Lords Sitting of 5 May 1988

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Truro): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Building Society PLCs: Deposit Protection
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
What safeguards at present exist or are proposed by them to protect the deposits of members of mutual fund building societies which become plcs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, a building society which converts into a plc will become an authorised institution under the Banking Act. As such, it will be subject to prudential supervision by the Bank of England and deposits in it will be protected under the statutory deposit protection scheme.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer. I am sure that he is aware of the concern of many depositors in mutual fund building societies that there will be a transition period when the societies become plcs which may render them vulnerable to management maladjustment or future government policies. Can he give depositors some firm assurance that their interests will be adequately protected when such transitions occur?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that I can. As I said in my original Answer, the new companies will be regulated by the Bank of England. It is for members of buildings societies to decide whether they wish to allow their society to be converted.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can remind us what percentage of members will have to vote in favour of such an arrangement.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the voting turnout level required for conversion to a successor company is 20 per cent. of the members. Of that 20 per cent., three-quarters of depositing members must vote in favour of the conversion. So far as borrowers are concerned, a simple majority of borrowers must vote in favour.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give some indication of what protection there will be for depositors who are also shareholders in buildings societies? Is there not a danger that under certain circumstances shareholdings will be devalued by a subsequent public issue of which the shareholders may not approve?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, the shareholders will have a say whether the society
678
should convert in the first place. Following conversion, the shareholders and depositors will be subject to the Banking Act protection scheme.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree, especially in the light of the figures which he has given us, that it will be very difficult for a mutual fund building society to get the necessary number of votes from its shareholders to convert to a plc? Does he also agree that regardless of whether such a society stays as a mutual fund building society or becomes a plc, the greatest safeguard for investors in the institution will be sound financial management from the top?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in saying that financial management at the top is of critical importance. As to whether it will be difficult for a building society to become a plc, we agreed the provisions during the passage of the Act. At that time we felt that that was the correct way to deal with the matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what will happen if a mutual fund building society decides to become a plc through the appropriate majority and is not then recognised by the Bank of England under the Banking Act?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that a building society will have to make certain that it will be recognised by the Bank of England as a bank before it goes down that path.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people who have given long service to building societies are disturbed by the developments of recent years because they believe that the success of building societies has been due to their specialisation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that may be the case. However, the Government decided during the passage of the Act that it was time to allow building societies to take part in the provision of various financial services other than those which are their traditional activities. At the moment they are still confined in great part to the provision of home loans.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord reconsider his earlier reply? Is it not the case that a building society might decide to become a plc without having any intention whatever of bringing itself within the Banking Act? In those circumstances some subsequent public issue would not be prohibited.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if a plc is to take part in banking activities, it must be authorised by the Bank of England.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is it not the case that recent developments have put building societies in a very difficult position? As the noble Lord indicated, becoming a plc means going through a difficult process which may well not succeed. If building societies do not become plcs, they will not be in the right position vis-á-vis the banks and will lose an increasing share of the mortgage market, as has been the case recently.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Building Societies Act allows building societies to engage in activities in which they traditionally were not allowed to engage, as well as attracting more wholesale deposits. Even if they do not become plcs, they will still have more flexibility than was previously the case.

Fiji and South Pacific States: Relations
3.7 p.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and Fiji and the South Pacific Islands of Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have good relations with the Republic of Fiji and with other South Pacific island states, including Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that concise Answer. I declare an interest as chairman of the United Kingdom branch of the Anglo-South Pacific branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Is he aware that there is a wish that Fiji should resume full Commonwealth status? Fiji is one of the long-standing friends of this country. Is my noble friend able to shed any light on the present position and what aid we are presently giving to Fiji?
As regards Tuvalu, is he aware that I had the honour of officially meeting the Prime Minister when he was in this country? Can he say what aid is currently being given to Tuvalu and the other charming islands?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as regards the readmission or otherwise of Fiji to the Commonwealth, we also hope that it will be able to rejoin as a republic. However, admission depends on the approval of all members of the Commonwealth and not any single member. Regarding aid to Fiji, the bilaterial aid programme is expanding following the recent visit by Sir Ratu Mara to this country. There was a provision of professional and technical personnel and training scholarships in the last financial year of around £1 million. The Government also contribute about £3 million to multilateral aid through the European Development Fund. That will continue. Together with investment from the Commonwealth Development Corporation, total aid to Fiji from Britain is £7 million a year.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on 29th March the Government were reported as having said they were prepared to assist Fiji in the drafting of a new constitution. Can the Minister say what is the Government's view of the present constitution and whether a new constitution in the Government's view would mean full, free and fair elections? Can he say what progress is being made in respect of the offer of help with a new constitution?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can confirm that we have offered help in the drafting of a constitution. We
680
hope that that will be possible, and we shall do what we can to encourage Fiji towards a return to parliamentary democracy and constitutional government. Like my noble friend, we would certainly not abandon a traditional friend in time of need. It is important that we recognise that others will be looking to see that the constitutional arrangements in Fiji satisfy Commonwealth principles.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, will my noble friend answer the second part of the Question regarding Tuvalu? Is there any increase in the aid being given to Tuvalu at the present time?
Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, I am sorry. I too met the Prime Minister of Tuvalu when he was over here. Our aid programme—the largest to Tuvalu—was certainly discussed and Dr. PuaPua expressed his appreciation of everything we are doing. Aid amounts to about half a million pounds a year.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government have it in mind to send a delegation of Peers to those islands in order to ascertain exactly what the position is? If so, will he ask for volunteers?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the answer is, not at the present time. However, I note the noble Lord's interest.

Hijacks and Unlawful Seizures
3.12 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider initiating a convention for the suppression of the unlawful seizure of aircraft and seek the support of other nations to effect a procedure to be followed in the event of any such unlawful seizures.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, successive governments helped to ensure that international conventions so provide. The Tokyo Convention requires states to take appropriate measures to restore unlawfully seized aircraft which land within their territory to lawful control. The Hague and Montreal Conventions are concerned that offenders should be brought to justice. The International Civil Aviation Organisation has produced guidance on the response to hijacks. We shall press for further nations to sign those conventions. We shall encourage ICAO to take further action to improve procedures to frustrate this crime.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I welcome the last part of his statement because it agrees with my submission? Will he not accept that existing precautions are inadequate? It is still easy for hijackers to get on to planes. Despite the courage of the Kuwaiti Government, there was no universal action to support them; the plane was able to go from one airport to another to refuel and so on. Is it not time for this country, which has taken the lead so often in these matters, to call another convention to see whether it is possible to reduce to an absolute

681
minimum the role of hijackers—those appalling cowards—in threatening innocent people and causing great distress among all nations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary put forward to the European Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers recently a new five-point action plan which, if adopted, would, we hope, strengthen our hand against terrorists. The plan included proposals that the Hague Convention should be strengthened.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a related question. The illegal seizure of aircraft is facilitated greatly by inadequate security at airports. Would the Government feel able to take the initiative in securing a worldwide survey of security at airports, subsequently to be made public for the benefit of travellers and airlines throughout the world?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we work continually with other states to improve the agreed standards and to ensure that they are properly enforced. As to United Kingdom practices, we shall examine the recent incident to see whether any improvements are necessary. We are in constant touch with the International Civil Aviation Organisation to make certain that proposals are carried out.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I do not wish to be rude but that type of answer is the reason we never get anywhere. Someone has to take the initiative. I repeat my question. Will the Government take the initiative and ask ICAO, or anyone else, to undertake and publish a worldwide survey of security at airports? Will they please bring that to the notice of ICAO at its next meeting?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, one point in my right honourable friend's five-point plan was that an international task force should be set up to investigate the hijacking and examine security arrangements at the relevant airports. That should be set up under ICAO auspices. We take very seriously the need for such action but it must be done through international agreement.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that so long as there are avenues of escape for hijackers and airports and nations are prepared to receive hijacked aircraft, international terrorism will not be curbed? Is he aware, therefore, that only if the International Air Transport Association is prepared to ban airports of nations that receive them can some progress be made on this subject?
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Mason of Barnsley: What pressure is Her Majesty's Government applying to IATA to effect that ban on those airports that still allow the reception of international hijackers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already said that we continue to put pressure on other countries through the various organisations and
682
through the ICAO. I think that there is little more that I can say at the moment.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, on the subject of the Kuwaiti hijack, will the Minister admit the very grave difficulties for the Algerian Government in rescuing the passengers and at the same time bringing the hijackers to justice? Will he say how many governments supported the Prime Minister's demand for the imposition of sanctions against the Algerian Government for not succeeding in that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we agree that the Algerians faced considerable difficulty. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that the hijackers appear to have been allowed to go free. The prime responsibility must of course be for the safety of the passengers in the hijacked aircraft. As to the noble Lord's second question about a call for sanctions, I am afraid that I do not have an answer at the moment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is the Government's view that the deal done by the French for the release of their three hostages will increase or diminish the likelihood of further hostage-taking in the future, whether it is by air or any other method? Each is as bad as the other.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is rather a different question. But the Government's view remains that we should not give in to hijackers.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the most important part of my noble friend's Question is the first part relating to security measures at airports? That is surely the most important point and it was emphasised by the noble Baroness. Can the Minister say when the matter is likely to be raised again? Will he provide information on the important question of whether a monitoring team could see that all airports carry out proper security measures?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is a matter which should definitely be kept very much in mind. In this country the Government are responsible for security at airports. I believe IATA said recently that we are among the best in that respect. As to foreign airports, it is the responsibility of British airlines which serve those airports to satisfy themselves about the security arrangements.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that terrorism and hijacking are now the most appalling form of international gangsterism? Does he also not agree that international action alone can prevent terrorists' cowardice resulting in more crimes? We cannot simply sit back and say that we have certain conventions and rules which do not seem to be totally effective. I should like to ask the Minister whether he has listened to the comments that have come from all sides of this Chamber and whether the Government will consider an international convention to deal with the aspects that I raised in my initial Question.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said there are already conventions which, if properly enforced, should deal with those matters. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has put forward his five-point plan to strengthen those conventions.

Nicaragua: Aid
3.20 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the cease-fire agreement in Nicaragua, they will view favourably requests for assistance in repairing the human and economic damage caused by the "Contra" war.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the European Community already provides substantial aid to Central America, including Nicaragua. The United Kingdom's share is about 20 per cent. The recent San Jose Conference in Hamburg agreed to additional measures to assist the countries of the region, several of which have suffered severely from internal conflict.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, which was reasonably helpful, and I should like to ask him a supplementary question. There are severe drought conditions; in fact, there is a situation of impending famine in parts of Nicaragua due to the combined effects of drought and the disruption of agriculture because of the war. Can he say whether the Government intend to reply to Nicaragua's recent request to them for bilateral aid of an emergency nature to the tune of less than £1 million to help fund the supply of oil and beans?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we do not have a bilateral aid programme for Nicaragua but the Government have contributed to joint funded projects carried out by the voluntary agencies. Those are the kinds of things to which the noble Lord alludes. Those projects are mainly humanitarian and are designed to help the poorest people in Nicaragua.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that during the past five years British aid to and trade with Nicaragua have declined substantially? In view of the signing of the cease-fire agreement, will Her Majesty's Government now be prepared to review the position?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the answer to that question is that we have not progressed quite so far as the noble Lord indicates. We hope that it will be possible to make further progress and move forward from the recent meeting which was held on 28th April. There is to be another meeting on 12th May. We are still in the position of wishing to see a peaceful negotiated solution to the region's problems. I hope that it will be a successful negotiation and that we shall make progress after that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to tell the House the objective of the meeting on the 12th May?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords; it is to take forward the meeting which took place on 28th April, which comprised talks in Managua about a definitive cease-fire. The parties met on 28th April but the Contra leaders found the Sandinista proposals unacceptable because they required them to lay down their arms without prior guarantees that the Sandinistas would implement further democratisation. There is to be a further meeting on 12th May, so the process is still very much alive.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, now that the war which has been forced on Nicaragua by the United States Administration for the past six years is drawing to a close, will the Government take such visible steps to help that country rebuild its economy as would befit the traditions of this country?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that we have yet to reach the ideal position which the noble Lord wishes to see. We have consistently advocated a peaceful negotiated solution to the region's problems and we warmly welcome both the Central American peace agreement and the 60-day cease-fire agreement which was signed on 23rd March. As I have said, negotiations are still under way. Let us see how they develop.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the Minister's reply to my noble friend imply that aid from this country will depend on whether the British Government approve of the peace negotiations in Managua? If that is wrong, will he make it quite clear that that is not a condition for providing aid to Nicaragua? Can he say whether it is the case that the British Government is the only EC government that has so far refused to give bilateral aid to fund the emergency appeal that has been made in the present famine conditions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not laying down any conditions whatever. I stated that at present there is no bilateral aid programme for Nicaragua. However, as I said, the European Community's aid commitments to Central America are substantial. They doubled from 41 million European currency units in 1984 to 82 million European currency units in 1987, of which the United Kingdom contributes about 20 per cent. At the San José conference it was agreed to demonstrate the European Community's practical support for the peace process; namely, through additional food aid, help with refugees and assistance for the proposed Central American Parliament.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is it necessary for there to be a pre-existing bilateral agreement before aid is given in response to an emergency request for aid because of severe famine conditions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord must not confuse the humanitarian aid side with the bilateral aid side. As I have said, we already contribute to joint funded projects carried out by the voluntary agencies. No doubt we shall continue to do so.

Business
3.26 p.m.
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 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Summer Time Order 1988 will be taken.

Landlord and Tenant Bill [H.L.]
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Landlord and Tenant Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Coleraine.)
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education Reform Bill
3.28 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 again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the House resolves itself into Committee I should like to ask a question of the Leader of the House or perhaps the Chief Whip as to our future procedures. I think that most noble Lords who are concerned with the Education Reform Bill were distressed at the conditions in which extremely important amendments were discussed without notice at almost five o'clock in the morning. It was quite impossible for people who wished to be involved to find out what was happening or when something would happen. I wonder whether the Leader of the House and perhaps the Chief Whip would accept my view that when we are dealing with very long Bills of this kind most people concerned would like to know within reason either the time at which the House proposes to adjourn or the number of the last amendment we wish to discuss. It should not be too difficult to do one or the other. Not to do either brings chaos and is nothing to our credit.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we intend to reach, if we can, the end of Clause 18 of the Bill; that would take us to Amendment No. 158. So
686
far as concerns the lateness of the hour on Tuesday, I am sorry that the noble Lord felt it was late. I did too.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered the question that was put to him by my noble friend Lord Donaldson; namely, whether the Government will give some indication in future, as the noble Lord has just done, of their expectations so far as progress on the Bill is concerned. Will the noble Lord answer that specific question?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I do not think the House is satisfied that that should be a matter for the usual channels. That is why I took the unusual course of raising it now. The usual channels—my party, your party, each man's party—failed us in this case. The result was chaos. I do not think it is good enough.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I rise only to say that the agreement tonight is that we go to Amendment No. 153, not No. 158.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I stand corrected.
On the point being put to me now by the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson and Lord Harris, this is a matter for the House itself. The first day of this Bill in Committee was a very good example: we had an exceedingly interesting debate, but one which lasted for a very long time indeed, on the very first amendment, on which the Committee divided later. Some equally important amendments were taken quite quickly. It is impossible for anybody, including the Leader of the House, to forecast the timing. What I can do, and have done in answer to the noble Lord is to indicate where we hope to reach today, which has already been discussed through the usual channels. Today we hope to get to the end of Clause 18.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I have spoken to my noble friend the Chief Whip. I spoke to eight amendments on Tuesday and the Minister replied, but I did not move them. I shall move them today, withdraw them, and bring them back at Report stage.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for giving attention to this matter. I wish to say only this. More efforts should be made at least to let people know how late it is intended to sit. On Tuesday night there were more staff on duty than there were Peers voting.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take seriously what the noble Lord is saying. It is obviously for the convenience of your Lordships' House to have some idea how late the House will sit. Perhaps we may take that issue away and consider it further. I would not wish the noble Lord to think that I was dismissive of this point in any way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Duty to establish the National Curriculum by order]:
[Amendments Nos. 54A to 56 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 3, line 27, after ("powers") insert ("and obligations").
The noble Baroness said: This was one of the amendments to which I spoke but did not move. I therefore beg to move it, but I shall ask leave to withdraw it.
Baroness David: The noble Baroness is mistaken. We do not wish her to withdraw this amendment. My name is to it, and we wish this to be discussed. It is a paving amendment to a number of other amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, is prepared to speak to it. His name is there also.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: In Clause 4 reference is made to the powers of the Secretary of State but not to his obligations. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 71A, 73, 75, 136 and 137, which relate to testing in our schools. It is a very important matter for the attention of Members of the Committee.
I should like to speak from a rather broad base for a moment. This Bill has been introduced in order to improve our education standards. In some ways—perhaps not many—our education service is failing. Hence, we are told, there is the need for this Bill. I maintain that if one is to treat what is wrong with a patient one has to diagnose before prescribing. I feel that by this Bill the Government are prescribing without adequate diagnosis.
It is said that the causes of such failure as there is in our education service are low expectation from the children, some poor teaching, poor discipline involving such matters as truancy, lack of competition and too many fancy subjects being taught. Those seem to me to be the assumptions behind the proposals in the Bill. But are those assumptions established? We need to study the causes of failure.
I believe that the most important issue to consider is the children who are failing. I suggest that they can be divided into certain groups. There is no doubt that there are children who are what we call non-academic. The standard image in one's mind is the child who is more interested in the inside of a motor car engine, than the inside of a book. He or she may be perfectly able but has no interest in classroom learning. Perhaps a number of children come into that category.
There are children with medical problems of one kind or another. There are very many more of these than one sometimes thinks. I am speaking of children with possible auditory or visual problems, with neuro-motor problems and perceptual problems. As every year goes by we see children fail for these reasons. There are psychological problems based on emotional disturbance, perhaps because a child comes from an unhappy, disturbed or broken home.
However, I wish to talk in particular about the problems that arise from the failure to grasp the basics of English—their own language—at an early age. If one takes any adult whose reading and writing
688
skills are less good than they should be—and there are several million of them—such people have been described as functionally illiterate. We talked about this before in your Lordships' House when I introduced an Unstarred Question 18 months ago on dyslexia.
There are many people who can read the cheap press and can just about write a simple note but who never write a letter if they can possibly avoid it. They cannot fill in a form. They certainly never read anything above a certain very low level. They are very often people who remain unemployed because they do not know how to apply for a job in writing; they cannot fill in a form. This is a very serious problem. If one asks a given number of adults who have failed school about the area of their failure, they will say, "I never really got the hang of writing English". Their reading remains inadequate; their writing and spelling remain even more inadequate.
What does one do about this? The answer is that one discovers these shortcomings in a child at an early age. At the moment I am arguing therefore in favour of testing at an early age. The point at issue is not whether children should be tested, but what form the testing should take.
I want to read a brief paragraph from a report on the teaching of English which has just been published. A group of very highly qualified teachers, educationists and writers have been considering how English should be taught in our schools. The committee was set up some time ago, but I am afraid I do not know exactly how long ago. However, it has produced its report, under the chairmanship of Sir John Kingman. It states:
"Almost all the evidence submitted to the Committee mentioned assessment, and expressed varied doubts about either the feasibility or the desirability of testing children particularly at age 7".
This has been much debated recently, as the Committee knows.
"We share TGAT's view"—
TGAT being an acronym for the task group which is looking at how children's performance should be assessed. The group works under the authority of the Secretary of State. The paragraph goes on:
"We share TGAT's view that assessment at age 7 is essential in determining whether or not pupils are making adequate progress in the important early years of schooling. Teachers need to be able to identify where pupils need help".
I should like to stress those words: teachers do need to be able to identify where pupils need help.
"At age 7 it is not too early: deferred, it may be too late".
As one who has had a great deal to do with remedial teaching I know, and I cannot stress too strongly, how important it is to discover at an early age if a child is failing and why he or she is failing so that one may then be able to offer help before it is too late.
I am arguing very strongly in favour of testing, but what form should that testing take? I believe that the form it should not take is that of a standard uniform test handed out to all children at a certain time and at a certain age with a pass/fail criterion—"You have passed and you have failed". Such testing should take the form of a detailed investigation to see how a child is progressing and, as I say, to discover the nature of his failure, why he is failing and precisely where. It is

689
possible that one discovers only at that age that a child has what we used to call a hearing imperception, which is not the same as being deaf. One can hear wrongly without being deaf. That may seem strange but it is possible. It is also possible that it is not until then that one discovers a child may have difficulty in seeing clearly. It is essential that testing should be done with that object in view.
The TGAT report suggests various matters and other Members of the Committee will talk at greater length than I shall. One of the best and most important ways of testing is that it should be carried out by the child's teacher because if the teacher is a good teacher—and we hope that such teachers will be—he will have won the child's confidence so that the child will be able to perform at his best with his own known, respected and liked teacher. However, testing should be done not on one fell day at one fell hour, but continuously. Thus there should be continuous assessment with the object of finding out what is wrong and offering help which can be referred to as diagnostic.
As far as possible, testing should also be what the TGAT report describes as differential, that is to say one has a battery of tests and a child is offered a group of tests appropriate to his ability. For example, for a child of average ability there is probably no reason to offer him the very elementary tests because we know that he can do them. So one does not waste time with that. Nor does one discourage children and depress them by offering tests that are too advanced for them. Therefore, it will be up to the teacher to offer the right tests to the right children. That is one aspect of differential testing.
Another aspect is that in any given subject, such as English, a test should show a standard in various different directions. One may be oral English—a child's ability to express himself or herself orally. Another may be creative writing. A third could be accuracy—spelling, punctuation and so on, so that the final result for a child is not "pass" or "fail", "good" or "bad", but "strong in this direction", "not so strong in that" and "weak in the other". One can then work with that child to help him to improve.
After all that spiel to which the Committee has been kind enough to listen, I should say that I believe it is most important that the kind of testing envisaged should be declared plainly. We had the TGAT report published in January, but the Government have still not yet made clear to what extent they will be guided by it and what form the assessment will take. We should like to hear from the Minister a clear statement about that because then we can stop worrying about it.
I should like to ask two other questions and I shall be grateful for a clear reply. I have been advocating the necessity of testing at a young age. Indeed it may be advisable to test at 11 and 14 as well. But I cannot understand what form testing will take at 16 years of age. I ask the Committee to imagine a girl in the fifth year at school taking a number of subjects. I have written down a number of items at random. She is taking GCSE in the history of art and design, home economics, English, rural science, and religious study. That is enough to be going on with. Is she
690
really to be tested as well in history, geography, mathematics and CDT which are foundation subjects? They are subjects that she will not really want still to be doing as well as responding to the high demands that those five GCSE subjects will be making on her. What is the Government's intention? We wish we knew clearly. No indication has been given. I believe that GCSE results might seriously he affected if there has to be testing in the foundation subjects up to school-leaving age. It may also affect a young person's work in the TVEI which has been so successful. We should be grateful for an answer on that.
I should like an answer to another question. I am a little unsure of my facts on this and for that I must apologise. A while ago the Government instituted a plan for records of achievement at school that a child takes with him or her when he or she leaves. How will that tie in with assessment and test results? Is it really necessary to have both? I feel like echoing the words of one teacher who said to me that he had always understood that a scientific principle of experiment was that if one had a certain set of conditions, which were not entirely satisfactory, one changed one variable and if that produced no result one changed another and so on until one found what change had a good effect.
I believe that at the moment the variables in our education system are continually being changed. We have not yet begun to settle down to the new GCSE examination, to TVEI or to the Education Act 1986 and the way in which that will work. Yet we have the enormous weight of this new legislation upon us already. I should like the Minister to tell the Committee how this will fit in with the plan for records of achievement, which have already advanced quite a distance in some authorities. For all that the Committee may feel about it, ILEA made great advances in that respect. I have seen some of its portfolios, which are most impressive. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I support this group of amendments. They have the effect of placing the major recommendations of the task group on assessment and testing on the face of the Bill. The central issue is that four months after the publication of the report the Government have still not clarified their policy as to the way in which testing and assessment will be implemented. No details are contained in the Bill, which leaves the form of implementation to ministerial orders.
Yet the assessment arrangements are central to the direction of the national curriculum. Without at least a broad indication of the Government's thinking, it is virtually impossible for Parliament to judge the practical effect of the legislation. Much of the relevance of the national curriculum—for example, to pupils with special needs—will depend on the assessment arrangements. No detailed statement has been made on the issue since the publication of the report beyond a statement made at that time by the Secretary of State giving it a "broad welcome".
Ministers' reluctance is surprising in view of apparently encouraging statements in the Commons committee in December which suggested that their thinking was not too far removed from its eventual

691
recommendations. However, the publication in March of a leaked letter from the Prime Minister's office drew attention to substantial differences of opinion within the Government over the form of assessment: whether it should be carried out by teachers; the degree of reliance on once-and-for-all written tests; the cost; and the likely timetables of implementation. The prime purpose of this debate is to seek to clarify the Government's intentions and to insert into the Bill specific safeguards in favour of the direction of the Black Committee. They appear in Amendment No. 73.
The report favours formative assessment, leading on where necessary to diagnostic testing. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, explained, the report favours a differential approach and not a set pass-fail level on a standard basis. It favours continuous assessment in the classroom, of which tests would form only a part. The main purpose of the report is also to identify the future needs of the child. The report asks whether if they are to be published by school or class the results should be published with an indication of the school's overall performance and of its socio-economic background or as raw statistics. The report definitely comes down in favour of no publication of raw statistics. Our amendments follow those lines, particularly Amendments Nos. 136 and 137.
The report's summing up comes from Mr. Norman Thomas, who was a member of the TGAT committee which made the report and who at one time was an inspector and adviser. He says:
"One attitude towards assessment is deeply ingrained: its purpose is to compare children. An act of will is necessary to replace that attitude. Assessment should be for determining what children know so that the best decisions can be taken about how to help them forward. Assessment should be formative".
I have also tabled Amendment No. 75 in the group with the intention of trying to discover what the Government are intending to do about 7 year-olds. I think that more criticism has been made about testing 7 year-olds than children of any other age because of the different form of education that such children will have received up to that age. Therefore it is part of the probing amendments. The TGAT proposals state that the results should definitely not be published. I should like to know whether the proposal that the results should be available to parents, governors and providers (the LEAs) means that they might be as good as being published. What hope would there be of keeping them quiet? I hope that the Minister will be able to inform the Committee of the Government's attitude towards the testing of 7 year-olds and the publication of results.
Baroness Faithfull: Amendment No. 73 falls within this group. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, for what they have said by way of introduction to the debate. I am particularly interested in children with a difficult home background, deprived children, those with special educational needs and the very bright children. As has already been said by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, it is difficult to know what is the Government's response to the Black Report. It is difficult to know what to recommend until we know what the Government are thinking and how they will implement the report.
692
As regards young children I have received an enormous number of letters from nursery school teachers who have had children in their nurseries who have then moved on to primary schools. They know that from the point of view of their early days some children will make fast progress, some much slower progress and some will be very bright but will have been held back perhaps by their home circumstances. What form will the assessment take? Will it be geared to the needs of the individual child—not to the school, not to the parents but to the needs of the child? Will the assessment lead to a programme for each individual child: the child who is difficult, the child who is handicapped, the child who is very bright? I believe that to be most important. Many teachers in primary and nursery schools are most worried as to the form that the assessment will take at the age of seven and what that will lead to.
One must also take into account the child's perception of his or her self. If the child feels, thinks and is given to understand that he or she is a failure, then failure will build on failure. Unless encouragement and understanding of the child's background and circumstances are taken into account and the child is helped to accept them, he or she will continue to be a failure.
There is also the perception of the parents. I think of the number of times that I have heard parents say to their child, "Of course, you're a silly one you are". The silly one goes on to become a silly one, whereas if the parents have a perception that their child needs particular help at a particular time with a view to development and attainment, they will encourage their child. I believe that an enormous number of people are worried by the line that the Government will take on the TGAT Report regarding what form the assessment will take, what is going to be the future of the child based on the assessment and whether there will be a plan for each child.
4 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: I should like to speak briefly. I am old enough to remember the days when the 11-plus was universal; I well recall its effect on both schools and parents. As some Members of the Committee will remember, the schools always set up a special class called the scholarship class. Bright children were put into that class and were coached intensively for months on end for the examination. The teachers analysed the papers year after year; they assembled hundreds—I have known headmasters who had thousands—of questions. The children were taught to answer those questions mechanically so that when the test came along it tested what it tested and nothing more. As to saying anything about the real child, it was not worth the paper it was written on. That is why we introduced comprehensive schools.
The effect on parents was traumatic. Somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent. of children passed. We are talking about passing and failing. For the other 85 per cent. each year, a black cloud descended on families throughout the country. I am not exaggerating when I say that I have known parents, especially middle-class mothers, who were too embarrassed and ashamed to leave the house for weeks after the arrival of the 11-plus results. I am

693
terrified that this statutory four-stage testing will develop into something of that nature. Is that so?
It appals me that many people—and I am afraid some noble Lords—assume that testing is not done now by teachers. Testing by teachers is part of teaching. Every teacher in every primary school knows the children and tests them week by week. The teacher knows exactly what the trouble is. The proposed tests are quite unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has talked about the 7 year-old test. However, I remind the Committee that it can apply to 6 year-olds. Imagine that for 6 year-olds! Yet if one reads the wording of the Bill one can see that it applies to 6 year-olds.
I hope the Minister will reply to this specific point. Unless the tests are purely diagnostic—I hate the awful language which has now been introduced into education but the word "diagnostic" is well understood—they are quite unacceptable to the teaching profession and, I believe, to parents. We know quite well what the Prime Minister wants. She wants a league table of schools based on these tests. I hope that if that is done, it will be utterly rejected by the teaching profession. If there is any question of labelling children passes or failures at seven, 11 or any other age, it should be rejected by the teaching profession. I hope that teachers will refuse to work it. The idea of anything apart from a purely diagnostic test is quite unacceptable. I trust the Minister will reply to that point. There are real worries in this Committee, in the teaching profession and in homes throughout the country about introducing anything like a four-stage 11-plus with a league table of schools.
Baroness Blatch: There is a great deal of emotion over the subject of testing. Listening to the debate, it seems there is a belief that somehow or other, because the Bill requires that children should be tested four times in a school lifetime, almost nothing else should happen in the form of testing, finding out how a child is performing or even finding out where the child's strengths and weaknesses are. Summative testing—as it is known in the jargon—and diagnostic testing are not mutually exclusive. Diagnostic testing is not something which starts when the child is seven. It is something which has happened a number of times before the child is seven; indeed, it continues throughout the educational life of a child. A teacher is always trying to find out the strengths and weaknesses of the child so that the strengths can be built on, the weaknesses can be dealt with and the programmes of study modified accordingly.
It seems a modest requirement of the Bill that only four times in a child's life there should be some view about what children should have achieved by a certain stage and that there should be defined targets or objectives against which measurements are taken. I believe we are rather coy in talking about testing, not in terms of "pass" or "fail", because there are many substitute terms, but to assess whether the child is doing well, doing very well or doing badly.
Among the children who have been described—those with special needs; the very bright—there are a large number who are plain lazy. I was one of them. It is only with some kind of chivvying and encouragement and from time to time a little
694
chastisement that we do better. I suggest that a large number of these children fall into that category. I am not talking about the bottom 20 per cent. or the top 20 per cent. The 60 per cent. of children between the most able and least able do better if the teacher's expectations are rather high and if the child can be motivated to do better. Indeed, perhaps I may introduce a word which has not featured in the debate so far. I am certainly not coy about introducing it. An element of competition is not necessarily bad.
Stretching a child's ability and setting one's sights high for a child are all part of the process. We should all recognise as individuals that we shall not be good at everything. Learning about our limitations is also very much a part of the educational process. If the Government are persuaded that all testing should be diagnostic only, then I believe we shall have failed in one of the main purposes of the Bill. Nowhere does the Bill suggest that we should not continue with the good work done on the records of achievement. They will continue; they will be developed.
Nor does the Bill say that we should do anything other than test children four times a year. I conclude with this thought. Setting tests for children so that all children feel successful and have a great sense of achievement, irrespective of their performance, will do the greatest disservice to the children themselves.
Lord McNair: Perhaps I am repeating noble Lords when I say that if I receive letters from real people I pay more attention to them than to letters I receive from organisations. I should like to confirm what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. In my experience, what is becoming known in the country as "the test of seven" has produced more mail from real people than any other topic in the Bill.
I believe it is a fact that the word "testing" does not appear anywhere in the Bill; we talk only about assessment. It would probably be reassuring if we could talk about assessment rather than testing. Thinking about this, I tried to imagine a class of average 7 year-olds. The first matter—the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, pointed this out—is that some of the children are aged six and some probably eight. However, the assessment must presumably happen once a year. That is how I understand it.
Those of us with children or who have observed children and have watched how they develop at that sort of age will have noticed first that they do so at different paces and, secondly, that it is not a steady process but takes place in fits and starts. A trauma, accident or illness may set a child back six months. A happy experience like a holiday may suddenly advance the child. Overnight one discovers that the child can suddenly write two or three words without half the letters facing the wrong way. It is a very irregular process, different for every child.
I have said that the word "testing" is not in the Bill and that the word "assessment" is; but surely testing comes in through the attainment targets. If one sets a target and says at that age that is what children should know, then one is inevitably into the pass, fail business straightaway. I am speaking mostly to Amendment No. 75, which proposes that at the first key stage, the 7 year-olds:
"An order … shall not specify any assessment arrangements in relation to the first key stage".

