Lords Sitting of 10 May 1988

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

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

Coroners Act,

Immigration Act,

Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act,

Farm Land and Rural Development Act.

Crime: Support for Victims
2.36 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take to support and compensate victims of crime in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, increased support for victims is one of the most important recent developments in our action against crime. We intend to continue to provide substantial funds and encouragement to victims' support schemes and for the criminal injuries compensation schemes. The Criminal Justice Bill will help victims of crime and improve the basis of compensation.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he tell the House whether the people affected by the Brighton bombings have put in their claims and have received compensation? Does my noble friend consider that the publicity given to this matter is sufficient to enable people to know where and how to claim?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the Brighton bombings, I understand that there are some cases still left unresolved but that the majority of them have been resolved. With regard to publicity, some leaflets will be produced later this month which will be available to people through the police and will tell them how to set about claiming compensation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we were delighted to learn from an Answer given by his honourable friend Mr. Patten in another place on 17th March that up to £11 million will be made available over the next three years to assist the voluntary schemes? Is he further aware that the Minister said that guidance would be issued to the police force as to how the police could assist the victims of crime? Can he indicate the nature of that guidance?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the police will be given certain guidance on how to inform victims who have been subjected to crimes of violence. One of the ways in which that will be done is by producing a leaflet. The police will also be able to advise people from their own knowledge.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, with regard to the scheme operated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to which the noble Earl referred, can he tell the House whether the funds available to that board are at present adequate to meet the claims being made upon it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in the year before last the criminal injuries compensation scheme for Great Britain paid out over £48 million. It is provisionally expected that the figure for 1987–88 will be £52 million, and over £80 million has been provided for this current year.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what moves have been made to encourage the perpetrators of crimes to compensate their victims?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are arrangements to ensure that the perpetrators of crimes are made to pay compensation. The Criminal Justice Bill gives the victims of violent crime a statutory right to compensation, and parliamentary authority is provided for that expenditure. Under that Bill it will be possible for those who have perpetrated crimes to pay compensation, and if they cannot do so immediately they will have to pay in instalments.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the Minister say whether any special steps are being taken in respect of victims of rape?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are special steps to help such people. Special facilities are being set up for victims of rape. Also, under the Criminal Justice Bill the protection of anonymity is given to the victims of rape. That is extended from the moment at which an allegation of rape is made. As I said, in addition there are the special physical facilities which are being set up where people can be interrogated in places of relative peace and quiet.

Public Companies: Annual Reports
2.41 p.m.
Earl Alexander of Tunis Earl Alexander of Tunis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to allow listed public companies the option of supplying shareholders with a short form of their annual report and accounts.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): Yes, my Lords, we announced on 25th March last our intention to legislate to allow all listed public companies to supply shareholders with an abbreviated version of their annual reports and accounts.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer will be warmly welcomed by commercial concerns both large and small and especially by the smaller plc? May we hope that his Answer will encourage government departments to do the same?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suppose that the Government's annual accounts are the autumn expenditure White Paper. I shall be perfectly happy to ask my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide an abbreviated version of those accounts but I suspect that there will be those who will object.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us whether the proposed short form report for which there is to be legislation will be in addition to the statutory annual report that companies have to issue according to the listing agreement; or will it be in lieu of that report? If it is in lieu of the report, will it contain all the information that small shareholders in particular will need in order to make their judgments about their investments?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, companies will have to prepare the normal set of annual accounts which will be filed at the company's registration office and will be open for inspection in the normal way. We shall shortly be publishing a consultative document detailing the proposed regulations that will be issued. That will show that companies may be able to consult their shareholders to decide which form of accounts they should then issue. Of course it will always be possible for shareholders to receive the full form of accounts, either by application to the company or to the company's registration office.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, on a related point, will the Secretary of State agree that listed public companies should be encouraged to provide their employees with a short form of their annual report and accounts?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, this is a matter that all listed companies—indeed, all companies—should take into account in order to have better relationships between all who work in the company.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does this change make companies less accountable to their shareholders? For a Government that are always referring to the accountability of local authorities, is this not an odd rule to make?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no. Companies will still be issuing full sets of accounts, but such has been the growth in numbers of shareholders over the last few years that the burden on many large ex-nationalised industries—the privatised companies—is such that they will be happy, if their shareholders so wish, to issue a short form of accounts. Should there be anything wrong in the accounts and should the auditors have to qualify
966
in any event, then that qualification will of course be carried through to the short form of accounts.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I must declare an interest, as a director of the TSB which is very much interested in this affair. Is my noble friend aware, in contradistinction to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, that easily comprehensible shorter accounts are liable to make a company more, rather than less, accountable to its shareholders?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very happy on this occasion to agree with my noble friend.

UK 2000: Project Support
2.46 p.m.
Earl Alexander of Tunis Earl Alexander of Tunis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made by UK 2000 in enhancing the environment and attracting the support of private sector finance.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, by the end of March this year UK 2000 had established in England over 400 projects providing 12,000 community programme places and opportunities for over 12,000 volunteers—all well above the targets agreed with it. To help achieve this it has raised £1–4 million in business sponsorship to match the grant paid by my department this year. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently reviewed the performance of UK 2000 and has offered it continued support for a further two years.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he satisfied that the level of fines for leaving litter is severe enough?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think my noble friend is under a misapprehension that litter and UK 2000 are identical. I hope my noble friend will be aware that although the Tidy Britain group is part of UK 2000, there is a special initiative on litter which is rather a separate question.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I welcome the projects that the Minister has mentioned. Is he aware that with many of them the return is as high as six or eight times per £ of private money as against public input? However, is he also aware that there are areas of the UK where, because of geographical and demographic differences, such a high return cannot be expected? Will the Government look sympathetically on a higher input in areas where it is needed in order to get these schemes off the ground and moving?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I appreciate the note of welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has given towards the work of UK 2000. It has done some exceptionally good work throughout the country. I shall look into his second point.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that there have never been any inhibitions cast on the public sector, which contributes in many ways, with regard to what it does with public land in its efforts to make areas look nicer? Can he assure the House that whatever permissions may be granted to private endeavour, they will in no way restrict public access?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord on that. He will be pleased to know that my department's grant to UK 2000 this year will be up on last year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will welcome what the Minister has said in his reply to the Question. However, will he state what has changed since the end of January? UK 2000 then said:
"British industry is not pulling its weight in taking responsibility for the environment …
"In spite of a growing awareness in industry of the issues, the group says in a progress report, the UK has a long way to go before it can match the standards of environmentally-conscious nations like West Germany and Switzerland".
I should be glad to hear good news of what has happened in the last three months.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is quite a gap with which British industry has to catch up. I am glad to say that it is indeed catching up rapidly, and in some parts is overtaking what is happening on the Continent. UK 2000 started only in the summer of 1986. In the first financial year up to March of this year it received 50 per cent. of its finance from business. In the current financial year it expects to receive grant of £1·85 million from the department, whereas it will expect to receive well over £2 million from the private sector.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that "UK" still includes Wales and Scotland? If that is the case, can he say why no progress is being made in initiating projects in these two countries, which are part of the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, not only Wales, but Scotland, and in future Northern Ireland, will benefit from UK 2000. UK 2000 is separately constituted in each part of the United Kingdom. I am glad to tell the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that it started in Wales in November 1986. In Scotland it was launched in April 1987 and, as I have said, we hope to launch it in Northern Ireland shortly.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, how many projects have been started? In his original reply the noble Earl referred merely to a substantial number of projects in England.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not have to hand the figure for Wales, but I shall write to the noble Lord.

