown up.
1.30 a.m.
Lord Peston: I rise to speak with some trepidation, but nonetheless someone ought to say that he does not agree. That person is me. I add that I am speaking very much for myself on this issue.
I have no objection to religious education in our schools, although I sometimes wonder how it is that other countries in North-West Europe seem able to manage without compulsory religious education and yet are not renowned for being less religious than we are. However, we have a tradition of religious education in this country and I understood that it was the Government's intention that that situation should continue. However, on listening to the noble Baroness's introduction to the amendments I did not think that she was talking about religious education; I thought that she was talking about religious indoctrination.
The noble Lord, Lord Home, said that indoctrination was not what he wanted. I can only say that to my ears—not from him and, indeed not from other Members of the Committee but from the way that the noble Baroness introduced the amendments—that was the tone of what she said. I object to that very strongly indeed. It is perfectly acceptable that one should desire religious education in schools. Let me say especially that I entirely understand that we cannot comprehend the history of our country, or indeed the history of Western civilisation, without a considerable knowledge of Christianity.
I accept that the Bible is a major document on almost any subject that we may wish to study, certainly our own great literature. For that and many other reasons I am happy for our young people to have an acquaintance with religion and certainly the Christian religion. I should certainly like to hear from the noble Baroness who is to reply for the Government that there is no intention of indoctrination.
I add the point, because I am taken aback by this— and I speak as a non-religious person—that it
518
is not the job of the schools to make up for the deficiency of the home. It is the parents who have the first responsibility and the relationship of the parents to the Church seems to be not a trivial matter, but I have heard little about that. I still argue that the school is secondary.
My final point concerns essentially what I regard as the illogicality of paragraph (d) of the amendment. This states:
"The governors of non-denominational maintained schools, whilst ensuring that the Religious Education in that school"—
I ignore the grammar for the moment—
"is predominantly Christian, shall make such further provision"
and so on. Therefore, I take the extreme case of a Church of England school in which nearly all the pupils are Moslem—indeed, I understand that in one school all the pupils are Moslem. What meaning is to be attached to saying that that school is predominantly Christian when all the pupils are treated as a special case? Paragraph (d) brings out the essential nonsense of the amendment as drafted.
I understand that the right reverend Prelate said that he can produce a form of the amendment which actually corresponds to religious education. I have no worries about that being predominantly, overwhelmingly, primarily—or any other word—Christian. That is not the problem. The point is that it would be educational and not—if I may use another expression—brainwashing. That is my personal view.
Lord Thurlow: We should not close our debate on this amendment with the only request for caution coming from those who profess no religious faith. We are dealing with a subject of intense difficulty as the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, acknowledged and as the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate are so well aware.
I am second to none in my hope that spiritual experience and allegiance will be restored to a position of primacy in our society, but it will not come by writing the words proposed in the amendment into a statute.
I merely want to say that I look forward, as do many others, to the amendment that the right reverend Prelate is to bring forward, but I repeat that we have to approach this subject with the greatest caution.
Baroness Hooper: These are important concerns and we have been extremely fortunate in the variety of views expressed in the course of the debate.
The Government's views on the Christian content of religious education were spelled out relatively recently to the Chamber by my noble friend Lord Arran when my noble friend Lady Cox raised the same matter for debate earlier this year. He explained then that the Government saw a need for all children, whatever their ethnic or religious background, to be introduced at school to those Christian beliefs and values which permeate our traditions and culture. Certainly there is no hint of indoctrination. The most reverend Primate expressed that extremely well in his contribution.
However, I have to say that the Government share the fears expressed by the right reverend Prelate the

519
Bishop of London concerning the wording of this amendment. I know that these reservations are also shared by the leaders of the Catholic and Methodist Churches. Like us, they see part of the purpose of religious education as being one of bringing people closer together and fostering mutual understanding. We feel there is a danger that, as drafted, the amendment might have the effect of causing harmful divisions between pupils which I am quite certain is in no way the intention of the proposers of the amendment. I therefore welcome the intention of the right reverend Prelate to consider alternative formulations and come forward at Report stage with a revised form of words along the lines that he suggests.
I hope that he makes clear the need for all schools to provide pupils with a knowledge of the Christian faith while avoiding the damaging consequences that we fear might result from the amendment as now drafted. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Baroness and her co-sponsors will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Perhaps I may now come to the proposals put forward by my noble friend concerning collective worship in schools. I am glad to be able to say that the Government fully support the intention of these amendments. There is every good reason why collective worship should be subject to the same enforcement procedures already contained in the Bill for religious education.
I am well aware that many schools have in the past failed to meet the requirements of the law by providing a daily act of worship. The Government would welcome provision to help ensure that such flouting of the law does not continue. I have to say, however, that I am advised that it would not be appropriate to include such provisions in this chapter of the Bill and that they should properly have formed part of Chapter V. I should be grateful therefore if my noble friend Lady Cox would agree to withdraw the amendments on this occasion subject to the Government agreeing to come forward with their own amendments at Report stage. These would relate to Clause 93 which, as my noble friend is aware, relates specifically to the provision of collective worship in schools.
Baroness Cox: I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues who sponsored this amendment when I say that we are most grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken and given us the benefit of their support and their criticisms. We shall take very careful note of all the points made.
There is one point that I must take issue with in order to put the record straight before drawing this debate to a close. That is to assure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I share his hatred of indoctrination. I had no intention to indoctrinate. I hope that the spirit in which I spoke indicated that. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London indicated, education—in this case religious education—is all about freedom of choice. And freedom of choice implies informed choice. One can only decide, perhaps as a child, whether or not to begin to pursue the adventure—the joy as one might
520
see it if one has already tried to embark on that course—of a life of faith if one has some introduction to that faith. One could say that to deny children that knowledge is in itself a form of negative indoctrination.
I am most grateful to the right reverend prelate the Bishop of London for his suggestion that he might be able to devise an amendment which would secure our support. I naturally hope very much that that will prove possible. Given that possibility, it will clearly be premature to consider pressing this amendment at this stage. However, in begging leave to withdraw it, I do so on the clear understanding that any subsequent amendment must enshrine both the spirit and the substance of this amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, has said, we do not believe that we can compromise on the question of making explicit on the face of the Bill some form of commitment to a clear definition of religious education as predominantly Christian. We have an open mind about other forms of wording. For example, I am taken with the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Home of the concept of the primacy of Christianity. Equally, I should be very supportive of the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Elton of an emphasis of the biblical nature of the Old and New Testament bases of religious education.
I am aware that the wording of this amendment as it now stands is still imperfect. It needs improvement. I hope very much therefore that when we return to this issue at Report stage it will be in agreement with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that if there were to be a vote, I hope that it would be a free vote. I believe that the issues transcend all party political commitments. On what I hope is a hopeful and optimistic note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Foundation subjects and key stages]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should point out that, if Amendment No. 31 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 32 to 45.
Lord Joseph: On a point of order, will the noble Lord repeat what he just said about omitting certain amendments, because I did not hear?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: With pleasure. I said that if Amendment No. 31 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 32 to 45. They will have been pre-empted.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 2, leave out lines 21 to 31 and insert—
("(a) English, mathematics, science and personal and social education in the areas of:

(i) health and physical development;

(ii) family life and parenthood;

(iii) economic awareness;

521

(iv) social and civic responsibilities in a multi-cultural society;

(v) the environment;

(vi) world citizenship.

(b) in relation to schools in Wales which are Welsh-speaking schools, Welsh.
(2) Subject to subsection (4) below, the rest of the National Curriculum will be such as to fulfil the individual needs of pupils in accordance with the aims of section 1(2) above, and will include education in technology, history, geography, languages, arts and crafts and P.E.").
The noble Lord said: At this time of the morning I shall keep the Committee for the least possible length of time. I had a lengthy speech prepared, which I have chopped down to very little. I am moving the amendment because I see Members of the Committee who may wish to speak to it.
One thing that puzzles me about the Bill is that the lofty aims mentioned in Clause 1 do not seem to be borne out by the curriculum. Clause 1 speaks of moral development and of educating for the responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Neither of those objectives is borne out in the curriculum.
The areas of education that I have mentioned in the amendment are ones that I want the Committee to see down in black and white so that the Committee may think about them even if it does not agree with them. Other Members of the Committee will speak much more eloquently about health than I can. I am concerned that children know little about diet and eat unhealthily. They are storing up troubles of obesity and coronary disease for when they become older.
The Government's answer to that point will probably be that health, and the other subjects I have mentioned, will be taught in a cross-curricular manner. I do not agree that that is the right way to teach those subjects. Health can be taught as part of biology. One learns about the respiratory system and the teacher says, "By the way, it is not a good idea to smoke", or the reproductive system, and the teacher says, "By the way, be careful about AIDS". That approach is not adequate. Such matters are personal and should be taught to the child directly. The child should be taught, "You must take care of your body". Such subjects need to be taught in that way and not as coincidental to other subjects.
On parenthood, we are told that one marriage in three breaks down. I do not know whether that figure is correct. It is the type of thing that one hears. A great many marriages do break down. Family breakdown is a potent source of crime. I was speaking to the director of the NSPCC the other day. He told me that a great deal of child abuse and neglect was caused because parents had no idea of how to look after children. They do not understand their needs and their wants. They simply need to be told. They do not understand the need for what is called emotional bonding at a very young age and they have no idea of how to create a stable and happy home. To revert to the health matter for a moment, children who are not well—children who are ill—cannot work effectively. Children who are unhappy because their home background is unhappy cannot work effectively.
My next point is economic awareness and I do not want to do more than just mention it. Many families are in a very serious situation with debt. This surely
522
could be helped by children being taught about it at school.
I do not want to speak about the environment because it has already been debated fairly thoroughly this evening. It just needs to be mentioned. Children need to be taught social and civic responsibilities. They need to be taught to vote; not how to vote, but to vote at all. If our democracy is to work as a democracy, voting is a duty. Nobody would disagree with that, but a great many people do not regard it as such. They have to be taught how to disbelieve the press, how to be good neighbours and how to live in a community and generally to understand and tolerate others.
The matter of world citizenship has also been thoroughly debated this afternoon and this evening so I do not want to go into any detail about it. But I feel that if this Bill is to be worthy of the name "great", this pretentious and high-sounding epithet, "great", it cannot leave unmentioned such points as I have put in the amendment. On these matters our society depends. My view, which I have made clear in the amendment, is that it should form part not just of the curriculum, but of the core. It should be on an equal basis with the three "Rs". I beg to move.
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Lockwood: I rise to move Amendment No. 32. I must say that I find myself in some difficulty because I have a group of amendments linked with that amendment and a further group which comes later. But as they are all listed together—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Davidson): I am afraid you cannot move Amendment No. 32.
Baroness Lockwood: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 32; I quite appreciate that I cannot move it at this stage. The difficulty is having to speak to amendments which are so diverse in their nature.
The first group of amendments to which I wish to speak is related to the core and the foundation curriculum. These amendments have a threefold purpose. The first purpose is to include technology in the core curriculum rather than in the foundation subjects, and by so doing to upgrade technology alongside the other three core subjects. That would make the core curriculum a four-subject core. The second purpose is to make the foundation subjects a menu of subjects listed in the Bill, of which four could be selected. That would give a basis of eight subjects for the main core of the curriculum.
The third objective is to introduce more flexibility into the curriculum enabling greater choice for schools and enabling schools if they wish to take more of the subjects which were in the foundation group or to take other subjects perhaps some with a local or regional relevance.
I do not wish to deal in any detail with the prescriptive nature of the proposed curriculum as quite a lot has been said about that already. But I want to say a little more about technology. Unlike the