695
I believe that this is a matter which the Government could concede. If they want to make friends, which I sometimes doubt, I believe that there are few things which they can do in this Bill to win them more friends than to be reassuring. I am afraid that what the noble Baroness says in Hansard does not reach the average classroom. If there is a provision in the Bill such as Amendment No. 75 the Government will make themselves a lot of friends very easily and it will also improve the Bill.
Baroness Young: We shall all listen with great interest to what my noble friend the Minister has to say on this very important issue of testing and assessment. We have not yet heard the response of the Government to the report referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady David. The subject is of great importance to Members of the Committee on all sides and I hope very much that by the time we reach the Report stage we shall have a clearer view of what it is.
One of the matters which I consider to be most dangerous in this area was summed up by, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara; that is, making suggestions which as far as I know are not the intention of the Government. It certainly emerges nowhere in the report on testing and assessment. I am referring to the reintroduction of the so-called 11-plus. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, knows as well as I do that one of the criticisms was that the proportion of those who passed or did not pass varied from one local authority to another. That was clearly a major weakness. Whatever may or may not emerge from testing and assessment, it will apply nationally. I believe therefore that that will be very helpful.
There will be a great deal of debate. I was interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, was in favour of testing at the age of seven—I believe I have written down his remarks correctly—whereas the noble Lord, Lord McNair, was not. Clearly we have a great deal of divided opinion on this subject.
We have a second division not only about the age but about the kind of testing and assessment. My noble friend Lady Blatch has quite rightly said that a good teacher will be assessing the child all the time to know how it is progressing. However, there is a very important problem which underlies this Bill; that is, the actual achievements of our school-leavers, particularly in the middle and lower ranks, as compared with the Germans and the Japanese in, for example, mathematics. Unless we have some kind of a measure of what a child ought to know at a given age, it will be very difficult to see whether we are falling behind other countries and not stretching our children as they should be stretched.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, says, although it is true that it is very depressing to be a permanent failure, anyone who has brought up children knows perfectly well that they need the carrot and the stick most of the way through in order to encourage them to do as well as they should. After all, who wants to do homework in the evening when a favourite television programme is on or a football match is about to take place?
696
It is a very subtle business in many ways to get children to work as hard as they should in order to attain what is expected of them. I do not believe that one does a service to children by pretending to them that they can get away with less than they are able to do: after all, eventually they have to get a job and fulfil themselves in life. This requires some kind of measure.
Therefore, it is very important to know what is going to be said on this matter. All Members of the Committee who are really interested—I believe everyone wants to see standards raised—must see that there is some measure of objectivity in the test, however this is defined (there can be very many definitions of it) to make sure that all the children are achieving as much as they should.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: Perhaps I may say a few words to correct an impression that my noble friend Lord McNair and I may have given. The situation is not that I support testing and he does not. As he said, he was speaking to Amendment No. 75, which proposes that there should not be any assessment arrangements specified at the first key stage. That is not to say that he does not approve of assessments but merely that they should not be specified by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord sits down, in the extract which he read from the report on the teaching of English which was published yesterday, did I hear that what it says about 7 year-olds conflicts with Amendment No. 75 or did I mishear?
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I think not, but I shall have to look again. The report states:
"We share TGAT's view that assessment at age seven is essential".
However, it does not specify whether this assessment should emanate from the teacher or from the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lord McNair said that it should emanate from the teacher and not from any overall standard authority.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: I hope that when the Minister replies she gives some indication of the targets which are to be set. In earlier years I did a good deal of research in this field. For example, at the age of seven is the standard to be that which is suitable for a child with a mental age of four or one with a mental age of 11? At the age of 11 is the test to be for a child with a mental age of seven or eight or for a child with a mental age of 14 or 15 who will be preparing for the next examination at a fairly high standard? A target for a given age seems to me a complete impossibility and a total denial of individual differences.
Lord Rea: I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 71A which seeks to remove compulsory assessment from 7 year-olds, which is the first key stage. In this amendment I am putting forward not only my own view and that of many primary school teachers I have met—I meet quite a few in my work as a general practitioner—but also the views of the

697
British Association for Early Childhood Education, which feels that compulsory testing of 7 year-olds is quite inappropriate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, it is not against assessment as such—in fact entirely the reverse, because continuous assessment is appropriate. As speakers have already said, it is a task upon which many teachers are continuously engaged as part of the very personalised nature of good primary education.
Teachers themselves are aware of the individual strengths and weaknesses of the young children in their classes. Standardised tests are not appropriate because of the very variable speeds of development of young children and their very labile emotional behaviour and balance. Seven year-olds are quite liable not to give of their best on any particular day. They may take exception to certain kinds of testing for reasons which, to them at least, are quite logical and important.
Perhaps I may give one or two examples. In Edinburgh I heard of an infants school which had entrance tests. As part of assessing the intelligence of a 6 year-old boy he was asked to count from 10 backwards. He refused to do this because, he said, "That is not the way it should be done. I will not". On a personal note, I remember when I was six or seven being asked to read aloud a passage from an early reading book. I refused to read a certain passage because it seemed discriminatory and unjust. It read,
"No, John, you cannot come with us because only little girls can go to Fairyland."
That is reverse sexual discrimination with a vengeance. The point that I am trying to make is that standardised testing is quite inappropriate in the infant school. Teachers themselves are far better judges of each child's strengths, weaknesses and needs, both social and educational.
Earl Russell: I speak in support of both my noble friends Lord Ritchie and Lord McNair on the subject of testing. These Benches have not been objecting to testing as such. We have been saying two things throughout these debates. First, we have been expressing our reservations about testing by the order of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's hoof is all over this Bill. We think that it should be viewed with some suspicion.
Secondly, we on these Benches have also been saying throughout these debates that we consider children as individuals. My noble friend Lord McNair was saying that there are some problems about providing standardised tests for 7 year-olds because at that age the individuality of the child is likely to affect performance, interest and standard of result a great deal more than tends to be true later when he has been at school longer. Therefore I should like to give my support to both my noble friends.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: May I say a few words on the assessment—did I hear somebody say, no? I thought we were still in a free country and in this free Chamber.
I should like to make some comments upon the testing of 7 year-olds, or the assessment—whichever one likes to call it. One has to realise that in the English education system as we now know it there
698
will be children at all levels at seven years of age who will have had various opportunities in schools, nursery schools, nursery classes and play schools, in various parts of the country. Some of those children will have a greater advantage than others.
Some children will have gone into groups at three years of age. There are now many children of four years of age receiving full-time education in infant schools. There are nursery schools and nursery classes. There are different schools in different parts of the country that have entry at the age of five or the term before the child is five. Some schools will have entry three times during the year. Therefore, in some parts of the country a child at the age of five has very often already been in school for at least seven or eight months. That must affect assessment at seven. Some children, from whatever background, will have that advantage. If there is to be education for children at the age of three, four, four and a half or five, one cannot test unless one provides the same kind of facilities throughout the country.
I think it is true to say that the Department of Education and Science has done a tremendous amount of research into this particular problem. At present there is a committee sitting in the other House dealing with the education of under-fives. It is embracing all these kinds of pupils whom it will be impossible to test because some will have advantages.
The other important point to remember if we are testing at seven, is that there are a great many children in this country who have to start learning English before they start being assessed. Therefore we should have various tests and various assessments for the different cultures in our schools. One has only to talk to someone who teaches in London to realise the various languages that have to be used by the children. So let us remember—and I know this particularly well from research that has been carried out in Birmingham—that in the case of young children from ethnic minority backgrounds there should be a delay in their test in the English language.
I should be the last person to want to see a league table of schools. While the Liverpool football team is at the top of the division, I do not know whether Liverpool's schools would be at the top of the division. I am not suggesting that they are not as good as schools in other parts of the country. However, it would be quite wrong in my opinion to have a league table of the best schools or the best local authorities. That is not what education is all about. The effectiveness of any school has to be assessed by the progress of all its pupils, not by certain individuals who might do extremely well and by a certain few that will be falling by the wayside.
Therefore I should like to ask the Minister whether, on evaluation, the Government will accept paragraphs 29 and 32 of the TGAT report which do not discriminate between schools, and whether they will accept that any performance assessment of children should be private and confidential to the individual child, its parents, and the head of the school.
Baroness Blackstone: It has long been agreed by professional educators that assessment should be a continuous process and not something that just takes

699
place on two or three days in the year or one a term. In saying that I should like to speak in particular to Amendment No. 73.
Continuous assessment allows teachers to observe pupils in a great many different contexts; to examine how they perform in group activities and as individuals; to see how they progress over time; and to ensure that there is some continuity in the learning process. It is also much fairer to pupils because it does not all hinge on a single event—a test that is conducted when perhaps they feel rather unwell or when their parents have just had a terrible row or when they are worried about an argument that they have had with a friend. That is very important.
One or two people have spoken about their own experiences. I remember just how terrifying and traumatic the experience of sitting the 11 plus was. I am not suggesting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has questioned, that the Government intend to bring that back. However, I am suggesting that if we were to go for a system of testing at seven, 11, 14 and 16 entirely by means of externally imposed tests without the involvement of the teachers, it would be a very traumatic experience, at least for some children.
Continuous assessment is a better form of assessment because it gives a much broader picture of what a pupil can and cannot do than some kind of externally imposed system of tests.
The involvement of the teacher is also very important because it is a central part of a teacher's job to monitor pupils' achievements. I should like to stress that on this side of the Committee we are not against testing and assessment; it is the form that that testing and assessment takes which we wish to discuss and argue. A good teacher adjusts his or her teaching as a result of being able to monitor his or her pupils' achievements. It will be adjusted to ensure that the very brightest pupils are stretched and the least able pupils are supported.
If we were to focus our attention on attainment targets that are tested externally—as it is feared the Government intend—we would remove from the teacher that very central responsibility which is such an important part of his or her professional duties and we would expose the less confident and the more nervous child to quite unnecessary trauma.
Assessments should be diagnostic because they should be designed to find out what pupils can do well and what they are doing badly. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that we should learn about our limitations. I should like to put to her that it is more important, especially with younger children such as 7 and 11 year-olds, to learn about their strengths. We can build on their strengths and then praise them rather than focus on their limitations. I do not accept that diagnostic testing is too specialised or esoteric to be possible on a wide scale and practised by large numbers of teachers.
Without necessarily using labels, thousands of teachers are undertaking diagnostic testing, as my noble friend Lord Glenamara pointed out. It is going on in many schools, especially in primary schools, all over the country. It is only by concentrating on
700
diagnosis rather than on oversimplified measurement that we can do anything to help parents, teachers and pupils themselves to work on their weaker areas and to build their confidence by praising them in their stronger areas. That is what the TGAT Report suggests should happen.
The report makes absolutely clear that testing must be based on differentiated levels of ability. Otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said, it will be of little value. Above all, it must not be rigidly age related. The brightest child may be three or four years ahead of the average. The least able may be three, four or more years behind. Similarly, rates of progress vary greatly. Pupils may experience sudden spurts ahead and then only average progress. Attainment targets have to be progressive and not age related, and testing must be differentiated by ability.
If testing is to be of real value it must be able to take into account the academic and education needs of all pupils in spite of their diversity. One of the great failures of our public examination system for many years was that it excluded up to 40 per cent. of the ability range and certainly always excluded the bottom 20 per cent. in the lowest group. That cannot be right because it labels some children as failures. The TGAT Report is sensitive and thoughtful about children with special needs. It allows them to be excluded from testing but at the same time it also allows them to have some help from their teachers as they perform the tests. It would be recorded that they had received that help. It is important because it allows those children to be brought into the patterns that are going on in the schools instead of excluding them.
There is also proven advantage in involving pupils in their own assessment and in a dialogue about the curriculum and in negotiating their own targets. This can be done only in school-based assessment. It cannot be done with externally imposed tests of the kind which involve pencil and paper multiple choice. Where teachers and pupils can work together, as they have been doing in the pilot schemes on records of achievement, which so far have been very successful, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, pointed out, that is highly desirable. Just as adults respond to people's expectations of them, so do children. Any labelling that has connotations of failure produces self-fulfilling prophecies.
Summative tests, as they are sometimes called, grade children, in spite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said. They may not necessarily grade them as passes and fails, but they grade them. It is an insult to the intelligence of children to think that the euphemisms produced as alternatives to terms like "pass" and "failure" are not understood by them. They grade them from top to bottom. It is because of the dissatisfaction of many good professional teachers with that kind of approach that they have been replaced by a much fairer and a more sophisticated method of assessment.
That is what the amendment is about and why we should all be able to support it. The Government have broadly accepted the TGAT Report. If that is the case they should have no difficulty in accepting the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Good and fair testing and assessment will be essential for the successful implementation of the national curriculum. As the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and other noble Lords have pointed out, good teachers and good schools already carry out regular testing and assessment. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, made some supportive remarks about the advantages of early testing and assessment, or about assessment at any rate; it is essential for effective teaching. I should like to emphasise as a general remark that what we intend with this Bill is to build on best practices and thereby ensure that good teaching and higher expectations apply to all and not just to some lucky children.
To make it as clear as possible I should say that I shall attempt to deal separately with Amendments Nos. 57, 71A, 73, 75, 136 and 137 which are the subjects of this grouping. Amendment No. 57 refers to the Secretary of State's obligations under Clause 4(2) of the Bill. There are at present no such obligations. That subsection gives the Secretary of State the power to make orders as he considers appropriate. Clause 1 sets out the obligations under which the Secretary of State must operate at all times, and other clauses give him the obligation to consult or to act in other specific ways. Clause 4(1) contains the central obligations to establish and thereafter maintain the national curriculum. Amendment No. 57 is therefore meaningless as it stands and I hope that the mover will find it possible to withdraw it.
Amendments Nos. 71A and 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, have the effect of removing any requirement for assessment at the end of the first key stage at age seven. Much has been said about the Task Group on Assessment and Testing. It proposed that pupil performance in the core and foundation subjects should be measured against a 10-level scale covering the broad range of attainment to be expected between the ages of 7 and 16. It considered that 7 should be the first assessment age since it is imporant that 7-year-olds who have not made a satisfactory beginning in learning to read, write and calculate should be identified and helped to progress. Because children of this age are at least two years into the first phase of schooling they will feel settled and teachers will know them well.
The group concluded that the results of pupils aged 7 should not necessarily be published since assessed performance in these early stages is influenced by so many factors that the results are clearly difficult to interpret in any general way. In any event, information as to the results of an individual pupil's assessment is not to be made available except to the parents, to the governing body and to the local education authority. It is only to be made available to the governing body and local education authority when it is relevant to the performance of their functions. This is emphasised in Clause 15(5).
It is not true to say that the results would be given wide publication. It is certainly not intended to have a league table. Although the case for assessment at that age is clear and convincing, we feel that it is well covered in the provisions and we must therefore reject Amendments Nos. 71A and 75.
702
I turn now to Amendment No. 73, tabled by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, also spoke in some detail. The amendment seeks to ensure that any orders made by the Secretary of State about assessment arrangements accord with the criteria set out.
These criteria are closely in line with the framework for a national assessment and testing system recommended by the Task Group on Assessment and Testing (TGAT). The Government have welcomed that broad framework, as I made clear on Tuesday in responding to a previous amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
I must resist this amendment, not because the Government have departed from their welcome for the broad framework recommended by TGAT but because it is unnecessary and unhelpful to put those somewhat imprecise criteria into main legislation. We have made our intentions very clear, and the task group has made clear that those intentions are workable and desirable.
In the consultative document on the national curriculum which was issued last July we said:
"We envisage that much of the asessment…will be done by teachers as an integral part of normal classroom work".
In the same document we also said:
"The main purpose of…assessment would be to show what a pupil has learnt and mastered and to enable teachers and parents to ensure that he or she is making adequate progress. Where such progress is not made, it will be up to schools to make suitable arrangements to help the pupil".
I think that that accords with much that has been said in the debate this afternoon. In the booklet Education Reform which we published to explain our proposals on the Bill, we made clear that assessment and testing should be undertaken to identify strengths and weaknesses and indeed to plan the next steps for pupils' education.
Our consultative document also made clear that attainment targets—on which all assessment, including testing, will be based—should cater for the full ability range. I make that point as clearly as possible for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. Indeed, Clause 2 of the Bill specifies that attainment targets must reflect the different abilities and maturities of pupils, and the assessment arrangements are to relate to such attainment targets as allow for different abilities. That clause, and the other provisions which I have tried to spell out as clearly as possible to the Committee and which give powers to make flexible provision to meet different cases and circumstances, all make clear enough our intention that the curriculum and assessment arrangements are applicable and appropriate to the educational needs of all pupils.
I hope that it is apparent from what I have said exactly what the Bill provides for, our intentions on how the powers should be used and that they fall within the criteria suggested in the amendment. Therefore, adding those provisions to the Bill would gain nothing, but would merely open up grounds for needless argument about what is intended by some of those words and phrases. I hope therefore that my

703
noble friend and the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw their amendment.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that I am afraid I am not passing the test. I do not understand what she has told us. What I wish to know, because I am genuinely confused now, and what a great many people want to know, is simply this. Is she saying that she accepts diagnostic assessment, provided they are looking at the criteria, or are these little 7 year-old children—plus or minus a few months, according to when in the calendar they were born—going to sit something like an old-fashioned examination, which some of us would have called an exam, on a particular day? That is what we want to know. Is the answer yes or no? Are the children going to be diagnostically assessed; or are they going to be diagnostically assessed and given the test exam? Which is it to be? I simply do not understand.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The proper expression is that the children will be formatively assessed so that teachers can find out what stage they have reached. If a particular problem is shown, there may be scope or need for subsequent diagnostic testing. I think I have made it clear—or, at least, I thought I had made it clear—both this afternoon and indeed on the first day of Committee that the testing and assessment arrangements which have been recommended by the task group involve, certainly at the age of seven, mainly assessment processes.
However, the task group says that there is room for paper and pencil tests. As I understand it, it is possible for teachers not necessarily to set all the chidren down in one classroom at the same time in order to follow that type of paper and pencil test, but to do it in various different ways so that no one is laying down how it should be done. Therefore, in that sense, it is clearly not a return to the 11-plus by any means.
Baroness Lockwood: Will the Minister tell the Committee who will determine whether paper and pencil testing is part of that assessment?
Baroness Hooper: We debated the other day the question of the responsibility of teachers in all this and I have been at pains to point out that the method of implementing the national curriculum, including the assessment processes and testing, will be very much the responsibility of the teacher within the general criteria laid down by each individual working group on each individual subject. However, if I may say so before other noble Lords spring to their feet, I am about to respond in more detail to some of the other questions which have been raised in the course of the debate. I think what I have to say will meet at least some of the inquiries which have already been made. Therefore I should like to continue.
I move on now to Amendments Nos. 136 and 137, tabled by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. These amendments concern the publication of the results of assessments.
704
The Government fully accept the need for any published assessment results to be set in context. This is a much more productive approach than seeking in some less than perfect way to adjust results for social composition or other factors. But even this approach needs sensitive handling, especially if parents are not to be antagonised. It may well best be left to local initiative, within some general guidance, rather than even spelt out in regulations. After all, we are only intending to set out in regulations what must be published, and we can rely upon schools and LEAs to put whatever gloss they think is needed on the information when it is presented to the public.
I believe that this should not be a matter spelt out on the face of the Bill, as it would be under these amendments, even allowing for their deliberately vague wording. Matters which are this complicated and sensitive, which require careful consultation with all concerned, are best left to regulations and the detailed discussions which always precede them.
I hope we have said enough to reassure the Committeee that our intentions in this respect are very much in accord with those of the supporters of these amendments. However, our view is that the way ahead should be through full consultation on regulations and guidance, and I must therefore ask the Committee to reject these amendments if they are not now withdrawn.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, was the first to raise again the question of formal written tests in general—not only at the age of seven—which should be included in the national curriculum assessment arrangements. As I previously said, the TGAT Report acknowledges that there is a place for such testing methods, among others. Indeed, in paragraph 45 of the report the group said:
"The system we recommended must include the use of tests".
It then went on to say that the range and scope of standardised assessment is far wider than the term "test" is usually taken to mean.
We agree with that because we would not otherwise have introduced the GCSE examination. In paragraph 47 the report says:
"standard assessments need not only be in written form".
It makes clear that written responses of various kinds should be expected in the testing arrangements. We do not have to throw out the baby with the bath water just because we all agree that some of the written tests currently used by schools are not helpful or useful. In that, we shall be relying on the teachers' professional good sense.
Questions were asked as to when TGAT's further advice will be published. As I said on Tuesday, we are considering the further advice, which we have only just received, and we shall publish it in due course. I cannot promise my noble friend Lady Young that that will be before the Report stage. I hope that it will be. I am well aware that it is awaited with keen interest.
When we have considered TGAT's further advice, and the responses to its recommendations, we will clarify our intentions. The Government should not be rushed into making announcements about assessment arrangements. They are far too important, as everyone who has spoken this

705
afternoon has emphasised. There is no rush on the detail. The arrangements cannot be introduced seprately from, or in advance of, requirements for attainment targets and programmes of study. We do not yet have the recommendations of the first working groups for maths and science which are due at the end of June or possibly in July.
However, the Government have already made it crystal clear that the assessment arrangements they propose will not be a pass/fail arrangement; they will not be a return to the 11-plus; they will include assessment by the teacher as well as tests; they will be used for formative as well as summative purposes. I have said before that the word "diagnostic" is often wrongly used in that context when people really mean formative testing. They will be used to help individual children to determine their next educational steps.
Lord Ardwick: Will the Minister explain what she means by formative in this context? Formative can mean authoritative and prescribed. Does she mean that?
Baroness Hooper: I went into that matter in detail on Tuesday, but I recognise that all the Members of the Committee were not here for the whole debate. Summative testing shows the stage children have reached at a particular age; formative testing, as I understand it, looks at the individual child's ability to reach target levels. So, in that sense, it is slightly diagnostic. At ages 7, 11, 14 and 16 the results of the assessment are made available, as appropriate, and we hope that the assessment will go on throughout a pupil's education.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, again was the first to ask about testing and assessment at the age of 16 and how that ties in with the GCSE. The Government expect all pupils to do the GCSE in the three core subjects—maths, science and English. We expect that most pupils will do the GCSE in some of the foundation subjects. We do not expect pupils to do the GCSE in all the foundation subjects. No one will be separately assessed in a subject in which they do the GCSE. There will be some assessment in foundation subjects not taken as GCSE. The TGAT Report suggests at least one way in which that can be done. After all, pupils in other countries, including Scotland, manage assessment in a wide range of subjects. I am sure that English and Welsh children can also do so.
The Government still intend that records of achievement at age 16 should be introduced. The committee looking at this issue reports this autumn. We feel that such records can be used to record results of assessment. The records are records and not in themselves a form of assessment or testing.
I believe that I have answered most of the points that have been raised. I hope that I have been able to say enough to convince the Committee that the Government have considered in detail all that it is appropriate to have considered in detail to this stage, and that processes are under way which will lead to the other details shortly. I therefore hope that the proposers of this group of amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Seear: Did I understand the Minister to say that some of the foundation subjects need not be
706
continued; that people who are taking GCSE at 16 can drop some of the foundation subjects; or do they have to keep them all and do the GCSE? That was not clear from what the Minister said. It is a point of considerable importance to teachers and for that matter to those who are learning.
Baroness Hooper: The intention of the broad and balanced curriculum is that pupils should follow all foundation subjects to the age of 16. For various reasons, they will wish to follow them at different levels. Some will take the GCSE. For others there will be an alternative form of testing and assessment. As I have already pointed out, for the three nonacademic subjects—music, the arts and PE—there willl not be scope for similar testing and assessment arrangements.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the Minister sits down, will she clear up one point of doubt for me? Some local education authorities publish results weighted against an index of social deprivation. ILEA, for example, does. One of the elements of the index might be the number of children who are taking free school meals. Will that practice be permitted under the Bill? It seems to be allowed for under Amendment No. 136. I should like to know whether, if Amendment No. 136 is not accepted, such practices can be carried on after the Bill is passed.
Baroness Hooper: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent those practices being carried on.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may find out whether I have understood her aright. Is she telling us that her intentions are honourable but that she does not yet know what they are?
Baroness Hooper: My intentions are honourable. So far as it is possible to know them, I know what they are and so do the Government; but in certain respects it is not possible to know them yet because we are still waiting for further reports and further decisions.
Lord Peston: I am anxious to be helpful. I must tell the Minister that I do not understand what she is saying. It would help us to make up our minds about what to do next with the amendments if she would clarify matters. We have no difficulty with diagnostic tests. We all agree that they are a good idea. It is not obvious to us why they should not be done continuously, but, nevertheless, they are a good idea. If one does diagnostic tests one can respond to them and do something helpful for the individual child. There is no problem for us there.
The problem seems to be that the tests have other functions. Although I heard what the noble Baroness said, I also heard some of her noble colleagues speak before she did and also on Second Reading. Are the tests meant to be incentives to achievement? If they are, is she aware that there are certain children—thrusting children—for whom they are an incentive, but there is a great deal of psychological evidence that those same tests can act as tremendous disincentives to other children?

707
The reason we are concerned about the tests and are not willing to let the matter go is that the Minister has not made herself clear about what the functions of these tests are in their entirety. She has not repudiated what some of her colleagues have said, which sounds different from what she said.
I believe that the noble Baroness said, especially for testing at seven, that the teachers would be in control. These would be tests devised by the teachers. They would be teachers' tests. My reading of the Bill is not that at all. There is no scope in the Bill for teachers testing at seven or any other age. The Secretary of State has all the powers. Are the Government going to amend the Bill to take, or limit, the Secretary of State's powers and do what the noble Baroness says? Will they give those powers to the teachers, as many of us believe they should?
5 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: Speaking to Amendment No. 73, may I follow the noble Lord, Lord Peston? What is in the Bill does not accord with what my noble friend has so ably said. This is the problem that we face. We have heard the debate; it will appear in Hansard. But teachers and parents will still not know what the Bill means.
My noble friend has given a good explanation, and if she could assure us that this will be in the Bill at the next stage, then I think that I and other noble Lords who have put their names to the amendment would be happy as to what she has said today. What she has said and what is in the Bill are not two different things; but they are certainly not the same thing. I wonder whether other noble Lords who have put their names to the amendments agree with me?
Baroness David: So far as I am concerned, what the noble Baroness said has not satisfied me. The noble Baroness talked about intentions. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill. The Bill has been out for six months. The Government have had plenty of time to think up amendments for Committee stage in the House of Lords. We are anxious to get something into the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: In response to the last point made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady David, it was never the Government's intention to put this sort of detail into the Bill. It is a framework Bill. Nevertheless the provisions relating to each separate subject in the national curriculum will come before Parliament. They will be subject to a consultation process, and there will be scope for people to make their views known at that stage.
I shall try to answer the queries of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The object of the testing and assessment is, after all, mainly to increase expectations so that children know what they are aiming at, teachers know what they are aiming at, and most importantly parents are aware of targets. This is where we come to teachers' professionalism, which we discussed the other day. I have tried to explain that our intentions are to have the greatest flexibility possible. We are leaving a lot of scope for teachers to be able to
708
interpret the general criteria in implementing these arrangements. As has been said, there are many good teachers in this country. Many already carry out these testing and assessment processes effectively and efficiently.
In case there is doubt in the minds of some Members of the Committee, may I be permitted to repeat perhaps more clearly what I said the other day in relation to diagnostic testing. The task group confirmed that the main purpose of the national assessment arrangements, including testing, should be formative; that is, to enable teachers and parents to find out what stage children have reached in relation to agreed attainment targets for the national curriculum foundation subjects and to form decisions about, the next step in their education. The 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. It should contribute to an evaluation of the work of the education service and its various parts in the light of the pupil's achievements.
The task group also recognises that some assessments or tests will be partly diagnostic in their nature because they 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. We intend that the main purpose of the national assessment and testing arrangements should be to indicate the stage that every child has reached in relation to the agreed targets. That is the reason the proposals have been made in the way in which they have been made.
Baroness Seear: I want to assure the noble Baroness that we are not trying to be difficult; we are trying to get the matter clear. The noble Baroness said that the teachers will take a considerable part in it, and that is reassuring to us. However, Clause 4(2)(a) says:
"The Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to each of the foundation subjects—(a) such attainment targets … as he considers appropriate for that subject."
Nowhere in this clause does it specify that the teachers have any part in it at all. Naturally those teachers who read this are bound to think that it is handed down to them from on high by the Secretary of State.
Would the noble Baroness consider taking it back and seeing whether she can modify Clause 4(2) so that it indicates that the teachers have a part in it? We would then feel a great deal more comfortable about it. As it stands it is dictat. It may not be intended to be, but that is what the words on the face of the Bill say.
Baroness Lockwood: The same principle applies to Clause 4(2)(c) where it says:
"The Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to each of the foundation subjects—(c) such assessment arrangements, as he considers appropriate for that subject."
That again is not in the hands of the teacher who, we are told, can decide whether or not to include a

709
written element in the assessment. It is in the hands of the Secretary of State. I know that the noble Baroness will come back again and tell us that the Secretary of State will lay an order which will be debated by Parliament, but we shall have no opportunity to amend that particular order or regulation.
The noble Baroness has said that in effect she does not disagree with the principles contained in Amendment No. 73, but that she thinks the wording is imprecise. It seems to me that the wording in this particular amendment lays the foundation and broadens the framework in which the Secretary of State will work in relation to assessment. If the amendment is accepted, I think that the Committee will feel much more satisfied that what the Minister has said will apply.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: The noble Baroness discussed the provisions of the important amendment, Amendment No 73, and seemed to argue that they were all implicit in the Bill already and therefore they were not necessary. I notice that the Government's attitude to amendments is a dichotomy. An amendment is either a wrecking amendment, if it disagrees with the Government to a large extent, or if it does not disagree to a large extent, it is unnecessary because it is in the Bill already. This is what we have been treated to!
It may be the kind of exercise in English, mathematics, or logic to which unfortunate children will be subjected in future years; but it does not deal with what we want to know. For example, take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has recently raised: the position of the teachers. It was interesting to notice that the noble Baroness invariably indicated that the teachers would have something to do with the setting of the tests. The implication of that was that somebody else would have something to do with it as well. We should like to know something more about who that will be.
When it comes to it, is there going to be an examination day? Are there going to be papers prescribed by the Secretary of State? There may be. But really we are no wiser about that kind of thing now at the end of the debate than we were at the beginning. The noble Baroness has not made that clear at all.
I think one should notice too the extent to which children can sometimes be trapped by the over-ingenuity of the examiner. I remember one child found on the paper in front of him the following instruction: "Take 7 from 100 as often as you can, and what is left?" This is merely the examiner trying to be too clever and asking the child to perform a simple division sum, dividing 100 by 7 and saying what the remainder is. If the question had been clearly phrased, the child could have answered it. But the child looked at what he was actually asked to do: "Take 7 from 100 as often as you can, and what is left?" The child's reply was, "I make it 93 every time"! Of course, the child was quite right. Once you have taken 7 from 100 you cannot do that again; you have only got 93 left, and there is no instruction about taking 7 from 93.
I mention this point because it urges us not to pay too much attention to the results of examinations.
710
They are interesting. Without arrogance, I can claim that I was usually pretty good at passing examinations. I wish my real knowledge of the subject had been equal to what I was able to make it look like when I was answering examination questions. After a time, one becomes quite skilled at that kind of thing.
We were gradually in our education getting away from that, or trying to get away from "examinationitis" to the pursuit of real knowledge. The trouble with this Bill is that it will push us back in the wrong direction. The Minister's refusal to accept any sort of advice giving a little more clarity to the definition of the examination processes in the Bill already, and her reluctance to accept any attempt to improve on that, confirms our worst suspicions. I do not want to be too critical of the Minister because we have been told on all sides that if you tell somebody that he or she is a failure, the prophecy is liable to be self-fulfilling. We would not want that to happen! I noticed that the Minister had a great deal less confidence in this part of the Bill than she showed in earlier passages.
The trouble is that with a process where you have continually to invent a new word to explain and justify what you are doing, when you are asked whether your system of examination is—what is it?—formative, summative or diagnostic, you end up by proving that it is all three. I ask the Minister to look tomorrow at Hansard. She will see that she advocated that the system proposed should contain some element of all those three adjectives. Personally I have never been quite sure about any one of them. I think I know about "diagnostic". I am not happy, I am bound to say—this was brought out particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, earlier in the debate—with the diagnostic form of testing which relies on a sympathetic and individual understanding of a child's capacities. This is what any competent teacher has been doing for years and goes on doing all the time. We really do not need an Act of Parliament and regulations by the Secretary of State to do that. If we have regulations by the Secretary of State and all the rest of it, it means that we shall be doing something other than "diagnostic".
As has been pointed out, there have been some speeches on the other side which indicated quite clearly that one of those words involves a highly competitive form of examination. That is all very well for people who like examinations. I like watching them. I regard "Mastermind" as a very attractive programme. However, I do not believe that we choose the people who will handle the most important and difficult problems in the world by that kind of test. The test has other functions which are quite interesting but it is not part of the real education process. I feel therefore that the noble Baroness has not left us very much wiser. I think she could now help herself by accepting in particular Amendment No. 73 and giving a little more precision and life to the provisions already in the Bill.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: The noble Baroness has made it clear—
Baroness Young: I think it is only fair that I should speak. We always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, with the greatest interest. He once told me, I think, that he was a former headmaster or a former teacher, and when he expresses himself that becomes very clear. One has that familiar feeling of being under authority. In this case, we enormously enjoyed his jokes. I quite agree about the mathematical problem; it was the sort of thing which I always found extremely difficult. However, he is being less than fair to my noble friend the Minister. The truth of the matter is that this is a framework Bill. That has come out quite clearly.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and all those who have spoken have read the long report which preceded the summarised version of the Task Group on Assessment and Testing. He will know that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, is the definition given of these words which I agree are entirely new to me, but not, I am sure, to everyone in the education world, "formative" and "summative" on pages 6 and 7. With his normal literary skills, I am quite certain that the noble Lord could reduce it to an even simpler form of English.
But be all that as it may, is it not a fact that the Bill needs to be read in conjunction with these other documents which have been produced? The noble Baroness, Lady David, shakes her head. The reason I asked the question of my noble friend is that this is the report of the group that has been looking at testing and assessment. The Government say:
"The Government has welcomed its broad framework and is considering the detailed recommendations".
The broad framework is precisely as my noble friend has set out, including the recommendation on page 11:
"The group recommends the assessments be made by combining teachers' own assessments with the results of externally provided tests".
Lord Grimond: Will the noble Baroness allow me to intervene?
Baroness Young: Perhaps I may complete this argument. I hope very much that the Government will be able to bring forward a response on this before the Report stage. As my noble friend the Minister said, it will not be the 11-plus but it will involve teachers. These are general statements. We are looking for considerable detail and I should have thought that this met the conditions which would enable noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grimond: Is the noble Baroness telling us that the legislation now being passed by Parliament has to be read with a document which is not part of it at all? I find it difficult enough to understand the Acts which we have passed, but if people have to read documents which are not part of the legislation at all in conjunction with the Acts, I think our legislative process is being made a mockery of.
Lord Ardwick: The noble Baroness has made it clear what "formative" means. "Formative" is one of those words which are sprinkled throughout every sociological book, but the formative tests are tests which set out to discover standards. What the noble
712
Baroness has not defined is what summative tests are. I suspect that summative test is another phrase for diagnostic test, but I am not sure.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may make one remark. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was trying to be helpful to the Minister. All the Minister has to say is that she will take seriously what we have said—take this amendment seriously and come back to us. I do not think we shall necessarily press the point but I must draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that the Minister has not said that. She has given us exactly the opposite impression—that she does not like what we are saying, nor our amendments. We are desperately trying to be helpful, and if the Minister will say that then I personally shall be quite happy.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that this has been an extremely useful debate. Of course we shall take note of what has been said, but I have tried to explain that the arrangements which will be brought forward make it unnecessary to add to the size of the Bill and to add the amendments which are being proposed to the weight of the Bill.
I sometimes find it very difficult. On the one hand, people say that the Government are being over-prescriptive, that they are putting everything down and telling people exactly what they ought to do and they do not want to do it that way. When we explain that we shall take a flexible approach, there are objections on that score because everybody wants it written down on the face of the Bill. For that reason and for the many reasons that I have already given, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I think that we have talked about this long enough, but I should like to say a final word. I think that the Minister has been giving us sweet talk. The problem of the noble Baroness is that the Government themselves have not made up their mind what they think about the matter, so that she is in considerable difficulty. They should have made up their mind by now. We on our side feel it is not appreciated in high quarters that a great many teachers and parents are very worried. All they know is what is contained in the Bill, namely, that the Secretary of State can do anything and everything. There is nothing in the Bill to reassure us that he will consult anyone.
The Minister spoke of not wanting to add to the weight of the Bill. There could easily be a solution in a dozen words. That would not add greatly to the weight of a Bill of already considerable size.
We have had certain assurances from the Minister. We greatly hope that she will come back on Report.—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I think in that case that we need to test the opinion of the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): Does the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, wish to withdraw?
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may have some clarification from the Chair. Has the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, moved Amendment No. 57? We shall come to Amendment No. 73 later. Are the amendments being moved individually or en bloc? I am not sure of the procedure.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: There is only one amendment before the Committee, Amendment No. 57. The others will be reached in the fullness of time.
Baroness David: Amendment No. 57 was moved as a paving amendment to a group of amendments so that they were taken, so to speak, all together. We wish to press the amendments.
5.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 57) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 149.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Galpern, L.