Japan: UK Trade Opportunities
2.50 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What opportunities exist for increasing the level of United Kingdom trade with Japan and what measures they are taking to alert British business to these opportunities.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the appreciation of the yen and efforts by the Japanese authorities to boost imports have greatly improved the prospects for exports to Japan. British exports rose 26 per cent. in sterling value in 1987, and given the right approach on the part of British companies I believe that they could be doubled over the next three years. The Opportunity Japan Campaign will be conveying this message to British industry at a series of briefings throughout the country this summer.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Will he elucidate further on the Opportunity Japan Campaign?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that the barriers to sales to Japan are more apparent than real. Many people in industry and commerce believe that Japan is a difficult market but do not appreciate the potential that it now has. Japan now has the highest per capita GDP of any country in the world and there exist tremendous opportunities, especially for luxury goods. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Energy and the Foreign Secretary and myself are speaking at a series of meetings around the country, some 20 in all, at which we shall be approaching many people from industry and commerce and directing their attention towards the opportunities that we believe Japan now presents to the United Kingdom.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Secretary of State agree that many sectors of British industry are aware of the opportunities for export to Japan? Will he agree that they are limited by some of the constraints that are placed by the Japanese authorities, particularly in the financial sector, and also the excessive tariffs on items such as Scotch whisky?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, so far as Scotch whisky is concerned I have reason to believe that the barriers or tariffs which have existed for some 20 years will be disappearing during the course of this summer. I believe we shall find that the Japanese authorities will be responding to the GATT panel and that the discriminatory taxes against Scotch whisky will be disappearing, even though there may be some difference in taxes between locally produced drinks and Scotch whisky.
On my recent mission to Scotland I took with me the chairman of Guinness, which is now opening its own distribution company in—
Noble Lords: Japan!
Lord Young of Graffham: In Japan. I have great hopes of prompting the sales effort. Unfortunately, I was not able to visit Scotland.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister reply to the first point on the financial sector?
Lord Young of Graffham: Of course, my Lords. Only a few months ago the Japanese authorities admitted four more British companies to the Japanese Stock Exchange. I believe we are now seeing the opportunities available in Japan and that we shall see the barriers disappear as well.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there is a wide need to improve the standard of Japanese speaking by British businessmen? Has he seen the very generous donation which has been given by one of our leading clearing banks towards increasing the facilities for Japanese teaching in this country for businessmen? Will he undertake to match that donation so as to double the amount made available for this purpose?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I gladly pay great tribute to my noble friend's activities as chairman of the group which has been promoting trade with Japan so strongly over the last year or two. I pay further tribute to his perseverance in asking me yet again about a matter that we discussed not very long ago. I told my noble friend then that I should be happy to consider that matter in some detail very shortly. I was not happy, nor should any Member of your Lordships' House be happy, with the knowledge that the universities only produce some 50 graduates in Japanese a year. That does not seem to be a very satisfactory number. I have since been made aware of a number of polytechnics and further education institutions around the country which are training people in the Japanese language, but what we need as a matter of urgency is to have more of our businessmen fluent in Japanese.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of the fact that both British and American businessmen have had to request both governments to make representations to Japan to remove some of the very unfair and unjust restrictions—some still exist—will he say whether both the British and American Governments will continue making representations when unfairness is still applied to British and American goods being exported to Japan?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am unable to speak for the American Government, but representatives of the British Government have been to Japan. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary was there in January. I was there in March. We are making considerable progress and I believe that those businessmen who came with me on my last mission are well aware that the barriers are fast disappearing.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, can my noble friend shed any light on what is happening regarding the clearance of Nomura to operate as a gilt-edged market-maker in London?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if my noble friend would care to put down a Question on that I should be happy to answer it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Secretary of State agree, as all the evidence suggests, that one of the most important opportunities for increasing our trade with Japan is for British companies to be able to acquire Japanese companies? Will the noble Lord recognise that it is infinitely more difficult for British companies to acquire Japanese companies than it is for Japanese companies to acquire British companies? Should not the principle of reciprocity be agreed with Japan in the same way as for other countries, for example Switzerland?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his ingenuity in somehow travelling all the way from Japan to Switzerland without stopping. As this Question is on Japan, I should say that one of the members of my last delegation, who had tried for some time to set up a joint venture in Japan, decided during the course of my mission that he would set up his own green field site factory and is so doing. I am sure there are opportunities, but they cannot be made by governments; they are normally made by business people.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord. Does he recognise that the Opposition are not asking for the Private Notice Question in another place on Rowntree plc to be repeated in this House in order to help the Government make progress on the Education Reform Bill? Will the noble Lord therefore take the opportunity of making clear the Government's view on reciprocity generally, and particularly in the case of Japan?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, to what degree are the Japanese pushing the language of Esperanto by way of a business medium for communication? Is the noble Lord aware that Esperanto is very much easier to learn than Japanese for an Englishman and easier to learn than English for a Japanese?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lord, among the many attributes I have, speaking languages does not figure. Esperanto is as difficult for me as Japanese, and I am afraid that is a different question.
Lord Morris: My Lords, in answer to a previous supplementary question my noble friend stated that our trade over the last three years with Japan had increased by 26 per cent. What is that figure in real terms?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, trade last year increased by 26 per cent., not in the last three years. I believe that our trade with Japan last year was some £1·5 billion.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord was very abrupt and unnecessarily curt when

971
my noble friend asked the question about reciprocity. The fact is that it was decided not to take the Private Notice Question here in order to advance the debate on the Education Reform Bill. Will he be good enough to be courteous and reply to my noble friend?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I wish to assure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I intended no discourtesy. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, knows of my position. I must wait to hear from the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading. In due course I must decide whether to remit the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I must then wait until I hear from the commission. That means that I am inhibited to a great extent in, if not prohibited from, commenting on the position. Anything I might say about our merger policy and reciprocity which was more than was said in the working paper issued some six or seven weeks ago would be read by those outside as a comment on the present position. I find myself in a most difficult position; I intended no discourtesy to the noble Lord.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Education Reform Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Dartford—Thurrock Crossing Bill and consideration of a Commons amendment to a Lords amendment to the Licensing Bill will be taken.

Education Reform Bill
3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 11 [Pupils with special educational needs]:
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Temporary exceptions for individual pupils]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 8, line 8, after ("such") insert ("cases or").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 120, I should like to speak also to Amendments
972
Nos. 124 and 130. These three minor government amendments are consequential on earlier drafting changes. They are all intended to add to the flexibility of the national curriculum in ways which Members of the Committee have already welcomed.
Amendment No. 120 improves the wording of the provisions of Clause 12 so that the Secretary of State may make regulations allowing individual pupils temporary exemption from the national curriculum in specified cases or circumstances. This is a helpfully wide expression echoing the references to cases and circumstances in Clause 10, as already amended.
Amendments Nos. 124 and 130 to Clauses 13 and 14 are consequential to our earlier Amendment No. 115 to Clause 10. They adjust the cross-reference to that clause to make clear that regulations under Clause 10 could refer to the circumstances of a group of schools as well as the nature of a group of pupils. This gives additional scope for flexibility and will, I know, be generally welcomed.
I commend all three amendments to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Procedure for making certain orders: England]:
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 10, line 1, after ("to") insert ("such schools or to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 125 to 128 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Somers: I oppose the Motion that Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill because I believe that in respect of a Bill of such size it is our duty to remove the unnecessary paperwork that will be produced by this and several other clauses. We are making it far too difficult to understand what is and what is not to be done in the organisation of education. I believe too that we are giving far too much power to the Secretary of State. The present Secretary of State is a good and honourable man but Secretaries of State vary. We do not know who may hold that office in a year's time; there are after all such useless events as Cabinet reshuffles.
It is wrong that the Secretary of State should have so much say in what happens in education. Much more should be left to those who know about such matters and who are working in the system: in other words, head teachers and boards of governors. I believe that the clause is totally unnecessary.
Baroness Hooper: The clause describes the detailed checks and balances which will apply to the exercise of the powers of any Secretary of State to establish and amend the components of the national curriculum. The checks are in addition to parliamentary scrutiny which is secured by the provisions of Clause 192. Clause 13 also secures

973
detailed public scrutiny of, and debate upon, the Secretary of State's proposals.
In many cases those proposals will already embody the results of discussion and consultation by subject working groups. The Secretary of State is then obliged to put the proposals, together with any initial comments, to the independent and statutory National Curriculum Council. That council will conduct a full round of consultations and must make public not only its conclusions but also a summary of the views expressed.
In the light of that the Secretary of State may proceed to draft his order but must then undertake a further round of consultations with all those included earlier. He must offer them reasons for his decision in cases where he fails to follow the advice given by the National Curriculum Council.
That extended and public process of consultation is clearly right for matters of such importance. I agree with the noble Lord in stressing that importance. We need to secure agreement and consensus to ensure effective implementation. It gives the lie to claims that the Secretary of State is being given unprecedented powers under these clauses of the Bill. Rather, he is establishing an unprecedented system of consultation about, and public scrutiny of, what is taught in our schools in order to establish a consensus as to how the detailed arrangements for the national curriculum shall be applied.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Procedure for making certain orders: Wales]:
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 10, line 39, after ("to") insert ("such schools or to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 131:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("References to School Examinations and Assessment Council.
.—(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State proposes to make—

(a) an order under section 4(2)(c) of this Act; or

(b) regulations under section 10 of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State shall refer the proposal to the School Examinations and Assessment Council (in this section referred to as "the Council") and give to it directions as to the time within which it is to report to him.
(3) The Council 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 it to be concerned; and

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

and afford them a reasonable opportunity of submitting evidence and representations as to the issues arising.
(4) The report of the Council to the Secretary of State shall contain—

(a) a summary of the views expressed during the consultations;

(b) its recommendations as to the proposal; and

(c) such other advice relating to the proposal as it thinks fit;

and the Council shall, after submitting its report to the Secretary of State, arrange for the report to be published.
(5) Where the Council has reported to the Secretary of State, he shall—

(a) publish in such a manner as, in his opinion, is likely to bring them to the notice of persons having a special interest in education—

(i) a draft of the proposed order or regulations and any associated document; and

(ii) a statement explaining his reasons for any failure to give effect to the recommendations of the Council;

(b) send copies of the documents mentioned in paragraph (a) above to the Council and to each of the persons consulted by the Council; and

(c) allow a period of not less than one month of the submission of evidence and representations with respect to the issues arising.