523
noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he referred in an earlier debate to technical education, I see technology not as a subject for the non-academic pupils alone but as an across-the-board subject necessary for all abilities.
Technology has implications for all aspects of our lives and it has much to contribute in preparing children for the world in which we live. There are, however, different interpretations of technology as a subject. Some see it in a very narrow way, involving perhaps craft subjects and making things. Some see it as a mainly information technology. I should like to see it broadly defined as an examinable subject in its own right and also as a resource feeding in to other subjects. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how the Government see the subject. We noted what she said in an earlier debate about a working party having been set up to draw up the programmes for the curriculum content and to set the attainment targets. I was very glad to see in the announcement of the setting up of this working group that technology is also to be linked with design. I think that design and technology go very much together.
There is also a need to see that technology is taught equally to girls. I am well aware that placing a subject in the core or the foundation curriculum does not necessarily mean that it will be taught equally. But technology is another subject which is regarded as being more suitable for boys than for girls. Yet studies by the secondary science curriculum review and by Her Majesty's Inspectorate have indicated that girls' participation in both science and technology is dependent upon the curriculum content—the curriculum content which relates to the experience of girls rather than just to the experience of boys. So I hope that this aspect of the subject will also be taken on board by the working group.
I now turn to my second group of amendments, which is concerned with careers education. Careers education is not catered for in the Bill, yet I think all of us in the Chamber would agree that it is of vital importance to the education programme of children that careers should be included in it. Children need objectives and accurate information about careers before they select the subjects for their GCSE.
Reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, this afternoon to the dropping of subjects, particularly by girls. It is very important that we take note of this in relation to careers opportunities. Some of these subjects might not be dropped so readily if more schools were well equipped to teach careers as a subject and to explain the importance of certain subjects in relation to job opportunities. We all know, and it is well documented by the Department of Employment in its Approaches to Career Service Practice No. 12, that girls are concentrated in a much narrower band of jobs than boys. Therefore careers education is particularly important for them.
The amendments do not call for an additional core or foundation subject. They recognise that careers education can be catered for through the national curriculum in the form of modular and cross-curriculum provisions to which the Minister referred in an earlier debate. However, it is important to note that without an obligation to take careers education
524
on board in the national curriculum, it could be missed out or its importance could be minimised. The amendments attempt to rectify that. However, they call for no more than an identifiable programme of careers education and guidance. I hope that the Minister will find that acceptable.
Lord Winstanley: In the very long list of amendments which are grouped together is my Amendment No. 40. It merely seeks to require the Bill to state that somewhere in the school timetable there shall be provision for some instruction in the essentials of first aid and accident prevention.
I am certain that this is not the proper time to embark on a speech about the necessity of teaching people about resuscitation—although resuscitation at this hour might not be wholly inappropriate! I am not sure that this is a proper time for doing anything other than going home to bed. However, I have put the amendment down to get some indication from the Government in the matter.
As a doctor in general practice and more particularly as resident surgical officer in a very busy general hospital, I have seen over and over again the consequences of inadequate knowledge of elementary first aid and total lack of knowledge of the essentials of accident prevention. I have seen children who have been badly burnt, perhaps as a result of a pan being left simmering on the stove with the handle sticking out so that it is easily knocked over. I have seen many injuries made infinitely worse because those present at the time, who might well have been children, had no idea what to do.
All children should know how to control a severe haemorrhage, not in a highly technical way but merely by applying firm continuous pressure over the bleeding point. That is not a difficult matter to teach; once taught, it can save lives. The last thing I wish to do is convert all school children into amateur doctors. There are enough of those already. I merely wish to see that all school children are given some instruction in the basic elements of first aid, such as how to control a severe haemorrhage or what to do about burns. How many modern children know that the first thing to do with a burn is to plunge the burnt area under cold water immediately? If that is done, the damage and the shock are substantially reduced and lives are saved.
When the noble Baroness comes to reply, I hope that I can disentangle her replies to so many amendments. At an earlier stage when the noble Earl was replying to a series of amendments I was not quite sure which objections applied to which amendments. In the end I began to think that all the objections applied to all the amendments. However, in this case I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to say that schools will be required to give the instruction stated in my amendment. Perhaps she will also tell us what the Government will be able to do if they find that schools are not giving such instruction. If it is given, I am sure that we shall save lives which are now unnecessarily lost.
2 a.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should very much like to support Amendment No. 40. I am president of the

525
Spinal Injuries Association and have been horrified over the past few years by the severe neck injuries caused by rugby accidents. I cannot tell you how serious the problems are. Young people break their necks so that they have no movement from the neck down: they cannot use their arms, they cannot feel from their necks downwards. Accident prevention is vital.
There are also dangers in the swimming pool. People dive on top of each other. I know of a case in which one person dived on top of another: one broke his neck and the other broke his back—two accidents in one.
As a member of the British Red Cross Society, I also fully recommend first aid lessons in all our schools. There is glue-sniffing among very young children. To know how to resuscitate, how to put a child in a recovery position can save life. It does not matter how young they are, it all helps. I very much hope that the Government will take seriously these very important needs.
Lord Kilmarnock: We seem to have another rather ill-assorted series of amendments. I should like to revert to the general scope of what was proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. As far as I understand it she wants in Amendment No. 32 to bring technology into the core curriculum and in Amendment No. 36 to reduce the number of obligatory foundation subjects to four only, allowing an element of choice as to the other three. That seems rather a good idea.
Earlier we lost the principal amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Joseph and Lord Peston, which would have had the advantage of decoupling the core from the foundation subjects. I think that that would have been very desirable because there would have been an obligatory core and then foundation subjects which were subject to guidelines. We have lost that for the moment, at any rate for this stage of the Bill. I think that possibly the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has leg two of that amendment coming up as Amendment No. 34 and no doubt he will be proposing it at that stage. However, until we hear from him, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness seems to me to be sensible and to take us some way in the direction of the flexibility that many of us were seeking earlier on.
I have one query for the Government as to whether technology goes into the core or stays among the foundation subjects. I think that it would be helpful if the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, would tell us a bit more about what the Government mean by technology. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has talked about design and technology, which are of course intimately connected. There is also a subject area called craft, design and technology which is currently taught in schools as a GCSE subject—and a very good one in my opinion. Possibly that is what should be included. Perhaps the noble Baroness would tell us that that is the gloss which the Government wish to put on technology. I think that we need clarification from the Government on that point.
However, it seems to me that, unless at a later stage the main proposal to be moved by the noble Lord,
526
Lord Joseph, was adopted in principle, this is a sensible series of linked amendments which would introduce greater flexibility into the curriculum. It would also allow more time for the concerns expressed by various speakers, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on first aid, for that which I am shortly to express on health education and for various other subjects of a similar nature.
I regard this as a probing amendment at this stage, but I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to clear up some of my doubts as to the Government's intentions, in particular in relation to technology.
Baroness David: I wonder whether we could have clarification as to which amendments are being grouped together. Nobody has said which amendments we are considering, yet we are moving on.
Lord Kilmarnock: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness if I am correct in understanding that there is a whole group of amendments which appears to have been agreed informally between the Government and the Opposition. It started with Amendment No. 31, which was Lord Ritchie's amendment, and then came Amendment No. 32, which was the amendment of the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 33 followed and then it went on to include Amendments Nos. 36 to 42. There are quite a lot of other amendments after that. Is that the Government's understanding of what we are debating?
Baroness David: I was not sure that everybody fully understood this. I know that I have put down these amendments but this has not been said in the Chamber, which makes it perhaps difficult for some people.
Baroness Birk: In that case, I think I had better speak to my amendment, which is an entirely different animal altogether. It is Amendment No. 39. One of the reasons that I consider it to be quite different is that it takes two words that are in the Bill and asks for a slight substitution. It does not bring in new subjects or areas. In fact, it is unfortunate that the amendments are linked in this way. However, I am sure the Minister will deal with them all separately. I do not envy her in that task, but we seem to have got into what I would call an unfortunate mix-up. The amendment in my name and the names of three other noble Lords is at least short and simple. It replaces "music, art" with "the arts". Of course I was delighted to find the word "art" in the Bill. Naming only music and art—and art in this context, I imagine, is generally understood to mean fine art or visual art—by definition excludes drama, dance, design, film, TV and other aspects of the media.
It is clear, as was pointed out in Committee this afternoon and previously in another place, that any subject that is not mentioned in the list will have a hard struggle to get into the curriculum. We have a Minister for the Arts and an Arts Council, so there is no difficulty in it being clearly understood what is covered and what is meant by the "arts". Many schools and local education authorities now offer a balanced art provision under the direction of an