Airedale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Grey, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Grimond, L.

Amherst, E.

Hanworth, V.

Ardwick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Attlee, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hayter, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Banks, L.

Hunt, L.

Barnett, L.

Jacques, L.

Basnett, L.

Jay, L.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blease, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bottomley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Leatherland, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

London, Bp.

Canterbury, Abp.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

McNair, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chitnis, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Meston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milford, L.

Dainton, L.

Molloy, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Oram, 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.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Faithfull, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

714

Serota, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Whaddon, L.

Stallard, L.

White, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wigoder, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Swann, L.

Willis, L.

Thurlow, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

TordofT, L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Truro, Bp.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winstanley, L.

Underhill, L.

Young of Dartinglon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hives, L.

Aldington, L.

Hood, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Arran, E.

Ilchester, E.

Auckland, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bathurst, E.

Joseph, L.

Bauer, L.

Kimball, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Lindsay, E.

Belstead, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lothian, M.

Bledisloe, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Luke, L.

Braye, B.

Lyell, L.

Brookes, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Middleton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Milne, L.

Chelmer, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chorley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Munster, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nelson, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cowley, E.

Norrie, L.

Cox, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Daventry, V.

Peel, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pennock, L.

Dundee, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles, V.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Porritt, L.

Elibank, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reigate, L.

Erroll, E.

Renton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Falmouth, V.

Romney, E.

Ferrers, E.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrier, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Fortescue, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gainford, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharples, B.

Geddes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Southborough, L.

Grantchester, L.

Strange, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Strathspey, L.

Greenway, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Swinton, E.

Halsbury, E.

Terrington, L.

Hanson, L.

Teviot, L.

Harvington, L.

Teynham, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

715

Thorneycroft, L.

Vinson, L.

Trafford, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Weir, V.

Trumpington, B.

Windlesham, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wolfson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Vestey, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 3, line 29, after ("practicable") insert ("that is to say, in particular, when sufficient qualified teachers and resources are available").
The noble Baroness said: The Committee will be relieved to hear that this amendment deals with a matter which, while it is very important, is much narrower than that which has been considered in Amendment No. 57. We are all in agreement that we need to raise the quality of education in this country. There is no argument about that. We are told repeatedly that the purpose of the core curriculum and the foundation subjects is that general standards should be raised. However, there is a corollary in that—
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may intervene. My understanding was that the amendment had been debated earlier with Amendment No. 21.
Baroness Seear: That was such a long time ago and at such an appalling hour that I claim my right to debate the amendment again. There can be no improvement in standards in schools unless the level of teaching is such that those standards can be reached. There is no doubt that we are lacking today in teachers and equipment to teach the subjects which are prescribed in the Bill. It seems to us that it presents a false prospectus to parents and teachers to say that certain subjects are compulsory if, at the same time, there are not enough qualified teachers to teach those subjects. The Kingman Report, which has already been quoted today, says specifically that of those teaching English in our schools, 28 per cent. have no qualification above O-levels. It has also been repeatedly said that something like 50 per cent. of those teaching mathematics have no proper qualifications.
The desire to raise quality and the laying down of subjects to be taught must carry a corollary of the provision of an adequate supply of properly trained teachers, otherwise, the whole process is humbug. Therefore, we wish to see on the face of the Bill the statement that there will be no compulsion to introduce those subjects until there is an adequate supply of teachers and of resources. However, I wish to lay a special emphasis on the provision of teachers. That matter seems to me to be absolutely vital. It will make a nonsense of the intention of the Bill if it is not accompanied by such a provision. That means that we must put proper resources towards producing qualified teachers to teach the prescribed subjects. I beg to move.
5.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 58) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 138.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Attlee, E.

Kirkwood, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Banks, L.

Lockwood, B.

Barnett, L.

Longford, E.

Basnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Meston, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Milne, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carter, L.

Mulley, L.

Chitnis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Diamond, L.

Rea, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Ezra, L.

Shepherd, L.

Falkender, B.

Stallard, L.

Falkland, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Foot, L.

Swann, L.

Gallacher, L.

Thurlow, L.

Galpern, L.

Tordoff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Underhill, L.

Grey, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Grimond, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hayter, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Willis, L.

Hunt, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hylton, L.

Jacques, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Jay, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jeger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Aldington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Canterbury, Abp.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Auckland, L.

Carnock, L.

Bathurst, E.

Cathcart, E.

Bauer, L.

Chelmer, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Chorley, L.

Beloff, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Belstead, L.

Coleraine, L.

Bessborough, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blatch, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Braye, B.

Cowley, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cox, B.

Butterworth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Caithness, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

717

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Munster, E.

Daventry, V.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eccles, V.

Orkney, E.

Elibank, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Peel, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Pender, L.

Falmouth, V.

Pennock, L.

Ferrers, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ferrier, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Fortescue, E.

Porritt, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Reay, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reigate, L.

Grantchester, L.

Renton, L.

Greenway, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hanson, L.

Romney, E.

Harvington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hesketh, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Hives, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hood, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Seebohm, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shannon, E.

Ilchester, E.

Sharples, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Joseph, L.

Southborough, L.

Kimball, L.

Strange, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Lindsay, E.

Sudeley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Swinton, E.

London, Bp.

Teviot, L.

Long, V.

Teynham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Luke, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Lyell, L.

Trafford, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trumpington, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Mancroft, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marley, L.

Vestey, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vinson, L.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mersey, V.

Weir, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.44 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 62 not moved.]
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert ("; and
(c) to arrange that within the provision of the national curriculum, there is flexibility and scope for the governors of voluntary schools to promote and develop the distinctive ethos and character of their schools.").
The noble Duke said: The reasons behind the amendment can be stated fairly simply. The country's public system of education is a dual system of county and voluntary schools. About a quarter of all the pupils in the system attend voluntary schools of one kind or another. Almost all of the voluntary schools are religious foundations—Church of England, Catholic, Free Church or Jewish. It is most imporant that those voluntary schools should continue to be able to maintain and develop their distinctive ethos and character. That largely depends on factors other than the content of the secular curriculum. Religious education in the school clearly plays a very large part in that. So too does the nature of the leadership given
718
by governors, the headmaster and the staff in their various ways. However, the secular curriculum could also have an effect.
Under the Bill the secular curriculum is in future to be nationally determined. Under the 1986 Education (No. 2) Act the content of the secular instruction was to be under the control of the governors in all voluntary-aided and special agreement schools. The Bill will make them, like other schools, subject to the national curriculum. It seems that it is not impossible that topics and books could be included in programmes of study which at least some voluntary schools might find objectionable on religious grounds. Are there safeguards to protect voluntary schools from the possible danger of their being required to teach matters or use books to which they have conscientious objections? I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Lord Bishop of London: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. I shall be very brief but I hope that the brevity of my remarks will not be taken as being in proportion to my concern, which is very considerable.
As the noble Duke has said, our education system is a partnership which, speaking for the Church of England, we have been at very great pains to try to develop, foster and improve. For that reason, while we are very willing to co-operate we would ask that consideration be given in various ways to the particular needs of voluntary schools. I speak as chairman of the Churches' Education Policy Committee on which all the Churches are represented. Therefore, I know that, in addition to the concern which the noble Duke has expressed on behalf of the Roman Catholic community, the amendment has the support of both the Church of England and the other Churches.
Baroness Hooper: I hope that I can reassure my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk that the ethos and character of voluntary-aided schools, and in particular of Catholic schools about which he spoke so eloquently, are safe under the national curriculum proposals.
We of course fully accept the desire of the governing bodies of those schools to offer an education which is permeated with their distinctive character as religious foundations. We recognise the special contribution which such schools have made to our education system, and would not want to put their special nature and status in any danger.
The Bill does not remove the right of governors of aided schools to control the school curriculum, within the national framework set out in statute. They have had that right to control the secular curriculum in aided secondary schools since 1944, and in the 1986 (No. 2) Act we extend it to aided primary schools.
What is required by statute will not be such as to threaten the governors' powers in this respect. Much of the school timetable will remain within their control. The national curriculum provisions do not allow my right honourable friend or any future Secretary of State to prescribe particular teaching methods or materials. What is prescribed in terms of

719
content will be subject to full public consultation. Exceptions for certain types of school could be made in regulations under Clause 10 if that were agreed to be appropriate.
I believe that it is inconceivable that any Secretary of State would in fact seek to make orders which were unacceptable to aided schools on religious or moral grounds. But if that were the case, the remedy would be in your Lordships' hands. The orders establishing attainment targets and programmes of study will be subject to Parliament's approval.
I hope that in the light of what I have said my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of Norfolk: I am grateful for that reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert ("In exercising these duties 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 gave notice of raising this kind of amendment during Second Reading. I had an earlier amendment along the same lines. However, I felt that the middle of the night—or was it the early hours of the morning?—was not the time to discuss a matter of such importance.
I am raising this amendment as a matter of general principle. I am looking for a response on the principle. I certainly do not wish to do what I said that I would do at Second Reading; namely, put down an amendment of this kind for every one of the powers of the Secretary of State proposed in the Bill. I am concerned to elucidate these powers and to draw the attention of the Committee to what I consider is both a serious constitutional issue, and one of interest to education.
Clause 4 states that the Secretary of State "may by order", and so on. It states what he may do, using such expressions as,
"as he considers appropriate for that subject".
The clause sets out one or two broad matters that he may not do. Let me tell the Minister that I am pleased to see that the Bill also makes provision for certain things that he may not do.
I believe that the Secretary of State should have powers. That is not the point at issue. In those happier days when we on this side of the Chamber were in power, and I had the privilege of advising our Secretary of State for Education and Science, it was extremely frustrating that on the whole we had no powers at the DES. Others who have served at the DES will remember how little we could do. We were told that we had no powers because it was the nature of our education system that the Secretary of State should have no powers. However, those days have long since gone. We have now reached a state of affairs where it is believed that the Secretary of State should have powers; and in very large part this Bill introduces such powers.
However, I do not say that he should not have powers; I believe that his powers should be different from those set out here. I shall not trouble the Committee with my view at length today, but I see the powers of the Secretary of State as those of a backstop. I see his powers as being fall-back powers enabling him to set wrongs right, rather than the powers set out here. I have taunted noble Lords opposite with the fact that they are supporting what I regard as one of the most dirigiste and interventionist pieces of legislation that any of us has ever seen. My colleagues and I remain somewhat surprised not to hear much criticism of that from Members of the Committee opposite. Let us leave it at that.
I should prefer the powers to be different, but I am happy for the Secretary of State to have powers. I should like to hear from the noble Baroness that if he exercises those powers he ought to exercise them in some public sense. I hope that I do not break the Official Secrets Act. I always felt that those of us who have served Ministers must always maintain some cover over what we do. But I do not think that I am breaking the rules when I say that the one thing that Ministers like most is power—but with no one being able to check what they have done. That is what they love. They like to act, but in a way that no one can query.
I shall not be happy with such replies as, "You can trust the Secretary of State" and so on. It worries me that the Bill allows the Secretary of State to do things but does not oblige him to give his reasons why. I am concerned—and it is not unrelated to the question of the rule of law—that the provisions do not require him to set out specifically the general principles according to which he is acting. I do not say that on occasion the Secretary of State will not do so. But, so far as I understand it, he is not obliged to do that.
There is a constructive, educational reason for the Secretary of State to explain the general criteria on which he is proposing to act in a specific case. If he does so, we can discover what he is up to. If we are acting differently we shall discover why we are doing things wrong. Equally, we may find that we can help him, because if he acts according to various criteria we—and I refer not only to Members of the Committee but also to the interested public at large—shall be in a position to say that the Secretary of State has acted in this way for that reason, and we think he has acted wrongly for these reasons. One can then make a constructive contribution.
I place this amendment before the Committee in an attempt to be constructive. I have assured the noble Baroness on many occasions from this Box—and I continue to do so—that my approach is constructive. However, in the case of the Bill it is more than constructive; we should be acting correctly legislatively if we amend the Bill in this way. However, if my attempt at drafting is not good, perhaps the noble Baroness will agree to go away and amend the Bill herself in order to achieve the objective that I have in mind.
Viscount Eccles: I shall keep Members of the Committee for about two minutes. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the Secretary of State

721
for Education has had far too little power. That is why we are in trouble now. It is difficult to give powers to the Secretary of State that do not offend the good schools. One wants the power in order to rectify the defects.
For what it is worth, my experience is that a Secretary of State cannot possibly give general criteria for what he does. His day is taken up in rushing from one decision to another. Questions can be asked at Question Time in the other place. The position is much better here than in America. Under our constitution one can question Ministers—in my opinion more and more. I believe that it is a good thing. But one cannot ask Conservatives for general criteria; we do not know what they are! The noble Lord's side of the Committee may know what general criteria are, but we do not. It would make administration absolutely impossible.
I hope that from time to time over the years there will be a Conservative Secretary of State. Do not ask the poor man to do something that he has not been brought up to do!
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have lived under a Conservative regime for longer than I should have liked. I thought that in general the Conservative Party and Conservative governments liked to act within the law and within the spirit of the law. That is an issue on which there has been consensus between all parties in this Chamber. It is one of the aspects of consensus which should continue.
I said on Second Reading that it was very unfortunate to have a Bill drafted with, as far as one could see, the specific aim that judicial review would never occur. That is very damaging to democracy. As I attempted to say, I do not think that any democratic Minister of any government should ever be frightened of having his administrative acts challenged. If he has gone wrong he should be prepared to accept the court's decision that he has gone wrong. If he has not gone wrong he should be able to say why he has not gone wrong. The difficulty about this Bill is that it gives any Secretary of State of any party the power to do anything without ever giving any reason. That is an administrative dictatorship and wrong on any constitutional legal grounds. I very strongly support this amendment. I do not believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, believes that he could not give reasons for what he was doing when he was doing it.
6 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I thought that the Conservative Party was in favour of openness in government, rather like certain leading elements in the Russian Communist Party. As to general criteria being too vague, do we not have to look at this amendment in the context of the particular clause? The Secretary of State will take certain actions after the National Curriculum Council has sent him a report. Either he agrees with it or he disagrees with it. Surely he must have some criteria for doing so.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for raising this issue since it enables me to explain the ways in which the Secretary of State's
722
powers are already circumscribed. However, I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Eccles for giving us the benefit of his experience, which in this case is perhaps more specific than anybody else's.
The effect of this amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to state general criteria and give his reasons whenever he makes an order under Clause 4 of the Bill. We have already disposed of an identical amendment proposed in respect of Clause 3 and therefore I believe that, for the same reasons, we should reject this amendment. I remind the Committee that the general criteria must in all circumstances be those established under Clause 1 of the Bill. We believe that it would not be proper for the Secretary of State to depart from those very publicly stated general criteria. They hardly need any regular restatement, as is proposed, each time an order is made. As for reasons, these will inevitably be aired in the wide consultations surrounding the making of orders on attainment targets and programmes of study since we are looking at this amendment in that context, and that will involve the parliamentary process.
There may be a case for the Secretary of State formally to state his reasons when making certain orders in certain circumstances. Where that applies we have already written into the Bill a statutory provision to that effect. Thus, when the Secretary of State intends to make an order about attainment targets or programmes of study and does not accept the advice that he has been given by the National Curriculum Council following their consultations, he must publish a statement of his reasons for that decision. This is the important case in which it is necessary for the Secretary of State's reasons for departing from the considered advice of his advisory body to be clearly known to Parliament before his proposals are considered; but we need not extend this provision, as would the noble Lord's amendment, to every order, however minor and uncontroversial, and where the Secretary of State has endorsed completely advice from an independent body which itself has consulted widely. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I pursue this matter a little further. Perhaps I may first say that I am somewhat at a loss. I am not aware that we disposed of the equivalent amendment to Clause 3—assuming that the noble Baroness was referring to my amendment—because I did not move it. I am a little at a loss about that matter. Unless I was asleep, I am pretty sure that I did not move the amendment, so it is still there to be brought back in the future should I want to move it.
I am still somewhat lost and perhaps one or two matters could be explained to me in my ignorance as a parliamentarian. Let us assume that the Secretary of State makes some assessment arrangement for the subject of history for 15 years. That is perhaps too far-fetched a proposition, but as I read the Bill certainly he could do that. Is it suggested that what will happen is that someone in the House of Commons will get up and ask him a question as to why he has done that and that this explanation will then be fully and seriously explored in the House of Commons? Are we told that that is the way that

723
Parliament will act for this purpose? Will he be obliged to answer the question, or can he simply say, "I made the order and it is really none of your business"? I should like an answer to that point to start with.
Viscount Eccles: I have not been in the other place for 25 years, but I am told by those who are there that Ministers are now questioned both on the Floor of the House and in Committee to an extent that did not exist in my day. I was allowed to do practically what I wanted to do, which one cannot do now. I think that if one wants efficient administration one not only looks for a fair government but a good government, and a good government is one which has the power to act.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may return to this point. I too believe very strongly in that. The central part of my own theme and my view of decision-making is that I want Secretaries of State who are able to act. However, I should still like them to be constrained by rationality. In particular I should like the Committeee to bear in mind a point that I made earlier about the principle of fallibility. The essence of all decision-making is that there is always the fairly high probability that one is mistaken. The whole aim of the democratic, academic and argumentation processes is to expose fallibility.
All I ask is for it to be brought explicitly into the Bill. Not for one moment am I suggesting that every time some minor order is put forward some great philosophical treatise ought to emerge from the DES. For most of the time the Secretary of State will merely say, "I acted as I did the last time" and that will keep us happy. But these are quite fundamental matters.
I return to my point about the need for the Secretary of State to be explicit, which is in itself helpful to education; in other words, it is not just a trivial matter in terms of Parliament. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would like to comment on those remarks before I respond finally?
Baroness Hooper: We believe that because the Secretary of State is obliged to take advice from the National Curriculum Council before making orders and the processes for the NCC involve wide consultation, only if he disagrees with that advice should it be necessary to have a procedure of this kind.
Lord Peston: I must say that I am not too happy about that explanation, but I should like to think about what the noble Baroness has said. As she is well aware, I have ample opportunity to put down similar amendments throughout the passage of the Bill and to discuss the same principle further, so since no other noble Lords seem to be very interested, I shall not detain the Committee any longer. I am not sure whether the correct procedure is to withdraw the amendment or not to move it; I shall do whatever is appropriate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 3, line 33, after ("order") insert ("a draft of which has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 79 since the two are closely connected. They are also linked with the amendment that has just been withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Our concern over this matter, as has already been said by the Secretary of State—and I shall not elaborate on his remarks—is that the Secretary of State appears to be able to act autocratically without consultation with anyone. I feel that it is reassurance that is needed here. This clause is one in which he seems to have a complete blank sheet, to do with as he likes. If only there were some check or balance indicated it would be a great reassurance.
The Secretary of State is to be supplied with advisory bodies: the National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales. They have certain functions which are set out in Clause 7, but it does not appear that he has to consult or listen to them. That is one of the points that worry us; namely, that he is not under any statutory obligation to consult those bodies or to listen to them. Will he use them or will they just be puppet bodies? The feeling is that reference to them should appear in Clause 4 somewhere. We should see words such as "after consultation with these bodies he may make orders".
That is not the amendment before the Committee at the moment. As the reference is not there, we feel there should be some other check. That is the object of the proposed amendments. In Amendment No. 66 we suggest that a draft should be laid before the House and should be subject to affirmative resolution, or that this should take place where there has been some disagreement between the Secretary of State and the councils concerned. This again is so that the matter should be publicly debated and come before public view, so that the Minister cannot just act without giving reasons and without the matter being made public. For these reasons I beg to move Amendment No. 66.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I should like to support the amendment. In Clauses 13 and 14 we have various rules as to how the Secretary of State is to deal with the various councils. If he disagrees with the councils' advice he has to give his reasons, as the Minister has already reminded us.
But we foresee a problem in relation to the facts. First, the Secretary of State just issues his reasons. They are not open to any discussion. He decides after he has received advice from councils that that is it: it is finished. Only then, as I understand it— and I may be wrong because it is a complicated Bill—there is in subsection (2)(a) and (b) the negative procedure under Clause 192 (if I have followed that correctly). Under Clause 4(2)(c)—perhaps I may be allowed to remind the Committee that we had a discussion about what the assessment arrangements standards and so on were to be—the Secretary of State has no parliamentary scrutiny at all. He does it by order, and the order takes effect without Parliament agreeing

725
"yes" in the affirmative procedure, or saying "no" under the negative procedure: and the order comes into force. So far as I can see, as long as something has been published by the Stationery Office he can make an order bringing the Stationery Office publication into effect with a rule of law without any discussion on assessment arrangements
I do not want to repeat what I said on the previous amendment, but this seems to me to be wrong in principle. There should be a method of parliamentary discussion devised especially about assessment arrangements where it appears that there is a certain disagreement of view among various members of the Committee.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: As we have heard, Amendments Nos. 66 and 79 are alternatives. Amendment No. 66 would require all national curriculum orders to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure, while Amendment No. 79 would only extend that requirement to orders in which the Secretary of State failed to give effect to the advice of his advisory bodies.
Having listened carefully to the debate, I have some sympathy with the general intention of the second of the amendments, Amendment No. 79. While resisting Amendment No. 66, I can undertake to the noble Lord that I will give this matter further consideration and perhaps report back at a later stage.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I have listened with amazed interest to what the noble Baroness has said. It is not very often that we have this sort of pleasure extended to us. In those circumstances, I am very pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 69 not moved].
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 70 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 71.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 3, leave out lines 35 and 36.
The noble Lord said: I do not understand that. Perhaps someone will explain it to me when I learn how the rules operate.
I seem to find myself always in the position of claiming that what I am about to introduce to the Committee is fundamental, but I am back again on that tack. I am discussing together Amendments Nos. 70 and 74. Essentially what I have in mind and what concerns me is the future role of the local education authorities. What I want is some clarification on that, to see what the Government have in mind.
On an earlier amendment I was discussing the powers of the Secretary of State. In the olden days the Secretary of State did not have many powers and the school system of the country was run by the local education authorities. Many members of the Committee and many Members of another place
726
learnt their administration and their politics, if I may say so, as members of local education authorities. Many of us believed that whatever their faults they were the key to education in this country.
I argued on Tuesday—or it may have been in the early hours of Wednesday morning—that we ought not to forget the great contribution that local education authorities have made to education in this country. In particular I was at pains to say, and some noble Lords agreed, that they were at the forefront of innovatory activity and of a great deal of the best of what is good in our education system. One could produce a whole list of subjects, ranging from matters in the Bill to do with local financial management; many items to do with the curriculum in the primary schools and many matters to do with the structure of schools. They were thought of by the local education authorities and introduced by those authorities, and I have to say that they were not thought of or introduced by the Department of Education and Science—incidentally, a department not known, even in my day, for its innovative powers or imagination or, in many cases, its knowledge of education. However things may have improved since then.
What worries some members of the Committee is that the Bill seems to be anti local education authority. Indeed, it does not only seem to be, but I should have thought that it is. That is based on the idea, quite correctly, that some local education authorities have done rather less well than the average, let alone the best. It is also based on the idea—not one that I disagree with—that there are some schools in our country which are not good enough. The reason for that is a degree of failure on the part of the local education authority. When I argued earlier that I felt that the Secretary of State ought to have fall-back powers my concept was precisely powers to intervene where the local education authority was failing.
What I seek clarification on is the question of the failures. I believe we all agree—certainly I have heard noble Lords on the Government Benches agree—that the failings are in a minority. We have all been at pains to congratulate the successes, but because of the failings of a minority the Bill appears to indicate that the local education authorities as a whole are somehow taken out of education. While that is an exaggeration, they are certainly very strictly limited.
I raise the matter under this heading because, in an area where I believe they have a proper role in attainment and programmes of study, there is no mention whatever of local education authorities. I seek to draw to the Committee's attention that extraordinary state of affairs. During the discussion on religion on Tuesday we were reminded of the role of the Churches in the history of our schools. The other main part of that history is the local education authorities. Whereas the Churches appear to be doing quite well in protecting their position—at least up to a point—the local education authorities are doing very badly. Indeed, their position does not seem to be protected.
I am asking the Committee and the noble Baroness whether it is their intention to limit the local education authorities as much as they appear to be doing. Is this really what they want to do? That

727
matter applies particularly to areas where I believe there is still room for innovation and imagination by local education authorities and the officials who work for them. I should like to pay tribute to those who have worked as education officers; and one should not forget some of the great people who have made contributions in that area. Do we want no more of that in our country? Do we really want a centralised system to this degree, with the assessment and curriculum councils centralised? It is for those reasons that I bring the matters before the Committee.
The other point is a drafting matter. I assure the noble Baroness that I shall not go over the assessment debate that we have just had. However, she will notice that whereas Clause 4(2)(a) states:
"such attainment targets;",
my amendment provides for:
"such individual attainment targets;"
That is solely there slightly to over-egg the pudding, as it were, and to remind us that we are dealing with individual men and women.
I should like to draw out from the noble Baroness and other noble Lords their views on the future of local education authorities. I hope for strong reassurances that there will be more for local education authorities. I am desperately hoping not to hear the sentence, "It is all implicit in the Bill".
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord would leave the duty and power to define assessment arrangements with the Secretary of State but give to local education authorities the power to specify attainment targets and programmes of study. Local education authorities will have a new strategic role as a result of the Bill. I was at pains to point that out at Second Reading. However, this amendment appears to be a recipe for disaster. We do not want an assessment-led curriculum, with local education authorities reduced to inventing alternative ways of meeting centrally-set assessments. We want assessment arrangements which serve the objectives of the national curriculum to flow naturally from the agreed targets and help to chart pupils' progress in a consistent and useful way.
I am confident that noble Lords opposite will not wish to press such an amendment which, I believe, must share the fate of other attempts to wreck these clauses.
Lord Peston: I certainly do not want to wreck the clauses; I am trying to improve them. I am getting rather fed up with the fact that every time one tries to make a contribution one is told that one is wrecking the Bill. There are other areas in regard to which I shall be looking forward to wrecking the Bill, but this is certainly not one of them.
I have not yet heard the kind of statement that I should like to hear as regards local education authorities. I have introduced the subject under this heading in order to obtain that reassurance and a more positive statement on their role. However, I should like to explain the specific points. In many parts of education the tests or examinations are rather central, but then teachers and others ask,
728
"How do we respond to this? Do we take GCSE or GCE?". I realise that that is not a perfect analogy but they are the examinations. One then tries to set down targets for achieving that end, the ways in which to study and so forth.
Here there exists something which is not quite that situation. Certainly the assessment arrangements are central. Except for certain thoughts on local variations I am not so unhappy for there to be a national system of assessment in very broad terms. However, I should like as much local freedom as possible. I go below the level of the LEA and I should like to have as much freedom as possible in the school. I fail to see that arising under the clause. Indeed, under the clause I see rather the reverse. It is the fact that those people who have been carrying out the job will be constantly looking to what the Secretary of State specifically wants. They will constantly worry about whether they are doing what he wants, and they will not be getting on with the business of education. I add the point that I believe that their innovative and experimental powers will be limited.
So many members of the committee present have experience of education at local level and they must know that I am right in what I am saying. They must know that this does not correspond to the British system of education—it simply does not. I ask: do your Lordships wish to move as far from the way in which we have done things as this? I am not seeking to wreck, nor am I seeking to prevent the Secretary of State having powers. I wish that in my day he had had many such powers, but this goes much too far.
Baroness Young: I should like to ask my noble friend to clarify several further points. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about local education authorities. Anyone who has served in such an authority knows the value of local government. One of the issues in education which has always worried me is that at the end of their school lives only those who obtain a national examination, such as GCSE or O- or A-level, have a document which indicates their achievement. It is a national examination, although we can argue about variations between the boards, and by and large it is accepted. An examination which was not accepted so widely was the CSE. That was most unfortunate, but this is not the place to examine all the reasons for that.
I have been attracted to the idea of a national assessment arrangement because it means that all children will have an opportunity to show their achievements at the end of their school days. I believe that it is partly incorporated into the pupil profile in which I am most interested because I believe it to be important. Before anyone thinks that I would wish to make everyone take a written examination, I should like to say that I believe it to be extremely important that, for example, the child's attendance record should be recorded, together with comments about whether he tries and behaves well in school and co-operates with others. Whether one likes it or not, employers look for those points in prospective recruits to a variety of jobs. I believe that it is extremely important for a child to have something which they can show when they apply for a job, move