(6) When the period so allowed has expired, the Secretary of State may make the order or regulations, with or without modifications.").
The noble Baroness said: I profess total puzzlement and bemusement as to why the Secretary of State intends to set up a system of consultation on the curriculum, as set out in Clause 14, but does not intend to do so in respect of the other half of his new deal on assessment. I wonder whether there has been an oversight and whether something has been omitted in error.
I should like to give the reasons why consultation is so important in this area. First, it means that the Secretary of State is required to consider views other than his own and those of a small group of officials who may be advising him. I believe that to be important from the point of view of establishing a more pluralistic approach with less concentration of power at the centre. It prevents particular whims of particular Secretaries of State being imposed without popular consideration.
Secondly, the system set out in the TGAT Report is completely untried. No other country has a system as elaborate as that proposed. In those circumstances it must be helpful to try out draft proposals on a wide range of expert opinion through a formal consultative process, which indeed is what the TGAT Report recommends. In the light of that recommendation it is very surprising to find that there is nothing in the Bill on that matter.
Thirdly, the costs of implementing the TGAT proposals will be enormous. There will be up to 10 subjects in the curriculum which will be tested at four different ages. For example, at the age of 16 there will be four separate profile components per subject, and even if art, music and physical education are excluded from that assessment process, that still involves seven subjects; in other words, 28 different assessments. Before we sink millions of pounds into this, the education world should have an opportunity of expressing a view, and expressing that view through proper formal machinery.
Fourthly, I believe that consultation is important in relation to GCSE. The relationship between GCSE and the new proposals for testing at 16 is still very unclear, even after the discussion we had in Committee last week. Surely this must be openly and properly discussed if all the work which has gone into GCSE is not to be jeopardised.
Fifthly, the implications of a new system of assessment for teacher education are absolutely enormous. We shall require a large new in-service training programme in order to get it off the ground

975
and implement it properly. Again, those involved in teacher education, whether at the initial stage or later in in-service training, should be consulted on the impact of the new system and on other aspects of training before we rush down that route.
Sixthly, as I believe we discovered in Committee, there are a number of unresolved contradictions in what is proposed. Perhaps I may give one or two examples. In the TGAT Report it is suggested that there will be no requirement to publish the aggregated results with regard to 7 year-olds but results must be made available to parents, governors and providers. I believe that there is some conflict in the two halves of that argument.
Assessment must be the servant of the curriculum and not its master, and so to consult about one and not the other means that that most basic of principles may be lost. Those are the main reasons for having consultation.
This amendment aims to insist that, before the Secretary of State issues orders specifying testing arrangements for the national curriculum, there must be consultation through the School Examinations and Assessment Council. At present in the Bill there are obligations on the Secretary of State to consult before specifying attainment targets and courses of study under Clause 4 but testing arrangements which, as we have already heard, are not an uncontroversial part of the national curriculum plans are not subject to any consultation at all.
In those circumstances, the School Examinations and Assessment Council appears to be a largely redundant body in its present form. It is able to give advice or do research only at the command of the Secretary of State. The TGAT Report's proposals have been much more acceptable than the Government's original proposals to many of those who have expressed concern, but there is nothing in the Bill to oblige the Secretary of State to follow the TGAT proposals or to take any note of views expressed by outside bodies. Surely there should be symmetry between the arrangements on the curriculum and arrangements on testing, with a proper system of consultation for both. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no oversight in this case. Our main reasons for deciding not to consult on orders establishing assessment arrangements were rehearsed in the response to Amendment No. 80 last week, but I will briefly recap. In the first place, the main aspects of assessment which I would regard as controversial—its existence at all, the age points at which it should generally be applied, and the establishment of SEAC as the body charged with securing the quality control in this area—are all being debated on this, the primary legislation.
I would also remind the Committee that the TGAT Report, published last January, proposed a coherent national assessment system which has been the subject of wide public debate. The Government will be taking account of the views expressed in that debate before reaching their own conclusions on the
976
report and on the task group's further advice, to which reference has been made.
However, it will be for the subject working groups—of which those for maths and science will be reporting soon, and others will soon be established—to make recommendations about attainment targets and programmes of study, and the assessment arrangements appropriate to them. Those recommendations will be the subject of formal public consultation undertaken by the National Curriculum Council before any decisions are made on them. After it has made its recommendations there will then be a further stage of formal consultation on the orders relating to attainment targets and programmes of study, from which the associated assessment arrangements must follow.
I think that I should also refer to another point I made in response to Amendment No. 80; namely, that only such purely mechanical aspects of assessment arrangements as the commissioning, trialing and storage of tests could be regarded as free-standing in the sense of not deriving directly from the attainment targets and programmes of study. These are technical matters, on which we must and shall rely on the work and advice of experts in the field, including practising teachers and educational administrators, before deciding on the detailed arrangements to be adopted.
I must therefore stress that we are not talking here about externally-imposed assessment tasks and tests which bear no relationship to the national curriculum arrangements. We have always said that the assessment arrangements form an integral part of teaching across the whole curriculum for each subject: attainment targets and programmes of study will be set first, and the appropriate assessment instruments will then be designed and tested in schools before use—not the other way round. Consultation on the attainment targets and programmes of study will therefore necessarily to a large extent also constitute consultation on the assessment arrangements to be employed. A further round of formal consultation on the assessment arrangements themselves would really be duplicating the process. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject the proposed new clause.
The Earl of Stockton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps she can assure me that the consultation process will include the suppliers of testing and assessment materials. We should not be carried away by this. If the industry is to be ready to supply schools, teachers and training materials, we must be consulted and must be consulted at as early a date as possible.
Baroness Hooper: I recognise the special interest of my noble friend in this matter. I believe that I can give an assurance that suppliers will be made aware in good time.
Baroness David: Having listened to the noble Baroness, what my noble friend said about this being a rather redundant body seems to be true. I am not clear what its function will be.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I can be clear that I understand the position because where assessment fits into all this is an important matter. As I understand the Bill and what my noble friend has said, we shall have consultation by the working groups on the main aspects of what the curriculum will be and what is expected to be attained at the end. I assume it is agreed that we are not now debating the four ages at which the assessments will take place and that we are assessing the content of the curriculum. In a sense it is impossible to make an assessment until one knows what is in the curriculum and what should be attained. Therefore, there having been consultations on this and with the teachers who will carry it out, the assessment will follow from that. I hope that will act as a reassurance that the professionalism of the teachers is taken into account the whole way through this extremely important process.
Baroness Hooper: Yes. The effectiveness of assessment arrangements is something that the SEAC will be able to comment upon as it will be responsible for monitoring the overall progress. The major function of the School Examinations and Assessment Council is its role to approve GCSE syllabuses, as the SEC does now. This is provided for under Clause 5. I believe that to be hardly a negligible function.
Baroness Blackstone: I am perturbed at the position. I wonder whether the Committee understands how enormous is the process we are entering into with the system of assessment which is proposed in this Bill. We are building up a vast and costly new edifice. It is not simply an occasional little test that children may carry out once or twice in their school career; it is a vast, new and untried system.
In those circumstances it seems right and proper that we should set up a formal system of consultation for teachers and many other professionals, including those who are experts in this very tricky and complicated area, before the arrangements are established. In her reply the Minister said that we have already had a wide public debate on this matter. I dispute that because I do not believe that to be the case. Most people do not have a clue about what is being proposed. It is important that we should have a wide public discussion, and in any case it should not be a one-off event but a continuous one.
Surely the Government are not proposing to establish a system of assessment in 1988 which is not going to be changed over time. There will be new requirements, new methods, new means that are developed as a result of research and there will be many new factors. I do not accept that argument. Neither do I accept the argument that it is the subject working groups that can do the work. They will have their work cut out in establishing the programmes of study and the attainment targets.
It is the case that the system of assessment that we produce should relate closely to the attainment targets and the programmes of study. However, it seems right that the School Examinations and Assessment Council should have the same role as its counterpart on the curriculum unless we are going to make a whole series of costly mistakes that we will
978
live to regret. I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply and therefore I must press this amendment.
3.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 131) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 141.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Alport, L.