527
adviser or senior teacher with special responsibility for the arts as a whole. But with a national curriculum, the situation has changed. As the Bill now stands, it is damagingly narrow in its prescription and could set back the cause of arts in schools that has been advanced so rigorously in some areas of the country in recent years. I feel sure that that is not the intention of the Government, but I fear, as do other noble Lords, that such may be its effect.
One way to overcome this difficulty would be to list subjects to be included. However, not only would that lead to questions of what should be included and what should be omitted, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said this afternoon in our first debate, education is a growing and developing subject. I believe the arts also falls comfortably into the same category. It will not be set in concrete but will continue to develop under this umbrella title.
The 1982 Gulbenkian Report on the arts, which treated the arts subjects as a single field of learning, was welcomed by the Government. All major reports and initiatives in arts and education since then have followed the same pattern. This amendment would protect that principle and give schools the flexibility to respond to their own needs in their own way. The Bill uses the term "science" to cover all science subjects. Therefore the term "arts" should cover all arts subjects and would in no way be out of place with what is in the Bill at the moment.
Unless the Bill is amended in this way, I feel that we could see the teaching of arts in schools severely cut because of the priority given to other subjects which are named. There is bound to be a decline, for instance, in the number of dance and drama teachers. It is pointless to claim, as it is sometimes done, that drama may be included in English and ballet may be a part of PE. Neither of those subjects is the correct resting place for drama or ballet. The arts have a special contribution to make to a multi-cultured education and they have always served the special needs of non-academic children. If our society is to be civilised and appreciative of the arts then its future depends upon what youngsters learn in their formative years. We owe this to our children and I believe that we can ensure it by making a small semantic change.
Lord Gibson: I have put my name to the amendment simply because I believe that the words as they stand are too restrictive. If the word "music" had been left out, the word "art" could have done duty for the arts as a whole. In specifying "music" it leads one to interpret the word "art" in the way in which the noble Baroness has suggested. It is a semantic matter and I hope that the Government can accept it. It is a small matter, but a very important one.
Lord Kilmarnock: I believe that we are back in the situation where the Government have not quite thought through the wording of this part of the Bill. "Art" in the singular form would, to most people, simply bring to mind fine art and the appreciation of pictures and matters of a visual nature. That is the way in which we would normally understand the
528
word. I believe also that a doubt would arise as to whether design, for example, were included under that heading. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, the singular form could be interpreted to be excessively restrictive. For those reasons I have also put my name to this amendment. It is a point which is parallel to the one I was making about technology. We want to know what the Government mean by "art" and only then can we decide whether we accept their formulation. In the meantime it seems to me to be inadequate and I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say about it.
2.15 a.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to support what my noble friend Lady Lockwood said as regards Amendment No. 90 and careers education. I want to speak to Amendment No. 47. The purpose of the amendment is to try to introduce greater flexibility into the curriculum and to allow head teachers and governors to do exactly what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, told the Committee was important during the Committee stage of the 1986 Act. In other words, to respond to local needs and circumstances and to the preferences of parents so that schools can have their individual curricula aims. It will give parents, through the governing body on which they will be represented, a genuine opportunity to play a part in expressing their views.
The proposals in the Bill at present give parents very little scope in spite of all the rhetoric about parents and parental choice. They get little or no mention in this part of the Bill. The amendment will also allow head teachers to take into account the skills and the qualifications of the teachers in their own schools. This is especially important in small, rural schools where the range of expertise among the teaching staff will necessarily be smaller because there are fewer teachers. It will also allow sensible adaptations to be made where there are teacher shortages which are acute, as they are in a number of key subjects.
I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Peston had an adequate response from the Minister to his question about what would happen if there were not enough maths teachers to go round. In this amendment I am suggesting a mechanism to allow schools to deal with difficulties where there are not enough teachers to go round. Insisting, for example, that all children study a modern language, if there are not enough modern language teachers, will not increase the quality of education either for those who are very talented in modern languages and who would have been doing them anyway under the present system or for those who are not talented and who probably, under the present system, would not have been doing them throughout their secondary education. It may well lead to a situation, unless we build in flexibility and allow heads and governors to make adjustments, in which talented young people cannot take two modern languages simply because there are not enough teachers to go round.
It will also avoid—and this is perhaps the most important point of all—the rather old-fashioned subject oriented approach built into the Bill at present. That approach neglects very important

529
areas: economic understanding and awareness, a whole range of life skills, careers education (which has already been mentioned), moral development and many other examples.
I should perhaps remind the Committee just how little progress we have made in this list of foundation subjects since the turn of the century. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in the Second Reading debate suggested that many of these subjects were what she had learned at school 60 years ago. In fact, it goes back very much further. The 1904 secondary regulations were almost identical to some of the subjects listed if we substitute technology in these proposals for an ancient language and art and music for drawing and singing.
Good schools do not simply list subjects as packages of knowledge to be learned. They try to look at subject matter and teaching and learning processes and organise them around a set of aims which relate to the needs of contemporary society rather than to packages of knowledge.
I should like to ask what will happen to important initiatives such as TVEI in a prescribed curriculum of this kind. I believe there is a real danger that such initiatives will be pushed out. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he was chairman of the MSC, along with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, spent a great deal of time and effort getting TVEI off the ground. Indeed, we have spent £1 billion on the initiative since it was first introduced. I am sure that both will be somewhat concerned that heads, in their efforts to meet the new directives of the Secretary of State for Education, will have extreme difficulty finding both resources and space for initiatives such as TVEI.
One of the more interesting developments in our secondary schools recently has been growing opportunities for work experience and closer links between schools and industry. For these to survive and to be taken further, would it not make some sense to allow heads, backed by their governors, to have the freedom to pursue such links in various parts of the curriculum? Very scant attention is paid to this in the way that core and foundation subjects have been framed.
Let us not bureaucratise and centralise the curriculum too much. Let us leave some scope for heads and their governors to work together to produce a curriculum within the framework set out by the Government which can change rapidly according to changing circumstances and avoid the kind of ossification that I fear we may otherwise get. Many professional organisations in education, I believe, would support the amendment. It will strengthen the Bill and help to do what we all want, which is to increase standards as many speakers have already said.
I believe that the amendment is totally consistent with what the noble Baroness the Minister said earlier about wishing to implement the national curriculum in as flexible a way as possible to allow schools to bring in a wider range of subjects in various combinations to meet their own local needs.
Lord Sandford: I should like to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, not exactly to support
530
her but to agree that there will be a number of different ways of approaching the teaching of the core and foundation subjects. I believe that her suggestions go too far but my colleagues on the Front Bench will express their views about that.
I believe that a great deal of time will be saved in discussing all the separate topics if the Minister could assure the Committee that before the next stage the Government will explain how the issues will be handled in relation to the core and foundation subjects. Perhaps they could indicate the progress being made in issuing guidance to the core and foundation subject working parties. I believe that such an indication will save an enormous amount of time and trouble. I do not see how the Committee can cover individually all the topics which have been raised.
Baroness Faithfull: Amendment No. 49, tabled in my name, is among this group of amendments. I shall not repeat them because all the subjects have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and other Members. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that one does not wish to continue to repeat the various subjects.
However, the two subjects that have not yet been mentioned are classics and science. I know that many people in this country believe that at the fourth key stage the subjects mentioned in Amendment No. 49 are sought-after and wanted by the older pupils.
Earl Russell: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. On Second Reading the cry of "flexibility" was coming from all quarters of the House. The Minister gave a hint that one might be pushing on a partially open door. Before I came into the House this morning it was made clear to me by some of my colleagues that they believed the amendment appeared to meet the cry for flexibility in a particularly suitable way. My colleagues in universities are much concerned about what happens in schools as a result of a national curriculum. The amendment achieves a certain amount of good in that it helps to meet the point made by my noble friend Lord McNair about the preservation of the classics, it makes it possible to study more than one modern language; and it makes it possible to study three serious sciences. To many of my colleagues those points appear to be of some importance.
I warmly welcome the fact that the amendment also recognises that not all children are the same. On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee reflected on prospects of teaching music to tone-deaf children. I heard that remark with great sympathy, being tone-deaf myself. That is one of the many reasons why I should like to support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Amendment No. 92 has not been spoken to and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is absent. I believe that it is an important amendment which deals with a totally different subject; traffic education. I have recently received approximately five disturbing letters from

531
parents whose children have been killed on the roads. Some of them were killed by drunk drivers. I believe it to be vital that children are taught road safety in the schools. When the Minister sums up the long list of subjects I should be grateful if she would say something about traffic education in our schools. It would make the debate on Report much easier.
Lord Kilmarnock: Perhaps I may support what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said. It seems to me that it would be extremely helpful if we could have some idea of the remit which has been given to the various subject areas working parties before we come to the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness David: I should like to comment briefly on this mammoth list. I have great sympathy with every one of the amendments which has been put down, particularly that of my noble friend Lady Blackstone in which she asks for this flexibility between subjects. I should like to remind the Committee that the last words refer to "Section 1 (2) above"; so it relates to what is happening under Clause 1. I also have great sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, because it will be very difficult to keep children of 15 and 16 who are not interested in the core and foundation subjects as listed in the Bill at school.
It seems to me that it all goes to show that these sections are far too rigid and inflexible. If our first amendment and the amendments which went with it had been carried, there would have been no need for this raft of amendments trying to get in this, that and the other subject, because there would have been an opportunity to do so. However, at this stage, it is too late to achieve that.
Baroness Hooper: I find myself able to agree with many of the sentiments expressed in the course of this debate. However, I fear that the conclusions I reach are rather different. I am confirmed in my view that it is in the best interests of all pupils to study a full range of subjects up to the age of 16 but to add subjects of the students' own choice, particularly in years 4 and 5 of secondary school.
Perhaps I should try to disentangle the three themes in the debate, and the amendments before us, rather than deal with each amendment in turn. First come the amendments which seek, in a declaratory way, to ensure that the foundation subjects can be taught in various combinations with each other and other subjects at the discretion of the head teacher. I hope that I do not need to go over old ground in establishing that the Bill does not in any way encroach on the ability of teachers to organise the curriculum as they see fit and to offer any subjects they wish in addition to the foundation subjects.
The national curriculum will ensure that important and valuable subjects are not squeezed out of the curriculum by less important ones. In that context, the new schedule of the noble Baroness, Lady David, offers a useful list of examples. I do not want to ban the teaching of any of those subjects from our schools, although many seem more suitable for an evening class than the crowded school timetable.
532
However, I am very glad to think that the national curriculum will make sure that pupils are in no danger of being offered television studies instead of technology or surveying instead of science.
Secondly, there are those Members of the Committee who wish us to identify and add to the foundation list certain important topics which include first aid and accident prevention, home economics including personal and social education, life skills and health education, social, cultural and environmental cross-curricular themes, road safety and careers education. Here again we are on ground very much like that which we covered in our debates on Clause 1 of the Bill. Those are all important themes and all are most likely to be covered in one way or another in national curriculum programmes of study. However, they are not the only important themes or topics which are not spelt out in detail here.
We have not sought to map out the full curriculum in this clause of the Bill. We are specifying the important subject areas to be covered and it will be for the subject working groups, with guidance from the Secretary of State and in due course from our new National Curriculum Council, to ensure that such themes and topics are appropriately covered. Perhaps, if I may give some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I should spell out that so far the maths and science working groups have been established and are due to submit their final report in June. We have just set up the English and technology with design groups, which will be reporting within the next year. History and geography will come later, as will foreign languages, and guidelines will be established for music, art and physical education. However, the criteria which have been given to the working parties in existence include consideration of cross-curricular themes.
As I said, although all the themes which have been raised by those amendments are important, perhaps at this hour I may be allowed to deal with two particular points rather than all of them. On the arts—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—we recognise that our proposals for the various creative arts subjects must be consistent with each other and must also take account of developments which have taken place in the field of integrated arts. I believe that we may expect the National Curriculum Council to ensure that. However, at the same time we do not want to lose sight of the particuar attributes of each individual arts subject, and we fear that the effect of this amendment would be just that. We are concerned that replacing art and music as foundation subjects with some generic title covering all the creative arts would result in less attention being given to arts subjects in the national curriculum and in those subjects being treated with less rigour than they would if they were separately identified, as they are in the Government's proposals. I do not believe that that is the wish of the noble Baroness.
Perhaps I may confirm that dance, to which she referred, is part of drama and physical education, as is music. Art can take in all forms of visual arts, including film and the plastic arts. Equally, moving on to the other subjects which were dealt with