729
on to further education, or whatever, from whatever part of the country they may come.
One of the difficulties about a local assessment is that inevitably one will have variations. I suspect that before one knows where one is one matter will be considered to be more valuable than another. If that is the case it will be very difficult for a child in one authority, so I believe that there is an important argument about national assessment. On the other hand, I believe that within that area there must inevitably be great variations of actual practice as to how one reaches that target. Different teaching practices, whether or not one is taking the GCSE, illustrate different methods of teaching. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that the role of the teacher will be to decide how one will attain that situation. Far from creating a straitjacket it would be a matter for the professional responsibility of the teacher. Perhaps I am not interpreting this correctly, but I believe that this is a very important point and I believe there would be a great measure of agreement of the importance for all school children being able to say what it is that they have achieved in a form which is agreed and acceptable for the outside world.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: The last contribution was particularly helpful because it threw light on what is behind this clause, but it almost inevitably raised further questions. The issue which was raised is the relationship between the targets, the programmes of study and assessment arrangements that will be provided under this clause and what is provided by the examination boards for the children who are able to take various kinds of examinations.
I believe that all of us are very concerned about children who will not take examinations, and that is why the whole notion of profiles, and so on, is very attractive. However, is it implied that the programmes of study for children who are able to take GCSEs and A-levels will be largely those set down by examination boards, and that the operative ones which will be brought into operation by this clause will especially refer to the children who are not up to taking national examinations of that kind? If that is the case, will it also be the case that the attainment targets will be related to the ability of the children to achieve them, so that for the bottom 40 per cent. there will be a series of attainment targets related to what they are capable of?
If that is so, it should be brought out in greater clarity than it has been so far. Of course, if it is brought out in that way, it raises yet further questions about the way in which the needs of the so-called less able children will be dealt with without them being "ghetto-ised" and put into a separate category in the educational system: those for whom the Secretary of State's arrangements will apply as against the rest who will continue to be affected most in their programmes of study by examinations of the kind to which they have worked so far. Perhaps the noble Baroness may care to comment further on that.
Baroness Hooper: The provisions of the subsection as it now stands refer to testing and assessment arrangements at all ages. Targets are to be related to
730
the broad level of abilities and that was the discussion that we had on the testing and assessment arrangements. I do not think that I can add to the comments made by my noble friend Lady Young except to say that yes, this is where we see the important role for the teachers in interpreting the nationally set arrangements. However, one of the objectives of the Bill is to raise standards overall and in accordance with a nationally recognised level. This amendment would defeat that purpose, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent local education authorities having an important advisory role.
Lord Peston: I am probably in one of my more stupid moods because I do not see how it would defeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had in mind if I understood her correctly. She is saying that there should be a national system of assessment. Regretfully I agree with her that everybody should have a piece of paper. I hate credentialism, but we seem to live in that sort of world and anyway it cheers people up to have a piece of paper.
My main point is that I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said about assessment nationally. However, I fail to see why one cannot say that one favours broad national assessment principles and criteria but that the local authority cannot then specify the individual attainment targets and programmes of study.
Perhaps I may anticipate a later amendment which I shall be moving. There is an amendment on regional matters and in a way one is anticipating some of that now. I do not understand why one cannot—not necessarily in my amendment—write that kind of local flexibility into the Bill while still accepting the national criteria. Therefore, I do not follow the noble Baroness in rejecting what I am saying. It seems to me that I have a logical position which, in a sense, is not very different from what she is saying but it is not in the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: We have a long way to go this afternoon and I do not wish to spend too much time on this matter. Perhaps I may sum it up by saying that as I understand it the noble Lord wants a local curriculum that is nationally assessed which would not meet the point raised by my noble friend.
Lord Peston: If the noble Baroness will bear with me—and she and I both stayed until 4 o'clock the other morning and I am not in the mood for that again so I agree that we should like to get a move on—I am not saying that I want a local curriculum. We are not debating the national curriculum. Unless I now totally misunderstand her, I regard the individual attainment targets and the programmes of study as being what they are. They are concerned with what one actually does in education. They are concerned with the individual child and what that child is doing. I can see the DES laying down a very broad view on that; but I regard the specifics of it—and I thought that was what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was saying—as being very much a local matter.
The Bill does not say that. The Bill says, "the Secretary of State" and so on. Therefore, I do not believe that I am sabotaging the national curriculum

731
and being antipathetic to job creation in the DES in London. I simply say that my understanding is that our education system in this country has in the past given the kind of task to local authorities which this Bill wants to give to the Secretary of State. I am trying to bring them back to the local education authorities.
I hope that the noble Baroness does not view this as my attempt to sabotage the national curriculum. I have had an attempt at that and I have other ideas about having another attempt. That is not what this is about. This is about the way in which the school system of this country should proceed. I do not know whether I made myself clear, but we seem to be at cross-purposes.
Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness said that the local education authority would have an advisory role. Perhaps she could spell that out. If by that she simply means that the local authority could make a few suggestions which the Secretary of State can then override, that will not take us much further; but perhaps she has something else in mind.
Baroness Hooper: The national curriculum will set out nationally-agreed targets and the broad framework of programmes of study. There will be considerable freedom for teachers and local education authorities as at present to tailor specific educational provisions to pupils' needs. I believe that that meets the case.
Lord Peston: I am still totally at a loss. I do not wish to divide the Committee; but perhaps the noble Baroness may wish to think more about what has been said. I shall think more about what has been said and return to the subject at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("programmes") and insert ("guidelines").
The noble Baroness said: The Minister has constantly emphasised that the Government intend to be anything other than inflexible in the implementation of their proposals. In moving this amendment, perhaps I may say that so far in Committee I am somewhat encouraged by some of the phrases which she has used. We have heard her talk about a "framework only", about "key objectives" and about "phasing in" over a number of years. However, I am rather discouraged by her response to many of the amendments put forward. In replying to the amendment moved by noble friend Lady David, she said:
"We are firmly convinced of the need for flexibility. We shall be discussing different types and degrees of flexibility more fully on later amendments".
This is one such opportunity to discuss different types of flexibility.
One of the most important matters in dealing with young people in the classroom is to encourage curiosity. Acquiring a tendency to be curious will help them very much more in life than acquiring a particular body of knowledge in any specific area. What stimulates curiosity in young people or small
732
children varies greatly from pupil to pupil, from time to time and from place to place. It cannot be written into some central programme of study. Good teachers search for things that make children curious and make them want to know more. They need the freedom to identify such matters. That is an important reason for providing teachers with guidelines, which I am sure will be very largely adhered to while allowing some scope for deviation and the flexibility which the noble Baroness the Minister has constantly talked about.
For a programme of study to work in practice, it will inevitably have to be quite detailed. In turn, detailed programmes will be very restrictive. Teachers, constrained by programmes of study which, as I have said, are bound to be detailed, will be prevented from fulfilling their proper professional role. The Government's proposals on such central programmes—to be laid down, we are told, by orders in Parliament—are an aspect of the Bill that head teachers, senior officials in local authorities and inspectors and advisers are particularly concerned about.
They are concerned for two reasons. First, programmes of study that involve detailed working syllabuses will not allow that flexibility about which the Minister has spoken. It will become very difficult to take into account local and regional interests. It will be difficult too to take into account the needs of particularly gifted children and the needs of slow learners and those with particular learning difficulties. The second concern is that teachers and local education authorities, as my noble friend Lord Peston has said, will be denied the opportunity of being innovative, of developing new ideas and of responding to change. Surely we want a profession which is able to be innovative and responsive.
Perhaps I may say a little more about each of these concerns. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has said that Conservatives do not know what criteria are. The Secretary of State seems to have discovered criteria as regards the GCSE. Under defined GCSE coverage, every programme of study has to meet certain conditions but the syllabus for individual areas or subjects can be worked out within what are called national criteria. Moreover, teachers can prepare their own mode three schemes, as they are known.
Setting criteria in this way is what I have in mind when I suggest that programmes should be replaced by guidelines. Teachers can then respond much more easily to the very rich variation of local and individual differences. Without this amendment and the replacement of programmes by guidelines teachers will have much more difficulty.
Turning to the teachers themselves and their concerns about over-prescription, I should like to quote what one ex-chief education officer from Lincolnshire has said. Mr. George Cooke finds especially disturbing that,
"It is the most effective and committed teachers who feel the most disillusionment. It is almost as if our political leaders were trying to fight a war calling for great effort without caring a damn for the morale of the fighting troops".
I believe that to be one of the problems about this Bill.
We are told that in music, art and physical education we are to have guidelines only. This means that in music, for example, teachers will be asked to ensure that pupils have a chance to be taught about composing, listening and performing, but it will not prescribe that pupils have to have a little Bach, Verdi, pop, folk, or reggae. In my opinion it would be quite wrong to do so. It would also be wrong to put into these programmes of study, as they are currently called, too much detail of other areas. We need guidelines and not programmes across the board.
As my noble friend Lord Peston said, in the past there has been some frustration in the DES and among Secretaries of State about having insufficient power to influence what happens in schools. This amendment will give the Secretary of State and the DES the power to influence the curriculum. I have sympathy with that wish. It will avoid a situation in which the Secrtary of State, along with the DES, can actually prescribe down to the last detail. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: Although I shall be brief on this amendment, I hope that I shall be helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. Amendment No. 71 would have us redefine programmes of study as "guidelines of study". Since it would do so in only one place in the Bill, the overall effect would be most confusing. Moreover, the sentiment behind the amendment is not acceptable. For some foundation subjects we shall, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear, only be establishing programmes in the form of guidelines. But for the core subjects in particular, we should not want to be limited to what is generally conveyed by that term. What we want are programmes of study—not detailed syllabuses, but a good deal more than guidelines for what we want pupils to study and achieve. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: May I ask the noble Earl to clarify the matter? Are we not discussing an amendment which relates to the foundation subjects? The Minister has replied as regards the core subjects which are different from the foundation subjects. Unless I misunderstood him, he seems to have said that programmes of study for the foundation subjects will be guidelines and therefore my noble friend is pushing at an open door. I should like some clarification on this point.
The Earl of Arran: To clarify that point, it is only certain foundation subjects.
Baroness David: I believe that the noble Earl actually used the words "core subjects".
Baroness Seear: The Bill says quite clearly "each of the foundation subjects", but the Minister said "core subjects". What are we talking about?
The Earl of Arran: In this particular discussion we are talking about both core and foundation subjects.
Baroness David: Is the Bill going to be amended at that part to say "core and foundation subjects"? Nowhere have we been told that "foundation" embraces "core".
Lord Trafford: If the noble Baroness looks at Hansard tomorrow I believe she will find that my noble friend said "of foundation subjects as for core subjects"—in other words, referring to a programme of study in foundation subjects as indeed in the core subjects. That is what I heard but I confess that I do not have tomorrow's Hansard either.
Baroness David: I shall look carefully at Hansard tomorrow. But the misunderstanding seems to have arisen among several of us. I am not alone.
Baroness Seear: Even if it were a misunderstanding, the Bill refers to foundation subjects. We really do have to come back again and again to what the Bill says because that is all we are interested in. We do not mind very much what it is but we would like to know.
Baroness Blatch: Returning to the debate on the first day in Committee I seem to recall references being made to a degree of prescription: that it would be very much more detailed for the core subjects and for four foundation subjects—geography, history, technology, and a language—and much less prescriptive for the remaining subjects of music, art and PE. We are talking about degree of prescription. The Bill is talking about the powers of the Secretary of State to set up committees to determine programmes and targets to be achieved. Therefore the degree of prescription would fall within that.
Lord Young of Dartington: If that is the case—and it seems highly reasonable— we are being asked to divide the foundation subjects into two categories. Music, art and physical education are being considered in a different category from history, geography and technology. It seems eminently sensible to me. How can one lay down a detailed programme of work for music when conditions from one school to another differ so much with regard to instrument teaching in all sorts of ways?
Would it not meet the case if the word "programme" is kept but the word "guidelines" is added so that it would read, "such guidelines or programmes of study"? The Secretary of State would then not be under the duty to lay down a programme of study for music and art, which is only going to make him look ridiculous if he tries to undertake it.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may come back on this and say that the programmes of study will not be syllabuses. They will set out certain important matters, skills and processes, to which pupils must be introduced; but they will not say how these should be organised and will leave considerable freedom for teachers to add their own particular slant. The degree of detail will vary subject by subject and will be subject to wide consultation. What matters is how these powers are used and not what they are called.
Lord Peston: Those of us who have some experience of teaching know that after a certain amount of time one is wasting one's time in attempting to communicate, but I will still carry on.
One of the first thoughts that suddenly occurred to me was that maybe it is a misprint. Maybe it is meant to say "foundation and core". Indeed, if it is not a misprint, I am a little worried as to why "core" is not there anyway. That is my first question. Perhaps the noble Lord might like to think about that. I will accept the answer that it is a misprint if he likes to say that.
The other point is that I thought the Minister said in response to my noble friend Lady Blackstone's speech that there was a range of programmes of study. Some were, to use the noble Baroness's expression, more prescriptive, and some were less prescriptive. I thought he himself said that some of them were akin to guidelines. Did I miss that? I thought he said some were akin to guidelines and some were rather less akin to guidelines.
We are seeking some clarification of that. Indeed, if some of them are akin to guidelines, we would not mind the Bill saying that they are guidelines and that others are rather less guidelines. I cannot speak for my noble friend but I would be reassured by the statement that the noble Earl will think about it again and come back to us; but I am certainly not reassured at the moment.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may ask the Minister exactly what he means when he says there will not be syllabuses, but that the degree of detail will vary from subject to subject. Can he tell us a bit about which subject there will be more detail for and which subject there will be less detail for, and where the dividing line is to be between a syllabus, on the one hand, a programme of study, on the other hand, and guidelines as a third example? It is very confusing and unclear.
The Earl of Arran: In answer to the question put by the noble Baroness, we are not as yet going into details. They are being considered and we will decide at a later date.
Baroness Seear: This is the Committee stage of a Bill which is going to become an Act of Parliament. It is really not good enough to be told that the Government will make up their mind after the Committee stage when we have no more opportunity to amend it in detail, and will then tell us what they want in the Bill. We are putting a potential Act of Parliament through this Chamber and we should know what is in the Government's mind now, not at a later stage.
Baroness Blatch: The Committee has so far established that there shall be a national curriculum and that there shall be testing to define objectives. It seems perfectly appropriate now that we put upon the Secretary of State's department the powers to determine the programmes of study which shall be more or less prescriptive according to subject. I think it has been mentioned that the core will receive the greatest detail. It may just be that the additional word "core" in the first part of subsection (2) might make
736
this more clear. The Secretary of State now needs the powers to deliver what this Committee has already determined is absolutely and entirely appropriate.
Baroness Lockwood: Surely my noble friend has put his finger on a very real deficiency in the Bill. Clause 4(1) says:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State … to establish a complete National Curriculum as soon as is reasonably practicable (taking first the core subjects and then the other foundation subjects)".
Subsection (2) says:
"The Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to each of the foundation subjects".
It does not say that he may specify in relation to the core subjects. So if the Secretary of Statre draws up a programme for core subjects, that could be challenged becaue it is not contained in the Bill. So there really is some confusion here.
The Earl of Arran: Clause 4(1) also states:
"and then the other foundation subjects".
The foundation subjects include the core subjects, as defined in Clause 3(2) and Clause 2—the core and other foundation subjects.
Lord Peston: Maybe that is the explanation and we have all totally misunderstood the Bill. Are we being asked to accept that the expression "the core and other foundation subjects" is to be taken to mean that the foundation subjects consist of the core and other foundation subjects and that that is what the Bill means?
I should like to be told that that is what it means because that would help us a great deal. However, if that is so it still remains the case that the noble Earl has given us, if I may say so, a rather random account of the programmes of study. We should still like something more specific and definite. I should certainly like to know whether the logic of what we are saying is that from now on we say that the foundation subjects are the whole lot, of which a sub-set are the core. Is that what we are saying?
Baroness Seear: What is the point of having the two words? If that is the position there is no difference between the two words. Why have "core" and "foundation"?
The Earl of Arran: The national curriculum, as we all know, consists of the core and foundation subjects.
Lord Young of Dartington: Would the Minister not think it would be in the interests of clarity (since we have been confused by this, other people may well be in the future) if in line 34 it was stated that the Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to each of the core and other foundation subjects? That brings a degree of repetition into that sentence which would make it much clearer. If it had been there, we would have saved about 25 minutes of our time this afternoon, quite apart from anything else.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: If I may say so, I think this is an epitome of the whole Bill. It bears every sign of haste in the drafting and so the form that it has taken

737
has been to enable the Secretaray of State in several hundred different ways, in order that he may go ahead and do these things. If more thinking and more time had been given to the Bill before it was brought before Parliament, that would have saved a lot of time in Parliament.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Might it not help if Clause 18 said something on this? That clause deals with the definitions and says:
" 'core subjects', 'foundation subjects' and 'key stages' have the meanings given by section 3 of this act".
Since Clause 3 is not entirely clear, that might be a place for a more precise definition.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: The Government distinguish in the Bill between the core and other foundation subjects. There are two reasons: one educational, and the other practical. The educational reason is that the knowledge, skills and understanding which pupils acquire through the core subjects lie at the heart of the rest of the curriculum, provide the basis on which other subjects can build and are key elements of what the pupils need if they are to be equipped for adult life. The practical reason emerges in subsection (1) of Clause 4. This requires the Secretary of State,
"to establish a … National Curriculum as soon as is reasonably practicable (taking first the core subjects)".
They are taken first because of the importance we attach to them within a broad and balanced curriculum. Consistent with that the first working groups we announced were for maths and science. We have followed that up with the recent announcement of the English working group.
Lord Kilmarnock: As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has already pointed out, Clause 18 (which we have not yet reached) says that the core subjects and the foundation subjects shall,
"have the meanings given by section 3 of this Act".
However, as my noble friend Lord Young has just pointed out, the past 25 or 30 minutes of the debate have shown that it is not clear to people of average intelligence (who I think comprise the Committee) what the precise meanings of these two terms in Clause 3 and in Clause 4 are. Simply in the interests of clarification and for the removal of doubt for the general public—and for people who will have to interpret the Act—would it not be sensible for the noble Earl to say that, as doubts have been expressed about the meaning of those two clauses, the Government will take them away and possibly come back with clarification at the next stage of the Bill?
Lord Jay: Perhaps I may try to give some assistance to the Minister. I understand that he is now saying that the core subjects are themselves foundation subjects. If that is so, would it not be better to amend Clause 3 to say that there are two kinds of foundation subjects—first, the core subjects; and, secondly, the other foundation subjects? None of the misunderstandings which have arisen tonight would then arise in the minds of any intelligent reader of the clause. As it is, the clause is muddled and hurried.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think we all understand the difference between foundation subjects and those which constitute the core. We are becoming very muddled in our discussion of this matter. We are not clear about this Part of the Bill. We might ask the Minister whether for clarification it needs to say "foundation" and "core". If it does, he could bring forward an amendment. If not—and if somebody else wants to pursue it—he can explain. As to the programmes of study, he said in the first place that some programmes would be issued as guidelines. That seemed to me, in spite of the confusion, to be a perfectly clear response. I wonder whether the Committee will agree that that would be helpful.
The Earl of Arran: In the circumstances, I shall heed the advice of my noble friend and examine this point. I shall take it away and hope to come back with a clearer definition at Report stage.
Baroness Blackstone: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. This has been unsatisfactory. We are not only in a muddle about what constitutes "core" and "foundation". We are also in a muddle about where guidelines are to be operated, where programmes of study will be operated and where we will have something rather more detailed and more like syllabi. In agreeing to take this away I hope that he will not only look to clarify "core" and "foundation" but also say where we shall have guidelines, where we shall have programmes of study and exactly where they will apply and what those terms mean. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rea Lord Rea had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 71A:
Page 3, line 37, at beginning insert ("for key stages 2, 3 and 4.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was discussed at some length earlier this afternoon and at this point I do not wish to continue the discussion. After dinner there will be an opportunity under Amendment No. 75 to discuss this point which concerns the withdrawal of the requirement to assess 7 year-olds.
[Amendment No. 71A not moved.]
The Earl of Arran: This might be a suitable and convenient moment at which to break for dinner. Perhaps I may suggest that we return to the Committee stage at five minutes past eight. I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Presumably that is on the conclusion of the debate during the dinner hour. If that goes beyond five minutes past eight it may be slightly later.
The Earl of Arran: I should have said, "not before five past eight".
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Summer Time Order 1988
7.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1988 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 8th March [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this draft order, which has been considered by the Joint Committee of Statutory Instruments and which has been approved by affirmative resolution in another place, is uncontroversial in so far as it applies the existing system for determining summer time to 1989. As before, summer time will begin on the last Sunday in March and it will end on the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October 1989. The order provides therefore that summer time will stretch from 26th March to 29th October in 1989.
The order derives from the European Communites Fourth Summer Time Directive and is consistent with the ordinary operation of the Summer Time Act 1972. As before, the United Kingdom will be an hour behind most of the other states in the Community except between the end of September and the end of October, when we shall be on the same time as them. This is because they end their summer time at the end of September, a month before we do. All states in the Community (and indeed in Europe) start summer time on the same day.
I said that the order was uncontroversial because I think that most people value summer time. I am fully aware that there are among your Lordships those who would like to see more summer time, and that there are others who are opposed to such a move. The Government have commissioned a large-scale survey on summer time, as I informed your Lordships on 12th April in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. The survey asks for views from a wide range of organisations on three options which were more favoured in a preliminary survey which was conducted last year. I do not propose to go into the merits or the drawbacks of those options. We are consulting widely on them and we shall decide on what steps to advise Parliament to take when we have analysed the results.
I had intended to dilate somewhat more extensively on the virtues of the summer time order but in view of the number of noble Lords who have indicated they wish to speak I thought it might be more to the convenience of the House if I were somewhat less expansive than I had intended. I shall try to cover any detailed points at the end of the debate should that prove necessary. I seek the agreement of the House for this extension of the existing arrangements while we test the mood of the country as to whether there should be a change to the arrangements and if so to what. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1988 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 8th March. [20th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Earl Ferrers.)
7.10 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the length of the list of speakers not only indicates the great national interest in the question of summer time, but also encourages the House during dinner hour business to have a self-denying ordinance in regard to the length of speeches. I intend to impose that ordinance upon myself.
I have a precedent for that because the last time this matter was debated on an order was in 1985. It was debated on 17th December of that year. I limited my observations to wishing the noble Viscount who was then the Minister a happy Christmas, and wished a warmer summer time for us all in 1986. A speech of no great content, your Lordships may feel.
The Minister is thoughtful when he abbreviates his address to the House on this matter. However, I think we ought to delve a little more deeply into some of the aspects involved, as indeed he indicated he was prepared to do in his winding-up speech which he will deliver in due course in reply to what I hope will be a short debate.
He mentioned the study which will take place and which is obviously most necessary. However, one must mention the options which will be considered in the survey. The first of such options is the maintenance of the status quo. We are of course only being asked, while the survey is taking place, for the period of a year to be imposed under the order, as against three years in 1985. Secondly, there is the harmonisation of the ending of summer time with the rest of Europe, which would mean that we would lose an hour's evening daylight in October. Thirdly, there is the adoption of Greenwich mean time, plus one hour in the winter; with Greenwich mean time, plus two hours, in the summer. That would of course mean the period between the end of March and the end of September.
There are just a couple of matters that I should like briefly to indicate to the House which I believe are of grave concern. The one thing we would want to do when looking at any survey and when looking at this matter in the future, is to make absolutely sure that economic considerations are not the only considerations which we have in mind. For example, there is the question of the quality of living and also the very important issue of safety; that is, safety of our children and safety of old people. I was most interested—as I believe most noble Lords would have been had they studied it (as they may well have done)—in the Minister's speech when the matter was dealt with in another place on 28th April this year; in other words, only a few days ago. The Minister said that the question of safety was very much a consideration. I hope that the Government will continue to look at that aspect with the greatest of care. The Minister said:
"Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Kingston-Upon-Hull, West and for Newport, West asked whether the extension of summer time throughout the year is likely to result in a reduction of road deaths and casualties. The answer is that on the best available evidence it will lead to such a reduction".
He then quoted from Chapter 8, page 64 of the review of British standard time published in October 1970 which stated:
"There is little doubt that British Standard Time has led to an overall improvement in road accident casualties although the crude

741
figures of savings of casualties need to be treated with some reserve. The overall improvement seems to have been even greater in Scotland than in England and Wales".—[Official Report, Commons 28/4/88; Col. 617.]
He made the further point that this is very much behind the campaign being mounted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I think noble Lords should note that campaign, having regard to our casualty figures, with the gravest of concern.
We should also note that many of us in regard to the quality of life prefer, on returning from our day's work, to find a little bit of daylight available to us enabling us to have some pleasure with the members of our families. That is yet another consideration. I leave that aspect with the further thought which one ought to have in one's mind; namely, Scotland. I know that feelings there are extremely high on the issue of summer time and the question of the present order and the present state of affairs.
The last point I mention, in view of the self-denying ordinance which I have imposed upon myself, is this. In another place the matter was raised as to the validity of Article 100A under which it was apparently the European view that a directive—a proper directive—could be given in regard to such matters. I noted with concern, because it is a matter which obviously ought to be elucidated, that again at col. 617 the Minister, Mr. Douglas Hogg, said:
"I am not irrevocably persuaded that article 100A applies to the directive. Clearly, that matter requires further consideration. I most certainly do not concede that the directive is intra vires article 100A. Secondly, the fact that, on this occasion, we raised no objection to the treaty base of the directive—agreeing as we did with the policy included in the directive—does not in any way preclude us from raising an appropriate objection on subsequent occasions and in the context of subsequent directives".
I wonder whether the Minister when he replies can tell us whether that consideration has now developed into a decision by the Government as to whether Article 100A is applicable to the directive and whether the directive is intra vires Article 100A. I think it is essential that we should know just where we are going.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, when the existing arrangements for summer time were agreed in 1985 in association with our partners in the European Community, it was for a period of some three years. The present arrangements are due to come to an end this year and something different will be organised for next year. However, there has been a feeling among a wide number of people, including many of my noble friends and indeed some noble Lords opposite, that perhaps the existing arrangements are not entirely what we might like to see.
The arrangements agreed to were imposed in order to try to meet the requirements of our partners in the Common Market and to harmonise with them in so far as it was possible. Therefore, to that end, it was agreed that summer time would begin in this country at the end of March, but we could not accept that we should terminate our summer time at the end of September for reasons with which your Lordships are familiar. Therefore the arrangements were to persist for three years.
742
However, because of the representations that have been made—and on behalf of many of my noble friends and colleagues I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers and his predecessor for having given us a good deal of their time by listening to our arguments and suggestions—a compromise has been achieved by suggesting that the order laid before the House this evening should maintain those existing arrangements for one further year. We must of course agree to that, because if we were not to do so it would cause the most frightful difficulties with airline timetables, diaries and the printing of many other documents.
However, it does mean that serious thought should be given to what we shall do in the future. Whether we like it or not—I must say I do not—we are one state. At any rate, in 1992 we shall be one state with Europe. We shall have one passport, and so on. As I have already said, I do not like it but it will happen and therefore we must get on with it. It seems moderately logical that when we are on the same longitude, so to speak, as the majority of central Europe, the question of harmonisation with Europe, as regards the time issue, is relatively logical. If it was latitude and you had time zones and so forth that would obviously be another matter. However, in this case it is not so. Therefore, for that reason—no doubt, noble Lords may well have others—this seems to be an opportunity for the Government to take on board the representations which have been made to them about seriously considering how far they can harmonise with Europe.
If we were to extend summer time by bringing forward the clock change from the end of March to the beginning of February, that would be sensible, because the shortest day, I believe, is 21st December. That is only six weeks after the clocks change at the end of October and yet, lo and behold, the clocks are not changed again until March, which is three months after the winter solstice. There is therefore an imbalance, which probably does not make sense. Perhaps that point could be looked at. It is a sensible opportunity to consider harmonising with Europe and adopting central European time.
The disadvantages rather than the advantages, must be brought out. I admit that there would be about six to eight weeks in the winter when it would be pretty dark in the morning. That we agree about. However, six to eight weeks during the course of the year is something with which we might come to live. We had an experiment some 20 years ago. We are talking about time, and time has moved on. That change may be something with which we could live which would not be intolerable.
It is not impossible to change times locally. Individual employers could change the time at which one starts work so that one could take advantage of the longer evenings. I shall take the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and impose a self-denying ordinance. I am conscious that those who live in the far north of Scotland will be opposed, root and branch, to any extension of summer time. I suspect that if they were given the option they would prefer to see what I call double Greenwich meantime and put the whole thing back an hour. The proposal would be opposed in Scotland. I understand that. I

743
find it difficult to reconcile the proposal with fairness to people who live in the far north.
Having said that, if it is found that it is to the benefit of the nation as a whole—I do not know whether it will be—to adopt central European time or a substantially extended summer time, one must question whether it is right for the wishes of a minority of the nation to supersede those of the majority. At the moment Scotland has different licensing hours. It will have a community charge before we do. It has different rules and regulations as regards the law and so forth. If they so wish, it may not be impossible for the Scots to have their own Scottish time. After all, they would only suffer the same inconvenience we suffer with our European counterparts.
7.23 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I rise not to express any view on the merits or demerits of summer time, but to pursue somewhat further the last point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; namely, the powers or vires under which the Commission made the directive which led to the order. In particular, I wish to ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government regard it as proper for the Commission to have made the directive under Article 100A as opposed to Article 100 which has been its justification in the past.
It would be hard to think of a drier or more boring point to raise until one appreciates that whereas under Article 100 a directive can only be made by a unanimous decision, under Article 100A a qualified majority suffices. To put it crudely, if Article 100A can properly be used for this purpose the United Kingdom and Ireland could be ordered by the rest of the Community to change to Continental time against their wishes. So this is more than being merely a lawyer's point.
In the past, the Commission's directives on summer time were laid under Article 100 which gave power to issue directives for the approximation of provisions of member states where such provisions directly affected the functioning of the common market. It was assumed that those words were wide enough to justify making directives as to summer time, although perhaps the fact that there had to be unanimity meant that no particularly great attention was paid to the question of vires. If one can object by voting one does not have to consider carefully whether the power is intra vires.
However, since the passing of the Single European Act, the Commission has new powers including that whereby only a qualified majority is required to approve a directive. The only thing one can say about Article 100A with total confidence is that what it means is unclear. It probably gives power to the Commission to adopt measures which have as their object the establishing and functioning of the internal market. Of course the internal market is something a great deal narrower than the common market.
It seems highly doubtful whether those narrower words where one has only the object rather than the assistance—the object of the internal market—can include the regulation of our times and our clocks.
744
No doubt the regulating of our times and clocks has some effect on trade. But It can hardly be said that a summer time order has, as its object, the functioning of the internal market. Nonetheless, on this occasion Her Majesty's Government seemingly did not raise the issue in Brussels. When it was raised by the select committee, their answer was that in instances where, in the past, Article 100 had been used, there would not usually be any real likelihood of successfully arguing that Article 100A was improper and, further, that the Commission was inclined to give a wide interpretation to Article 100A.
That answer could mean one or more of three things. First, it could mean that Her Majesty's Government regard Articles 100 and 100A as meaning the same thing. I suggest that it is plain that they do not. That is certainly the view of your Lordships' sub-committee E and its extremely learned chairman. Secondly, it could mean that Her Majesty's Government will defer to the Commission's interpretation, even when they doubt that it is correct. Thirdly, it could mean that there is no great point in arguing because the majority can outvote us whether or not the article applies. I hope that neither of the last two attitudes are those of Her Majesty's Government. Of course, even if outvoted, if the article does not apply, that is a matter they can challenge.
It is always important to be vigilant to ensure that there is a proper legal foundation for the Community's actions. It is especially so where the majority can make a decision against one's will. I therefore ask the Minister three questions. Does he agree that it is at least doubtful that Article 100A is appropriate? Secondly, does it remain open on future occasions for Her Majesty's Government to challenge the use of Article 100A for this purpose, even though they have succumbed to it on this occasion? Thirdly, will he give your Lordships an assurance that the Government will in future carefully scrutinise the use of the article and will challenge anything that appears to be an attempt to use it where it is not truly appropriate?
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, like most other noble Lords I am not particularly concerned with this order, which I am perfectly happy to support, but with what we are threatened with after 1989. The most ominous proposal is that GMT—Greenwich mean time—be permanently abandoned for all practical purposes and replaced by British summer time in the winter and double British summer time in the summer months.
A more potent receipe for stirring up the antagonisms which stem from the North-South divide can scarcely be imagined. It will be suspected that once again the affluent, urbanised, suburbanised, Eurocentric and Yuppie-infested South-East is bending the rules in its favour to the detriment of the poorer and more rural West Country, North of England and Celtic fringe, condemning the inhabitants of those regions to be deprived of daylight until 10 a.m. in mid-winter.
The alleged justification for such a change is to make life easier for British businessmen. But, my