Longford, E.

Annan, L.

McCarthy, L.

Ardwick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Attlee, E.

McNair, L.

Aylestone, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Manchester, D.

Banks, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Basnett, L.

Milford, L.

Birk, B.

Milverton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mishcon, L.

Blease, L.

Molloy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mulley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Nicol, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Peston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Burton of Coventry, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Congleton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Rochester, L.

David, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Scanlon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Serota, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Stallard, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stedman, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Falkland, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Foot, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Thurlow, L.

Galpern, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Glenamara, L.

Tordoff, L.

Grimond, L.

Underhill, L.

Hampton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hayter, L.

Walston, L.

Hughes, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hunt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Willis, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Winstanley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Blyth, L.

Aldington, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Allerton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Butterworth, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Caithness, E.

Bellwin, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Bessborough, E.

Carlisle, Bp.

Blatch, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

979

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Moyne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Cottesloe, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cowley, E.

Napier of Magdala, L.

Cox, B.

Nelson, E.

Croft, L.

Newall, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

De Freyne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Derwent, L.

Orkney, E.

Donegall, M.

Oxfuird, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Pennock, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Pym, L.

Ferrers, E.

Quinton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Radnor, E.

Fortescue, E.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rees, L.

Gainford, L.

Reigate, L.

Gisborough, L.

Reilly, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gridley, L.

Rodney, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

St. Davids, V.

Halsbury, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harvington, L.

Sandford, L.

Havers, L.

Seebohm, L.

Henley, L.

Sharpies, B.

Hereford, Bp.

Slim, V.

Hesketh, L.

Somers, L.

Hives, L.

Stockton, E.

Hood, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hooper, B.

Strange, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathspey, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sudeley, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Swinton, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Teviot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Layton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

London, Bp.

Todd, L.

Long, V.

Trafford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tranmire, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Trefgarne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ullswater, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Margadale, L.

Watkinson, V.

Marley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Windlesham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wise, L.

Mersey, V.

Wolfson, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Young, B.

Morris, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.32 p.m.
Clause 15 [Provision of information]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 11, line 31, leave out ("and the results of their assessments under this Chapter") and insert ("(including the results of any assessments of those pupils, whether under this Chapter or otherwise, for the purpose of ascertaining those achievements).").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 133 and 134. These are minor additions to Clause 15 of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 132 and 134 together provide, as was our original intention, that the information provisions of Clause 15 will extend to pupils'
980
examination results as well as to the results of any national curriculum assessments they may undertake. These results are at present covered in the Schools Information Regulations 1981, and must be included in the school prospectus for a secondary school. But we hope that by including them here we can move towards some sensible harmonisation of information requirements, following the consultations which are required before regulations are made. It makes sense to look at these various types of curriculum and assessment information together so that information is collected with least effort and used to best effect.
Amendment No. 133 adds to the list of documents to which the information regulations may apply the annual report to parents which will be produced by the governing body of a grant-maintained school. Again, this was always our intention, but provision for the annual report was a later addition to Clause 48 of the Bill, and we could not therefore include the cross-references in the clause as drafted. I beg to move.
Baroness David: We are pleased with any widening of the information that is to be provided. However, perhaps the Minister can tell us what other assessments the Government have in mind. What will the further information be about?
Baroness Hooper: It is the assessment arrangements for the national curriculum assessment proposals together with the assessment which is already covered by the Schools Information Regulations 1981 on school-leaving arrangements.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 133 and 134:
Page 11, line 44, at end insert ("or section 48(5)(j) of this Act").
Page 12, line 2, leave out ("under this Chapter") and insert ("(whether under this Chapter or otherwise)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 135 to 137 not moved.]
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Complaints and enforcement]:
[Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 139A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 140 or 141.
Baroness Scrota Baroness Scrota moved Amendment No. 139A:
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("discharging, or have failed to discharge, in relation to the school the duty imposed on them by section 6 or 15 of this Act;") and insert ("exercising any power conferred on them or in discharging any duty imposed on them by the Education Acts or have failed to discharge such a duty").
The noble Baroness said: To save the time of the Committee I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 142A, which is closely linked.
Before explaining the purpose of the two amendments, I must first say how much I welcome in principle Clause 16 of the Bill, which requires local education authorities to set up approved machinery for the consideration and resolution of complaints

981
made in respect of county, voluntary and maintained special schools relating to the national curriculum, to the giving of certain information under Clause 15 and to the actions taken by governors under Clause 12. I also warmly welcome the provisions in subsection (2) of Clause 16 relating to the use of the Secretary of State's existing powers under Sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 whereby these provisions will not be used unless a complaint has first been made and dealt with locally.
All the experience of the past 14 years since the local ombudsman system was set up under Part III of the Local Government Act 1974 has confirmed the need for all authorities to have clear and well-publicised arrangements for dealing speedily and effectively with complaints at the local level across the whole range of services that they provide. This new statutory provision in the Bill for LEAs to make such arrangements is undoubtedly a significant and most welcome step in that direction.
The purpose of Amendment No. 139A is to make the new local complaints procedures apply to any power and duty exercised under the Education Acts, and not merely to the specific areas as at present stated in the clause, as it is difficult to see why the rights of parents should be restricted only to those aspects of the education service.
My second amendment, Amendment No. 142A, concerns the present restrictions imposed on the local ombudsman by Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974, which prevents him from investigating complaints about internal school matters although he can of course deal with complaints about the choice of school, school transport, maintenance allowances, awards to students, youth clubs, adult education, and so on. This amendment would enable him to investigate how LEAs have carried out their duties in relation to the setting up and the operating of the new internal complaints procedures extended by my first amendment to include all their powers and duties and not merely those specified in the present Bill.
Much as I welcome the provision of the new internal complaints procedures at the local level, these are not a complete substitute for a fully independent impartial ombudsman system, quite separate from local education authorities themselves, to deal with complaints that cannot be satisfactorily settled at local level and about how the procedure itself has been operated.
I raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman over internal school matters in an amendment at Report stage on what became the Education Act 1986. The amendment would have enabled the local ombudsman to review and, where appropriate, investigate complaints of maladministration causing injustice. I did not receive a very satisfactory reply from the then government spokesman on education matters, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. Admittedly, it was one o'clock in the morning, so I bear him no However, now that the hour is more reasonable I hope to receive an equally more reasonable reply from the noble Baroness. The noble Earl merely stated the usual arguments about the many complaints which might arise, and the difficulties of distinguishing between
982
the professional judgments of teachers and the administrative acts of local authorities, which we have heard many times over the past 14 years.
As the local ombudsman has now been making those decisions daily—and quite successfully—in relation to judgments of all other professional local government staff, such as lawyers, planners and social workers, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will not go over the same well-trodden ground once again. Indeed, now that the Government have accepted in the Bill, as presently drafted, the need for local complaints procedures for certain purposes, I hope that they will also agree to widen the provision to include all the powers and duties of local education authorities under the Education Acts. I further hope that they will make these new local complaints procedures subject to investigation by the local ombudsman where the matters complained of cannot be settled locally, as I have provided for in Amendment No. 142A. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: I should mention to the Committee that there seems to be a printing error in the first line of the wording of Amendment No. 139A which should, I think, read,
("discharging, or have failed to discharge,".
Baroness Hooper: I must speak against Amendment No. 139A as proposed by the noble Baroness because it is very wide in its scope. It takes us beyond topics which are the subject of this Chapter and indeed of the Bill as a whole.
The provisions of the Education Acts include a number which have "built in" complaints machinery, such as appeals against admission to schools, or defined procedures for objecting to proposals on which the Secretary of State has to form a judgment, such as the reorganisation of schools.
It would not be right to ask the local authority to establish a complaints machinery to deal with all these items, which would be the effect of the amendment before us. But there is a case, which I recognise, for asking the complaints machinery to deal with all complaints about the school curriculum. Indeed, it may in practice be most difficult to disentangle those about duties under Clause 6 from those under Clause 1 of the Bill, and those in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.
We should therefore like to consider further this aspect of the noble Baroness's amendment and to come back at a later stage to report our conclusions. I hope, in the light of that assurance, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 142A. When the Commission for Local Administration was set up, Parliament decided that it would not be appropriate to extend the powers of the commissioner to certain education functions relating to teaching, discipline, the curriculum or internal organisation in maintained schools and colleges. There were three main grounds for the decision: cost, practicability, and the existence of other means of redressing grievances. Those grounds are no less valid today.
I deal first with the question of cost. There are nearly 24,000 maintained primary and secondary