533
particularly by noble Lords opposite in relation to technology, I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, shares the Government's view that technology should be a component of the national curriculum. Design and technology are vital areas of the curriculum and of great significance for the economic well-being of this country. Making technology a foundation subject, as the Bill already provides, automatically guarantees its place throughout the compulsory period of schooling.
The design and technology working group which we set up last week will advise on attainment targets and programmes of study for technology within the national curriculum. I am not persuaded of the advantage of ranking technology alongside the core subjects of mathematics, English and science, to which priority has to be given in implementing the national curriculum.
Everyone agrees that literacy, numeracy and scientific ways of thinking are at the heart of the curriculum; they underpin learning in other subjects, including design and technology. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Indeed, in the light of my more general explanation about the flexibility already available within the Government's proposals for the various subjects in the national curriculum, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments to which we are speaking.
2.30 a.m.
Baroness Birk: I have just one point to put to the Minister. The arguments which she used against accepting the amendment were much the same as those which I used for moving it. That does not get us very far. I hope she will take the amendment back and reconsider it. I appreciate that the hour is very late but I think the issue should be looked at again, because all she said was that drama would go back into English and ballet into physical education. I realise, as do those people who are concerned with the arts, that that is not a good arrangement. Perhaps she will look again at the matter, because none of the amendments has yet been moved.
Baroness Hooper: I feel that I must stand by the fact that we think that the subject is adequately covered by the provisions in the Bill.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I think I am right in saying that I am the only Peer who has actually moved an amendment; the others have merely been spoken to in connection with mine. Therefore it falls to me to say a final word about it. We have been debating the national curriculum for nearly 12 hours and one wonders whether we have achieved anything good. I must say that the prize goes to the civil servants who thought up a thousand or two negative answers: how to say no in a thousand different ways.
We have ranged over various aspects of the national curriculum in the past hour or so. All one can hope is that some impression has penetrated to the Government Front Bench and that some of our ideas and proposals will filter through to those who have to make the final decisions—to the Secretary of
534
State, the National Curriculum Council and the task groups, and that they will reflect to an extent some of the carefully thought-out ideas which have been spoken to in this Committee. In the circumstances—
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, he referred to the many hours which have been spent discussing this matter, and for lack of progress he thought the prize should go to the civil servants who supplied the answers. I suggest that the second prize should perhaps go to those who were responsible for the grouping of the amendments.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: The grouping seems to have given rise to some confusion. In the circumstances and at this hour of the morning I bid the Committee "Good morning" and ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
2.37 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 30.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Birk, B.

McNair, L. (Teller]

Blackstone, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormond of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller]

Kilmarnock, L.

Russell, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, L.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Joseph, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reay, L.

Cowley, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cox, B.

Sandford, L.

Craigton, L.

Swinton, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Thurlow, L.

Dundee, E.

Trafford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
2.45 a.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 34 I should remind the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 35 to 45.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: After all the preliminary skirmishing, we can now get down to serious discussion on the Bill. Before I joined this place I was most concerned that major legislation was discussed at this time of night. I must tell the Committee that I, at least, am wide awake. I am looking forward to the discussion on this amendment. I assume that it was the stimulus of the earlier debate on religious matters that got one's mind working.
We have reached a fascinating topic. There is nothing between us on the notion that there should be a national curriculum. We had a long argument earlier about how mandatory that curriculum should be. I think that pretty well all Members of the Committee accept that there should be a national curriculum. We now come rather more to the logical structure of that curriculum.
I can see a definite distinction between what the Bill refers to as core subjects and foundation subjects. I do not believe that the Bill's language is felicitous. I want to call the core subjects the foundation subjects. I have argued on other occasions in this place that mathematics and English, and almost certainly science, provide the foundation that everyone needs to be, I shall not go so far as to say educated, but to have the chance of being educated. The other subjects, which are called foundation subjects, desirable though they are for nearly all young people, do not have the foundation quality about them.
The main point I wish to make is that the national curriculum would be more satisfactory if it did not include those other subjects and concentrated on the core. I shall examine that point a little further. Why would I call the core the foundation? Starting with mathematics, the reason is that so much we do is mathematical. However, much more important than the mathematics, and certainly mathematics by rote—the type of mathematics I did when I was at school—is logic; that is, the ability to start from premises and in the case of mathematics to reach certain conclusions. That is why mathematics is so important. In my opinion it is a mistake to interpret mathematics as a calculating ability. The essence of mathematics in this context is its logical qualities. That is why I should like to see mathematics given a primary role, as it is in the core, or as I should like to say, in the foundation.
I do not have to speak at any length on English. Again it seems to me that without a true ability in this field no other learning is possible. I have never understood colleagues in university who have somehow accepted that we have first-class economists who at the same time are illiterate. That has never made any sense to me: the ability to write the language correctly and attractively cannot be separated from the subject itself. I am always
536
suspicious of those who cannot write but claim to understand the subject. So we need not argue about English: clearly it should be there.
Now we come to science. Again, I hope that our concept of science in this context is not the science of learning how to heat a test tube and things of that sort. All the cleverer boys in my school always knew that the right way to do experiments was to do them, then do the theory and write the answers to the experiments down from the theory, not from our imperfect attempts at measurement. We were also cleverer than that; we knew that the experiment was meant to be somewhat imperfect so we always added slight error to the exact calculations which we knew we ought to have found.
What then is the point of science? It is precisely to understand the experimental mode, to understand fallibility. When I have argued this before, one of my difficulties with the whole approach to the mandatory national curriculum has been that it seems to me that the Government do not recognise fallibility. Why do we consider choice? Why are we keen on flexibility? We are keen on it because we might be wrong. That is why we do not want this to be imposed. Science tells us about fallibility, about the need to take a statistical view of the world and all that sort of thing.
So, although the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is to leave out subsection (2), the main part of the logic of leaving out subsection (2) is the desire to emphasise subsection (1)(a). I do not need to pursue subsection (2) in any great detail because in a sense it has been discussed interestingly throughout the day. Attractive though each one of the subjects in subsection (2) is, and even though most—and I have to say to the Minister most, not all—young people would benefit from some acquaintance with the majority of them, I do not quite see the compelling nature of all of them for the whole period. Let me take my favourite one, for which I do not see the argument at all. That is geography. I am totally at a loss as to where geography gets the status which allows it to sit side by side with history, and for that matter side by side with English, over the whole period of the mandatory curriculum. I am not saying that geography ought not to be there: what I fail to see is its mandatory nature. I have to say that I would tend to argue that for almost all the topics. I should like to see pretty well all young people do history. I think it is a great loss not have an understanding of the history of one's country. I would add that it is also beneficial for young people not merely to know something about the history of other countries, but to know something about the countries' history books. There is nothing better for someone's education than to read an American version of the War of Independence or a French version of the battle of Waterloo. It will do one the world of good. So, keen as I am to have our young people read our history, I think the broadening of mind should take us beyond that.
My main point is not that. I do not want to bandy individual subjects about, I simply want to argue that in a sense the foundation subjects are altogether a misconception of what the national curriculum should be about. I can see them as desirable, I can see