745
Lords, just consider this for a moment: when it is 8 a.m. in New York it is 5 a.m. in Los Angeles; when it is 5 p.m. in Perth it is 7 p.m. in Sydney; when it is 12 noon in Nova Scotia it is 7.30 a.m. in Vancouver. If European businessmen cannot cope with three time zones when their American, Canadian and Antipodean counterparts can happily manage with five, six, or seven, then heaven help us.
It is in fact the obsessive harmonisers who are being provincial and out of touch with the world as it is in this matter and not those who prefer the status quo. It really is time that advocates of harmonisation took the geographical realities into account. The distance from Athens to Lisbon equates to the distance from New York City to Denver, Colorado, or to the distance from St. Louis, Missouri, to San Francisco. All six cities are on roughly the same latitude.
There is a two-hour time gap between each of the latter pairs, and so logically there must also be a two-hour time difference between Lisbon and Athens. Lisbon and Oporto are on roughly the same longitude as Cork and Galway, so clearly Ireland, both North and South, plus, I would contend, Scotland and Wales, come logically into the Portuguese time zone, particularly given their much darker winter mornings.
The other argument advanced for dispensing with Greenwich mean time is the road safety one. But in mid-winter it gets dark in the evenings earlier in Copenhagen than it does in Glasgow, and almost as early in Hamburg as it does in Liverpool; all this under the existing dispensation. If the road safety argument were valid then both Denmark and West Germany, to say nothing of East Germany, ought to put their clocks forward to the equivalent of double British summer time in the winter months. It is most significant that they have not felt it necessary so to do.
What about the October problem? October is more often than not a good month in Britain, especially the first half, but it is an even better month on the Continent except at the higher altitudes. Most of the Continent enjoys long, warm autumns, which is why hardwoods can be grown profitably in central Europe but not, by and large, in Britain. This being so, and assuming that to have identical dates for the beginning and end of summer time throughout Europe would be mildly useful, though by no means essential, then surely the right course now is to persuade the Continentals of the enormous benefits to their people of extending their summer time to the end of October rather than depriving the British people of their enjoyable October evenings, for which no government would be forgiven by the British people.
If the other EC countries are foolish enough to continue to deprive themselves of the benefits of light October evenings, thereby incidentally declining to bring their dates and ours into line, then I would suggest that we might as well take the opportunity to extend our own summer time to the first or second Sunday in November, a season when it can often be warm enough to play tennis, for example. This would have the incidental benefit of giving our poor, overworked exporters, or rather those exporters who export to Europe rather than to any other continent, an extra hour in bed for an extra fortnight each year.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, from the Written Answer to my Question on 12th April, to which my noble friend the Minister of State referred, it is clear that this order, besides continuing the present annual arrangement, looks forward to the three options that the Government set out in that reply for the future. The Government invite views on those options. I am glad to observe that none of the options is reviving British standard time, which was adopted for three years as an experiment, from 1968 to 1971. I would remind your Lordships that the clock was then put forward for one hour from Greenwich mean time and remained at that throughout the year.
My purpose in this short debate, where we are all subject to the clock, is simply to draw attention to what happened then and to express the hope that the Government will be extremely cautious about taking that course again. The decision whether to continue the experiment started in 1968 was taken after a debate in the other place, the Commons, on 2nd December 1970. In a free vote the result of the Division was overwhelming—366 against, to 81. Three hundred and sixty-six to 81! That debate was after two and a half years of experience of that experiment.
British standard time was of course especially difficult for northern and western regions of the country. For example, the agricultural and building industries found working in darkness in the mornings inconvenient and dangerous. As regards school children's safety, most of the concern related to the smaller children who do not stay at school all day, and return home by daylight under any system. With BST they were going to school in the dark in the mornings.
Time is short and I shall not enumerate and describe other objections and difficulties because the Commons Hansard of that debate of 2nd December 1970 can be read. There were many objections from Scotland but objections came also from northern and north-western areas of England and Wales. I should remind your Lordships that Scotland forms more than one-third of the land of the United Kingdom, and that it extends a long way north of the Border.
At the time of the experiment in the late 1960s my home was, as it still is, almost 600 miles north of London, so I have been in a good position to observe and share experiences of the experiment and of other systems. As I return home tomorrow, having flown south the evening before last, when I reach the Border I shall be only half-way. My home is where my constituency was, and I therefore remember how strongly my constituents were against what was happening during that time of the experiment. I cannot remember anyone in that area of my constituency nearby who was in favour of what was happening.
The history of the Bill which introduced BST is worth recalling. When it appeared first in this House in late 1967 it was not proposing an experiment but a once-for-all change. When it moved to the other place I and my Scottish honourable friends, with others, voted against the Second Reading. During its passage we managed to achieve the vital alteration

747
conceded by the government of the day to make it a three-year experiment only. The sequel I have already described—a massive majority in the Commons not to continue the experiment or make it permanent.
The Members of Parliament who voted in that 366 came from most parts of the United Kingdom. They were not simply Members from the North or North-West, and they were from all parties. I cannot go into it now. If I may sum it up in one sentence, I believe that in a free vote Members of Parliament representing southern constituencies found that their constituents did not care very much one way or the other, but they were conscious that their friends in all parties, Members representing areas north and west, found that their constituents did feel very strongly. That, therefore, is my explanation briefly for the huge vote.
Of course, things have changed in nearly 20 years, although the rising and setting of the sun did not perceptibly change in that period. Since then we have joined the European Community. I claim to be an ardent European. There is no time now for me to do more than point out that I was in the Shadow Cabinet and the Cabinet which took the United Kingdom into the EC in January 1973 and was greatly involved in the drive and the work needed to attain that. I have since been identified with moves towards a closer European Community.
However, do we need to have complete synchronisation of time systems with the rest of the EC? The United States is a single market but it retains different time zones. I hope that the Government will look at what happens across the Atlantic. I certainly would not want to make life any more difficult for British industry and commerce, but the Americans do not seem to find it difficult to have times that are different within their own country.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is so courteous and charming, and indeed disarming, that he almost had me believing him when he said that this was an uncontroversial measure. I think he has probably already discovered that there can be a good deal of controversy about it. But, as it stands, I agree that the little order we have before us is quite innocuous, although the implications are indeed very wide and serious.
I do not intend to go into the merits or otherwise of the various options for altering or retaining our present system of times. I have to declare that in 1970 I was one of the 81 who voted for the retention of the experiment. Although I could not quite accept them, I understood the arguments which were made, particularly by colleagues in Scotland and in the north of England.
I am concerned about the use of Article 100A. I see that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington is here; he led the Labour attack on the Single European Act. Those who took part in that debate will remember that we tried to point out to the House that this could be a Trojan horse which would remove from Parliament the sovereignty which it has enjoyed in the past and should continue to enjoy in the future.
748
However, we were overruled. We were assured that there was nothing in the Single European Act which would in any way detract from the sovereignty of Her Majesty and of her Parliament. We were assured by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that there was no loss of sovereignty involved in the passing of the Single European Act. It had only to do with the single market.
I was accused of unnecessarily stirring up worry and trouble. But it seems that we had a point because it is the Commission that has the duty and power to propose things and we now find the Commission proposing under Article 100A to impose whatever time they feel will be necessary, not only on this country but on other countries of Europe as well.
This may seem to be unimportant, although, as we have heard this evening, many people think that the sort of time we have in the United Kingdom is very important indeed. But if the Commission can use Article 100A for time on the pretext that it has to do with the operation of the single market, what other items might they put through under that provision? For example, could they not say that because British pensions, and therefore the contributions of employers to pensions, are lower than the average in the Common Market, we should alter our arrangements under Article 100A because they distort competition?
The list of things that could be pushed through under Article 100A is enormous. That is why it is vitally important that on this little issue we should establish the ground rules. The Guardian yesterday carried an article by David Hencke on fears that the EEC single market will be used as a Trojan horse to cut Westminster control over social policies. But in that article the writer says that the Home Office appears to have been in a mess over the EEC decision to harmonise summer time by 1990. Home Office staff, unused to the Brussels small print, failed to note that the time changes were introduced under the internal market procedure under which Britain loses its veto. I find it very hard to believe that the Home Office did not know exactly what they were doing. If they did not know what they were doing, it seems to me that they have failed in their duty to the Government and the Minister.
I believe that the single market will be against this country's interests anyway. But I am quite convinced that there will be many more people agreeing with me who will express their fears of the operation of the single market if they believe that Article 100A provides not for a British veto but for a qualified majority in all things. They will be very, very concerned as to what the future holds. I do not believe that people in this House and in another place want to cede to a bureaucracy in Brussels social and economic matters over which this country alone should have control.
We have already lost the British passport. Many people do not understand that, but we have lost it, make no mistake about it. I know that 107 Members in another place have signed an Early Day Motion asking for retention of the passport, but I am afraid that the horse has bolted. They are trying to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. So far as I am concerned, I am not a citizen of Europe; I hope I never shall be. I owe allegiance only to Her Majesty,

749
make no mistake about that. I hope that people will remember that in future when they are passing legislation in this House and in another place.
I hope that the noble Earl will be able to assure the House and me that, with everything they have, the Government will fight this incursion—because that is what I believe it is—by the Commission into British sovereignty. It is assurance we want, not only about British summer time but about everything else. That is the major issue which is before us.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, of which I have the honour to be president, mounted a campaign for permanent British standard time. RoSPA's case for the introduction of British standard time relates solely to the road safety benefits. The Government Transport and Road Research Laboratory predicts that 580 lives would be saved and serious injuries avoided if British standard time were introduced in the country. This is based on the results of the 1968–71 study, which showed that 1,340 deaths and serious injuries were avoided each year. The figure has to be corrected to take into account changes in traffic flow, vehicle design, improvement in road lighting, and so on. The main benefits come in the evening when the lighter evenings favour the road user returning home. Since 1971 there has been a whole range of unfounded stories suggesting that the experiment be dropped for safety reasons, yet the statistics show the positive benefit for road safety, and the opinion polls show that most people liked it.
The Home Secretary put forward three possible courses of action. First, keeping the present system would continue the needless loss of life and limb on our roads—580 every year. Secondly RoSPA estimates that harmonising the beginning and ending of British standard time with our EC partners would increase the number of deaths and seriously injured by 100. Thirdly, introducing double standard time, though not specifically asked for by RoSPA, would incorporate the British standard time benefits.
RoSPA launched a campaign earlier this year for the introduction of British standard time, and the support has been phenomenal. I ask noble Lords to read RoSPA's pamphlet Light Saves Lives. It clearly explains the facts, and outlines the response and support that RoSPA has so far received.
I urge the Home Secretary as a matter of urgency to introduce measures that incorporate these road safety benefits. Every year at least 580 people would have reason to be grateful to him.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I think that we are all grateful that the order gives us the opportunity to discuss this matter (which was last considered some 15 to 20 years ago) because there have been major economic and social changes in that period which I believe strongly reinforce the case for an extension of the existing period of summer time.
First, many elderly people, particularly in urban areas, are fearful of being out of doors after dark because of the rising incidence of mugging and rape.
750
When the clocks go back in October, a curfew on their activities effectively descends at 4 p.m. A further hour's daylight in the evening would markedly improve their social life. I suggest that that is far from being of benefit to urban yuppies only.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, in regard to accidents. There are of course many more cars on the road. Statistics show clearly that more people are killed in the evening rush hour when drivers are more tired, when traffic densities are greater and, frankly, when there is more alcohol in people's blood.
I am very persuaded by the figures of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. A saving of between 500 and 600 lives is a considerable one. I remind your Lordships of the public interest and concern about the massacre in Hungerford and the Zeebrugge disaster; yet, in this instance, we are talking of a saving of double that number of lives every year. That is an important consideration.
I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Leisure patterns have changed, and the working week is shorter. People would welcome the chance of getting home in daylight to work in the garden and to play golf or other outdoor sports.
As well as the social reasons, there are the economic reasons. The economy would benefit markedly. Surveys by the Rural Development Commission and others show not only a preference for lighter evenings but that, because economic activity levels would be higher, more jobs would be created. Not least, it would extend the tourist season and improve vacancy ratios for the whole tourist industry. Business overall would benefit. Now that we are in the EC, harmonising our working patterns must at least be a sensible option. So there are cogent social and economic reasons for extending BST. Indeed, these positive reasons apply equally to those who have the good fortune to live in Scotland.
In view of the great interest shown in the matter, perhaps I may suggest that the Government find the opportunity for the House to debate the matter at greater length.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in a debate of this character involving as it does the position of Greenwich mean time, I almost feel that I should declare an interest. However, given the fact that I am not a passionate adherent of GMT, it is probably less necessary that I should do so.
In view of some of the arguments deployed not only in this House but in another place and in the press in the last few weeks, it is perhaps instructive to look briefly at the history of the issue. As many in the House will be aware, Greenwich mean time was accepted as a common time system for Great Britain late in the last century. The first Bills introduced into Parliament to reform the system—by moving the clock forward in the summer months—were introduced in 1908 and 1909 by William Willett. However, as a result of our invincible conservatism, progress was blocked. The arguments used against Mr. Willett were that people would be encouraged to stay in bed in the mornings, that children would be

751
kept up later at night and that it would dislocate traffic between the United Kingdom and Europe.
Without the First World War, it is probable that nothing would have changed. In 1916, however, Germany and some other continental powers introduced daylight saving in summer months; and, of course, within a few months we had decided to follow suit. The argument then was that an extra hour of daylight in the evenings would save gas, electricity and oil and thus help the war effort. Since then, of course, we have had some form of daylight saving every year.
As the Government made clear in the consultation document, the issue before Parliament is now a very different one. I think that this debate has demonstrated that, if nothing else. As we know, the European Commission will be putting forward its own proposals on the arrangements in the Community for summer time from 1990 onwards. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will not be astonished to learn, I do not entertain the same dark suspicions of the European Commission as he does. Apart from that, however, as the Government's consultation document has pointed out, there is a growing volume of support in the country for more summer time in the United Kingdom.
I do not propose to rehearse the various options which have been set out in the consultation document. That was done briefly and accurately as always by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, I must make it clear that I do not consider the maintenance of the present position, with minor modifications, to be a desirable choice. At present we introduce summer time at the same time as our partners in the Community. This year, however, as in previous years, we end summer time at a different moment from the rest of the Community: 29th October for us; 24th September for other member states.
I know that many people with businesses closely involved with the Community want to harmonise with the rest of Europe. So do I. The effect of tinkering with the system in this way, however, would be to reduce the amount of daylight in the evening for a period of four weeks every year. I believe that the majority of people in the country would not find that acceptable. I certainly would not.
As in 1971, I have little doubt, as the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, said, that some farmers and many people in Scotland—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also dealt with this matter—are opposed to more dramatic change. I think that there is a strong argument in favour of more dramatic change. It is a question of judgment but I believe that the majority of people in this country would support that approach.
The option which I favour and which is set out in the consultation document is single summer time during the winter and double summer time during the summer; in other words, an additional hour of daylight in the evenings throughout the year. I do not doubt that such an approach would be opposed fiercely by many people. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was right to indicate some of those who would be passionately opposed. However, I believe that a case for that approach is overwhelming.
752
First, the changeover date could, in those circumstances, be brought forward to September, thus ensuring harmonisation with our partners in the Community without the loss of four weeks of daylight in the evenings. Even more important, it would mean that British time would be the same as that of every other country in the Community, with the exception of Greece. What sort of sense does it make to choose deliberately to retain different time zones as we approach the major challenges and opportunities that will arise in 1992?
Secondly, there is the unambiguous evidence as regards road casualties, which the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, touched on a moment ago in the light of his substantial experience with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. No one has sought to challenge those figures. As the noble Lord said, 580 deaths and serious injuries can be related directly to this issue every year. That is a formidable number. The obvious reason is that in the mornings people go directly to work and school. Drivers are sober and refreshed. The same is clearly not always the case in the evening.
Thirdly, there is the issue of crime which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. Dr. Mayer Hillman of the Policy Studies Institute, in his important report on the summer time issue, thought that lighter evenings could lead to some reduction in the number of burglaries. That may or may not be true. Even more significant would be the improvement that that would represent for those who now fear going out in the dark. Many thousands of elderly people find it far too intimidating to leave their homes in the evening. Many of them are even fearful of coming to answer the door after dark. Anyone who has been involved in election campaigning knows that to be true. Although I would not ascribe any single view to a particular body of people, I have found that a number of police officers with experience in the field of crime prevention share that view.
A case for change along the lines which I have suggested and which the Government have set out in the consultation paper would significantly improve the quality of life for many people. It would increase opportunities for outdoor sporting and after-work leisure activities. It would be of great benefit to trade, travel and communications. As I have indicated, I am well aware of the anxieties of many people in Scotland and of some people in the farming industry. I understand their concern. However, I do not share it.
We have an opportunity here both to enhance the quality of life for many of our citizens and to end a system which has imposed a thoroughly undesirable burden on Britain in the European Community. I believe that it is time to change.
8.5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was very courteous in his remarks to me. He chided me for saying that the order was uncontroversial, as though I had said something terrible. He then capped that by saying that he agreed that the order was innocuous. I liked that change of stance within about 30 seconds!

753
What I actually said was that the order is uncontroversial in so far as it applies the existing system for determining summer time to 1989. I accept that there are many other problems that can lead to great controversy. We have heard of them this evening. The order permits the continuation of the present system for another year. What happens thereafter is a matter for determination and consultation. That is what we intend to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said at one juncture that the Home Office did not know what it was doing. He referred to the Guardian article. The noble Lord should not take such note of everything that appears in the newspapers. The article was not correct. There is no directive or decision to harmonise summer time by 1990. The only directive is the one which we are discussing this evening—the fourth directive—which extends the status quo to 1989.
I heard with interest the expression of a variety of different views on what the final result should be. The fixing of summer time, in whatever way it may transpire, is almost as controversial as trying to fix Easter. However, we have undertaken a pilot study of views, and we are now undertaking a much broader study and consultation with a variety of different interests in order to find what the general view is. I dare say that no single view will emerge.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether I could guarantee that economic considerations would not be the only ones to be taken into account. I can assure him that all considerations will be taken into account. Even if only economic considerations were of interest to the Government, I have no doubt that the views which will be put forward will include all views, both economic and others.
I do not propose to follow the arguments about the virtues of one system or another. That is for another day. However, anyone can give views on the options to any department or to the Home Office. After the survey is complete, the Government are likely to issue some form of consultation document stating what change is called for, if change there is to be, and there will again be an opportunity for comment.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, gave the House his fairly pungent views on the European Community. He said that he considered that the order was the thin end of the wedge and he wished to ensure that the Government would fight the intrusion of the EC into the affairs of Great Britain. I know that the noble Lord will not expect me to go along with him. He has views which are respected. However, we consider this country to be an important and leading member of the European Community. We are part of the Community. We wish to make sure that it succeeds. We take the interests of Great Britain into account in all our deliberations—
Lord Bruce of Donington: I hope so!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, did the noble Lord make an intervention?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I ventured to say, by way of observation to the noble Lord, the words, "I hope so".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is exactly what I thought that the noble Lord said. I was rather surprised that he said it. In fact, we do and we will. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, as also did the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe (who conducted his speech with reference to that point), and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to the use of Article 100A. That is an important point. They asked whether Article 100A was a suitable treaty base for the fourth directive.
I think that it might be helpful if I were to put the order into its proper European context because it is a matter of some concern to your Lordships. The Community has long recognised that different summer time dates in different countries can cause difficulties, especially for transport and telecommunications. For that reason the recital to the first directive of 22nd July 1980 made it clear that its objective was to facilitate transport and telecommunications between member states.
The first three directives were produced under Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome. That article provides for the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal of the European Commission, to issue directives for the approximation of laws, regulations or administrative action in member states which directly affect the establishment of the Common Market.
The common starting date for summer time throughout the Community is now accepted; but the United Kingdom and Ireland, through a derogation in successive directives, has continued to end summer time a month later than the rest of Europe.
The Commission put forward proposals for a fourth directive late in 1987, with Article 100A as its legal base. This enables the Council to adopt measures by qualified majority which have the establishment and functioning of the internal market as their object. But since the Commission started the ball rolling rather late in the day, and the Article 100A procedure is more lengthy than the old Article 100 procedure, the Commission decided to prolong the present system for another year, with the continuing derogation for the United Kingdom and Ireland.
This continuation was entirely acceptable to us; but I realise that some noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, are concerned about the principle of use of Article 100A for the fourth summer time directive.
When we were negotiating with the Commission in late 1987, we considered, but did not enter an objection to, the vires of Article 100A. Our main concern was the policy issue—in other words, when summer time was going to end in 1989—and we were satisfied that the fourth directive achieved our aim with its derogation for the United Kingdom. We take the view, however, that this does not preclude our challenging the vires of Article 100A for any future directive on summer time. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, specifically asked me about that.
I should perhaps add that the choice of which article of the treaty is appropriate is essentially a matter for the Commission. It can be amended only by the unanimous vote of the Council or by successful challenge in the European Court. I would not wish to mislead your Lordships by implying that a challenge

755
to the vires of the treaty base would be appropriate or successful. What I can say is that we shall continue to consider future proposals for directives in the light of opinions expressed on this occasion to ensure that the vires of Article 100A is not exceeded.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Earl proceeds to another point, and without asking him for a categorical assurance today because that may not be fair, I should like to ask whether he will undertake to report to his right honourable friends in the Home Office and in other appropriate departments the concern that was expressed in regard to Article 100A being used on this occasion. Will they consider the possibility that it may be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to put on record that the fact that they have assented to the directive does not mean that they are accepting that it is a proper use of Article 100A and its powers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is always fair. He was kind enough not to ask for an immediate response. However, he will receive an immediate response in so far as I shall of course ensure that the concern which has been expressed today is conveyed to my right honourable friend. I would tell him that it has been put on record by what I have said that although we accept the use of Article 100A on this occasion, that does not mean that we shall not on future occasions challenge the use of Article 100A if we think it necessary.
I hope that your Lordships will not think it impolite of me if I do not refer to some of the many options which have been suggested for the future, because the future is in the future. The present order continues the existing system for another 12 months, and I hope that it will have the approval of your Lordships.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, will the noble Earl give the House an assurance that the interests of Scotland will be carefully considered in his forthcoming examination?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the interests of Scotland are always carefully examined and will continue to be.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, asked whether we could have a debate on this subject. Did the noble Earl answer that point?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only answer that question with the leave of the House because I think that I have already made more than my fair share of speeches. I did not answer that point. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is quite right. It is of course a matter for the usual channels. My noble friend may put down an Unstarred Question if he wishes. However, I think that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter after we have completed our consultation, accepted views and put forward our proposals. I think that would be the best time for a debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Reform Bill
8.12 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 4.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 72.
Page 3, line 38, at end insert ("having regard, in the case of assessment arrangements for pupils in the last key stage, to the requirements of the General Certificate of Secondary Education.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 72 is about the GCSE. I hope that we can deal with it very briefly. The noble Baroness will remember that I asked her a question about the GCSE. She was extremely reassuring about the Government's determination that the GCSE would be a success. I should like some clarification.
As I understand it, the Bill provides for assessment procedures for the final stage and yet at the same time pupils will be taking the GCSE. I should like to hear a little about the relationship between the assessment procedures and the GCSE. Will they be separate or somehow co-ordinated? Any further points she has to make about GCSE will be most welcome. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: We have indeed already touched upon this subject today. The task group recommended that at the last key stage—age 16—there should be no immediate change to GCSE to fit the national assessment arrangements, but that the GCSE criterion syllabuses would in due course be revised as appropriate to incorporate the 16-plus attainment targets and programmes of study. The nature of the revisions required would only become clear following the development and implementation of the national curriculum and assessment at the younger ages. The task group also considered that when a pupil was not studying a subject to GCSE level, he or she could be assessed against less demanding attainment targets. So they will indeed be separate.
The subject working groups which are developing recommendations on the attainment targets, programmes of study and related assessment arrangements for all the foundation subjects will consider the interface with GCSE and make recommendations which will be subject to public consultation before the Government reach conclusions on them. In view of this explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel satisfied.
Baroness David: I should like to ask the noble Baroness a question about the timescale. There will be other possibilities of targets, tests, or whatever you like to call them, at age 16 as well as GCSE. Will the GCSE eventually be phased out in favour of the rest? Can she tell us the number of years before we can expect some changes?
Baroness Hooper: We discussed this matter in some detail during debate on the national curriculum at the beginning of the week. It may reassure the noble Baroness if I say that the GCSE is and will remain central to our plans for raising standards in schools. We intend the GCSE to form the basis of assessing most pupils against national curriculum attainment targets at age 16, but the foundation subjects of the

757
national curriculum will be phased in over a period, starting with the core subjects. I cannot give the Committee the ultimate limit.
Earl Russell: I should like to say a few words in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I speak personally on this issue because I have a son who is studying for the GCSE. One of the loudest snorts of contempt that I have ever heard him utter came when I quoted to him the recent observation of the Secretary of State that the GCSE was the best prepared examination in history. It represents a very considerable burden of work. The course work has proved to be much heavier than expected. That does no harm. If, however, I were to exert my parental influence and try to get my son at the same time to take seriously a large number of tests in other subjects in which he is not interested, it might prove beyond my powers.
I accept and welcome the remarks of the noble Baroness about thought being given to this matter but once again the Committee is asked to buy a pig in a poke. It is not being given an adequate basis on which to make a judgment. The noble Baroness says she will take thought of it, but in times gone by—indeed, even at the present day—one knows what is meant when the Sovereign says, "The King will take thought of it". It means that this Bill is not ready to pass.
Lord Peston: I hope we shall continue to keep up our efforts on the GCSE. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): I have to announce that if Amendment No. 76 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 77 and 78.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 3, line 46, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment when we discussed the group of amendments starting with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 79 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 4, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Before making an order under subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall give notice of the proposal—

(a) to such associations of local education authorities, bodies representing the interests of school governing bodies and organisations representing school teachers as appear to him to be concerned: and

(b) to any other persons with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable,

and afford them a reasonable opportunity of submitting evidence and representations as to the issues arising.").
The noble Lord said: I wish merely to expand upon some remarks I made earlier; I do not wish to speak at great length. The amendment refers to consultation by the Secretary of State. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has mentioned the
758
matter but I do not remember the exact words and a copy of Hansard is not yet to hand.
I believe that any sensible Secretary of State would want to consult the LEAs, bodies representing school governors and, most certainly, teachers. This discussion gives me a chance to say something about the teachers and to reinforce what my noble friend Lady Blackstone has said. There will be a major change in the educational system of our country whatever happens. We all agree that the teachers are essential to this change; we all agree too, I believe, that at the moment the morale of teachers is too low and needs to be raised. That is for the other side of the Committee—the Government—to do. There is not much that we on this side can do. I want particularly to emphasise the need to take teachers' views into consideration.
I remember the old days. Any suggestion that such consultation should take place is quite different from saying that one has to do what those bodies say. In other words, the Government must decide and act. I believe that a sensible Secretary of State would want to consult anyway. However, to be on the safe side—at some time there might be a Secretary of State who is not very sensible—I should like to see that duty written explicitly into the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The amendment relates to consultation on orders made under Clause 4. On all orders establishing or amending attainment targets and programmes of study, consultation is already required in a way which goes well beyond that contained in Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill. We have been referring to the Task Group on Assessment and Testing and indeed the task group did not deal with the question of consultation on the specific assessment and testing arrangements and instruments to be adopted under the new system. But we do not consider it necessary to provide for statutory consultation on orders establishing assessment arrangements for the foundation subjects for a number of reasons.
First, the main aspect of assessment on which public debates are needed—its role as part of the national curriculum, the age points at which it should generally be applied and the establishment of SEAC as the body charged with securing quality control in this area—is being debated on the primary legislation. Secondly, I suggest that only such purely mechanical aspects of assessment arrangements as the commissioning, trialling and storage of tests could be regarded as free-standing. In the main these arrangements will have to follow from the attainment targets and programmes of study, orders relating to which will be subject to full consultation on Clauses 13 and 14.
It could hardly be said that we plan to decide on the assessment arrangements without consulting the wishes and opinions of the public and informed educationists. As I indicated, the TGAT report published last January proposed a coherent national assessment system which has been the subject of wide public debate. The Government will take into account the views expressed in that debate before reaching their own conclusions on the report and on the group's further advice. Again, as I have indicated, it will be for the subject working groups to make

759
recommendations about attainment targets and programmes of study and the assessment arrangements appropriate to them. Those recommendations will also be the subject of formal public consultation before any decisions are made on them.
In these circumstances I can see no need for formal consultation on orders which will be made to give effect to matters already fully debated and to a large extent consulted upon in other contexts. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: Before doing so, can the noble Baroness clarify this point? In the areas where the Secretary of State will consult, will he make it known, positively, to interested parties that their views are desired; or will the interested parties take it for granted that the initiative must lie on their side? Will consultation mean a positive statement, such as "I should like you to tell me what you think"; or the negative approach, "If you have anything to tell me, come and tell me."? Have I made myself clear?
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps it is not entirely clear. Where formal consultation is required, obviously consultation will be requested. Otherwise, it is open for anybody to come forward and to contribute.
Lord Peston: With that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Courses leading to external qualifications]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 4, line 23, after ("means") insert ("recognised by the Secretary of State at the date of the passing of this Act for the purpose of authenticating the General Certificate of Secondary Education qualification, or").
The noble Baroness said: I am hoping that the reply we had earlier to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the General Certificate of Secondary Education means that I shall receive a satisfactory reply to this amendment.
The amendment deals with the clause which provides for the Secretary of State to decide what may or may not be taught, and what may be recognised as an objective for a course. It should include specifically recognition by the Secretary of State of those examinations already accepted for the GCSE.
The objective of this amendment is to make it quite clear that all the work that has been done to get the General Certificate of Secondary Education off the ground and to establish standards and examinations for it, will be accepted and incorporated into the new proposals. It will be a frightful waste of time and effort if all that work is then again to be re-examined and questioned.
Are we to understand that where programmes for GCSE have been accepted, they will be accepted by
760
the Secretary of State? To make this clear, this should be incorporated into the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: This amendment would make each of the five independent GCSE examining groups a designated body, empowered to give statutory approval to qualifications and syllabuses. The intention, presumably, is to enable each examining group to approve its own qualifications and syllabuses. But this would completely undermine the objective of national quality control of independent scrutiny and approval. This national oversight of the system is a key element of the existing, voluntary arrangements under the Secondary Examinations Council, and it forms an essential basis for the statutory arangements now envisaged. The five GCSE examining groups in England and Wales bring experience of GCE and CSE examinng and longstanding reputations for high standards. But it is nevertheless essential to have an independent guarantee of the standards across those five separate groups from a national perspective. The current voluntary arrangements do not provide that guarantee. That is why these provisions are in the Bill.
Earl Russell: I must confess that I listened to that reply with some misgivings. The effect of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, would make it impossible for the Secretary of State arbitrarily to abolish the examining of a subject.
We suppose that the Secretary of State did not have that intention; and that it was necessary simply to receive such an assurance. We have not received that assurance. I agree that it is necessary that the list of subjects should from time to time change. However, that decision should be taken properly by professionally qualified people. We do not believe that the Secretary of State is one among their number. The power to decree by order that this subject shall not be taught is a power to which we do not feel happy to agree.
Baroness Hooper: The case for effective national approval is supported by experience. Under the O-level and CSE, the examining boards approved over 25,000 syllabuses for use in schools. With GCSE they have currently produced many fewer—just under 2,000—but the number is growing. The GCSE examining groups were directly responsible for approving some 900 of these, the Mode 2 and 3 syllabuses. SEC has now scrutinised nearly half of the 900 approved by the groups and so far, I understand, has found only 19 that come up to standard. That evidence, I submit, points sharply to the need for effective national approval with teeth.
Earl Russell: The discussion is about the powers of the Secretary of State. This has not been answered.
Baroness Hooper: I believe that I have made statements showing the need for a national system which obviously implies that it is the Secretary of State who will be involved.
Baroness Seear: I find the answer extremely unsatisfactory once again. However, I shall read