983
schools in England with a pupil population approaching 7 million. Given those numbers, a substantial volume of complaints is bound to arise. To allow the commissioners to investigate complaints about the curriculum would add significantly to costs, both for the commissions themselves and for local education authorities.
I turn now to practicability. The Local Government Act 1974 makes it clear that the functions of local commissioners are concerned with "actions taken in the exercise of administrative functions". How would it be possible for the commissioners to draw a distinction between administrative and non-administrative matters relating to the curriculum in schools; and how would they draw the line between actions by LEAs and actions for which the school itself had responsibility? In practice, the distinctions are often blurred, and investigation by the commissioners is unlikely to be an effective means of pursuing many of the points of disagreement which might arise.
Finally, there is the question of alternative means of redress. Like the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the local commissioners are normally precluded from investigating matters in respect of which the person aggrieved has an alternative means of redress. Clause 16 itself establishes that new machinery will be available at local level to consider complaints about the school curriculum. Once that machinery has been exhausted the Secretary of State will be able to take action under Sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 where he believes that a local education authority has acted unreasonably or unlawfully. There is therefore no need to extend the powers of the local commissioners for administration in the way proposed in the amendment. I trust that I have not re-trodden too much old ground in what I have said. I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Serota: I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for her reply to my first amendment. As she rightly said, it widens the scope of the present provision in the Bill and that of course was my deliberate intention. I still maintain that the right for parents to be able to make such a complaint—whether it is justified or not is a matter for the new machinery to decide—is paramount. However, I appreciate that widening the scope of the provision in that way could cause certain complications which will need working out in rather greater detail. Therefore, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness's offer to reconsider the matter and hope that the Government will come back to us at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings with a proposal much in line with my amendment.
As regards my second amendment, I am afraid that, once again, the purpose behind it has been totally misunderstood. On this occasion I was not suggesting to the Committee that the local commissioners should have powers to investigate internal matters relating to schools from which they are at present precluded. In fact, I was proposing that
984
the local commissioners should have powers to investigate the way in which the new complaints machinery has been operating. That is a process to which I consider they are admirably suited in that they are well used to distinguishing between administrative acts and professional judgments. Indeed, their task is to evaluate the way in which matters have been handled rather than the matters that have been decided. Maladministration is a term not defined in the Bill, but I think that experience these days in the Parliamentary Commissioner's office, the Health Service Commissioner's office and also the local ombudsman's office is sufficient to make that distinction, although I admit that at times it can be a blurred one.
It is not my intention to press the second amendment tabled in my name on this occasion in view of the pressures regarding time on the Committee. However, I must ask the noble Baroness to reconsider the amendment as it is worded and not in the terms in which she replied to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 12, line 30, after ("section") insert ("1,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals further with Clause 16 relating to the enforcement of complaints. The clause proposes machinery to deal with a situation where a complaint is made that the local authority, or the governing body, is failing to comply with the delivery of the national curriculum or with the teaching of religious education in the school. It also deals with the procedure regarding complaints about the failure of such bodies to provide necessary information.
We feel that no opportunity should be missed of stating the Bill's basic aim, which is that there should be supplied a broadly-based curriculum which should provide the qualities that are needed when children go to school and are educated in preparation for adult life. We should like to include in line 30 on page 12 Clause 1 as well as Clauses 6 or 15 so that the duty imposed on the LEA Clause 1—that is, the basic aim of the Bill—should be borne in mind at all times, so that if it is considered that the local authority, or governing body, is failing to comply with that requirement, a parent has a justifiable complaint. It is only a small addition but it makes a considerable difference.
I must refer to what the Minister said about Section 60, something or other, of the 1944 Act which enables the Secretary of State to take local authorities to task for behaving unreasonably. For a long time I have said that if he had put that power into effect a great deal of the Bill would have been unnecessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The amendment picks up one aspect of the matter that we discussed on Amendment No. 139A. The case for extending the complaints machinery to Clause 1 and to other curriculum provisions is one that we have agreed to consider further. On that basis, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I thank the Minister for her kind words. This is the third time that I have had such kind words from the Government, so I hardly know my luck. We shall look forward to what comes next. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 141 to 142A not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Extension of certain provisions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 12, line 42, leave out from ("to") to end of line 44 and insert ("—

(i) senior pupils who are of or over the age; and

(ii) persons in full-time further education who are of or over that age but have not attained the age of nineteen (referred to below in this section as "FE students");").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment was debated with Amendment No. 83. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 13, line 3, leave out second ("and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 145 to 150:
Page 13, line 5, at end insert ("; and
(d) any reference to a school year included a reference to an academic year.")
Page 13, line 9, leave out ("persons") and insert ("FE students"). Page 13, line 12, leave out from ("in") to end of line 14 and insert ("subsection (1)(b) and (c) above;"). Page 13, line 18, leave out from ("Act")") to end of line 21 and insert ("for which courses of study are to be provided by or on behalf of the institution concerned for such students;"). Page 13, line 26, leave out ("persons") and insert ("students"). Page 13, line 27, after ("qualifications") insert—
("(bb) as if in subsection (5)—

(i) the reference to the results of an individual pupil's assessment (whether under this Chapter or otherwise) included a reference to the results of an individual student's assessment for the purposes of any such qualification; and

(ii) the reference to the pupil concerned included a reference to the student concerned;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 13, line 29, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Interpretation of Chapter 1]:
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Admissions to county and voluntary schools]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 153A:
Page 14, line 10, leave out from ("school") to end of line 13 and insert ("may determine, by agreement with the local education authority or governing body (as the case may be) the number of pupils
986
in any relevant age group which the authority intends should be admitted to the school in any school year up to the amount of the Standard Number as determined under section 15 of the 1980 Act.
(1A) Where the authority is unable to reach agreement with the other party within three months from the date of submission to it of the proposed figure, the authority may submit the matter to the Secretary of State who shall make and publish a determination as to the appropriate number within two months of receipt of the request.")
The noble Baroness said: We now turn to Chapter II of the Bill. We have completed that part on the curriculum and testing. This chapter deals with admissions to schools. This important amendment gives the authorities responsible for determining arrangements for the admission of pupils the right to determine, in consultation with the LEA or the governing body, whichever is appropriate, the level of admissions. It allows the level of admissions to be below the standard number (the 1979 figure given in the 1980 Act). It does not restrict the reasons for deciding on a lower level than the standard number. Only when the authority cannot reach agreement with the LEA or governing body will it be necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene.
In the amendment we are trying to do what the Government are doing in Amendment No. 178, where they are giving to voluntary schools the concession where the ethos/character of the school might be affected, so that the LEA can make arrangements with the governors in respect of admissions of pupils to the school. That is all we are asking for in the amendment.
The Government claim that their aim in the Bill is to increase parental choice. That would be achieved by forcing LEAs to admit pupils to school up to their standard number. The standard number would be the number of pupils admitted to the school in the 1979–80 school year. That is the figure used in the 1980 Act. However, in that Act the LEA or governors are free to set the limit lower than the standard number by up to 20 per cent. without reference to the Secretary of State, and may seek his approval to set an even lower limit by making statutory proposals under Section 15 of the 1980 Act.
The 1980 Act therefore provides a degree of flexibility for the LEA or governors in setting limits for admissions to schools. In their consultation document the Government said:
"In this way artificial limits are placed on the ability of popular schools to recruit up to their available capacity. As school rolls have fallen there has been widespread use of the flexibility available under the 1980 Act to spread intakes among schools. This has often inhibited and delayed necessary rationalisation of schools provision, and at the same time acted as a barrier to the exercise of effective parental choice".
The Government have provided no evidence that parental choice is not currently being catered for. Indeed, the evidence all points to the fact that the vast majority of parents are given their first choice. Nationally, at the end of the admission process, a little over 1 per cent. of parents do not get their first choice. In its response to the Government's consultative document the Conservative Education Association noted:
"The vast majority of LEAs manage to meet the first choice of nearly all parents with a success rate of over 90 per cent. the norm. In many LEAs the figure is well over 90 per cent.".
In Committee in the other place Mr. Ashdown reported the results of a small survey he had carried