537
them as guidelines. I cannot see them as mandatory or having the same role as what is called the core, but what I should like to call the foundation.
That is why I believe that Amendment No. 34 enables us to elucidate the whole nature of the curriculum. I could go further and argue also about the issue of freedom of choice here, because I do favour freedom of choice in the curriculum. To go back to an earlier argument of mine, I really do not see children and their parents in the maintained schools having to accept lack of freedom of choice because they have chosen to go to maintained schools as opposed to independent schools. So there is a freedom of choice aspect, but it is not central to what I have in mind. What is central is the vital, fundamental importance of the core curriculum. It is that I most wish to press upon the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Joseph: I sympathise strongly with the Government's impatience to raise standards and to broaden the education of our children. I happen to think that they have gone the wrong way about it in relation to the national curriculum. I eagerly support the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in the amendment which in effect would retain the mandatory requirement in regard to the core subjects but make the foundation subjects discretionary. I do not think any Member of the Committee doubts that the foundation subjects will be taught in nearly every school. The problem is one of flexibility. Every child is different in his or her strengths and weaknesses. As the previous debate showed, the real problem we are discussing is the pressure on time. If of course the Government were to decide to lengthen the school week or the school year, that would provide a different background.
I want briefly to put the case that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has already argued in particular terms of the non-academic child. Let us imagine for a moment that we have technical schools in this country. Let us imagine that there are large numbers of pupils in our schools who, on the whole, being non-academic—it does not follow, of course, that only the non-academic are technical—would be interested in technical vehicles of general learning.
Would it be possible, within the straitjacket laid down by the Government, to give them the extra time they would need, after satisfying the foundation subject as well as the core subject requirements, to have real immersion in different aspects of technology? I doubt it, bearing in mind all the different special subjects the Committee either argued for, or denied itself the pleasure of arguing for, because of the hour of the night. There will be plenty of bids for the 30 per cent. of the curriculum time that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, constantly presents as the defence of the Government against inflexibility.
I have satisfied myself through inquiries that the French, who seem to do very well with what they call a national curriculum, have no mandatory requirement for the same subjects to be taught to all children. They exempt a significant proportion of their children from preparation for the "bac" and provide them with a special curriculum—I am talking
538
of between 10 and 15 per cent. of their children—that features strongly technical subjects plus, it is true, a smattering of history and a smattering of civics which is not a foreign language in their case but mainly technical subjects.
The Government, I know, are desparately keen, as are all sides of the Committee, to help particularly the children who do not benefit from the present schooling. They will be bitterly disappointed if their understandably impatient desire to get a broad and balanced curriculum in fact does damage to the non-academic. Just suppose that non-academic children need more time for maths or English than is provided in the standard syllabus. Suppose that that extra time eats into the 30 per cent. that the Minister will probably tell us is available. Suppose, in addition, that some of the favourite subjects of Members of the Committee which were listed in our previous debates find their way into the 30 per cent. What time will be left to suit the non-academic child?
I ask the Committee to consider whether we are doing the service which we wish to do to those who most need our help and to reflect on whether a technical curriculum, were we to want it for a proportion of our children, would be possible within the straitjacket which the Bill imposes. If we adopt the amendment, the result will be that core subjects will remain manageable. That will account for the main, understandable and legitimate endeavour of the Government.
We all accept that the core subjects are the gateway to all other subjects. What it will mean is that the mandatory requirements on foundation subjects will be withdrawn. I think that we all agree that in nearly every school nearly all, if not all, the published subjects will be taught. If we follow the amendment, we shall remove the straitjacket and say to the Secretary of State, venturing into programmes of study and attainment targets for the foundation subjects, that we shall, by the amendment, give the flexibility for which we are all arguing. We shall do it by retaining what is in our view the indispensable element of the mandatory requirement for the core subjects. I support the amendment.
3 a.m.
Baroness Seear: I do not wish to rehearse the arguments which we had earlier today and which both noble Lords have put so ably. I merely wish to say that I support the amendment very strongly indeed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I entirely support the concept of the foundation subject. However, I am still very concerned, as is the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, about the non-academic child. I am also very concerned about the exceptionally talented child who may need to spend a great deal of time, for instance, practising on a musical instrument or practising ballet in order to achieve his or her greatest potential. If I could be satisfied that exceptions would be made for all those children, I would support the Government wholeheartedly. I am not satisfied and I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me what the situation of such children will be.
Baroness Hooper: We return with these amendments to a fundamental challenge to our national curriculum proposals. There are two central reasons why I ask the Committee to reject the idea of a national curriculum consisting of core subjects only. The first and most important is that such a national curriculum would not serve the purposes of a true national curriculum as set out in Better Schools, as practised in other countries and indeed as practised in some of our own better schools.
The second reason is that in seeking to constrain the national curriculum in order to increase flexibility for individual pupils, as is suggested, the amendments deprive a large target group of the benefits of a broad and balanced curriculum. We believe that there is ample flexibility built into our proposals for use where appropriate.
As regards the need for a full range of subjects to be offered to all pupils, I shall quote once more from Better Schools:
"The Government believes that all pupils should follow a broad, balanced and suitably differentiated programme until age 16".
Is a curriculum consisting of English, mathematics, science and perhaps technology and history broad and balanced? Better Schools thought not:
"the Government's policies for breadth and balance require that … the curriculum for all pupils … should contain English … mathematics; science; a study of the humanities; aesthetic subjects; practical subjects; physical education; and a foreign language for most pupils".
We stand by all of that. We stand by its general philosophy and its details.
My noble friend Lord Joseph also made some excellent speeches on this theme. He told the Historical Association:
"I am clear that history is an essential component in the curriculum for all pupils".
He told the Geographical Association:
"Geography is important to the balance of a broad curriculum. I see it as an important element in a broad education in the humanities for all pupils".
Yet now both he and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would leave both subjects out of the national curriculum.
Better Schools has been endorsed by virtually all within and outside the education service, though not without some backsliding and protest of the kind that we are now facing in introducing a national curriculum. Its curriculum model—and now that of the national curriculum—has been incorporated into the criteria for the technical and vocational education initiative which is helping to offer a broad and balanced curriculum in a way of particular relevance in our technological age. It is a model which works well in many European countries. Why, I wonder, should its architect abandon it and retreat now to a narrow core?
One reason we have heard is the need for more flexibility. That has been a central theme of the speeches made against our full range of foundation subjects. However, as I said in an earlier debate, such argument confuses flexibility with laxity. Choice can be a synonym for soft options. The Bill contains all the provisions needed to cater for genuinely appropriate flexibility.
Lord Joseph: Will the noble Baroness permit me to intervene? I am grateful to her. I do not think that she will ever find a quotation in Better Schools for which I was responsible or in any of the speeches of mine which she quotes to suggest that I ever thought of imposing mandatory requirements for any of those subjects. I spoke, heaven help me, in terms of exhortation and example and not in terms of imposing the law. That is the difference.
Baroness Hooper: I understand that and I believe that to be part of the problem, because the exhortation did not work.
To continue the theme of flexibility, or freedom of choice if one so chooses to call it, to allow for individual circumstances, this is and can be achieved in many ways under our proposals. I stated some of those earlier so I hope that the Committee will bear with me if in passing through them again I repeat some of my earlier statements.
There is 30 per cent. of the average school week available for other subjects or topics in years four and five. That is one and a half days, and indeed longer in schools which work longer hours. I believe that it allows a number of the subjects that we have been discussing in the last amendments to be included in the curriculum.
The national curriculum will not be prescribing in great detail what schools and teachers should do, as I have said more than once. It will set out a framework and key objectives but will not prevent considerable variation in what is being offered in classrooms and the various schools. Each foundation subject will contribute towards a number of cross-curricular themes which will be capable of inclusion with other subjects in a variety of ways.
On implementation it is intended that the core subjects and technology should be introduced first and the remainder of the foundation subjects over a number of years. In saying that, we recognise that because of the need to train teachers in some subjects we may have to move at a slower pace. This could well be the case for modern languages, for example. Meanwhile much development work is going on in offering foreign language to pupils of all abilities. Some subjects such as art, music and physical education, will have guidelines only, so the amount of time to be devoted to them is indeed much more flexible and will possibly leave more than the 30 per cent. of time for other subjects that I quoted outside the national curriculum. Programmes of study and attainment targets will allow for considerable differentiation by ability in each subject.
At this point I hope to be able to reassure the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that they will cater explicitly for the below average pupil, who will have his objectives defined positively and not by reduction from an unrealistic goal. They will also allow the brighter pupils to progress as quickly as they are able. Indeed, we must remember that the detailed provisions of each subject in the national curriculum will come before both Houses of Parliament in the shape of orders which will be introduced to bring in each separate subject. For groups of pupils of particular types and in particular circumstances the Bill allows the Secretary of State to define exceptions to any

541
general orders or indeed exceptions from studying a particular foundation subject where necessary. Therefore, the needs of pupils with particular problems—for example, problems of mobility or maybe language development—can be fully met.
Our proposals also meet the needs of pupils who progress so rapidly that they meet the highest national curriculum targets before the age of 16. They can move on to different challenges.
For individual pupils with severe problems, the Bill allows permanent modifications to the national curriculum through the statement of special needs or temporary modifications by the head teacher. With all that flexibility it is difficult to see how the individual needs of pupils will be ignored. They can certainly be ignored only too easily in the present system. But at all stages the national curriculum requires teachers to consider pupils as individuals and to offer them the full range of subjects in an appropriate way or to make specific and well thought out alternative arrangements.
Confining the national curriculum to three core subjects would ensure that too many pupils would concentrate heavily on those subjects to the exclusion of others. These three subjects are relevant and necessary but they are certainly not sufficient; a curriculum consisting solely of those subjects would certainly not be broad and balanced.
Where is the end to early specialisation which other countries rejected long ago and which employers and others in this country speak against with one voice, if we confine ourselves to the core subjects?
The amendments that are before us would leave in legislation provisions which would fail to meet the important aims and objectives on which I had understood the Committee to be at one with the Government. I therefore ask the Committee to reject them.
Lord Peston: I am deeply disappointed with the reply of the noble Baroness because it does not seem to me to address itself to the argument that was put forward. In pressing for the core curriculum, as being the central mandatory part, none of us is arguing that there should not be a broad curriculum. None of us is arguing that at all. Indeed, our whole point is that there should be a much broader curriculum. Our view esentially—and we could in due course table such amendments if this amendment were to be carried—is that there should be a broad range of possible subjects.
My query about the foundation subjects is this: why precisely these subjects and why make them mandatory? I am not in favour of undue specialisation. I entirely accept the view of the noble Baroness that we have been too specialised. The reason for that lies much more in the examination system than in anything else that I could put forward. I simply do not understand why there should be this particular list. I could produce a much broader list and say, "Choose any six from that". What is special about this list? The noble Baroness has not given us any answer whatever to that question—none whatever.
To return to my question: why is geography there, as an example? Why could there not be some other
542
subject there instead of geography? Why not another science? Why could not a second language go in? One could go on endlessly.
I ask the noble Baroness whether she will be good enough to give us the argument which says that we are mistaken. We are not against a broad curriculum. I can assure her that we are entirely in favour of a broad curriculum. What we are objecting to is this particular mandatory list which makes no sense to me or to any other educationist whom I know.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord may not be arguing against a broad curriculum, but what he is arguing for is the means of dispensing with the methods of ensuring that broad curriculum. I answer his query by saying that what we are doing with the subjects which are enumerated as foundation subjects is building on those best practices in many of our schools to which a number of your Lordships have referred. It has been frequently said in the course of this debate that many of our schools already deliver the national curriculum. It is in building upon best practices that we have seen the way forward with this Bill and its proposals. That is how we have found our subjects.
Lord Joseph: The Committee will realise that the case has been put and it is not possible for me to be satisfied with the answer. I do not believe that the Government are justified in imposing a legal straitjacket outside the core, and I shall therefore press the amendment.
3.17 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 28.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Birk, B.