761
what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("(4) Where sufficient parental demand exists in any maintained school for tuition towards the qualification of a designated body, it shall be incumbent upon the governing body, the head teacher and, where appropriate, the Local Education Authority, to satisfy that demand.").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 83, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 152.
Baroness Hooper: I apologise to the noble Baroness for intervening. My 8.mderstanding is that in speaking to Amendment No. 83 she would also speak to Amendments Nos. 143 to 152.
Baroness David: That was also my grouping.
Baroness Cox: I am very happy that my remarks may be taken as relevant to that wider range of amendments.
My concern relates to the provisions in Clause 5 which give the Secretary of State the right of veto over any public examination that may be taken by pupils up to the age of 16 at any maintained school.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, earlier accused members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber of not being sufficiently concerned with what he regarded as rather dirigiste aspects of some of the proposals in this Bill. I would argue that some of these dirigiste provisions have been necessary in order to correct some of the very real problems that currently exist in our education system. However, I believe that the measure in Clause 5 is an example of dirigisme which is not necessary and which would be harmful to parents and teachers, because the provision to be provided in Clause 5 would give power to a Secretary of State that has never been held before.
At present the public examinations have no mandatory basis. The old GCE O-level, and before that the school certificate, developed by consent between universities, the examining boards, schools, teachers and parents and employers. However, there was always the opportunity of taking different examinations in schools in England and Wales. For example, pupils could enter for City and Guilds, Royal Society of Arts or Scottish O-levels. However, under Clause 5 such a range of examinations may be taken only with the consent of the Secretary of State. I would argue that this is an unnecessary and an undesirable potential restriction.
I also argue that it is especially timely—and is made especially relevant at the present moment—because of growing dissatisfaction with the current GCSE and especially with some syllabuses within the GCSE. For example, the history syllabus of the Southern Examination Board, some would say, is hardly history. Indeed, concern is expressed by teachers and parents for the growing emphasis on empathy rather than knowledge. One question in a trial paper asked pupils to pact
762
themselves in the shoes of the PLO and to justify the PLO murders of Israeli athletes at Munich; and of the TWA hijacking and the subsequent murders associated with that. Alternatively, some of the literature to be studied in some English literature syllabuses is thought by some teachers and parents to be of rather poor quality—perhaps even verging on some kind of modern pornography.
Another cause for concern expressed by many teachers is the high proportion of course work compared with assessed work at the end of the two-year study. For example, in some schools it is possible to obtain one's GCSE with 100 per cent. of the marks being achieved through course work at the school over the previous two years, with no examinations being set at all. That is despite the stated intention of the Government at the time when the GCSE was originally set up that course work would on the whole not account for more than 20 per cent. of final marks. In many schools it is now possible for subjects such as English language and English literature to be achieved by 100 per cent. of course work.
At present parents, teachers and those concerned can threaten to turn to other examining boards, other syllabuses or even to another examination altogether. Indeed, they have the freedom to carry out such a threat and to choose to take other exams. The obvious choice is Scottish O-levels or perhaps to attempt to continue with GCE O-levels, given that the London Examining Board and possibly others will still be offering O-levels to overseas students or to individuals. One might ask: why not allow home students to take O-levels if they want to? Why not even allow other new exam boards to establish themselves if they seem to meet a need?
However, even with the present freedom that we ostensibly have the situation is sometimes fraught with problems. For example, Members of the Committee may have read in newspapers of the courageous teachers of Lewes, in Sussex, who were profoundly disturbed by the history syllabus. But when they wanted to teach instead for the alternative Scottish examinations they were banned from discussing with parents even the possibility of providing these alternatives. They were not allowed to do so on school premises; they had to meet on the pavements to talk to parents about alternative exams. They were accused of insubordination, threatened with disciplinary action and possibly dismissal for raising the question of alternative exams.
Lord Joseph: Will my noble friend allow me to say that I do not think any such ban came from the Government? It was from the governors. Is that correct?
Baroness Cox: Absolutely correct. I am grateful to my noble friend. I was just about to point out that this indeed came from the head, I understand, with the backing of the governing body. That was the source of the prohibition. The teachers felt that they were living in East Germany rather than in East Sussex. They were also forced to offer an alternative history course for the Scottish O-grade, which they felt a commitment to do; but they had to offer it off the schools premises in their own free time as well as teaching for the GCSE in school. Perhaps it is worth

763
noting that the alternative exam is so popular with the parents and pupils that more than 40 of this year's fifth-year pupils are taking it and another 40 of the fourth-year pupils are involved in preparing for that alternative examination next year.
I give that example because it shows the kind of problems that could arise should this legislation in future preclude freedom for parents and teachers to offer a range of examinations if they are not happy with those which are currently provided or which might be approved. I argue that my amendment would strike an appropriate balance between parents' and pupils' interests and the role of central government.
I turn very briefly to the provisions in Clause 17. Our concern is that the clause would give the Secretary of State power to extend similar powers of direction concerning examinations to pupils beyond the age of 16. What it means in practice is that the Secretary of State would be able to direct the same for GCE A-levels; for example, permitting only A-levels and nothing else. But there are alternative examinations which students might wish to choose, most notably the international baccalaureate. That is already taken by pupils at Sevenoaks school and is accepted by Oxford and Cambridge as an equivalent to A-levels for university entrance. I submit that those provisions in Clause 17 should either be deleted or should be modified in the form of the amendment which I put before the Committee for consideration to permit freedom for alternative examinations.
I hope therefore that my noble friend the Minister will agree to consider these points, which are designed to allow flexibility for schools and colleges to enter pupils and students for as diverse a range of examinations as are appropriate for them as individuals and for local needs and requirements. I hope, also, that the provisions will ensure that the designated list will be as wide as possible, again to allow as much freedom as possible for young people to develop their interests and attain as wide a range of qualifications as they wish and which might be appropriate for them.
I see no justification for the provisions as they stand in the Bill at present. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness has put the case very clearly. She has generalised on a particular case in Sussex. It seems to me that if such an occurrence is possible the Government should try to ensure that there cannot be room for it. It is extraordinary to think that there is any school where it is not possible at least to contemplate taking a different examination, although it depends how it works out. If a large number of pupils in the school want to take a different examination it is probably possible to do it quite cost-effectively. However, if only one or two are concerned it could cause extra cost and one may have to think whether there is perhaps a way for parents to meet the cost of the entrance to the exam, which was what happened in the authority where I was involved in Scotland.
I believe that the Government should consider the possibility of making sure that such an eventuality
764
cannot arise. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Joseph pointed out that it was the governors who prevented the action and not the local authority. That is a very important point because it makes the whole difference to the case. I hope the Government will consider this to see whether they can do anything to improve the situation.
Lord Young of Dartington: I should like to support Amendment No. 83. It seems to me that the criticisms that have been made from many quarters about the dirigism which underlies so much of this Bill would be tempered in a tiny, featherlight way if the amendment were taken on board by the Government. The wording may not be suitable but one would hope that the general intent of the amendment might be taken up and incorporated sensibly into the final structure of the Bill.
There is a new trend in the secondary school system which speaks in favour of the amendment and which is perhaps worth mentioning. It is the increasing use being made in schools of open learning material on Open University lines, but at a different level. These methods are being used in many schools which do not have a full complement of teachers to cover the full range of subjects that may be in demand in those schools. That certainly will be the case when the national curriculum comes into existence. Many schools will not have the right complement of teachers, which may give a new and important place to open learning methods which enable children to study in the school under the supervision of a teacher who is not necessarily the subject teacher for the subject they are taking, but can effectively, as experience has shown, supervise the work of individual children or a group of children.
That will mean that any school can have a much wider range of choice about both the subjects taken and the examinations to which those subjects will lead. The Royal Society of Arts has been mentioned. The City and Guilds can also be appropriate in other circumstances, and so can Scottish qualifications. Such a system would allow for considerable variation in methods of learning and the approach to different subjects which can be taken within the one school. But if it were to be laid down that all the children, including minorities, should follow the course which leads to only one examination, with the examinations of perhaps only one or two boards, this new type of freedom which a new kind of technology of learning is making available would not be there and people would not be able to take advantage of it.
In view of that, and of the opening up which could occur with the use of open-learning materials, it would be appropriate that similar measures to those proposed should be incorporated in the final legislation. It would be a tiny tilting of the balance towards freedom in schools which many fear will be largely circumscribed by the general tenor of the Bill when it becomes an Act. I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider seriously what lies behind the amendment and will do their best to come to terms with it.
Lord Joseph: The Committee may be surprised to find that, as the person notoriously responsible for introducing the GCSE, I rise to support my noble

765
friend's amendment. I am proud of having introduced the GCSE. I believe that I can take the credit for inventing the ingredients of differentiation and the accompanying grade criteria which I hope will be introduced before too long. I am proud of introducing those concepts into what had been widely canvassed as an examination form. I am particularly proud because I believe that in that way the examination can be used to stretch pupils of every ability.
Nevertheless, I recognise the worry that has emerged, particularly in industry, as a result of the specimen papers—and they were only specimen papers. I am not anxious that the GCSE should be protected by anything approaching a monopoly. I recognise that the Bill falls far short of giving a monopoly to the GCSE but, who knows? it may not be as good as we hope it will be.
I should like to remove the misconception about empathy, for instance. The idea—which I strongly supported—of introducing empathy was precisely in order that pupils should learn to realise how much our forefathers lived in a world where immortality, for instance, was largely accepted. It was far more widely accepted than now. I wanted pupils to understand that, for instance, in the past there was a widespread belief in hell. It was possibly more widespread than today. I wanted pupils to appreciate that our forefathers lived in a climate of perception very different from today. I now find that what appeared to me to be a broadening and deepening idea of empathy has been used to seek to associate pupils with concepts of terrorism, for instance. To my mind that is a straight abuse of the original idea.
Returning to the amendment, let us suppose that the GCSE does not satisfy parents, or a group of teachers, or a group of employers that the children with the classification from GCSE are adequately educated for their standards, intentions or purposes, although I hope that that will not prove to be true. Why should those who set the GCSE examination not face competition from an ad hoc group which may be set up to set examinations that would meet the wishes of parents or teachers? I am all for some protection, but the great protection will be that a new examination would not be used if it did not meet the requirements of groups of parents and teachers. Since in the examination world we are living in a world of commerce where costs must be covered, it will be no light or riskless endeavour for a group to set up an alternative examination unless it reckons that there is a market.
I urge the Government to contemplate loosening the restrictions imposed by the clause, not because I believe that in the event the GCSE will cause discontent on any scale, but because it should have the potential competition if it should fall below expectations.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am glad that the noble Baroness mentioned the case of the parents in Lewes. Despite the admirable intentions behind the movement towards empathy, introduced and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and which in principle I entirely support, there is evidence that it has been abused. A case in point is that of the Lewes parents.
766
In a minor way I have had a similar experience. I have a 15 year-old son who I discovered was being taught the history of the Labour Party before he had been taught about the glorious revolution of 1688. I happen to be interested in the history of the Labour Party because I am interested in politics. However, my child—fortunately or unfortunately for him—is less interested in politics. In my view he should have been taught about the glorious revolution of 1688 before entering into the minutia of the Labour Party of the 20th century which could—
The Earl of Longford: Is it not prejudicial to free thinking for one to talk of the revolution of 1688 as glorious? Many people believe that it was disgusting.
Lord Kilmarnock: I believe that a committee of both Houses of Parliament is considering how the event, whether glorious or otherwise, should be celebrated. I used the word "glorious" in its popular conception and I am not giving it any other weight. Whether glorious or otherwise, there is no doubt that it was an extremely significant event in English history and I believe that the teaching of it should have come before that of the history of the Labour Party. Perhaps it is a minor detail, but in such circumstances I should have liked to have a choice about the course my child might have studied and the examination he might have taken.
Finally, may I say how glad I am that the noble Baroness mentioned the international baccalaureate. I have tabled Amendment No. 110 which addresses that point. Perhaps it should have been discussed in this group, but I shall speak to it briefly in due course and hope that the noble Baroness will support it. At a later stage in the Bill we shall see whether the issues can be brought together.
Earl Russell: I listened with considerable sympathy to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. They are matters of real concern and I have heard the story from colleagues many times. However, when I hear it from colleagues it is a little less exciting and little less black and white than I have heard tonight.
I believe that steps are being taken to try to do something about the situation. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, spoke about empathy. I think that what is being attempted is valid but extremely difficult to get right. It demands a great deal of skill on the part of the examiners for which they need practice. They are getting that and also a good deal of advice.
Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the principle behind what the noble Baroness is asking, I should like to say that if pupils are taking two different types of examination in the same school at the same time, considerable demands are made on the teaching workforce. Today the Committee has seen fit to reject an amendment asking that the proposals should not be implemented until sufficient teachers and resources are available. I cannot see how the Committee can pass the noble Baroness's amendment unless a similar amendment to Amendment No. 58 were passed by the Committee. In that case it might be a different matter.
Baroness David: I support what the noble Earl has just said. I should also like the Minister, or the mover of the amendment, to give the meaning of the word "sufficient" and say who will decide that. Is it a word which appears quite often in legislation?
9 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Clause 5 is intended to provide essential underpinning for the national curriculum. It is widely recognised that school examinations exert a powerful influence over the curriculum. It is therefore necessary to have a statutory guarantee that examinations are fully in step with the statutory national curriculum. However, the clause also has a wider purpose, to ensure that external examinations provide the strongest possible basis for the assessment of pupils' achievements at the age of 16. Nevertheless, there is no intention that the clause should create a harmful straitjacket or enforced monopoly.
I have some sympathy with Amendments Nos. 83 and 85 as proposed by my noble friend. Of course, schools must be responsive to the wishes of parents in curricular as well as other matters. The Bill imposes a requirement on schools to publish information. We envisage that this information will include the courses, qualifications and syllabuses offered by the school and that there will be separately published lists of nationally approved qualifications so that parents will have ready access to relevent information. The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 and the provisions of this Bill regarding school governing bodies ensure that the parents' voice is heard more loudly than before and parents will have more influence over the school curriculum policy through the governing body.
I draw back, however, from placing a statutory requirement on schools to accede to parental wishes in the selection of qualifications and syllabuses. Parents may have strong views, and in some cases considerable detailed knowledge, on how subjects should be taught. The proper place for those views to be expressed is through the governing body in contributing to the formulation of curriculum policy.
We are fully aware of the criticisms of GCSE history to which my noble friend and others have referred. There may be shortcomings in some syllabuses and weaknesses in some specimen papers. However, the shortcomings of particular syllabuses and specimen papers are not an argument that GCSE itself is inadequate. We shall of course continue to look at this matter and to keep the GCSE under review, but I assure the Committee that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent alternative examinations being used by schools, and in particular the international baccalaureate which has been referred to.
I take the opportunity to commend to the Committee the government amendments to Clause 17, Amendments Nos. 123 and 151, which are tabled in my name. These are technical amendments which do not alter the intention of this clause as approved in another place. The amendments clarify the arrangements for local education authority complaints machinery and for the publication of information if the provisions of Clause 17 were activated. They make clear, for further education colleges, first that the requirements in Clause 15
768
concerned with the publication of information will apply only in respect of information about qualifications and syllabuses and courses of study; and secondly, that the requirements in Clause 16 for local education authority complaints machinery will not apply.
In saying that I cannot accept my noble friend's amendments in this case, nevertheless I wish to commend the government amendments to the Committee.
Baroness Cox: I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. In response to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, perhaps I may say by way of clarification that I should have thought a definition of "sufficient" might be a viable teaching group, but I agree that it is a loose phrase and I take that comment on board when considering where one might go from here.
I am grateful for the sympathy of my noble friend. However, I am not sure that it meets the point because, as I read the provisions of the Bill at the moment, the Secretary of State can have the overriding power to determine for which exams schools may enter their pupils and I believe that the power of the governors might be relatively ineffective. However, I shall go away and reconsider the provisions of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Duties with respect to certain requirements]:
[Amendments Nos. 84 to 86 not moved.]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 25(1) and").
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may speak very briefly to Amendments Nos 87 to 89 because they were grouped with Amendment No. 28, but due to the complexities and seriousness of the issues involved in Amendment No. 28, I did not speak to these amendments. However, perhaps I may now speak to them briefly for clarification. To save the time of the Committee, may I briefly touch on Amendment No. 141, again to clarify the position.
Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 amend Clause 6(1)(c) so as to lay a duty on local education authorities, governors and heads to observe the statutory requirement for worship as well as, as is already in the subsection, the statutory requirement for religious education.
Amendment No. 141 amends Clause 17 which is the new complaints procedure, so that worship is also included in that procedure along with religious education, which is already there.
I am raising this matter for clarification because I recollect that in the small hours of Wednesday morning the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London welcomed these proposals, as did the Minister when she indicated her acceptance of them. However, the Minister said that it would be most appropriate to deal with them under Clause 93. I take that point because Clause 93 is where the main point

769
about religious worship arises. The only reason I seek clarification now is because it seems that unless this point is taken on board it might mean that worship will not be covered by Clause 6 and the complaints procedure there. I should like assurances that worship will be so covered, as I believe was intended, and I believe that that is what was agreed on Tuesday night; but I wish to confirm that.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I can give my noble friend the assurances for which she has asked, and I do not believe I need to add anything further to the remarks I made on the last occasion.
Baroness Cox: With that kind assurance for which I am most grateful, and the understanding that this will be brought back by the Government on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 88 to 91 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Road Safety Education.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring schools to provide road safety education for their pupils in such form and manner, and at such times as may be prescribed.
(2) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with any person (including any representative organisation) with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.").
The noble Lord said: According to the groupings, this matter has been debated. That is stretching the word "debated". So far as I can remember, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said one sentence and I cannot recall the reply that was made to it. This matter is so obviously sensible and desirable that I wonder whether the noble Baroness could say something about the policy of the Government as regards the inculcation of children to the idea of road safety?
Baroness Hooper: We debated the whole subject of the number of amendments under this heading and the general response was that this is a subject that we believe to be important; that it should be dealt with in the normal school curriculum as a cross-curricular theme, if necessary, but that there should be room otherwise to deal with it in the amount of time which is available for specific subject areas.
Lord McNair: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No, 93:
insert the following new clause:
("Standing advisory councils on religious education
.—(I) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to constitute a standing advisory council on religious education to advise the authority upon such matters connected with the religious instruction to be given in accordance with an agreed syllabus as the authority may refer to the council or as the council may see fit.
Reference below in this section and in section (Advisory councils: supplementary provisions) of this Act to the council are references to any council constituted by a local education authority under this section.
(2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) above include, in particular, methods of teaching, the choice of books and the provision of lectures for teachers.
(3) The council shall consist of—

(a) the representative members required by subsection (4) below; and

(b) where any agreed syllabus for the time being adopted by the authority is in use at one or more grant-maintained schools, a person appointed by the governing body or (as the case may be) by the governing bodies of the school or schools concerned;

and may also include co-opted members.
(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, the representative members required by this subsection are persons appointed by the authority to represent respectively—

(a) such religious denominations as, in the opinion of the authority, ought, having regard to the circumstances of the area, to be represented;

(b) except in the case of an area in Wales, the Church of England;

(c) such associations representing teachers as, in the opinion of the authority, ought, having regard to the circumstances of the area, to be represented; and

(d) the authority;

and references below in this section to representative groups on the council are references to the members appointed by virtue of paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) above respectively and, where members are required to be appointed by virtue of paragraph (b) above, the members so appointed.
(5) Where members are required to be appointed by virtue of paragrapn (b) of subsection (4) above, the representative members required by paragraph (a) of that subsection shall not include persons appointed to represent the Church of England.
(6) On any question to be decided by the council only the representative groups on the council shall be entitled to vote, and each such group shall have a single vote.
(7) The representative groups on the council, other than that consisting of persons appointed to represent the authority, may at any time by a unanimous decision (with each group having a single vote on the matter) require a review of any agreed syllabus for the time being adopted by the authority.
(8) On receipt by the authority of written notification of any such requirement, it shall be the duty of the authority to cause a conference constituted in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 5 to the 1944 Act to be convened for the purpose of reconsidering any agreed syllabus to which the requirement relates.
(9) The council shall in each year publish a report with respect to the exercise of their functions and any action taken by representative groups on the council under subsection (7) above during the last preceding year.
(10) The council's report shall in particular—

(a) specify any matters in respect of which the council have given advice to the authority;

(b) broadly describe the nature of the advice given; and

(c) where any such matter was not referred to the council by the authority, give the council's reasons for offering advice on that matter.").

The right reverend Prelate said: I set out the arguments in favour of this amendment in the debate on Amendment No. 2 and I shall not repeat them. It will help the Committee if I briefly set out the details of the amendment because it is not easy to understand without cross-reference to the 1944 Act.
Section 29(1) of the 1944 Act provided for the establishment of a conference to produce an agreed syllabus. The conference was mandatory but only existed during the period when the agreed syllabus was being prepared. Theoretically, it then ceased to exist. The composition of the conference was established in the fifth schedule to the 1944 Act. Section 29(2) of the 1944 Act gave the authority the power to establish a standing advisory committee on religious education but did not require it to do so. It also set out what it could do and no more than that. The amendment before the Committee retains Section 29(1) of the 1944 Act; that is, requiring a

771
conference to be established. It does so on precisely the same terms as the fifth schedule to the 1944 Act and it is mandatory. However, Sections 29(2) to (4) of the 1944 Act will be repealed. In their place will be Amendment No. 93 and the later Amendment No. 94.
The significant changes are that the standing advisory council on religious education is required and it is provided for in the same composition as the conference. We were advised that it was desirable to retain the same composition, as far as possible, between the two bodies for reasons which I need not go into this evening.
In the 1944 Act the provisions for the standing advisory council gave it no power to require a review, whether once or more than once. The amendment provides for that power for review. During the discussion on Clause 2 I said that it provides for a mandatory requirement both for a conference and a standing advisory council. It gives the council power to require a review. As I said, the complaints procedure is also introduced, though not under this provision, in order to cover religious education. I hope that in due course worship will be included too. Indeed, the inclusion of the amendment in the Bill will bring it under the complaints procedure.
I shall not at this stage deal with any matters arising on the composition of the conference in view of the amendments that follow in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, but I shall want to go into a little more detail when I comment upon his amendments. Let me remind the Committee that this amendment is the result of extensive consultation and it has been agreed to by, one might say, all the interested parties. I hope that it will now be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I now call, as an amendment to Amendment No. 93, Amendment No. 93A:
Lord Thorneycroft Lord Thorneycroft moved Amendment No. 93A:
Subsection (3), at end insert—
("The Council shall be so composed that it will at all times contain a two-thirds majority of members representative of the Christian churches.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move this amendment to the new clause which has been so helpfully described by the right reverend Prelate. I can best abbreviate my remarks if I recall the Committee to where we stand on this matter.
We have agreed that the position of religious education in the Bill should be elevated. That was done by an amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate to Clause 2 which was broadly accepted by the whole Committee with perhaps one or two dissenting voices.
We have agreed that we are a Christian nation. The old idea, which was current a few months ago, that somehow the influx of immigration from the new Commonwealth, other faiths and so on had somehow detracted from the strength of the Christian faith and tradition or the need for Christian worship, has no longer been argued.
We agreed to give sympathetic consideration to an amendment by my noble friend Lady Cox, laying
772
down in specific terms that Christian education should play a predominant part. The Churches are considering the precise wording which would give best effect to that proposal. These matters were agreed without Divisions, without party dissention or dissention between sectarian beliefs. I am sure that if it is possible that is the best way to proceed on these difficult matters. If Divisions have to take place, they should take place on Report and I hope on a free vote.
To summarise the position; we are seeking to get Christian education in the schools, but Christian education in a very tolerant form. We are seeking a liberal education which recognises the importance of other faiths and ensures that they also are described and respected. We are not seeking indoctrination. We are seeking a fair and open-minded description of this great Christian faith and tradition.
We now come to the point in the Bill which is, so to speak, the machinery of all this. It is where the local authorities find their way to agreed syllabuses and agreed ideas of teaching. As the right reverend Prelate described, this is what his clause seeks to do. I agreed with him when he said that it is a pretty complex matter but, if I may say so, I do not think that is his fault. It has grown over the years. It consists of about four groups of people. There is the Church of England or, in Wales, the Church of Wales. There are other faiths which used to be called other denominations and were thought of as Christian denominations. However, it is no longer thought of in that way and it consists in very substantial part of other faiths—for example, the Moslems, Sikhs, Hindus and so forth. There are groups of teachers and there is the local authority itself. The decision as to what is to be done about education has to be arrived at by unanimous arrangements between those four groups.
I must say that on the whole Christians are not in a majority in all this and and so we get a situation in which Christian education is finally determined on what can be described as the lowest common denominator of broadly, not wholly, Christian groups. It is said that all this has been arrived at after very careful negotiation. I respect that and I know the difficulty of negotiation. I have great respect for the right reverend Prelate. I understand his difficulties, but I am bound to say that in your Lordships' Committee we have to look beyond careful negotiation. We have to look at what is right and what is wrong.
In a way we have to judge the effect of these things by what actually happens. I wish to be fair about this. It may be an extraordinary set-up, but I think the right reverend Prelate would agree that out of it emerges in some cases not a bad syllabus. In some cases there is good Christian education that goes forward. One must pay tribute to men who triumph over all difficulties and get a good solution out of perhaps not very fertile ground.
Then there is another group, which receives a mish-mash. It is taught what might be called multi-faith syllabi. It is taught a little about all religions. It receives what the Chief Rabbi in a brilliant speech the other day called a religious cocktail. We are not urged by the Moslems to do this. The Moslems tend to pray that we shall get back to the Christian faith. We are

773
certainly not urged by the Jews to do it. The Chief Rabbi argued powerfully on the other side. The multi-faith approach is an educationist idea. It became a fashion at a certain time. There were working parties which thought that it would be rather good to do this. Whatever else it is, it is not a Christian education. It is something else. That is the middle group.
There is yet another group. This falls into the disaster area where witchcraft and other ideas find their way into the teaching of children. My noble friend Lady Cox, who has taken such a leading and important part in this matter, will talk a little more about the result of such syllabi later on. That is the position as it is today. In the view of many people in this country—and I do not mean just my view or that of my noble friend Lady Cox but also those of parents—it is wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs and something has to be done about it.
In order to pinpoint the idea I have put down this amendment. I agree that if we are to amend the clause properly the Committee will have to have something much more elaborate than the amendment I have put down on the Marshalled List. One would probably have to delete the clause and start with something else. I have put down in simple words the approach that I am trying to argue. The approach is that if we want a Christian education we must ask the Christians to provide it.
In these advisory councils there should be a majority of Christians so that they determine the main line. There would be others—by all means there should be others. There would be members of the Moslem faith. Certainly I hope that there would be members of the Jewish faith. In a brilliant speech the other day my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley described the enormous part that Judaism plays in Christianity. It would be almost impossible to teach one without strong references to the other. All that would be there.
However, the main theme and trend of the education would be determined by men like the right reverend Prelate and members of other Christian denominations. If we want to have a tolerant Christianity, if we want, as I believe we do, the teaching of Christianity in the schools, and if we want it to be taught in a way that is not narrow or bigoted but proudly for the great faith that it is, tolerant of other religions and explaining the great contributions that they make to the world, I can think of no better people than men like the right reverend Prelate to do it. It would be more sensible not to have decisions by committees but a meeting in which Christians and members of the Christian Churches themselves worked out how best this type of Christianity should be taught. It is to urge that approach that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I hope the noble Lord will not press these amendments, as we did indeed discuss them on Tuesday under Amendment No. 93 and at that stage we had no notice of them. As I said then, there is a problem that, while we accept that there should be a mandatory body in each local authority, there is a certain difficulty on our side in that that body should have a set form for each local education authority.
774
I should have thought that there is even more difficulty if, as proposed in Amendment No. 93A, one must have a two-thirds majority in each local authority. That situation may be most difficult to achieve in certain local authorities. There may be even more difficulty in ascertaining whether the noble Lord and I would agree on what a good Christian education was.
It has occurred to me that the right reverend Prelates, the Bishops of Durham, Liverpool and Manchester, have on occasions talked of an ethic which I recognise as being a concept with which I agree. I can only claim to be an elder of the Church of Scotland so, therefore, if I agree with the bishop that may be very surprising. However, it is even more surprising, on occasions, when those Members opposite agree with the bishops, because on other occasions there have been slight disagreements with them. Therefore, if one starts talking about what a good Christian education is, even among those of us who claim to be Christians, it must be said that there have been centuries of disagreement and therefore I think we should be careful and not try to go too far too fast. For those reasons I hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: I am most grateful first of all for what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has just said. I hope in what I have to say that I shall not appear to be in any way unsympathetic to those who wish to ensure that a proper Christian education in provided. However, the issue is not quite as simple as it has been made out to be. It is necessary for us to realise that we must strike a balance between compulsion on one side—which I think we all agree is not what we are seeking—and the comparative religion approach on the other, which does not teach anything about religion or religious experience. We have to strike a balance between the two.
The second point I should like to make is this. We are not talking about the Christian faith in a church; we are talking about teaching the Christian faith in our schools. Such teaching involves the local authority, the teachers and also the different churches. Therefore we must ensure that there is agreement among them as to what is being taught. It would surely be folly to try to force any one of those parties to do something which would cause them great unease or difficulty.
We must therefore realise—whether we like it or not—that in providing a Christian education in our schools there are other parties involved, apart from the Christian church of individual Christians. Therefore I believe it is necessary to have the kind of provision we had in the conference and in the standing advisory council so as to ensure that there is agreement among all those people involved. For that reason I do not agree that one can simply solve the problem by an amendment of the type which the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, has proposed because it does not fit, so to speak, into the system which has, on the whole, worked.
As I said previously, I do not take such a gloomy view of agreed syllabuses because the real problem very often is how they are taught. As regards Amendment No. 93C, I have a certain amount of

775
sympathy with its contents but I shall return to that in a moment.
I have a real difficulty with Amendment No. 93A. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, was talking about one of the committees within the conference or the council. If he was not, he was asking us to break the law, because he would be requiring us to have religious tests for members of the authority and for teachers. If he is proposing that, further legislation is necessary so that we do not break the law. We cannot look at the whole body and say that the council shall be so composed at all times so as to have a two-thirds majority of members representing the Christian Churches. That is unworkable. Even if we were allowed to ask whether the members of the authority or the teachers were Christian, we should still have the difficulty of deciding whether they were representatives of the Christian Churches, because the Churches might not agree that they were adequate representatives.
Having said that, I come to my comments on Amendment No. 93C. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, is afraid that in an authority the composition of the other denominations' committee might be so balanced that it had a preponderance of non-Christians on it who could then veto any agreement within the council or within the conference. That point needs to be looked at. It relates to the composition of the committee for the other denominations and not of the council as a whole. The veto operates on two occasions only. There must be unanimity for the conference to adopt the syllabus. There must be unanimity within three of the committees to request a review.
It is possible to conceive of a situation in which one of those committees might be so constituted that it would use the veto to prevent a review. That may be rare, but it is a possibility which should be covered. It is a matter at which we can look in the light of the undertaking I gave when we were considering Amendment No. 2, and which I am prepared to give again now.
The amendments are the result of consultation. I believe that a change in the composition of the Christian denominations committee should be made only after the fullest consultation with the other Churches and representatives of other faiths. I can promise that that will happen. We have already set in motion steps to enable consultations to take place. In fact they have already begun.
Some Members of the Committee may have had a letter from the secretary of the Free Church Federal Council indicating general support for the kind of direction in which I have been pointing in both debates. I have some sympathy with the point that has been raised and which needs looking at again.
I do not believe that the noble Lord had his direction right with the previous amendment. The first amendment is unworkable. I hope that with the assurance that we will take his point seriously he will beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cox: I shall speak briefly in favour of the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft. I understand that it is an attempt at drafting and is not the final form. The point I should
776
like to take up refers to the proportion of Christian representatives on Committee A which at the moment includes representatives of different denominations, and which seems now to be changing its definition to "faiths". I believe that the right reverend Prelate said that he would clarify that matter on Report.
The point I should like to make is that in some of those committees as they are currently formed, Christians are in a minority. For example, Manchester has 45 members, but only 22 are Christians; Bradford, 32 of whom 14 are Christians; and of Brent's 23 members eight are Christians. It might be suggested that it would be good to see a representation on those committees of some of the new churches which are at the moment sometimes not represented, such as the community churches, the black churches, which are among the fastest-growing Christian groups in the country at the moment. Some consideration of the composition of those committees could usefully be reconsidered.
It is important to look at the significance of the Christian component, and to ask whether it matters. I would argue that it does matter—and I am delighted to see that the right reverend Prelate agrees that this is a problem—because of the need for a unanimous vote to agree to require a review of an agreed syllabus. Given the evidence that has been so widely expressed in your Lordships' Committee and outside by Clifford Longley and by the nine bishops in The Times on Tuesday, I think it is agreed that there are problems to do with some of the syllabuses, and that the composition of the arrangements as they now stand is such as to make it hard to initiate changes for those syllabuses.
The requirement for a unanimous vote means that every member of every group has a power of veto which could well mean that the procedures could be stifled. For example, members of groups representing teachers' associations—who, I am told, may often be agnostic or atheistic—can express a power of veto. In discussion with colleagues who have served on those committees I am told that those representatives may only have to threaten to use their power of veto—and sometimes they have no compunction whatever about doing so—in order to reduce the contents of an agreed syllabus to, as my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft said, a lowest common denominator of the kind which has caused such concern.
I appreciate that the right reverend Prelate has explained why historical reasons have led to the question of the consensus vote being there; but I am grateful to hear that he is prepared to reconsider that, and I am delighted to be reassured on that basis.
The Lord Bishop of London: The noble Baroness said that I gave historical reasons. I do not think that that is quite accurate. My point would be (and I must say this) that if we removed this veto does the noble Baroness really want the situation where Christians are trying to ensure that a good Christian agreed syllabus is taught in the schools without the agreement of the authority, the teachers, and others? I feel that this is something I would not wish to contemplate.
If that is what we are forced to do, then I believe that we are faced with a different situation where the