987
out. Having written to all LEAs in England and Wales, he had received replies from 50. Of those 50, 95 per cent. of parents received their first choice. That can be seen in Hansard of 14th January 1988 (Col. 470).
There are good reasons for an LEA to set its admission limits lower than the 1979 standard number. It may be important to do so in order to protect the quality of provision at a school in terms of sensible organisation, reasonable class size and access to specialist provision. Ironically, not only are the proposals in the Bill unlikely to increase parental choice, which is already at or near its maximum level, but they are likely to reduce it. An example of how that might occur was given in an article by Peter Wilby in the Independent of 11th June last year in which he said:
"Suppose you have School A and School B each with 200 first year places. School A is marginally more popular with 220 applicants leaving 20 disgruntled parents joining the 180 who have freely chosen School B. Now, raise A's admission limit to 220 and you will probably find you have 240 applicants because the word has got around that A is a popular, expanding school. Now raise A's limit to 240. Since rotten old B is losing morale, teachers and money, you may get 280 applicants. Now raise A to 280, its absolute physical limit even if you cram the playground with mobile classrooms, and knowledgeable parents who have read their HMI report will realise that B may now only get 120 pupils (below the level it needs to maintain a full curriculum). If they are the sort of smart, share-buying consumers that the Tories envisage all 400 will want to go to School A. You now have 120 dissatisfied customers where once you had 20".
That is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
The Government's proposals in the Bill fail to acknowledge that the arrangements are, in part, a means of keeping a range of choices open so that parents can have reasonable scope for exercising preference. The admissions' limits allow LEAs to balance places on offer as between popular and less popular schools and to secure the best use of resources in staffing and equipping all their schools.
The other main purpose in the present arrangements is to allow LEAs sensibly to manage falling rolls and to achieve the kind of rationalisation which they and successive governments have regarded as essential to deal with the effects of demography and to respond to unavoidable expenditure constraints. Admissions limits have demonstrated their worth in the organisation of change, including reorganisation schemes approved by the Secretary of State for implementation phased over several years.
Then I turn to the matter of planning. The Government have constantly urged local authorities to plan their provision of education. In DES Circular 3/87, forward planning was urged in coping with the demands of falling rolls. A similar message was given in the Audit Commission Report, Towards Better Management of Secondary Education, in 1986. Circular 3/87 admits that LEAs collectively have already made substantial progress in removing surplus places.
It is not clear how setting rigid admission limits will enable LEAs to improve that planning process which the Government themselves admit has resulted in substantial progress, nor how it will improve parental choice.
Then I want to say a word about the Mitchell report. In October 1986 Mr. Mitchell, formerly of the Scottish Office, submitted his report on Scrutiny of Procedures for the Reorganisation of Schools in England, which was commissioned by the Secretary of State in 1986. His recommendations ran contrary to ministerial thinking on the involvement of the Secretary of State in such matters. Mr. Mitchell suggested a simplification of the arrangements for public notices, handling objections and determination by the Secretary of State. In short, he recommended that fewer cases should be put to the Secretary of State; that the DES should expedite its handling of proposals and that the Secretary of State should give his reasons for the approval or rejection of proposals.
On admission limits, Mr. Mitchell recommended legislation to: first, adopt 1985–86 as the new base line year for the standard numbers; secondly, enable LEAs to reduce admission limits by 20 per cent. plus 3 per cent. each year after 1985–86; thirdly, empower the Secretary of State to make regulations to alter the figures in the light of changing needs; fourthly, empower LEAs to reduce admissions limits in voluntary schools subject to DES approval, if the governors objected; fifthly, discontinue the requirement that any proposal shall be submitted to the Secretary of State if there are statutory objections. In other words, the proposals that Mr. Mitchell was making were designed to increase flexibility and reduce the role of the Secretary of State in the control of admission limits.
In contrast, the current Bill reduces flexibility and increases the role of the Secretary of State. In a Parliamentary Answer on 7th May, 1987, the Secretary of State rejected some—arguably the most important—of Mr. Mitchell's proposals as being out of line with Government policy. This seems to me to be very typical of what the Secretary of State does. He sets up a committee, it reports, he does not like what it reports so he either rejects it or sets up yet another committee.
As regards some other implications of the Bill's proposals, there is the question of class size. The present proposals could cause increases in class sizes in some schools. Everybody has been hoping very much that they would be reduced and stay reduced. Primary schools, for example, could be pushed back up to class sizes of 40 if successful appeals have created a high standard number and further appeals are successful in the following years, taking numbers beyond an already inflated intake.
Then there is community use. The admissions proposals will run the risk of jeopardising policies on joint and community use of school premises. Nominally, spare capacity has been put to all sorts of uses, some directly ancillary to the work of the schools themselves, but others in a much wider community context. For example, a school may have put a spare classroom to use by converting it into a library, perhaps into a home economics room or a business studies centre. Or a school may have made a classroom available for parents and other adults in the community to use for their own educational or recreational purposes. An inflexible application of proposals could mean that communities would be

989
deprived of facilities which have been imaginatively opened up for their use by taking advantage of the overall decline in pupil numbers.
There are implications for rural areas. For many families in rural areas there is likely to be only one school within reasonable access and choice can only be exercised if the parents are willing and able to meet the cost of transport to a more distant school, as well as accepting disadvantages such as additional travelling for their children. It will not take many such choices to tip the balance towards closure of the rural school even though it is still supported by the majority of local parents. There will clearly be transport implications.
So I would say that the 1980 Act provided useful and valued machinery for setting admission limits, recognising that there will be a variety of local circumstances and priorities. The current proposals do nothing to improve on the 1980 Act, but they do a great deal to worsen the situation. If enacted in their present form, they will create a more rigid and less flexible system than currently operates. If parents are to have real opportunities to make choices, it is essential that they should be able to do so within a system which operates fairly, efficiently and openly and which can safeguard the features which led to a choice in the first place. These amendments would ensure that. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: If this amendment is agreed to, then I cannot call Amendments Nos. 154, 155 or 156.
Baroness Cox: This amendment runs counter to the whole thrust of this part of the Bill. The whole essence of this part of the Bill is to give maximum parental choice within the constraints of the capacity of each school. I suggest to the Committee that the provision in this part of the Bill is necessary, given the tendency of many local education authorities to put artificially low limits on popular schools in order to discriminate in favour of unpopular schools.
The noble Baroness gave some hypothetical examples, but by way of illustration may I give a genuine example to the Committee from which many others could be drawn. In one local authority in Brent, the number of first choices for parents was 300. The local authority insisted on reducing that to 250, although another school in the same borough was running with a derisory intake of only 13 pupils out of an intended intake of 150. So artificial interference does not in any way achieve the kind of rationalisation which the noble Baroness was suggesting it might do.
However, what is much more important is the question of maximising parental choice. It was claimed by the noble Baroness that under the present dispensation very high percentages of parents get their first choice. But, as many parents would be able to tell the Committee, it is important to realise that very often the so-called choice is a guided choice, amounting in some places to quite considerable pressure. Many parents are given strong advice as to which schools would be available and they are warned that if they do not choose those schools they
990
may be allocated a school which will be even less to their liking.
One parent whom I know had his form returned three times in the hope that he would make the correct choice. So I would suggest to the Committee that very often the first choice is not perhaps quite as free a choice as might be presumed from some of those surveys.
Of course it is important to realise that not all parents will inevitably be successful in achieving the school of their choice, even under the provisions of the present Bill. Choice can never be absent, but it is surely better to increase choice than to restrict it. The fact that it cannot be guaranteed is no reason for not maximising it.
Although the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, suggests a shared decision between governors and the local authority rather than power resting in the local authority, it still denies the pre-eminence of the essential ingredient of individual parental choice. As such it seems to me to be contrary to the whole spirit of this part of the Bill and I hope that it will be strongly resisted.
Lord Somers: Perhaps it may be appropriate if I speak to my own amendment which follows. Anybody who has taught in a school, as I did for some years, will know that teaching a very large class makes it practically impossible to get over to the majority of the class what one is teaching. Classes ought to be kept down, certainly to a maximum of 30. Therefore it follows that the capacity of a school depends, first, on the number of its staff and, secondly, on the number of classrooms that it has. One cannot overcrowd a school and expect efficient teaching to result.
The Earl of Swinton: For a number of years I have argued with the noble Baroness, Lady David, across the Dispatch Box and debated with her over education and various other matters. I have always found her arguments, if not always convincing, at least to be justified and very sensible. However, for the first time in my life she completely threw me with one of her arguments this afternoon on the effect that the Government's proposals would have on rural areas.
The noble Baroness said—and in this I agree with her—that the trouble in rural areas is that parents very often do not have a choice of school. There is only the local secondary school or certainly the local primary school to which they can send their children. But if I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she was saying that if this Government's proposed legislation went through, all the parents would then somehow suddenly be able to opt for a school somewhere in the blue yonder. They would all take off there and then the local school would be shut because there would be no children left to go there. I do not understand that argument if the local school is so handy and such a good school to which parents can send their children.
Baroness David: That situation is quite possible. There may be several rural primary schools within not a huge area. One of them may suddenly become