Peston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Joseph, L.

Russell, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Thurlow, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reay, L.

Cowley, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cox, B.

Sandford, L.

Craigton, L.

Swinton, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Trafford, L.

Dundee, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.24 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 44 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 2, line 29, after ("State") insert—
("( ) in relation to the third key state, home economics to include personal and social education;").
The noble Baroness said: It may be thought by Members of the Committee that I should have spoken to the amendment in the last grouping. However, because of the peculiar listing it did not appear and so I did not speak.
Thoughout the debate I have been slightly worried because the Committee has talked so much about academics and non-academics. I should like to talk about the intelligent children whose interests lie in a practical sphere. I refer to home economics and I include personal and social education. In the amendment we press the Government to consider home economics as a foundation subject. It includes personal and social education, which some prefer to call "life skills".
Home economics falls into two distinct but interrelated parts. There is the teaching of the practical skills which require intelligence and imagination. They can lead to an academic life but they often lead to working in the practical sphere. By that, I mean skills in the practical sphere of nutrition, preparation of food and the running of a home, and their application in commerce and industry. For instance, British Gas employs a large number of home economists.
Without the practical skills in the community, where would Members of the Committee be? Where would we have obtained our food, our comforts and the support of all the people who are behind us? We could not be here were they not. They are important people of an intelligent, imaginative and practical nature. I shall not say that we would welcome such people being better trained, because nowhere could one have more excellent service than in your Lordship's House. However, when I dine in college in Oxford, I wonder where they would be without the home economists. Where would the schools be without practical people? Where would the colleges be? They would not be there, because they would be busy cooking their food and looking after themselves and they would not have time for their intellectual pursuits. I believe it to be most important that intelligent children of a practical nature should have the right and the opportunity to enter the practical spheres.
There is also the interrelated sphere of home economists. I refer to Dr. George Tolley's presidential address to the Institute of Home Economists. He quoted from T. S. Eliot:
"Home is where it starts from."
The amendment speaks of "personal and social education", but many people call the subject "life skills". That has been referred to already by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. It means having a knowledge and understanding of child development, child care and human relationships. As has already been stated, one in three marriages breaks down, there is cruelty and child abuse and there are poor relationships. If that subject were to be taught in
544
schools at a later stage, or even at an early stage, our have already been made and therefore I shall not repeat them at this late hour. I beg to move.
3.30 a.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: As my amendment is listed along with the previous one, and to make the matter clear, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will speak also to his amendment, No. 102, so that the Committee is brought up to date. I have tabled the amendment to the core subject of science because that is where I feel it is most fitted.
In speaking to Amendment No. 46 I should like to try to explain how important it is that our children are ensured an education which encompasses the basic life skills, including health education. With academic pressures and competition among schools that might be the choice of parents who seek the schools which may have the highest examination results but do not consider the wider educational needs of children. What is the point in educating children if they cannot cope with the realities of life and do not have the knowledge to avoid what is dangerous and bad for their bodies and general well-being?
If children do not have such education they may not have a long life. The evidence that smoking causes many health problems is now well-known. The danger of drug abuse does not seem likely to go away. The upsurge in the drinking of alcohol is increasing among young people, as is the suicide rate.
The need to learn to be a good parent and have a healthy lifestyle in diet, exercise, sexual activities and the skills to run a home seem of paramount importance. Education is the only hope if the cycle of deprivation and abuse which often surrounds young people from all walks of life is to be broken. The recent report on public health in England recommends in paragraph 4.21.3 that a supporting curriculum development of health education projects suitable for use by children of different age groups be part of education.
The Brewers Society is most supportive of educational initiatives. The CSE biology syllabus has been widely available and deals with the effects of alcohol on the body. There is also available to schools through the British Institution of Traffic Education Research an interactive video on the same subject. It would be a great pity if those benefits were lost to education.
There is now a global shadow of AIDS hanging over the world. Education is vital. Young people need to know the implications involved and how to avoid spreading the virus. The faculty of community medicine is concerned that there is no mention of personal social education in the proposals for the national curriculum.
Health care is becoming expensive. The government emphasis on individual responsibility for health should surely be complemented by ensuring that children are sufficiently educated to exercise that responsibility. Somewhere in the Bill that vital need should be written in so that health education and life skills are not neglected or forgotten. Educating our future generations to promotion of good health and prevention of disease and deprivation must be cost-

545
effective to the nation and the only hope for a thriving future.
I am not sure where such a provision should be placed in the Bill, but that is a matter for the Committee to decide.
Lord Rea: I support both the amendments and speak briefly in support of the Amendment No. 46 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I am aware that the science working group has already gone a long way towards constructing the core curriculum for science and is now examining many suggestions, some of which include the topics in the amendment. The group's provisional curriculum already includes some of the topics which are under the headings of life skills and health education.
The organisation of which I am executive chairman, the National Co-ordinating Committee on Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease, is more and more aware of the importance of early childhood influences in the development of this disease, which is the most important killing disease in the country. We have already sent in our comments on the core science curriculum and I hope that our suggestions will prove acceptable. Briefly they relate to the place of nutrition, home economics and physical activity in the curriculum and both the good and bad effects of behaviour on health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will probably say that we need not fear because these topics will be included, and to some extent already are included, in the basic core science curriculum which is, I agree, a valuable and well thought out document. However, it would be helpful to the science working group if the words of the amendment, or similar words, were included somewhere in the Bill to strengthen its hand against competing demands and to ensure that these topics have a proper place in the finally accepted core curriculum.
With that one minute statement I shall sit down so that we can all soon go home.
Lord Kilmarnock: I hope it will be with the agreement of the Government Front Bench and the noble Baroness that I am both supporting her amendment and speaking also to Amendment No. 102, which attaches itself not to the same place but to the National Curriculum Council. It seems to me that this is a cross-curricular matter and with due respect to the noble Baroness perhaps we should revert to it at a later stage of the Bill. The place I have chosen is perhaps slightly better than the place that she has chosen. At present I am simply advancing this as a probing amendment, but it is an important amendment on which I should like to have some answers.
The noble Baroness will be well aware that health education covers a great variety of matters. I have seven listed here: the prevention of drug and alcohol misuse; prevention of AIDS; prevention of teenage pregnancies; reduction in teenage smoking; improvement in the national diet, improvement in levels of physical activity and fitness; and preparation for parenthood.
On those grounds the Health Education Authority advocated the setting up of a cross-curricular
546
working group to examine the place which it thought health education should take within the sphere of personal and social education—which in fact at present takes place in a large number of schools. I do not know the exact percentage, but it is widely taught.
The HEA also asked for the appointment of a member of the National Curriculum Council with expertise in health education. I am not aware whether that was conceded but no doubt the noble Baroness will give us the answer. The chairman of the Health Education Authority wrote to the Secretary of State on 22nd February. The HEA has some valuable suggestions, but the chairman wrote that,
"there are certain key aspects of health education which cannot be fully covered in science".
He went on to say:
"we remain concerned at the lack of any reference to PSE in the consultation document or in subsequent Ministerial statements. We fear that this may result in an unintended diminution in the status and time allocated to PSE by secondary schools".
The Minister of State, Mrs. Rumbold, replied on 24th March. She seemed to hold out some hope of a positive government response. She said:
"As you say, we expect that Personal and Social Education will be one of the areas of the curriculum which the National Curriculum Council will want to consider early".
She went on to say:
"My colleagues and I will take on board your suggestion that we should look for an opportunity to make clear in a public statement that we continue to attach importance to good PSE courses, not least as an effective way of teaching health education. We will aim to include such a statement either in what we say in Parliament during further consideration of the Bill, or in a public speech".
I am offering this opportunity to the noble Baroness. Perhaps she would like to make a statement on those lines.
Finally I would add this. The noble Baroness may expect me to do so knowing that I have taken a considerable interest in AIDS and have introduced two debates in this Chamber on the subject. The excellent production of the HEA is available for use in schools. It has a number of modules which require a certain amount of time for their absorption. There are also videos, one of which is prepared by the DES, which are quite useless if they are simply shown for a single 25-minute run, are not prepared for in advance and there is no time for feedback afterwards.
In addition to those items that I have mentioned which form part of what one might call traditional health education, there is this very large area which has to be accommodated. The noble Baroness has chided me previously for not having sufficient faith that parent governors will be sensible about this matter. However, it would be very helpful if the Government reiterated Section 18 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to governors and schools up and down the land. That enjoins governors, although the final decision is theirs, very seriously to consider whether they will include sex education in the curriculum. If they decide against it, they must publish the reasons. That could be helpful in ensuring that we have room for this AIDS education in schools.
I do not wish to detain the Committee further at this time of night. We may wish to return to the subject at a later stage of the Bill. It would be helpful