777
withdrawal of classes is the only solution. It was not just historical but because I believe that it is possible to combine a sound, full Christian education if the Christians really take their part in their own committees. It is possible to do that with the agreement of the other parties, and that agreement must be sought.
Baroness Hooper: My noble friend Lord Thorneycroft has indicated that these are probing amendments. We have had considerable debate on this subject so I feel that it is not necessary for me to add to what has been said by the right reverend Prelate except to agree with him that this is a complicated and sensitive matter which needs carefully looking at.
Lord Thorneycroft: I thank the noble Baroness for what she has said. The right reverend Prelate said that we must be careful not to do things which would cause great unease. When the right reverend Prelate is considering these matters, he should not underestimate the great unease which exists in this country at the moment about the failure—and it is a failure—to give Christian education properly in our schools. I fully accept that this amendment is not the correct amendment to achieve all that and that there are problems about the drafting and all these things; but we have to do something more than exists at the moment. We must somehow devise machinery a little more apt to produce the results which millions of parents are asking for in this country. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will bear those things in mind. With that, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 93A by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 93B and 93C not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We have been discussing amendments to Amendment No. 93 moved by the right reverend Prelate. We now go back to amendment No. 93.
On Question, Amendment No. 93 agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 94:
Insert the following new clause:
("Advisory councils: supplementary provisions.
.—(1) Before appointing a person to represent any denomination or associations as a member of the council the local education authority concerned shall take all reasonable steps to assure themselves that he is representative of the denomination or associations in question.
(2) A member of the council appointed by the authority may be removed from membership by the authority if in the opinion of the authority he ceases to be representative of the denomination or associations which he was appointed to represent or (as the case may be) of the authority.
(3) Any member of the council required by section (Standing advisory councils on religious education) (3)(b) of this Act may at any time be removed from membership by the governing body or (as the case may be) by the governing bodies of the grant-maintained school or schools concerned.
(4) In subsection (3) of that section "co-opted member" means a person co-opted as a member of the council by members of the council who have not themselves been so co-opted, and a person so co-opted shall hold office on such terms as may be determined by the members co-opting him.
(5) Any member of the council may at any time resign his office.
(6) Subject to subsection (6) of that section, the council and, in relation to any question falling to be decided by members of the
778
council of any particular category, the members of that category may regulate their own proceedings.
(7) Nothing in subsection (7) of that section shall be read as requiring the question of how any representative group on the council entitled to participate in the decision there mentioned is to cast its vote for the purposes of that subsection to be decided unanimously by the members of that group.
(8) The validity of proceedings of the council or of the members of the council of any particular category shall not be affected—

(a) by a vacancy in the office of any member of the council required by subsection (3) of that section; or

(b) on the ground that a member of the council appointed to represent any denomination or associations does not at the time of the proceedings represent the denomination or associations in question.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Establishment of Councils]:
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("ten or more than fifteen") and insert ("twenty or more than thirty").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the two amendments standing in my name. Time is getting on, but I hope that the brevity of my speech will not be interpreted as meaning that these matters are comparatively unimportant. I know that I and many others voting inside this Chamber and outside feel that they can have a very considerable effect on the main purposes of this Bill. The problems and challenges inherent in the establishment of the national curriculum will be many and varied. It is inconceivable that a group of 10 to 15 people, chosen by the Secretary of State, will be able to deal with such a range of issues and problems.
Among the very wide range of interests and expertise which the councils will need to include are those of the local education authorities, the parents, churches, higher and further education, industry and commerce, the examining boards, women with special reference to gender inequality issues in the curriculum, and the ethnic minorities, with special reference to anti-racist strategies and the promotion of a multi-ethnic curriculum within the context of a national curriculum. A curriculum or assessment council of fewer than 20 members simply could not bring together the breadth of interests, experience and expertise to discuss and seriously consider the issues involved.
The debates in another place and already in your Lordships' House on this Bill have recognised the central and essential role played by teachers in implementing the curriculum. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in her introduction to the Bill:
"The Government believe that their [teachers.'] contribution is crucial to the success of the policies embodied in this legislation, for it is teachers who have the responsibility for promoting high standards of excellence in learning and personal development".—[Official Report, 18/4/88; col. 1212.]
As far as the value of teachers is concerned, I doubt whether it would be possible to improve on that sentence, and I congratulate the noble Baroness on it. I am surprised to hear myself saying that because it is probably the only thing on which I shall agree with the noble Baroness. However, I reiterate it and say in all sincerity that to my mind that sums up exactly the situation concerning the contributions which teachers make.
The clause currently requires only that:
"members so appointed shall include persons having relevant knowledge or experience in education".
It is certainly not spelt out but presumably the Secretary of State intends this to mean teachers. The claim of teachers to be represented on the grounds I have already mentioned is pre-eminent.
Virtually every teacher belongs to a teachers' organisation. Teachers are not compelled to be members in order to practise their profession, theirs is no casual association. They do not drift into membership, they pay a considerable fee annually to their organisation to represent their interests. A council that does not have a substantial body of teachers in its membership is unlikely to be knowledgeable or indeed credible about the curriculum and assessment. Teachers will need to be appointed in a representative capacity or they will speak for no one but themselves and will be accountable to no one.
On many occasions in the past under both Labour and Conservative governments some people have been appointed in a personal capacity because of the eminence of their experience and knowledge of education. I do not think that that would fulfil the purpose of the clause.
I suspect that the word "teachers" will be heard more than any other word in these long days of debate. That is as it ought to be. As the Minister said, they are fundamental to the success of the service. Unfortunately, the praise is too often merely passing, although it is genuine.
The amendments provide an important opportunity to use not only the dedication of teachers but their expertise, their professionalism and, above all perhaps, their commitment. The councils will be much the poorer without the teachers' contribution. Indeed, it may not be too much to say that they may not fulfil their purpose. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Davidson: I support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I speak against the amendment. Unless I misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, he was suggesting a form of representation on the councils. I set aside for the moment the argument about numbers. I wish to speak about how the teachers find themselves on the committee and the idea that they should in some way be representative of the bodies to which they belong—the NUT, the AMMA, the PAT and so on.
One of the greatest sadnesses to me is that we do not have a professional teaching council in the country. I believe that great efforts are being made to form a professional body to look after the professional interests of teachers. Until that day comes, I cannot dispel the black cloud that hangs over my perception of the situation with teachers coming predominantly from the NUT, the NAS/UWT, the AMMA and so on, the arguments between them, and the destructive force that this was, for instance, in the Burnham Committee. The Professional Association of Teachers, which had a
780
minority of members, was squeezed out in many local authorities, and on the Burnham Committee it had to fight hard until the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, found representation for it.
I hope that we shall never resort to that kind of membership on the councils. We want professional teachers who walk tall in the professional sense and who represent the professionalism of teachers as individuals. They should not come from the teaching unions by some quota system. I am sorry to have to say that, but I cannot remove from my memory the destructive way in which the formula suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, would work. I hope that we will have the finest of our teachers on the teaching council. As I said, for the moment I set aside the argument on numbers.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The noble Baroness may have misunderstood at least part of what I said. The main thrust was that these would be not personal appointments but representative of the teachers' organisations. If the noble Baroness infers that there would be a certain number of NUT, AMMA and PAT representatives, that is not correct. I am saying that the teachers on the councils would be representative of their associations. This has been done many times in the education world. The teaching unions would decide among themselves who would represent the teaching profession as a whole.
As I said, we do not accept for a moment that teachers do not walk tall. One can say of every profession that there are some people who do not measure up to professional standards. I think that it is fundamentally important, not only to this part of the Bill but to all parts of it, to recognise that teachers on the whole do an excellent job.
Baroness Blatch: In the light of what has been said, I do not believe that I have misunderstood the noble Lord.
Baroness Seear: With all due respect to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, there is nothing in the amendment about whether members are representative. It is simply a question of the number of people on the councils.
Baroness Hooper: To clarify the position, I believe that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 95 and 98. I am sorry to have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, that the harmony which exists between us in our views on the role of teachers cannot extend to those amendments. Amendment No. 95 seeks to increase the membership of the National Curriculum Council, the School Examinations and Assessment Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales. Membership would be increased from between 10 and 15 members to between 20 and 30 members.
The Government do not believe that it would be helpful or efficient to have such large councils. The provision in the Bill for councils of between 10 and 15 members provides adequate scope for the appointment of people with a wide range of backgrounds and experience, while having bodies which are small enough to take decisions and operate quickly and effectively.

781
I recognise the need for councils to have access to a wide range of expert advice and counsel. There is plenty of scope for tapping the expertise of a wide circle of people through co-option on to sub-committees of councils. We have provided for that in Schedule 7.
Those arguments apply with even more force in the case of Amendment No. 98. That amendment goes further than the previous amendment and seeks to include representatives of teachers' organisations on councils. We regard it as being particularly important that the councils, which will be responsible for providing advice and support in the difficult business of introducing the national curriculum, are free from outside pressures and that individual members can give their undivided loyalty to the councils and the work in hand.
The introduction of any representational element in the composition of councils could undermine those aims. I hope and believe that there will be people who are teachers or who have teaching experience on the councils. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendments.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 5, line 5, after ("State") insert ("after consultation with such organisations as he may recognise as representative of local authorities, teachers, school governors and parents").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment raises a slightly different point in relation to the councils. The purpose of the amendment is to include a consultation process before the curriculum assessment councils are appointed by the Secretary of State. As the Bill is drafted, it is the Secretary of State who determines without consultation who shall be members of the National Curriculum Council, the Curriculum Council for Wales and the School Examinations and Assessment Council.
The amendment does not prevent the Secretary of State from deciding on the membership of the councils. It merely attempts to ensure that his decisions are informed by the knowledge and advice provided by the appropriate bodies representing the different interest groups: local authorities, teachers, school governors and parents. Such consultation would enable the Secretary of State to make a better qualified judgment about who the most appropriate representatives will be. He obviously must consult somebody. The amendment would not restrict his power to decide and merely assists him in the process.
If the term "representative organisations" is objected to, I should like to point out that in the major Act controlling the National Health Service—the National Health Service Act 1977—the powers of the Secretary of State to set up the central health services council and the standing advisory committees are subject to a duty to consult representative organisations. So this amendment is not moving outside what has already been done in other legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The Government are not unsympathetic to the thoughts which lie behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady David. We
782
recognise that the various organisations mentioned may have views on the membership of the councils which are to be established under the Bill. Indeed during the debate in another place about some amendments which would have required various bodies to be consulted on membership—some of which, I hasten to add, sought to restrict the Secretary of State's powers to appoint members far more drastically than does this amendment—my honourable friend the Minister of State said very clearly that she would listen to advice and suggestions from organisations with an interest in education. In fact, as I understand it, the department has already received a number of helpful suggestions about membership, not only from the kinds of organisation mentioned by the noble Baroness in speaking to her amendment but also from bodies representing voluntary schools and independent schools' organisations. All the suggestions have been considered very carefully and, indeed, any constructive and well-intentioned advice we subsequently receive will be listened to carefully, right up to the time when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announces the complete membership of the new councils.
This informal consultation does not detract in any way from the Secretary of State's responsibility under the Bill for appointing the chairmen and members of the councils. But we are clear that it is both right and necessary for the appointments to be personal appointments by the Secretary of State of the day. Only in that way can we be sure that the councils—and the advice which they will give—will be independent, impartial and free from the influence of particular groups or interests. A mandatory requirement to consult representative organisations would detract from that principle, no matter what discretion was allowed the Secretary of State in the selection of the bodies to be consulted. It is central to this part of the Bill that the councils will be independent bodies. We do not wish to depart from that principle. Were we to do so in the way that is suggested it could also give rise to unnecessary and unacceptable delays in making appointments to the councils when such appointments were urgently required. That too would be unacceptable.
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we are open to advice about membership from any quarter and that statutory consultations on the subject would be unhelpful in practice.
Baroness David: I think that that is an absolutely ridiculous answer, if I may say so. There will still be personal appointments under the amendment and apparently the consultation is to be carried out anyway. In order to give satisfaction and to appear to be limiting the Secretary of State's powers by the minutest extent surely it would be sensible to accept the amendment and make a lot of people feel much happier about the Bill altogether?
Lord Hylton: It seems that this rather modest amendment has considerable constitutional implications and should therefore be taken very seriously by the Committee. We may be reasonably satisfied with the present Secretary of State, but there is no knowing who will be appointed to that post in the future. I personally think that it is very important

783
to have some provision in the Bill which will lay down the kind of pattern of behaviour that is to be adopted not only now but also in future years.
Baroness Seear: We too are extremely concerned that the noble Baroness should turn down the amendment in this way and should claim that the fact that the Secretary of State is to make all the appointments personally will ensure that the councils are independent. I have to tell the noble Baroness that that really gives me absolutely no assurance whatsoever on that matter. How are we to know that the Secretary of State will not appoint all his cousins and his sisters and his aunts, which is perfectly possible under the Bill as it stands? What guarantee is there that because he appoints the members personally it will be an independent council? That is a most astonishing statement.
Baroness Hooper: I have to say that I am somewhat persuaded by some of the arguments that have been advanced this evening. If the noble Baroness will permit me, I should like to take this matter back, without commitment, and perhaps deal with it at another stage.
Baroness David: Of course I have to accept that suggestion. I must tell the noble Baroness that if she had not agreed to take the matter back I should have divided the Committee on this issue. I feel very strongly about this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 97 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 98 or 100 as they will be pre-empted.
10 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 5, line 8, leave out from ("members") to end of line 9 and insert ("shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) below.
(3) Members of each Council shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation—

(a) with such associations of local education authorities, bodies representing the interests of voluntary schools, bodies representing the interests of school governing bodies and organisations representing school teachers as appear to him to be concerned; and

(b) with such other persons, including organisations representing parents, as he thinks fit,

and he shall have regard to the desirability of the membership of the Council reflecting a balance of academic and other expertise in accordance with the aims of securing a balanced and broadly based curriculum.
(4) Not less than sixty per cent. of the members of each Council shall be persons having relevant knowledge and experience in education (including, in particular, education in maintained schools) and in appointing such members the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including at least two persons having relevant knowledge and experience in education in voluntary schools.").
The noble Baroness said: To some extent Amendment No. 97 repeats what was put forward in Amendment No. 96 but adds a very important point. As the Minister said that she would take back and
784
consider Amendment No. 96, I propose to elaborate on the point in my amendment which is different. I would also ask the Minister to take into consideration Amendment No. 97 at the same time as she is considering Amendment No. 96.
The point of substantial difference between Amendments Nos. 97 and 96 is that we ask for the council to be made up predominantly of people who have both experience and knowledge of education. After all, curriculum and assessment are essentially matters for professional teachers who, with their knowledge, should have a predominant voice in the way they are to be decided. Those two matters on which the council will advise the Secretary of State lie at the heart of the educational process and are the core of the whole Bill. We have talked about curriculum and assessment for the last 24 hours—no, I stand corrected, for the last 48 hours. It seems quite absurd to draw up such things without a very substantial voice being given to people who have both experience and knowledge of education.
The Minister must by now realise that many of us are deeply suspicious about the powers of the Secretary of State which recur and are embodied again and again in the proposed legislation. The powers of the Secretary of State mean to a very considerable extent the powers of the DES. As I said on another occasion, what experience does the DES have of teaching? I know we shall be told that it is being advised. But the advisers are being picked by the Secretary of State. The concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State on a matter of such importance fills us with the deepest apprehension.
We are not asking for members of the teaching profession or people with knowledge and experience of education to be appointed by the organisations. That is not our intention. We are saying that professionals should have a predominant voice in a matter where the requirements are so strongly professional.
Lady Kinloss: May I ask for guidance? If this amendment is agreed to, why can I not move Amendment No. 100?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): If this amendment is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 98 to 100 will have been preempted.
Baroness Young: I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend for clarification on a further point. Personally I am glad that she has agreed to consider the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I do not necessarily require an answer this evening, but perhaps, when she comes back to the Chamber, she will explain the final phrase of subsection (2) which reads,
"and members so appointed shall include persons having relevant knowledge or experience in education".
Clearly this is a crucial matter in the whole debate. I think it is the point at which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is driving; namely, that people, before being appointed to these councils, will be fully experienced and have knowledge of education. That is what I would have expected.
I think we all agree that the councils are crucial to this whole section of the Bill. The point I made at

785
Second Reading—a view shared, I think, throughout the Committee—is that in order to maintain high standards and to raise lower ones, the content of the curriculum and other processes are key.
I believe that what is written in the Bill probably goes a long way to meet the points in the amendments that have been tabled but I believe also that public reassurance about the composition is very important. I know the difficulties only too well. I know the difficulties of being a Minister when one is confronted with all these matters. I certainly do not wish to make difficulties. I am trying to be constructive. However, a further explanation at a later stage of how the Secretary of State sees this working out would be very helpful to us all.
Baroness Hooper: I should like to confirm that in speaking to Amendment No. 97 we are speaking also to Amendment No. 99.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the Secretary of State will have in mind the considerations referred to in her amendment. However, since I have agreed to take back the previous amendment for consideration I think it is appropriate that I do the same in this case, and without commitment.
Baroness Seear: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
Lady Kinloss Lady Kinloss moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 5, line 9, at end insert ("and one shall have special knowledge of and concern for provision for children with special educational needs and regard shall be had to the desirability of that member being a disabled person.").
The noble Lady said: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 253, 260 and 268. If necessary, I shall move these later when they are called.
As I said in the Second Reading debate, I am eager to see a duty to include representation of special education needs on all councils and governing bodies; that is to say, the National Curriculum Council, the Curriculum Council for Wales, and the School Examinations and Assessment Council. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation fully supports this view. It feels that there is a need for a member who can represent the view of disabled children and young people on all those councils and governing bodies and on all the councils and governing bodies for further education.
People are not always aware of, or knowledgeable about, the needs and aspirations of disabled persons. It is surely essential to have on all these bodies at least one person who has made a study of the special needs of disabled persons. We are not asking for the numbers on the councils to be increased, but that one member should have special knowledge of those with special education needs.
I have no doubt about the Government's good intentions as they have responded sensitively already on the issues of grant maintained schools. They have developed a mechanism to modify the national curriculum. But there is a need for some special
786
sensitivity to be incorporated into the planning of curricula at all levels. It is for this reason that expert input is required.
This is an amendment which asks only that children with special education needs are treated in the same way as other children and are represented on all councils and governing bodies. This would apply also to the councils and governing bodies for further education. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lady Kinloss. When this was debated at Report stage in another place on 22nd March the Secretary of State said at col. 210 of Hansard that he did not want to be too prescriptive about how the National Curriculum Council in particular would operate. He suggested that it might want to set up a sub-committee to deal with special education needs. That is fine in itself, but I feel that there should be a member on the council with knowledge of special education needs, preferably a disabled person if he or she were the right person for the job, and such a provision should be written into the Bill.
The wording is similar to that used in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 in relation to representation of disabled people and their interests on various advisory committees. I hope that the Minister will find it acceptable.
I should also like to support the suggestion of my noble friend that other councils have similar representation. I feel that the provision should be written into the Bill because it is important to ensure that the interests of people with special education needs should also be safeguarded in higher and further education.
Lord Carter: I was glad to put my name to the amendment. I shall be extremely brief in speaking to it. We all agree that the councils mentioned in the clause will have an important role. We feel that it is extremely important that these councils have a full understanding of special educational needs. The point has been made many times that 20 per cent. of the school population at any one time fits into that definition. It is not a fixed population. There are children moving in and out of the definition all the time. It includes not just the physically and mentally handicapped, but children with learning difficulties; those who require special education for a short time, such as after a spell in hospital; children who require home tuition for any reason and so on. We feel that special skills are required in special education.
We also feel that society needs a great deal of conditioning generally towards disablement. I take the example of the programme on BBC Radio, which has the title "Does He Take Sugar?" That is the most apposite title of all the programmes on radio and television. We have all experienced a group of people with a disabled person present. One is often asked by a third party "Would he like a drink?" I say, "Well ask him". The point is that it is all part of the conditioning of society. We feel that the education process is crucially important in helping to overcome this conditioning. That is why we feel that the councils should have special regard to special education. There is a strong argument that there should be proper representation on those councils

787
and the appointment of a member with the special knowledge and the expert input that is required. I urge the Government to accept the amendment.
Lord Hylton: As a parent of a dyslexic child I support my noble friend's amendment. Among noble Lords there is an amazing pool of expertise, concerned particularly with dyslexia. But, alas, outside Parliament there is still far too much ignorance on the subject. It is unfortunately true that too many children are diagnosed too late.
The Earl of Swinton: I, from these Back Benches, also support the amendment. I am not altogether 100 per cent. in support of what the noble Baroness said because I do not believe that it is necessary to have a disabled person participate. On the whole it would be very good to have someone on this body who is aware of the special problems and needs of the disabled.
Lord Young of Dartington: As the father of a schizophrenic son, I also support the amendment. In the education world generally, among people who have great concern for special needs, there has been a great deal of unease about the Bill. Although that unease will not be removed if the amendment is accepted, it would be somewhat appeased. The people who have felt so disturbed would be somewhat reassured if the Government were able to make a small concession at this stage in the discussion of the Bill. It would not lose any of its guts, but it would be reassuring to perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who are deeply worried about what might happen to their children and grand-children who have such needs unless something like this is accepted and followed up in other ways that have more content even than this.
Baroness Hooper: I understand that there is considerable concern in this respect. As my noble friend Lady Young pointed out earlier, the provision that councils should include persons with relevant knowledge or experience of education means that there is a sufficient basis on which to build councils which are in all respects aware of the problems they face and are competent to deal with them. I include in that the practical problems and opportunities of the classroom and the considerations which must apply to children with special needs. Nevertheless, because of the concern which has been expressed—and in taking back the previous amendments which relate to the composition of these councils I must include this one—I shall take the amendment back again without commitment at this stage.
Lady Kinloss: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which I should like to read. As she has agreed to reconsider the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 5, line 13, at beginning insert ("to promote the development of a balanced and broadly based curriculum for maintained schools in accordance with the provisions of section 1(2) of this Act and").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the role and functions of the council and touches on many of the matters that have already been discussed. Page 5 of the Bill provides that the first function of the curriculum councils is to keep under review all aspects of the curriculum for maintained schools. We have been concerned about the sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State in Clause 4. He can establish the curriculum, revise it, specify the attainment targets and programmes of study and all assessment arrangements without reference to anyone. No doubt he will consult, but it is not written into the Bill.
We believe that the councils exist for the purpose of offering advice and that they should be given a higher profile. We urge the Government to give them the primary role of promoting the development of the broadly-based curriculum referred to in Clause 1. There seems to be no reason why they should not be given that role and it gives them a higher profile.
If the councils are not used for their legitimate purpose they will become puppets and be useless. One wonders who will be consulted by the Secretary of State if they are not consulted. Will the Minister say whether, for example, Her Majesty's Inspectorate will be consulted? If not, who will be? Will the reports of the task groups on the various subjects be closely studied and incorporated in the national curriculum? We presume that they will, but we should like a little more assurance in that respect.
If Parliament is to accord the Secretary of State such wide-sweeping powers he should, in return, undertake to consult to an extent that satisfies Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, for drawing our attention through his amendment to an important aspect of the framework established by the Bill. Clause 1 makes it encumbent on the Secretary of State, on local education authorities and on the heads and governors of maintained schools to exercise their respective functions so as to secure that the curriculum provided for pupils is balanced and broadly based. This is a fundamental principle of the Bill. The functions of the curriculum councils, as set out in Clause 7, are to keep all aspects of the curriculum under review, to advise and assist the Secretary of State and to make information available to all who are concerned with the provision of education and with the curriculum.
In discharging these functions, the councils will be helping the Secretary of State and his partners to carry out their own duties and responsibilities. We had therefore considered it unnecessary to reproduce the fundamental duty set out in Clause 1 in setting out the functions of the councils. However, this is an important point which we shall look at again in the light of the noble Lord's amendment, in order to satisfy ourselves that our intentions are adequately stated in the Bill as it is drafted. Should we conclude that a specific reference to Clause 1 is required, as the noble Lord suggests, we shall introduce a Government amendment at Report stage. In the light of that assurance—which I assure the Committee will not become a habit—I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I assure the Committee that we are not going to fall into that habit. I am grateful to the Minister for her assurance and I hope that she will be able to bring a favourable reply at the next stage of the Bill, bearing in mind especially the lack of connection that we feel exists between the lofty aims of Clause 1 and much of the rest of the Bill. I believe that every time a reference is made to Clause 1 and the basic aims of the Bill that is a gain. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 5, line 14, at end insert ("with special regard to those aspects of the curriculum not otherwise included in sections 3(1) and 3(2) such as personal and social education including health education.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment at about 3.30 on Wednesday morning and I do not want to take another large bite at the cherry. However, at that time we had a small debate on health education, and AIDS education in particular. In her reply the noble Baroness gave me assurances which were of some comfort. She said that the Government appreciate the importance of personal and social education and life skills. Of course, that is the framework within which much of this health education is carried out.
However, in the course of that debate—and I do not criticise the noble Baroness because this was at an extremely advanced hour—I asked the noble Baroness a question which she was not able to answer at that time. I should like to put it to her again. I am not expecting an answer immediately, but perhaps she may think about the matter and write to me. I do not want to encourage her in had habits and it may be that she does not want to make any more concessions.
In its submission to the Government, the Health Education Authority suggested that it should have some representation on the cross-curriculum working group to examine the place of health education within personal, social and health education and other relevant subjects. It also went on to suggest the appointment of a member of the National Curriculum Council with some expertise in health education, which is again a point that has been made earlier. I do not suggest that there should be an additional number of people on the National Curriculum Council, but simply that there should be someone with expertise in health education.
In view of the undertaking by the noble Baroness on behalf of the Government that they accord importance to this particular area, that suggestion would seem to be logical. Therefore I should be very grateful if she would let me know, possibly by letter, what are the Government's intentions in that respect.
Baroness Hooper: At this stage I regret that I am not able to add anything to what I said on the previous occasion.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I realise that she is not able to add anything now, but perhaps she will look at what I have said and come back to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("if so requested by him to assist him to").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 105. We have turned from the composition of and appointments to the council to its functions. The point of these amendments is to give some discretion to the National Curriculum Council to allow it to act on its own initiative instead of being entirely under the thumb of the Secretary of State. The council should be allowed to carry out its own research and development work without requiring the Secretary of State's permission, and also to carry out whatever ancillary activities it believes necessary. If the Secretary of State appoints suitable people—and we have to remember that he will make the appointments—it is hard to see why he should not trust them to carry out research and development work on their own initiative.
Most of the other amendments have drawn attention to the powers and control which the Government are giving to the Secretary of State. If the Government are not to ignore these concerns entirely, they should at least give reasonable freedom to the council which this amendment seeks. I have not put them down, but I suggest that a similar discretion should be given to the members of the School Examinations and Assessment Council. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: It seems that these two amendments link in a very close way with Clause 9 which is concerned with experiments, among other things. It might be helpful if the noble Baroness can tell us what kind of experiments are envisaged in the text of the Bill as it now stands. I believe that there are many of us who are concerned that experiments shall not be made on living children in ways which their parents possibly cannot anticipate as they might end up as being somewhat disadvantaged in a highly competitive society.
Earl Russell: I support the amendment of the noble Baroness. She seems to have raised a principle of great importance which goes right to the centre of this Bill; that is, whether the Secretary of State may confine himself to receiving advice when and as he so wishes. That is something that executives have wished to achieve for themselves for very many centuries and which parliaments have tried to ensure that they do not achieve for almost as many centuries. I believe that Parliament should continue to do its job.
Baroness Hooper: The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, to the functions of the curriculum councils seek to give the councils a significantly greater degree of formal freedom than we intend. The responsibility for promoting and developing the national curriculum properly rests with the Secretary of State, the LEAs and the schools. The work of the councils is to provide support and advice in this important endeavour.
In practice, we believe that the Secretaries of State and the councils will work in close partnership in evolving and conducting programmes of research

791
and development and in carrying out any ancillary activities; but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will provide the resources used by the councils and will be accountable for their use. It is right, therefore, that the formal position should be as set out in the Bill. The councils will be able to put their recommendations for research and development to my right honourable friend. Where these are well found and can be carried out within the councils' budgets, I would not expect any difficulties.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may say a brief word on the nature of these councils which follows on from what my noble friend Lady David and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have said. The noble Baroness emphasised to us her view of the councils as being independent. We certainly would like them to be so. They do advise and many of us have been in the business of advising for many years. I have advised Ministers. There are two kinds of advice that one can give: advice that they want to hear and advice that they do not want to hear. My own view is that the only advisers who are worthwhile are those who give advice that Ministers do not wish to hear. My concept of independence is the concept of saying things which, to say the least, can be something of a nuisance. I believe that is what the noble Earl had in mind.
I should like to hear from the noble Baroness whether she appreciates that that is what we want these councils to be. To be perfectly honest, I believe that their only use to the Secretary of State is if occasionally they say to him things like, "You do not understand; you have got it wrong and we are independent enough to say so". What still worries me a little about the response of the noble Baroness is that I am not quite sure that she and her noble friends really want that kind of advice. My own view is that, in giving her advice, they should want that kind of advice.
Baroness Hooper: I thank the noble Lord for his advice. I emphasise that curriculum development is the primary focus of and reason for the kind of research and development that the councils can undertake. To return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the link with Clause 9, the work of the curriculum development councils requires the fitting together of specific national curriculum requirements in particular schools so that it can be carried out more fully.
Baroness David: I do not think that that is a very satisfactory answer. It is an important function of the council to be able to give advice and to initiate a number of matters. Therefore, I should like to press this amendment.
10.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 103) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 52.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monson, L.

Carter, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Serota, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lockwood, B.

White, B.

London, Bp.

Young of Darlington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Joseph, L.

Bathurst, E.

Kimball, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Nome, L.

Coleraine, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Pender, L.

Cowley, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dundee, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ferrers, E.

Swinton, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hanson, L.