991
more popular for perhaps not an altogether good reason and many parents may perhaps decide that it is worth sending their children there. One or two small schools may therefore suffer. I think that that argument is quite possible.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I cannot really understand the Government's argument on this matter because I think the question of choice in this particular context at any rate is largely illusory. I know nothing about economics because such things were not taught when I was at school, but I think it is probably still true that if the supply exceeds the demand for anything, whether it is schools or bottles of milk, there is considerable choice, whereas if the demand exceeds the supply there is little or no choice. In the case of schools the demand and the supply have to be equal or very nearly equal. If that is the case I do not see how provisions such as the ones that the Government are proposing will make very much difference.
I refer again to what I described in my Second Reading speech as "pushy parents". It seems to me that it will be the parents with the sharpest and strongest elbows who will get their children into what are conceived to be the better schools, and everybody else will be in the same position as before except that if the worst comes to the worst some of the less good schools will become even less good because their numbers will go down and the provision will diminish. That is the story of the diminishing spiral. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, made reference to a certain authority discrimination in favour of certain people. I cannot remember her exact words but she did use the word "discriminate". Perhaps she meant the poorer schools. The word "discriminate" is in itself a tendentious word.
Baroness Cox: I was not referring to the poorer schools but to the more unpopular schools; those to which parents did not wish to send their children.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: In that case that leads immediately on to the next thing I wanted to say. Schools can become popular or unpopular very often for no good reason. I have had experience of that and I believe that the Committee may have had experience of that too. I shall not name the actual schools but in my nearby town there is one comprehensive school and in another town 12 miles away there is another comprehensive school. There has been a time during which the school in my nearby town has become unpopular for no great reason. I have heard children say that they were going to one of those schools because they thought it was a very good school and that it was a better school than the other. Parents and children are not always well informed; they are not always intelligent; and they very often follow one another like sheep just because a certain school suddenly acquires a good reputation. Sometimes for quite an incidental reason one school becomes the popular school.
I regard the question of popularity and unpopularity with extreme scepticism. The filling up of the so-called popular school in any given area may
992
well be at the expense of quality. Surely the Government are interested in quality as it is the most important thing in education or in anything. The number of children at a particular school is not important. But what is important is what the school is offering in the way of education. If there are too many children in that school it will not be able to offer such a good quality of education; nor incidentally will those schools which have been deprived of children, where the numbers have gone down for rather different reasons. It is the old story of privilege and choice.
If a few people want to do something it is very nice for them, but if everybody does it, that spoils it for everyone. It is just the same as driving on the roads in this country. In the old days before the First World War driving used to be great fun because only a few people had cars. Nowadays everybody has cars so it is no fun at all. Perhaps that is a rather frivolous example, but it seems to me that that may happen in a so-called popular school which becomes too full. It will no longer have the quality that it had because small is beautiful.
Lord Trafford: Is the noble Lord truly arguing that if a large number of people are miserable and a few people are happy we should all be miserable because in those circumstances nobody should be happy? That is the basis of the noble Lord's argument at the moment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: No, I certainly would not suggest that. I come back to the context of schools again and not motor cars and roads. In that context it is important that an authority—in this case the local education authority—should be able to exercise some judgment as to the numbers in the schools within its area in order that as many parents as possible—and if possible all parents—should be satisfied and all children should be well educated.
Lord Somers: Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that in any walk of life quantity and quality do not often go together.
Baroness Young: We should in a sense be quite grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, for explaining so fully his arguments against this part of the Bill. We all listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, had to say, although I am bound to say that in effect these amendments are wrecking amendments in relation to this particular part of the Bill.
I recall very clearly the passage of the Education Act 1980. It will certainly be engraved on my heart when I die. But I do not recall the general pleasure with which the proposals on parental choice were received on that occasion. Therefore I am particularly pleased to hear that with the passage of time they have come to be regarded as working very well. If it is indeed true, and I have read the figure myself, that 90 per cent. of parents get their first choice of school that is nevertheless a good statistic. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lady Cox is correct in saying that there is however a certain amount of parental guidance in this matter.

993
However, the truth of the matter is that it is not necessarily as good as it could be. I do think that we need to pay very close attention to the kind of situation that was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The cases which have come to our attention have not been those which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has described as "pushy parents", whoever they may be. They have been cases of parents who have been generally very anxious about the kind of education their children will receive.
If those parents feel anxious about a school, they are justified in making their point very clear. After all, one has to send one's child to school for a very long period of the day and for a very long period of the child's life. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, to say that parents are not capable of making a decision about what is a popular or an unpopular school because they do not know how to make a choice, seems to me to be one of the most patronising statements that I have heard for a very long time. After all, not everybody wants to buy the same thing at the shop but that does not mean to say that you should not have a free choice of what you are going to buy. When you are settling for something that really matters it is not unexpected to say that parents probably do know best and their reasons may be very good reasons, though not necessarily reasons that will be acceptable to all the educational establishment. I consider it, if I may say so, in political terms an exceptionally illiberal argument to say that choice is in some way illusory. I do not think it is at all illusory for the parents. Therefore, I hope that as a result of this we shall get more parents having first choice.
The noble Lord's economic analogy was not in fact true, because the whole point of this amendment is that supply is actually there and demand is there, but the supply under the present arrangements is frequently not available to those who want it. All this part of the Bill is saying is that where the supply is available—that is to say, the standard number as measured in 1979—the school should be able to admit up to that number if there is a demand for it; no more no less. It is not asking the school to put up new buildings or anything like that; it is simply to admit to the demand. As indeed the whole thrust of this Bill is to increase parental responsibility, to devolve responsibility to the school, to encourage high standards, to encourage the participation of parents, to get a good relationship between the parents and the school, this is a very important part of the Bill.
As a concluding general remark, I would say that, where parents believe in the school and support the children, those children will probably do a lot better than they will if they go to a school about which the parents are unhappy and therefore more likely, in general, to be less supportive of the school than they would have been in other circumstances.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I should like to say a word in support of the amendment but, first, I recognise that we are faced with a very cruel dilemma behind this whole discussion, because the principle of greater parental choice is obviously a very good one from many points of view and is something which we
994
should all like to encourage. The difficulty is that this comes hard up against another side, which is educational provision in general and adequate planning of education, especially in areas which are socially deprived, inner cities, council estates and so on.
I have had an enormous body of correspondence about this Bill, as indeed have all the Members of the Committee, and in particular about this aspect of the Bill, as well as about the opting out proposals, to which we shall come later on. But, so far as greater parental choice is concerned, the anxiety is really with general educational provision and planning, and the standards of schools in inner city areas and on council estates, many of which are already struggling with a great many circumstances which tend to damage educational provision.
There seems to be a feeling abroad that if a school is "bad" somebody is responsible for its badness: it must be the teachers, it must be those who are directly concerned with the school. But it is not necessarily like that at all, because surely the standard of education in some of these schools is deeply affected by the environment in which the schools are set. There are problems of vandalism such as in the area from which I come; there is the theft of equipment and innumerable items, as well as the problem of keeping the staff motivated in those schools. All these factors can easily tend to drive down the standards of schools.
The question which faces us is not simply how to give parents more choice so that they can quite naturally do what they want to do, which is best for their own children as they see it. The question is also how you can both protect and improve the standards of schools in some of these most difficult areas. That seems to me to be the cruel dilemma with which we are faced when we come up against a Bill of this kind. I am not happy when I hear people arguing wholeheartedly against parental choice, nor am I happy when I hear people who support the Bill seeming to exalt parental choice above these other aspects of proper educational planning and protecting and improving standards in those schools. So I myself feel inclined to vote for this amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I want to look a little more deeply at the implications for parents and children of this clause, which allows much freer access to schools. Up till now we have, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, has made clear, been governed by the 1980 Act, which was passed by a Conservative administration. I think it is worth looking at the wording of Section 6 of that Act, which reads:
"Every local education authority shall make arrangements for enabling the parent of a child in the area of the authority to express a preference as to the school at which he wishes education to be provided for his child … it shall be the duty of a local education authority",
etc. to comply with any preference expressed and the duty imposed does not apply,
"if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources".
And, of course, there is the catch. But it corresponds with another key aspect of the present Government's thinking; namely, value for money. Where a local