547
if the noble Baroness could tell us what thoughts the Government have had on that and whether she is prepared to take up the undertaking given by Mrs. Rumbold to make a statement on the subject.
Lord Craigton: I speak to Amendment No. 48. We all know that environmental education is today an essential element in the education of all young people. I believe that it should be recognised as such in this legislation for the national curriculum.
The Secretary of State for Education has said:
"We take environmental education seriously as a cross-curricular theme within the national curriculum."
The Minister for Education has said:
"Environmental education draws on and makes unique contribution to a range of subject areas".
The employment at the ministry of an official for part of her time on environmental education is at least an acknowledgement of government concern. I believe that environmental education is too vitally important to be left to a part-time official and statements of support from Ministers from time to time.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness this question. How can the Government show that they consider environmental education to be an important element in the education process if they omit specific reference to it in the Bill? Will she tell us what encouragement the Government will give to those teachers, anxious and committed to teach environmental studies who at present feel they do not have the remit to do so, and to other teachers who as yet are unaware of the contribution they can and should make?
Finally, will the Government spell out in detail what instructions they will be giving to those groups, particularly the subject working groups, and other bodies formed to implement the national curriculum to ensure that cross-curricular themes, including environmental education, are not only included but actively encouraged and properly co-ordinated within the framework of the national curriculum?
3.45 a.m.
Baroness David: My name should have appeared on the amendment; so I should like to give every support to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. As I chaired the Environmental Education Committee when the United Kingdom was preparing its response to the world conservation strategy, I feel strongly about the issue. I too should like to see environmental education mentioned in some way on the face of the Bill. Our discussion earlier on the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Pitt, covered some of the arguments. I shall not go into them at this hour of the morning.
I give my strong support to the amendment. I hope that for once we will hear a respectable response from the Minister, not the usual complete turning-down of the proposal. I am also extremely sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Masham. I regret the need to have such amendments, but given the present structure of the Bill they seem inevitable.
Baroness Blatch: One of the difficulties is that there have been so many pleas to have subjects included in the list of foundation subjects. Those we have had so far are health and physical development, family life and parenthood, economic awareness, social and civic responsibilities in a multi-racial society, environment, world citizenship, first aid and accident prevention, home economics, life skills, social, cultural and sex education. A serious difficulty arises if we consider any of those as foundation subjects in isolation, with one being mutually exclusive of another.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister to consider this matter. All of those subjects are important in our children's educational life. The list compiled during the debate should be handed to the various working parties on the individual subjects so that they think not only about the subject area but also laterally and across the curricula. This will enable all aspects of the subjects to be taken on board and somehow woven into matters to be achieved in the course of studies.
I can slot some subjects into the science category and some into physical education, for example. Rather than fight over those subjects to be included as a foundation subject, they should all be fed into the committees so that they find their way into our children's general education.
Baroness Lockwood: I support the principle that lies behind the three amendments. One of the difficulties we face is that if the Government insist that the curriculum shall be so confined and prescriptive there will be moves to extend it. That will be due to the feeling that if a subject is not mentioned among the core or foundation subjects, it will not be taught. There is scope within the range of foundation subjects to cover the issues before us. No one will be sure about them if they are not now mentioned in the Bill.
I support the very reasonable amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It refers to the third key stage at which home economics should be taught. That is the right time for children to be taught the subject. The noble Baroness referred, although she did not use the term, to the less academic child. It is important for all boys and girls, across the ability range, to be taught the subject. It will help them to come to terms with some of the practical and emotional issues they will face in relation to their personal lives and in the community.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may comment on what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said. It seemed to me that she put her finger on the central issue, which is precisely connected with what some of us are objecting to. The possible list of subjects which someone thinks ought to be mandatory is much longer than even the noble Baroness says, and she could produce a list twice as long as that with no trouble whatsoever. That is the basis of our objection—that we can think of so many things that are desirable in a broad curriculum, and certainly those that have been mentioned, including those which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has brought up. We want an explanation still of why those included are there and those omitted are not

549
there. I have to repeat ad nauseam that I have not yet heard any argument from the Government Front Bench which explains that.
Perhaps I may add one other point. I myself would not be happy if in a sense the way in which we get these other subjects in is by pretending that they come under some of the other subjects. To take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, on the environment, one could probably fiddle that in by saying that it was geography. But I would much rather that it were called the environment: I do not see why it has to be called geography. Why can it not be described as environmental studies? Why does it have to be called geography? For all I know, I could get home economics in as technology. However, I would much rather it was done in a straightforward way, so I appeal yet again to the noble Baroness to give us an explanation of why those of us who support the broad curriculum cannot have just that.
Baroness Hooper: As I said earlier, I recognise that the Committee wishes to include in the list of foundation subjects important topics such as personal and social education and life skills. As I said then, this is an area where the Government have already identified a need for coverage within the national curriculum and have taken steps to ensure that it has a role to play in the curriculum.
Perhaps I may elaborate. Life skills and PSE can cover a range of different topics within the curriculum, including such matters as were described by my noble friend, Lady Faithfull: parenthood, child care and development, aspects of sex education, family budgeting and money management, careers education, the development of interpersonal and social skills, as well as health education itself. As with health education, such topics can be covered in a number of different ways. Some Members have already referred to these either as cross-curricular themes or, not infrequently, as being provided within a timetable programme of personal and social education.
I can assure the Committee that the Government fully recognise the importance of the kinds of topic that have been identified. That is one of the reasons why Clause 1 specifically requires the curriculum as a whole to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
Many of the matters which fall within the terms "life skills" and "PSE" will eventually be covered by the national curriculum as cross-curricular themes. For instance, we should expect the development of interpersonal and social skills to be a matter to be covered in different ways throughout the national curriculum, but we do not believe it would be appropriate to identify PSE in general as a matter for study in one or more of the foundation subjects. The range of topics that can be covered under this heading includes sensitive areas of the curriculum which should rightly be left to the schools themselves to determine. Sex education in particular is a case in point where, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I think it was, said, the law already places on school governors the responsibility for determining what, if any, sex education is provided in their schools. Our
550
proposals for the national curriculum will not change that in any way.
Other aspects may be equally sensitive. We feel that the schools themselves must be left to determine whether and how such matters are dealt with. I should also emphasise that we anticipate that one of the first tasks of the National Curriculum Council will be to look at the cross-curricular themes as a whole so that they have proper frameworks for considering the working group's recommendations. We also envisage that personal and social education as a subject area will be one of the areas which the National Curriculum Council will want to consider early in its existence, not least in order to improve general understanding of what should generally he included in a course of study under the title "PSE". I am not sure whether that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, but I hope that the proposers of these amendments will recognise that the Government do appreciate the importance of personal and social education and life skills.
As for Amendment No. 48, which requires social, cultural and environmental cross-curricular themes, I hope that what I have already said may have gone some way to reassure my noble friend Lord Craigton that his hopes too will be fulfilled under our current proposals in the ways I have described. As has been said, we have included environmental themes in our remit to the science working group. Social and cultural themes will also be covered as appropriate, but I shall have to give more thought to the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Blatch about referring a general list of cross-curricular themes to the working groups. We do not, however, feel it would be right to put into primary legislation some important themes and we could not possibly hope to cover all important themes without doubling the size of an already weighty Bill.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, feels that his query about why some subjects are included and others not has not been satisfied, but I do believe that the subjects that are enumerated as foundation subjects are those which will give the best chance of a broad and balanced curriculum to all the pupils in our schools. I must emphasise again that we do have that day and a half at least which can be used. There is no reason why people should not study the environment as a subject as the noble Lord suggested, or indeed other areas as specific subjects. There is that day and a half for that.
So I hope with a view to not doubling the size of this already weighty Bill that Members of the Committee will not seek to press any of these amendments, worthy though they may be.
Baroness Faithfull: I am very grateful to my noble friend, particularly in regard to what she has said about personal and social education. There was the other arm of the amendment dealing with the practical side of home economics, but at this late hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (1) above the core subject of science includes life skills and health education.").
The noble Baroness said: I should just like to say that I shall go back to my various colleagues who have an interest in this matter and see what we shall bring forward on Report.
As the noble Baroness has said, these are very important subjects. She has not told us whether there will be examinations in them. There have been in the past and it would be more satisfying if we knew that there were. As they are so important we should be more satisfied if that could be written in the Bill somewhere. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51.
Page 3, line 10, at end insert ("In exercising these functions the Secretary of State must declare the general criteria according to which he has acted and give specific reasons corresponding to the case or cases under consideration.").
The noble Lord said: I shall just say a word on Amendment No. 51. This is a general purpose amendment which is applicable to all exercises of the Secretary of State's powers. It is a problem that I intend to discuss in more detail and, it is to be hoped, with one or two more Members than are present now in Committee. I shall not move this amendment at the moment.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
4 a.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 3, line 15, at end insert—
("( )(a) An order under subsection 4(b) above shall not be made by the Secretary of State unless he has received an application to make such order from the governing body of a school which is supported by both:

(i) a resolution passed by a majority of the parents of registered pupils at the school present and voting at a duly convened Annual General Meeting of such parents and notice of which contains a statement of intention to move such resolution and confirmed by another resolution passed by a majority of the parents of registered pupils at the schools in a postal ballot held after an interval of not less than 3 months and not more than 6 months beginning with the date of the Annual General Meeting at which the said resolution was passed, and

(ii) the local education authority by whom the school is maintained;

(b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State in exercising the power conferred by subsection (4)(b) above to take into account:

(i) the linguistic character of the community that is served by the school which is the subject of the application referred to above;

(ii) the resources, in terms of teaching staff, courses and material resources that are available to such schools for the teaching of Welsh as a foundation subject;

(c) When an Order is made by the Secretary of State under subsection (4)(b) above such order shall specify the period not exceeding 5 years for which the order shall have effect and the conditions (if any) subject to which it will have effect; and to ensure, where he proposes to make such order
552
that such provision as is reasonably practicable will be made for the teaching of Welsh to those registered pupils at the school whose parents desire them to be taught Welsh as a subject.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 53 I shall also speak, for the convenience of the Committee, to Amendment No. 54. Those two amendments relate to the place of the Welsh language in the national curriculum in Wales.
Amendment No. 53 concerns the power reserved by the Bill to the Secretary of State to exempt a school or a part of a school from the requirement to teach Welsh. The amendment is particularly concerned with what is not in the Bill as regards the exempting power. Nowhere does the Bill state in what circumstances or in the light of what criterion the exemption power will be exercised by the Secretary of State. We are on the side of those parents, teachers and educationists who say that that power is one of great significance. The grounds upon which it is to be exercised should not be left absolutely to the discretion of the Secretary of State of the day, although he will have the final say.
I shall deal briefly with the main parts of the amendment. First, the Secretary of State should not trigger the exemption power unless he has received an application from the governing body of the school supported by the parents and by the LEA. As it stands, a draft order may be laid by the Secretary of State without an application having reached him from the governing body or from the LEA.
There are many reasons why parents and the local education authority should be directly involved. Parents should be involved because their children's education is involved and parental views are important. The Government can hardly be averse to that principle because it is one of the main issues with which the Bill is concerned. The LEA has a proper interest because it will have responsibility for the curriculum. It will also have a proper interest because to allow one or more of its schools to exempt Welsh from the curriculum could undermine and disrupt its arrangements for its other schools. Perhaps I may give one example. If individual primary schools are in a position to opt out of the teaching of Welsh without regard to other local provision, that could undermine the provision made by the LEA at secondary level.
Secondly, the Secretary of State should take account of the linguistic character of the community served by the school because the varied linguistic pattern in Wales does not permit a blanket solution. We also say in the amendment that the Secretary of State should have regard to the availability of Welsh-speaking staff and teaching material in the Welsh language.
Since I put down the amendment it has been suggested to me that a further express matter which the Secretary of State should take into account is the objective of preserving, fostering and enhancing the use of the Welsh language as a medium of communication. I agree with that suggestion.
The principles which we have incorporated in the first part of the amendment are the broad principles on which the current Welsh language policy is based. Those principles are workable. Our object in the first part of Amendment No. 53 is to put it to the