Trafford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.38 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 106. I am immediately tempted to say, whether or not regional considerations are included in the national curriculum, that many schools will continue to include them in the curriculum anyway. Schools have always been encouraged to include a regional dimension in their work.
We can all draw on our experiences of our own regions. I come from the North-East of England. It is unthinkable that our children should not be taught about coalmining, steelmaking and shipbuilding. Perhaps I should say that the present Government have done their best to close all those industries down. That refers only to industry but in fact there are few subjects that are not related to or cannot be

793
related to a pupil's environment. Not to know about the history of one's area and its relationship to national events would be an immense gap in a child's education.
If I may call on my experience again, imagine children in the North-East not having special knowledge of St. Bede and his part in the establishment of Christianity in the North-East. There is no part of our country which does not have something special about its language and its dialect. For example, in our area we have words which are exactly the same as those used in Iceland, Denmark and other Scandinavian countries. Children should be aware of this type of link.
Does the Minister imagine for one moment that the curriculum of a rural school will, or should, be the same as that of an inner-city school? I need not give further examples except to say that some subjects lend themselves especially to the regional perspective; such as, geography and music with its folk songs and, indeed, with its musical instruments. Should Members of the Committee ever wish to hear a blast from me on the Northumbrian pipes, I should be very glad to oblige—although I should not recommend it. There are in addition of course ethnic studies and so on.
There was a worry some years ago among educationists and sociologists that the BBC would standardise our speech and culture and, to some extent, that has happened. However, I find it interesting to note that the pendulum has in fact now swung the other way. I find it pleasant that we now hear many broadcasters who have regional accents. I feel that that is the way it ought to be. It has even gone further than that. I must tell the Committee that I am not much of a television watcher but there are so-called "soaps" which are specifically regional. Indeed, I am told on the best possible authority—my wife, who watches it—that "Brookside" is Liverpudlian. I can say that "When the Boat Comes In"—I nearly said it with a Geordie accent—was a genuine Geordie saga. Similarly, "East Enders" is a London programme and of course there are others.
The Committee will recall that when independent television was set up it was developed on the basis of regional television and that makes a special contribution to our social affairs. I mention those matters because they are yet further evidence of the importance of the regional characteristics of our country. It is obvious that by omitting specific reference to them in the Bill the Government either do not understand, or they have completely underrated the richness, variety and importance of our regional life.
It may be that the Government are taking it for granted that regional considerations will be taken into account in determining the form and content of the national curriculum. However, it would be a little dangerous—especially in view of what has happened in the Bill thus far—to assume that. Once the Government decide, as they have in this measure, that there should be such a national curriculum there is no choice but to give the proposition detailed scrutiny, hence the many amendments which have been tabled to the proposals.
As the Bill stands, a centralising government could easily argue that regional considerations are not a matter for a national curriculum; that is, that it is a contradiction in terms. I have just mentioned a centralising government. There is much evidence in this Bill, and indeed in other spheres, to show that the present Government are a centralising administration. For example, look at what has happened, and is happening, to local government.
However, I choose in conclusion to be more generous on this issue and say that the Government have simply overlooked what to many of us is an important matter. I do not see that they can have any fundamental objection to the amendment and I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to say a word in support of the amendment. I think that one of the defects from which the proposed national curriculum suffers is a word which came into my mind and which I subsequently looked up in the dictionary: namely, jejune. I thought that the word meant scanty or meagre and according to The Oxford Dictionary it does. In my view it fits the description of the Bill in that it describes the proposals for the curriculum rather well. According to my colleague's dictionary, it also means naive or unsophisticated. That description also fits the curriculum, which has a certain meagreness, lack of interest and lack of vision about it. It is somewhat naive to propose a list of subjects which, as my noble friend Lady Seear said on Second Reading, was the way we were taught 50 or 60 years ago. The curriculum needs enrichment and the amendment is one way in which it could be enriched.
We on these Benches believe that the regions are important and that London and the centre are not England. The amendment's aim is worthy and we support it.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: I am most annoyed with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, because I have "naive" in my notes and I am at a loss to think of another adjective now that he has also used "jejune" and "unsophisticated".
One of the benefits of the Bill, whatever others there may be, is that it has caused some of us to think a great deal about education. I must admit that I have not done so enough recently. Noble Lords opposite may have been right when they accused some of us of being complacent. By limiting the national curriculum and what we must now learn to call the other foundation subjects, the Government have caused me to think about education. I therefore associated myself with the amendment because there is—I am sorry to use the word again—something naive about "other foundation subjects".
I cannot believe that the Government want to carry out their proposals in that way. The more I think about the issue, and the points made by my noble friend Lady David on Second Reading, and later, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the more I feel that we should not have subjects such as history, geography and so on; we should have—I am increasingly convinced this is what the Government want, but because they do not want to yield to

795
anything we say they refuse to accept them—broad subject headings, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said.
If one had broad subject headings it would be easy, as my noble friend Lord Dormand pointed out, to introduce a local, regional element. I should have thought that it would be reasonable for a local education authority in the North-West to have a course in economic awareness instead of geography within the other foundation subjects. I am sorry to be back to my "instead of geography" point, but it seems reasonable for economic awareness to be within other foundation subjects. It is at least as compelling as geography. I cannot believe that the Government disagree with me that that should be one of the other foundation subjects. It would make much more sense if there were a different heading under which one could do geography or economic awareness, or, to take an even more peculiar subject, regional matters.
One can think of so many other topics that could be included. Given what is happening with the Channel Tunnel, I do not see why French language and society could not be another foundation subject in the county of Kent. Why could not the local education authority decide that that subject was of local interest and importance? As times changed it might cease to be one of the other foundation subjects. The list is endless.
To go back to my geography example again, I now live in Sussex and I do not see why the school children there should not be taught about the environment in general instead of geography. It is an issue that is becoming of some importance in the area.
In pressing this point upon the Government I should like to believe that just as some of us are thinking again—
Lord Trafford: So far as I know, nobody in this Committee has ever tried to defend geography. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord (and not as a great defender of geography) simply that it covers many of the things he is talking about—the North-West, awareness, the environment, meteorology, and a host of other things. Geography is itself a broad subject.
Lord Peston: I am sorry that the noble Lord rose to that bait. I actually do not have quite the antipathy to geography that I sound as though I have. If I use the word "foundation" and I say to myself, "is putting in geography somehow foundation?" intuitively, it does not ring true to me. My point is precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said. What one wants is an explicit recognition of groups. That is what one wants. I should like the Bill to say that. If the Bill said that, then I feel that it would be enormously improved.
Baroness Hooper: These amendments seek to add to the functions of the National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales so that they take account of regional considerations. I ought to point out first of all that the curriculum councils do not actually have the job of determining the content or the format of the national curriculum. They are
796
essentially advisory councils, though they also have important responsibilities for conducting consultations on the Secretary of State's proposals for attainment targets, programmes of study and other matters. They may of course make recommendations on the content of the curriculum—indeed we very much hope they will offer early advice both on specific subjects such as maths and science and on the curriculum as a whole.
Later, they may wish to offer advice not only about the other subjects in the national curriculum, but also on particular aspects of the whole curriculum. But the decisions on form and content will be for the Secretary of State working within the framework laid down in the Bill; this includes the requirement to submit key orders to the scrutiny of Parliament. I say all this because we do not want there to be any confusion about where responsibility for determining the form and content properly lies.
The essence of a national curriculum is of course that it should be national. It is based on the idea that all pupils, wherever they live, should be entitled to a broad and balanced basic education and assessed according to generally recognised criteria. In exercising his responsibilities under the Bill, the Secretary of State will certainly not want to derogate from that important fundamental principle which is enshrined in the Bill itself.
Of course we recognise that there are important differences between the culture and traditions of different parts of England and indeed Wales. Thus Welsh is a foundation subject in Wales. We do not expect or intend that the programmes of study in the core and other foundation subjects—whether in England or in Wales—will be so restrictive that teachers and schools will not be able to draw on the distinctive culture, traditions, history, industry and geography of their areas in teaching those subjects. The same is true for the teaching of other subjects which may be on offer. Subjects such as careers education, for example, must reflect the nature of the opportunities offered by the area, as the noble Lord himself said, and the availability of training programmes, and so forth. Indeed, the tendency to do projects for assessment in schools, particularly in geography, must lead to better knowledge of the surrounding area of the school. We certainly have no intention to ignore the richness and variety of our country's culture.
I hope this serves to reassure the noble Lord that there is nothing in our national curriculum proposals which is inimical to the maintenance of the best of our distinctive regional traditions, and that what is taught and how it is taught will continue to depend very much on the approach of individual teachers and schools within the context of the overall national curriculum. On this basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Seear: We really are in a great state of confusion about the difference between core and foundation. The noble Baroness has just this minute said that Welsh is a foundation subject, but Clause 3(1) says that it is a core subject. Is it just possibly true that there is no difference between core and foundation? If that is so, we had better say so and get it put into the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: I do not wish to embark upon another semantic discussion, but in terms of Wales, the point is that Welsh is a foundation subject there and is a core subject in Welsh medium schools. Clause 2(1) refers to the core and other foundation subjects. It may be helpful to the noble Baroness to say that the distinction is that the core subjects are part of the foundation subjects; but they have a slightly different emphasis in that they are the subjects which we believe to be at the heart of the whole curriculum. They are therefore the first subjects to be introduced and they are subjects which will be compulsory throughout primary and secondary schooling. So there is some distinction, but they are part of the foundation curriculum as well as of the national curriculum.
Baroness Seear: But the noble Baroness told me not so long ago that all the foundation subjects had to be continued until pupils were 16. That is another distinction between the two which has apparently gone.
Baroness Hooper: I do not want to get into a long and involved discussion at this point. Foundation subjects are to be continued until 16, but, for example, we are not expecting a foreign language to be started at the beginning of primary school.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: If I heard the noble Baroness aright, she told us that the orders that are made, such as those establishing the council and the national curriculum, are subject to the authority of Parliament. Can she tell me where that is said in the Bill? It is a large Bill and I may quite easily have overlooked this; it may be tucked away somewhere. I think there are in Clauses 13 and 14 descriptions of certain procedures which the Secretary of State has to go through before he makes orders. But nothing is said about when the orders are to be presented to Parliament or whether they are to be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure in Parliament. I think we ought to know this. It may be my own fault and that I have failed to spot something in the Bill, but I have looked for it and have not found it.
Baroness Hooper: Clause 4 deals with the duty to establish the national curriculum by order. That refers to the way in which the Secretary of State should make the orders. But for further clarification I believe I can refer the noble Lord to Clause 192(1).
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I was afraid it might be something like that. Clause 192(1) is right at the end, on page 169, where it says:
"Any power of the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations under this Act … shall be exercised by statutory instrument."
That gets us that far. What has happened to the statutory instrument?
"No order shall be made … unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before …".
I see. It appears to be a matter for affirmative procedure. I am glad to establish this because I think we are going to have fun when the programmes or guidelines or whatever for history and geography and so on all come before this House to be debated. It is an example of the way nature lags behind art. Some
798
time ago, the humourist Stephen Leacock wrote what purported to be an account of a debate in this House on education. Noble Lords were discussing a clause which said that the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal. They were considering amendments that could be made to it, such as, for example, that it should not apply in schools where two-thirds of the parents had conscientious objections to the use of the isosceles triangle.
I am delighted that the noble Baroness has been able to reassure me that Parliament is supreme on this matter. But I wonder whether the Government have really considered how much they have bitten off. We shall have most interesting debates when we come to look at what the Secretary of State produces.
Lord Peston: I wonder whether we may have misunderstood this. My reading of Clause 192 is that there are excepted provisions. Only some under subsection (3) seem to be made by positive resolution. Large numbers seem to be subject to annulment, which I think means negative resolution. Never having been in the other place, I have no idea what the difference is, but the procedures are certainly not the same.
I wonder also whether it is true, to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said, that we shall have a chance to debate these matters. Can the Minister tell us whether, if we are of that mind, we shall be able to debate all the orders or virtually none of them?
Baroness Hooper: I confirm that the orders under Clause 4(2)(a) and (b), which are not listed in Clause 192(3), will be subject to the negative procedure. I regret that I am not able to go further at this point. If the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, intends to participate in the orders as they fall under parliamentary scrutiny, I can assure him that they will not all come through at once and the "fun" will extend over a period of years.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I found the Minister's reply to the amendment somewhat peculiar. The first part seemed to indicate that a regional dimension is not being explicitly named here. The Minister called in aid something I said in moving the amendment, that if it is a national curriculum there cannot be a regional consideration. The latter part of the reply seemed to suggest that there can be such a dimension, but that it is not necessary to spell it out. I note that the Minister is nodding, which presumably means that my interpretation of her reply is correct. Whether the Government say it or not, therefore, as I said in moving the amendment there will be a regional dimension to teaching in schools, and long may it be so. It is such things that make teaching come alive. It is related to the immediate experience of children. At some stage I hope that we can have a clear statement by the Minister that this is a desirable and effective part of education.
In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Curriculum and Assessment Councils]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 176, leave out line 10.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 107, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 108, which goes with it, and to Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 under Schedule 5, which apply to membership of a higher education corporation. Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 apply to membership of the curriculum and assessment councils.
As paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 now stands, the Secretary of State may remove a member from office if he is satisfied that he,
"(b) is incapacitated by physical or mental illness".
I hope that that is an oversight. As the Association of Disabled Professionals has pointed out to me, it is possible, as the paragraph now reads, that a physical illness leading to incapacity such as arthritis, polyneuritis, polio or multiple sclerosis could be deemed to be a reason for removing a member from office. It does not define what "incapacitated" means or what a member may be incapable of doing.
The paragraph could lead to slightly dotty situations. If one imagines—heaven help the council if it came about!—that I and my noble colleagues, Lady Masham and Lord Ingleby, were all on a council, the noble Baroness and I would be quite safe, having become disabled through accident. However, the noble Viscount might risk being removed from the council, as he has had polio.
I should have thought that there were ample safeguards in head (c) under which a member can be removed if he is unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member. I hope that the Minister will accept this small but quite important amendment, or at least undertake to bring an amendment forward at Repot stage which meets the point. I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Government to allow removal of a member on the grounds of physical incapacity. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: I hate to stab my noble friend in the back from this side of the Committee. Having sat so often where she now is and generally getting stabbed in the back from this side on education Bills, I sympathise with her. On the other hand, I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, in her amendment. Obviously I feel very involved because of the position of my noble kinswoman.
I think that paragraph 8(1)(b) is most insulting. I should have thought that the wording,
"unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member",
could not be objected to. I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment.
Lord Carter: I am pleased to support the amendment. The definition of "physical or mental illness" is unclear. On what basis will the Secretary of State decide that a member is incapacitated? That phraseology is all part of the conditioning of society towards disablement, to which I referred earlier.
800
The Secretary of State is already given sweeping powers under paragraph 7(1)(c) as regards a member who is unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member. Suppose that the member to be removed feels that his condition does not preclude him from carrying out the duties of a council member? Is he able to make out a case for his retention? If the reason for the decision of the Secretary of Stare is mental illness, presumably he is not in a fit state to make out such a case. That would appear to be a Catch-22 situation.
That sort of thinking is all a part of the conditioning of society in its attitude towards disablement. There are many disabled people who find such terminology to be what I can only describe as carelessly offensive. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: I am sorry that the heading has given offence. I reassure my noble friend Lord Swinton that I do not feel that my back is bleeding. I understand very well the reason for the noble Baroness's suspicion of the power in Schedules 1 and 5. That power is not intended to be used to discriminate against people who may become disabled in some way while holding office. Only if the disability were so severe that they were plainly unable to continue would the Secretary of State seek to remove them, and the schedules provide for that. I agree that the power is unnecessary and we accept the amendment. We shall also be prepared to accept an amendment removing the identical provision in Schedule 6.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I need only say that I am delighted with that reply and I thank the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 176, line 11, leave out ("otherwise").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 109:
After Schedule 1 insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE: ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS TO FOUNDATION AND CORE SUBJECTS
The following subjects may be taught in combination with the core and foundation subjects specified in section 3(1) and 3(2), or with any subject specified in an Order made by the Secretary of State under section 3(4)

Home Economics

Environmental Education

Health and personal hygiene

Social and Life studies

Childcare and parenting

Sex Education

Economic awareness

Craft and Design

Physics

Chemistry

Biology

Latin

Classical Greek

French

German

Russian

801

Spanish

Italian

Modern Greek

Woodwork

American studies

Building

British government, constitution

Botany

Communication studies

Light crafts

Chemical technology

Current affairs, civics

Community education/studies/service

Dance

Drama, theatre arts

Duke of Edinburgh award

Engineering drawing

Economic history

Electrical engineering

Engineering

Environmental science

European studies

Electronics

Fashion design

Fencing

Film studies

Food and nutrition

Yoga

Metalwork

Draughtsmanship and Technical Drawing

Computer Skills

Social Sciences

Ethnic minority languages and culture

Mother tongue languages

Constitutional and public affairs

Citizenship

Road Safety

Office and secretarial skills

Business skills

Graphical communication

Geology

Greek literature in translation

General studies

Gymnastics

Ancient history

Humanities, human studies

Integrated studies

Jewellery

Law

Library

Materials science

Commercial mathematics, accounts

Further mathematics

Media studies

Mathematics with statistics/statistics

Motor vehicle studies

Needlecraft/textiles

Photography

Physics with mathematics

Pottery

Plastics

Remedial provision

Rural studies

Silversmithing

Surveying

Swimming

Tailoring

Technical drawing

Textile science

Television studies

Work experience

World Studies

Zoology").

The noble Baroness said: I referred to this schedule on Tuesday when speaking to the first amendment. This is not meant entirely to be a joke, it does have a serious side to it. For one thing I think that it illustrates the old-fashioned and unsophisticated nature of the Bill's list of foundation subjects. As my noble friend Lord Peston said the other day, if we
802
have to have foundation subjects, could they not be grouped as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, suggested in her speech at Second Reading? I should have thought that many of these subjects could well be grouped to form one block of foundation subjects. I put that forward as a suggestion.
I think that the list shows the wealth of possibilities for children being taught in schools, children of all abilities whether academic or non-academic. I think it is a list to be proud of and which the education service should be proud of. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: May I ask the noble Baroness why she has left out taxonomy?
Baroness David: I cannot imagine! I am sure that my husband would be very cross indeed if he knew that I had.
Lord Hylton: The list does seem to be slightly eclectic. If modern Greek is to be included why not Portuguese or Dutch-cum-Flemish, which, after all, are EC languages? If Russian is to be included, why not Chinese?
Baroness David: I would accept all those additions.
Baroness Hooper: I have nothing to add to the comments which I made in the previous debate.
Baroness David: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
11.15 p.m.
Clause 9 [Development work and experiments]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 7, line 18, after ("out") insert ("or the continuance of an established curriculum speciality").
The noble Lord said: In a previous debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the question of the international baccalaureate was referred to. The amendment is directed particularly to that system. It would introduce into the second line of Clause 9 after the words:
"enabling development work or experiments to be carried out",
the additional words:
"or the continuance of an established curriculum speciality".
That may seem to be slightly esoteric, but I have discovered that there are not only nine independent schools in the country which offer the international baccalaureate but also eight schools in the maintained sector. One of the effects of their method is that they proceed a long way down the line which I think that the Government themselves intended to take in introducing AS-levels, which have not I think had the success that the Government had hoped for. They take the concept of AS and A-levels a good deal further than is current in most schools at the moment.
I think that it will be very clear to the Committee that schools teaching a broad range of subjects under the international baccalaureate system, including a very strong emphasis on languages, are operating

803
very much within the spirit of all the recent exhortations from the Government to prepare ourselves for the full integration of the European market in 1992. So on those grounds one would have thought that this small but not inconsiderable sector is of some interest and worthy of support. I hope that the noble Baroness, whom I know to be a linguist, will be sympathetic to that aspect of it.
As I said, there are eight schools in the maintained sector which are affected. I shall refer in particular to one at Ingatestone. The school fears that neither under Clause 9 nor Clause 10 would its current curriculum be possible. In that school in particular there is a very strong European influence. In fact the noble Baroness said earlier that there was nothing to prevent alternative examinations being adopted by any school, which of course is true; but does not in fact address the main problem.
In the case of the school to which I am referring, which is the Ingatestone Anglo-European School, the average GCSE pupil will be taking 1·5 modern language subjects, which seems to be very much in accordance with the direction that the Government want to take under the Bill. Personally, I have very considerable reservations about the wisdom of allowing the Secretary of State to prescribe a foreign language for all pupils up to the age of 16. As I said in the Second Reading debate, I think that that may well be counterproductive for those who do not show any such aptitude, and at least at 14 in many cases it may be advisable to switch to something else. But I think the general thrust in the direction of languages is important.
The headmaster of the school to which I have referred writes:
"It would be difficult to sustain this rate [of participation in modern languages] under the National Curriculum proposals, as the Second Language would have to compete with a very large number of other optional subjects".
He also brings to my attention the fact that the school offers a special GCSE subject in European studies in which all the 180 pupils in that particular school are included. The letter continues:
"Unless this subject can be substituted for the History/Geography "Foundation" slot, it too would be condemned to fight for existence in the much constrained time allowed for options".
The point made by the noble Baroness about there being nothing technically against the use of this examination system does not take into account the constraints that would be imposed on those schools by the national curriculum when it comes into effect. I have only referred to one school but there are seven others, and under this Bill some if not all of them would be forced to abandon this approach. They are not proctected under Clause 9 nor, so far as we can see, under Clause 10.
The amendment that I put to the Committee is entirely a probing amendment at this stage. I hope to hear the Minister explain the attitude of the Government to these schools, how they think that they will survive under the new regime and, if they envisage that survival may be difficult, whether they will offer them a helping hand. I think that is all I need say at the moment. I shall be grateful to the noble Baroness if she will tell me the Government's view on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Clause 9 of this Bill has perhaps been one of the most controversial clauses because I believe that this has been one of the least understood elements of our national curriculum provisions. Clause 9 does not regulate the scope for all curriculum development and experimentation in future. The great majority of this work will continue, as now, in schools and local education authorities, in colleges and university departments of education, to look at alternative ways of meeting commonly agreed, broad curriculum objectives. The only difference will be that increasingly in future these commonly agreed broad objectives will take the shape of national curriculum attainment targets.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, wishes to add the notion of using Clause 9 to allow for the continuation of an established curriculum speciality. We believe that any acceptable curriculum speciality will be able to coexist quite happily with the national curriculum provisions using the very great freedom we have already discussed within and outside the national curriculum.
The example of the school which follows the international baccalaureate course—to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock—is known to us, and we and HMI believe that that school will have no problem in meeting national curriculum requirements while maintaining its distinctive ethos.
Schools should be able to develop new specialisms at any time. The reference to established specialisms seems to suppose that we stop the clock on the passage of the Bill. What we have in mind is much less restrictive than that. That is why we believe that this amendment is simply not needed. I therefore trust that the noble Lord, as he has indicated, will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I undertake to withdraw the amendment. I have listened to the noble Baroness with interest. She talked about the very great freedoms allowed within the national curricular framework. However, many believe that these freedoms will not exist. Alternatively, we believe that they might exist if some of the amendments that we have been proposing at an earlier stage—such as allowing a menu of foundation subjects, or matters of that nature—had been accepted. These would have allowed a great deal more room for this type of individual development.
This is only one instance, but this is one of the main disadvantages of the Bill. It does not provide either for any new or original types of school.
My noble friend Lord Young of Dartington will later be putting forward some proposals to the Committee which will endeavour to take us in that direction. I must therefore tell the noble Baroness that I am not entirely satisfied with what she has said. I do not think that people who are operating those schools will be satisfied either.
However, as I said, I simply wished to have her opinion at this stage. I am grateful to her for having given it to me. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 7, line 18, after ("out") insert ("or in exceptional circumstances relating to a rapid change in the intake of a school or other unforeseen situations").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has the support of the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
Clause 9 deals specifically not only with what can be done but provides certain circumstances when the restrictions of the national curriculum shall not apply; and when modifications may be made.
I wish the Minister and her colleagues to consider other circumstances in which the obligation to follow the national curriculum may be lifted. I wish to cite circumstances which make it impossible to deliver the full national curriculum. One can envisage changes in the local community. For instance, there may be the building of a new housing estate; or the arrival of a large number of refugees; or a disaster in a local school resulting in closure of that school: some changes in which there is a dramatic alteration in the school population.
I give the Minister a specific example which would apply in current circumstances. This relates to a church primary school in Paddington. Several inner London boroughs, notably Tower Hamlets, in order to comply with the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, have provided bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless families outside their boroughs. A large number of those families have been boarded in Paddington. The understanding of English of most of those children of many of those families of Bangladeshi origin (whose mother tongue is not English) is poor. The roll of that primary school was increased from about 100 to 200 in the space of a few months. Because nearly all of the children have poor understanding of English, it was necessary for the school to make a radical alteration in the curriculum for these children.
I am asking the Minister to understand that we are trying to help her and her colleagues, once the Bill becomes an Act. We are hoping that the Bill will take account of circumstances of the kind that I have outlined. They are real problems, based on current practice. It will not change. The circumstances I have outlined are genuine. If the Minister understands that this is likely to happen, the amendment will enable her and her colleagues to act within the spirit of the Act, rather than to find that unfortunately the Act is prescriptive and will leave many problems on the shoulders of the teaching profession. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Like the previous amendment, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Graham, would also extend the scope of the Secretary of State's powers to cover disapplication of the national curriculum in exceptional circumstances. The national curriculum provisions of the Bill would not be legally enforceable upon a school which was unable, because of unforeseen circumstances, to meet its obligations, and for this reason the amendment is also an unnecessary addition to the clause.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I appreciate that the Minister's case is that the Bill already provides for the
806
kind of circumstance that I have outlined. The Minister's words will be on the record, and I very much hope that they will not need to be quoted against her in the future. In the light of her explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 7, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) When an application is made to the Secretary of State under this section, he shall not unreasonably refuse such an application.").
The noble Lord said: This relates to the franchise, as one might call it, given by the Secretary of State to schools which want to experiment with new curricula and to be exempted from the demands of the national curriculum fo a certain length of time. It is extremely important that pioneering should continue to take place in education. It is the lifeblood of the profession, of the business of education. A great deal is happening in the country at the moment: there are bad things too, no doubt, but there are also good facets. I have visited schools where very remarkable things are occurring and I am sure some Members of the Committee have too. These are happening within the maintained sector. I gave the impression on Tuesday that I thought that was true only of the independent sector, but by no means. I am thinking particularly of what is happening in Sheffield at the moment. I have not, unfortunately, been there, but I have visited a new school in Swindon which was very impressive indeed.
To give the Committee an idea of the feeling of the school, I had half an hour or so with the headmaster at the beginning of my visit and then I did not see him again. I was handed over to the children. I went to classes with them and I was taken to meals with them. They took me to meet the rest of the staff and I never saw the head teacher again. I call that very impressive. It is likely to be the good schools that want the special exemption referred to in the clause. It is likely to be good teachers who are at those schools. Good teachers are encouraged by the opportunity to experiment and pioneer. Unfortunately, much of the Bill gives the impression that it will stultify, ossify and freeze for ever a certain situation at a certain moment.
We have had and shall have more assurances from the Minister that that is not so, but unfortunately it is the overall impression given by the Bill. Even this clause appears to be rather grudging. A school which wishes to experiment may be let off for a time but it must return. That is the impression which is gained, and I cannot say how the Bill can be reworded to remove that impression. On the grounds I have explained, I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Amendment No. 121 requires the Secretary of State to act reasonably, but that is already a general principle underlying all the provisions of the Bill and of all legislation. If any Secretary of State were to exercise his powers unreasonably, he would be open to legal challenge. If we were to write in the requirement to be reasonable

807
in all legislation where the Secretary of State is allowed to exercise some degree of discretion, all our Acts would be littered with such provisions. But happily this is not necessary in general, nor in the specific circumstances of the Bill.
Amendment No. 113 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to develop and improve the national curriculum. But the Secretary of State already has the duty under Clause 4 to maintain as well as establish the national curriculum, and he must have regard to that duty and his Clause 1 duties in carrying out any of his further powers under Chapter I, including the power to allow major curriculum development work.
As I have said, the National Curriculum Council will also be advising the Secretary of State on his role in this respect, and the council is under a separate duty under Clause 7 to keep all aspects of the curriculum under review and advise as it sees fit. So we are forced to conclude that Amendment No. 113 would be another declaratory addition to the Bill, and that its intentions are already well met by existing provisions. I ask Members of the Committee to reject these amendments.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I understood the Minister to imply that all the actions of a Secretary of State would always be reasonable. I find that statement questionable. The actions of this particular Secretary of State may be reasonable, but what may we have in the future? If there is a refusal, how can one appeal on what are considered to be unreasonable grounds?
Baroness Hooper: I said that the general principle underlying all legislation, as well as the provisions of the Bill, is that the Secretary of State in the circumstances should act reasonably.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I do not find that answer very reassuring or satisfying. However, at the moment I can make no further suggestions. I should like to reword the amendment and bring back the idea on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 114:
Page 7, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) In every local education authority there shall be set up a committee to be known as the Ethics Committee the role of which is to monitor all development work and experiments.").
The noble Lord said: I am strongly in favour of development work and experiments but I am concerned about the rights of parents and children in such schools. I was interested to hear what was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. However, having listened to much of the discussion I believe that I need to think about the matter a great deal more. I shall return to the subject and I shall not move the amendment tonight.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness David: This clause has come in for a great deal of criticism from many sides. The noble Baroness has just said that it was the least understood clause. If things are to be put into a Bill that are so misunderstood by a great many people who are well acquainted with the world of education, I believe that is a great pity and that it has been very badly drafted. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said, the impression is that it has a dampening effect. There is a feeling that things are not going to be allowed, that experiments will be frowned on.
The wording states:
"the Secretary of State may direct as respects a particular maintained school",
and later:
"A direction shall not be given".
I do not care very much for the word "direction".
The fact is that good practice in education is very often started in one authority or another and has then been taken up all over the place. I believe that that initiative would not be taken if every time the local authority or school had to ask permission to do something which was not done every day of the year. Therefore, that is a great shame.
This was the clause which Miss Sheila Browne, who until quite recently was the senior chief HMI, said shocked her most. I believe that it should be taken back and reworded. Perhaps I can ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Inspectorate is presently in favour of it.
Lord Young of Dartington: Perhaps I can support the noble Baroness, Lady David. I was convinced by the welcome words of the Minister about freedom that the clause should be done away with completely. I am sure we should be better without it, at least as presently drafted. The great pioneers of British education would certainly not have asked for permission to experiment or develop, and their counterparts at this or any other time should not have to ask for permission to experiment or develop the work which they do either in or out of school. If people have to ask permission, then automatically their freedom is limited. One only needs to provide for permission to experiment if the permission might be withheld and it should not be withheld.
This has been an old debate in the Soviet Union. One has to ask for permission from the Soviet Academy of Sciences before one can undertake certain kinds of research. Therefore, research is limited. Surely all teachers should be undertaking development work and experiment almost continuously and always be ready to do so in all kinds of matters whether they be methods of reading, teaching mathematics, and so on. Unless that is so, their teaching will not come alive and stay alive. If they are only able to do that with the permission of the Secretary of State, we can say goodbye to any real growth in the development of education.
In my submission, it is much better for it to be implied that development work is always to be encouraged and not restricted to that for which one is given permission. I hope the Minister is prepared to consider either dropping the whole clause (which I believe would be the best solution) or coming back with a new presentation and formulation of what is intended.
Lord Hylton: We have earlier discussed in this clause whether or not the actions of the Secretary of State will always be reasonable. If one looks at the Department of Environment, some criticism has been made of the Secretary of State with regard to the people he has appointed to the Urban Development Corporation.
My main concern about this clause is this question of experiment. In an earlier amendment I tried to draw a clearer definition of the word "experiment" from the Minister. If I understood her rightly, she was implying that these experiments in this clause would concern fuller development of the curriculum. If I am wrong, I am sure she will correct me. It is by no means certain that all experiments will be successful. I want to guard against unsuccessful experiments actually prejudicing the personal and educational development of the children subjected to them. Can we be told what kind of safeguards there will be to minimise those risks?
Baroness Blackstone: One of the great strengths of the British education system has been the opportunities available for grass root experiment and innovation for local education authorities to develop various new kinds of approach, for heads to try out new ways of organising the school day and for classroom teachers to develop new teaching methods and new curricula. Are we to abandon all this in one fell swoop as a result of this Bill? If permission to experiment has to be sought from the Secretary of State, how is he going to cope with the many approaches that he is likely to receive? Clearly he will be unable to decide all of them for himself because he is a very busy man.
How will his civil servants know how to respond to the approaches that the DES is likely to receive? Few of the senior officials have direct experience of teaching in schools. In that sense they are not qualified to provide advice to the Secretary of State on many of the innovatory experiments that go on at present. Will it be done by Her Majesty's Inspectorate, and are they to do it on top of all the other new work that they have to cope with in relation to the national curriculum and national assessment? If so, presumably the DES will find it rather difficult to respond rapidly and quickly. Its already dented reputation in terms of a quick response to issues of this kind will become even more dented.
I give a recent example in relation to the GCSE. If the department takes as long to deal with the issues raised by this set of questions people who want to mount experiments will, in the end, simply give up. The Nuffield Foundation project on graded assessment in maths, which also involves a number of LEAs, is seeking a very minor exemption from the GCSE national criteria, yet the request has been with the DES for over six months.
There can be no other profession denied the right to innovate and try out new methods and approaches without seeking permission in the way that the teaching profession is being denied the right in this Bill. I support my noble friend Lady David on this Question.
Baroness Hooper: The Government have made clear that they do not wish the national curriculum to be a static one, set in stone. It must be capable of responding to changes of need and circumstance, and to the development of knowledge over time. That is why Clause 4 requires the Secretary of State to revise the national curriculum when he judges it expedient to do so and why Clause 7 requires the NCC to keep the school curriculum under review.
To enable all this to happen it is important to have the flexibility offered by Clause 9. It ensures that development work is not halted because of the national curriculum. We need to allow experiment and development so that the national curriculum can be revised as new needs arise.
Clause 9 therefore allows for some or all of the national curriculum requirements to be waived for a specified period to allow development work to take place. We expect much of this work will be carried out under the auspices of the NCC or CCW, but the clause specifically allows for individual LEAs and the governors of maintained schools, with the agreement of the LEA or the governors of voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools, to apply on their own for an exemption, so that small local projects can continue to play a valuable part.
Within the framework of attainment targets and programmes of study there will be scope for schools to adopt new approaches and try out experimental approaches without the school needing permission from the Secretary of State. I think that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The clause would apply where the suggested experiment or project was so major it would involve exceptions being made to the national curriculum which would require the lifting of statutory requirements.
In response to the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, I feel sure that HMI would have let us know if it objected, and I am not aware that it has so objected.
Lord Joseph: Not having heard this debate and therefore not having heard any previous intervention by my noble friend the Minister, I am reassured to learn that the Secretary of State will make exemptions for what I hope will be a considerable proportion of the experimental or development works proposed. If I have missed some previous explanation by the Minister of this matter, I apologise. If she has not told the Committee whether the exemptions contemplated would account for quite a proportion of the workload expected, I for one would be grateful if she could add a word to what she has said.
Baroness David: I think it would be nice if the noble Baroness would confirm what she has said.
Baroness Hooper: Within the framework of attainment targets and programmes of study there will be scope for experimentation without having to make specific application under this clause. Therefore, I do not anticipate that there will be an enormous increase in the workload in this respect.
Baroness David: It seems to me that there will still have to be a great many applications, and that will take a great deal of time. We well know, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, how long things sit at the DES before there are answers. I think there should be much more freedom and I therefore have to press the Committee to vote against the clause.
11.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 22.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Beaverbrook, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Joseph, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norrie, L.

Cowley, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Selborne, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Swinton, E.

Faithfull, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trafford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Peston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Rea, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

David, B.

Russell, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNair, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 9 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 10 [Exceptions for categories of pupils]:
11.55 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 115 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 116.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 7, line 46, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 47 and insert ("; or
(b) shall apply with such modifications as may be so specified;
in such cases or circumstances as may be so specified.").
The noble Baroness said: We spoke to this amendment and to Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I wonder whether I may ask for an explanation about this. As I remember it, we did not accept this amendment at the last stage. If I am right, we had a debate on all the amendments and my noble friend the Minister spoke on them but we did not, however, agree to each of them individually.
Baroness Hooper: I think that is what we are doing now. I have moved Amendment No. 115 and I hope that we shall agree to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think that all Members of the Committee will agree that we have probably gone as far as we usefully can tonight, and therefore I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Immigration Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before midnight.