553
Government that Parliament and not the Secretary of State of the day should determine the guiding principles which will govern the exercise of exempting power.
The amendment goes on to provide in the first part of paragraph (c) that the decision to exempt a school from teaching Welsh in the curriculum should be reviewed periodically. It is suggested in the amendment that it should be reviewed every five years.
Finally, in Amendment No. 53 there is a point of considerable substance in our view at the end of paragraph (c). Where Welsh will have no place in the school curriculum the exemption order should provide how the reasonable requirements of parents living in the district served by the school and who desire their children to be taught Welsh are to be met. The National Curriculum in Wales document published by the Welsh Office in December last, drawing as it did on the principles set out in the earlier Welsh Office documents and also on the 1927 report, Welsh in Education and Life, made out a powerful case that children in all parts of Wales should have access to the Welsh language and the culture associated with the language. One feels that that case is not fully reflected in the drafting of the Bill. We should therefore be grateful if the department could give careful consideration to the last limb of paragraph (c) of the amendment.
It is quite clear from the discussions which we have had with the bodies with a special interest in the place of the Welsh language in the schools of Wales that there is a huge gap in this part of the Bill. We share their hope that the gap will be filled. This amendment attempts to do just that.
I now come to Amendment No. 54. This is a brief amendment which seeks to redefine the meaning of a Welsh-speaking school. This definition is crucial because only in such a school will Welsh have the status of a core subject. In other schools it will be a foundation subject; such schools may be exempted by the Secretary of State from the requirement to teach Welsh. When the Government first drafted the Bill a Welsh-speaking school was defined as:
"a school where subjects other than Welsh are taught wholly or partly in Welsh".
Although the meaning of the word "partly" in the context of the clause is not entirely clear—and I am not quite sure whether the Minister can offer clarification tonight on the meaning of the word—nevertheless the original definition was applauded by all who wished to see the survival of the language as a living tongue.
One cannot help thinking that a curious thing happened on 17th December of last year at the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. On that day the Government introduced an amendment which redefined a Welsh-speaking school as a school where more than one half of the foundation subjects other than Welsh are taught wholly or partly in Welsh. The new definition stiffens considerably the criteria to secure core status for Welsh. In a primary school five out of the nine foundation subjects apart from Welsh will have to be taught in Welsh instead of two subjects which need not be foundation subjects as originally required. In a secondary school six out
554
of the 10 foundation subjects will have to be taught in Welsh instead of two subjects which need not be foundation subjects, apart from Welsh. It should be pointed out that religious knowledge is often a subject taught through the medium of Welsh but it will not be counted in the calculation as it is not a foundation subject.
The new definition has been described by Ministers as being an improvement on the original. With respect to the Minister we do not think that it is an improvement. It is a new definition which introduces immense complications by raising substantially the threshold for a school to pass in order to secure core status for Welsh. The amendment now before the Committee lowers that threshold. It is supported by headmasters, teachers, directors of education and all the educational bodies that are involved with the Welsh language. It is also supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, who unfortunately is not able to be with us at this time of the day. I beg to move.
Lord Hooson: I rise to support both amendments but to speak only to the second, which is the crucial one. It is extremely unfortunate that we should be discussing a matter of crucial importance to the future of Wales and the Welsh language at 10 minutes past four in the morning. The government managers should have been aware of the delicacy of the position in Wales with regard to the subject of the Welsh language. The Bill is of crucial importance to education in the country at large; it is of supreme importance so far as concerns the future of the Welsh language.
At Second Reading I had the opportunity of concentrating on the grounds for this amendment today; namely, the difficulties that arise in Wales with regard to the new definition of a Welsh-speaking school. As soon as the definition was changed at the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, alarm bells rang throughout Wales. It is of considerable significance that the present amendment is supported by Members of all the major parties as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, from the Cross-Benches. It is a measure of the uncertainty and alarm that is felt.
As I said at Second Reading, successive Conservative Secretaries of State have had a very good record on the Welsh language. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, in his place since I am able to say that to his face. I believe that people of all parties in Wales who are concerned with the survival of Welsh culture are very appreciative of that fact. However, on this occasion the Government changed the definition of a Welsh-speaking school to suit what is a bilingual school in an Anglicised area which would immediately come within the definition. But in naturally Welsh-speaking areas such as Gwynedd and Dyfed, very rarely are six or more subjects taught in Welsh. That is because in a school which is naturally Welsh-speaking there is often pressure by parents to insist on more subjects being taught in English, so that the child learns to speak English as well as he can speak Welsh. They would not come within the definition. The consequence would be that within those schools, in the basic

555
Welsh-speaking areas of Wales, Welsh would not be a core subject; it would be a foundation subject with the right of withdrawal under certain pressures.
I believe that the Government must be alive to the extreme disquiet felt throughout Wales on this issue and that they will be willing to reconsider this matter. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will not put the amendment to a Division this morning and that the Secretary of State will think again and approve a new definition which is much fairer.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: The time is nearly 4.15 a.m., the early hours of the morning. For that reason the Committee will be deprived of the penetrating, persuasive and sparkling speech that I had prepared for this amendment. The amendment to which I have put my name is Amendment No. 54.
All I shall say is that I embrace and adopt all the compelling points made by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hooson, in their admirable speeches. I ask my noble friend the Minister to pay attention to what has been said about the Government reconsidering the definition of Welsh-speaking schools. It is absolutely clear that the case put forward for reconsideration is absolutely unanswerable. For that reason I hope that my noble friend will say something which will meet our anxiety.
4.15 a.m.
Lord Trefgarne: The clear intention of the Government in Clause 3 is that Welsh should be part of the national curriculum in Wales. For those Welsh children who receive a bilingual education, Welsh should be a core subject along with English, maths and science. In order to achieve this it has been necessary to define the schools concerned, which the Bill refers to as Welsh-speaking schools. Bilingual education in Wales has never been previously defined in statute and it has not been an easy task to arrive at a satisfactory definition.
There is need for care in both directions. We have to be careful that we are not imposing Welsh as a core subject on schools which are not really bilingual and where it might not be acceptable or appropriate for all the pupils. On the other hand, we want to be sure that we have covered the schools that ought to be covered. The definition as it stands is not excessively stringent and it asks only that more than half of the foundation subjects other than Welsh itself are taught at least partly in Welsh. It is not necessary for them to be taught wholly in Welsh.
The amendment would reduce that requirement to no more than three of these foundation subjects being taught partly in Welsh. I wonder whether a school doing no more than that could be said to be offering a genuinely bilingual education. I am aware that concerns have been raised with my right honourable friend on behalf of a few secondary schools which would just fail to come within the definition. But the Government see the definition as a challenge to them to teach more subjects through the medium of Welsh. This can only enhance rather than damage bilingual education. Nevertheless, I believe that the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-
556
Davies, and supported elsewhere in the Committee goes too far. Reducing to just three the number of foundation subjects taught through the medium of Welsh for a school to be Welsh-speaking would risk including schools that are not bilingual in character. This would be particularly the case at primary level. Furthermore, it would remove the incentive which exists under the current definition for schools to teach more subjects through the medium of Welsh.
Having said that, I am not sure that we have the definition quite right. We made one change in the other place, as has already been pointed out. If the noble Lord can see his way clear not to move Amendment No. 54 when we come to it, I undertake that the matter be considered further with a view to the Government bringing forward an appropriate amendment perhaps more in line with the wishes that have been expressed tonight than is presently the case in the Bill as it is drafted.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendment No. 53, which is strictly speaking the amendment that we are considering. The Government understand well the concern that has motivated Members of the Committee to bring forward this amendment. I am grateful for the contributions that we have heard. There is concern in Wales that as a result of the specific power to make exemptions from Welsh as a foundation subject there will be widespread opting-out from Welsh throughout Wales. This is not the Government's wish or intention.
About 80 per cent. of schools in Wales currently teach Welsh and the Government do not intend to allow this level of provision to decline as a result of the national curriculum. This Government have been very supportive of the Welsh language, as recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, both in terms of policy and financial support. The proposals for Welsh in the national curriculum which reflect the widespread support for the language in last year's consultation exercise reinforced this policy. Ministers have made it clear that the exemption power will be used as a safety valve sensibly and sensitively.
Let me first say why the Government believe this amendment to be unnecessary and in some respects undesirable. It would make it more difficult for a school to be granted an exemption from Welsh. The procedure envisaged in the amendment would be both time consuming and difficult. But it would also, I fear, be very divisive. It takes an exemption power intended to be used with care to avoid the imposition of Welsh where it would clearly be unacceptable and turns it into potentially an annual local debate about the position of the language in each school. That is to lower the status of Welsh in the curriculum substantially below the other foundation subjects. The national curriculum prescribed by the Bill places Welsh in the national curriculum for all maintained schools in Wales. That reflects the overwhelming majority of the responses to the consultation exercise in Wales. It is right, therefore, that any power to make exemptions should be exercisable entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Wales.
I hope that, in the light of that consideration, the noble Lord will not want to press Amendment No. 53 and, in the light of what I said earlier, will not seek to move Amendment No. 54.
Lord Prys-Davies: I note that the Minister has resisted Amendment No. 53 very strongly and at this hour of the morning I shall not take the view of the Committee on the merits of the amendment. We shall study carefully the Minister's words and take advice from the many bodies in Wales which have supported the amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 54, it appears to me that the Minister has shown an underlying sympathy with the need to redefine the meaning of the term "Welsh speaking school". I trust that between now and Report stage the Government will come to accept that their first thoughts on the subject were their best thoughts. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 53.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past four o'clock.