995
education authority can plan in this way, public money can be sensibly managed. Parents are ratepayers, too, and they have a right of appeal against the refusal of a place which they very frequently win.
So on one side of the equation we have efficiency and value for money; on the other side, but not always in conflict, we have parental choice. We all want that. Local administrators, of which I have been one, and county councillors are parents, too. How much choice does the 1980 Act provide in practice? We have heard the figures. It is well over 90 per cent. and where I come from it is approximately 99 per cent. Should we be trying to improve on that figure? That is the crux. A figure of 100 per cent. is unobtainable at Grange Hill, Eton or anywhere else. So where do we draw the line, because as measurable choice goes up so efficiency goes down?
Let me illustrate why, but first perhaps I may say a quick word about why schools lose numbers. Some of your Lordships believe that managing the present decline in overall pupil numbers is a matter of propping up bad schools. From years of experience in the field, I must say that this is a gross oversimplification and this point has been admirably made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. A school can lose pupils because of local housing occupancy; because it has an unattractive site—perhaps a split site in a gloomy part of town; because it is in an ethnically mixed area; because it was a secondary modern 12 years ago. This is a surprisingly common reason. When I taught in a Hertfordshire comprehensive about 10 years ago, people in the town said, "Ah, you are from the grammar school." But it had not been a grammar school since the 1960s.
A school can lose pupils because of some rumour that goes running around the supermarket queues, whether founded or unfounded; because of one year's bad exam results or because it is perfectly true that it is a bad school overall. But very few schools are bad for all pupils. Popularity is often a matter of fashion and rumour changing over a long timespan. I thought a very telling statistic was published in the current issue of Which?—and it is one that I would commend to the noble Baroness, Lady Young—that one-third of all parents in maintained schools do not visit their child's school before he or she goes there.
A typical example of an LEA using its powers under the 1980 Act to restrict intakes is where you have a market town with two or three secondary schools with an intake of about 150 a year, which is just about a viable size. One school begins to dip and in no time there is a snowball effect, which is a very common event. Through fashion, rumour or parents' fears of closure, because the educational arguments against small schools are pretty well known, there is a general attack of nerves. If the LEA takes no action, a school can fairly quickly slide past the point of no return. What happens then is that perhaps 100 families find themselves at another school with which they are quite content, while 300 families are not at all happy with having to travel elsewhere for their education to what they regard as a foreign school. What price parental choice in those circumstances?
996
And what does the LEA do about accommodation when secondary numbers rise again with the birthrate through the 1990s? It seems to me that a modicum of planning makes sense and is in everyone's interests. Independent schools do it. They can plan for exact numbers and they know that German, history of art, a second A-level maths set and the chess club will be in place quite happily next September. Maintained schools find that difficult even under the present arrangements. Under Clause 19, unless it is amended, I fear that in two many cases that will be impossible and the children will suffer.
I have mentioned independent schools. I should like to say a brief and I hope not too tactless word or two on a delicate subject which I believe needs to be brought into the open. I have felt it rumbling in the background of a number of issues. Since I have had personal and professional experience on both sides of the divide, I feel that I am qualified to mention it. I believe that an exclusively public school background has an unsettling effect on judgment when dealing with the kinds of issues which are before us in the Bill. I know that when I moved across to the maintained sector, I had a great deal of relearning to do. The whole scene is very different.
I believe that the main factors are these. Public schools, at least as they were in pre-war days, were single-sex schools; they were usually boarding; and they were usually explicitly Christian. We had a good example of the effect of such schooling during our discussions on RE last week, when one noble Lord stated that he felt that more RE teaching would result in better behaviour. I dare say that it would at Eton, where the two-way selection process produces pupils of that kind. However, I can assure the noble Lord that it would not do so on the other side of the fence. More is the pity, perhaps.
That leads to my next point. Public schools select their pupils and vice versa; comprehensive schools have to take all corners. Most importantly, public schools deal with the top slice of the ability range. That makes an enormous difference to the way in which they view the education scene. Then there is the effect of the peculiarly intense ethos of the public school, with its undoubted force for good. However, that makes it extraordinarily difficult to question dispassionately the assumptions on which that education is based; they are often reacted against and not so often examined.
Lastly, there is a conceptual difficulty about the whole notion of planning for a system of schools. All schools deal with the top slice of the ability range. That makes an enormous difference to the way in which they view the education scene. Then there is the effect of the peculiarly intense ethos of the public school, with its undoubted force for good. However, that makes it extraordinarily difficult to question envisage that one's own unrestricted freedom can be another's serious disadvantage. That is at the core of what we are debating.
To sum up, the search for a yet higher degree of parental choice at schools than the praiseworthy level that we are already attaining will be conducted at too high a price and will probably, as often happens with legislation, achieve the opposite effect. I am unhappy with the accretion of more power to the Secretary of

997
State. I shudder to think of desk-bound civil servants in London adjudicating on applications which ought to be handled at local level where they are fully understood. I feel sorry for the forests of Brazil which will have to yield yet more paper on which all the interested parties will be writing submissions to each other until the crack of doom. I foresee yet more delays and obstructions in the path of professional educators. I support the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Trafford: I agree with many of the comments made by the noble Earl who has just spoken with regard to the practical nature of the matter. However, I think that he is expressing in part (if I may use the expression with the greatest of respect) some of the arrogance of the education planners. The assumption always seems to be, from planners and from professionals in most public sector areas—I include doctors—that the professional always knows best, that teacher always knows best and that it is impossible for a parent to make intelligent choices.
We have heard from the right reverend Prelate that in a sense the parent in certain areas is almost certain to make the wrong choice. I do not think that that is a reason to give the parent only one choice—a bad choice. The amendment will preserve a series of bad choices. I am not questioning the validity of the figure of 90 per cent. of first choices, though there may be some variation in various areas. It seems to be accurate. But I should like to see that improved on. If we are to see improvement, change and a gingering up of this aspect of the service, one of the ways to do that is through the greater exercise of parental choice.
I believe in parental responsibility and I do not think that it is right to call parents who are concerned about their children's education, who worry about the matter and want to do what is best for their children, pushy parents. I do not think that that is fair. I should like—
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: Perhaps the noble Lord will very kindly give way. I made it clear that I appreciate the concern of parents for the education of their children. I did not imply that they made necessarily bad choices. I am concerned about the restriction of the freedom of parents where schools in inner city areas and on council estates suffer from great social pressure.
Lord Trafford: I understand that point. However, it seems to me that what the right reverend Prelate is actually saying is that we have a series of difficulties in socially deprived areas and in the schools in and around those areas, but we must make specific choices to force people to stay in certain schools simply for those reasons. It seems to me that that is trying, in such circumstances, to engineer a situation of no change by which one does not promote improvement. We can promote improvement by the involvement of parents. That is central to this part of the Bill. Despite what the noble Baroness has said rather politely, this is a wrecking amendment.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may intervene very briefly. My knowledge of parental choice is strictly
998
theoretical. However, there is a point which has not been made and which I should have thought would appeal to noble Lords opposite.
As I understand it, one of the anxieties about unlimited choice and unlimited entry up to the maximum figure is that there are certain maintained schools which have pioneered a number of advances. That has involved the use of premises in certain ways—more computer space, language lab space—which are highly desirable. Those facilities are not available everywhere and have contributed to the justified popularity of those schools. They are a good reason why knowledgeable parents will wish their children to go to them. However, I am informed that those schools are afraid that if they have to admit up to the maximum number they will have to sacrifice their facilities because the space will not be available. Surely we do not want to reduce the standard in maintained schools where they are forging ahead with good experiments which prove to be worth while.
Baroness Cox: Perhaps I may respond to a point which was made twice by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester as regards the quality of schools in socially deprived areas. Is the right reverend Prelate aware that research dating back to the days of Rutter and recent research by Mortimere and his colleagues has shown that schools in the most socially deprived areas vary greatly in the quality of education they supply to their pupils? In other words, teachers and schools make a significant difference. Even when they draw pupils from the same catchment area, they can offer very different educational opportunities for the pupils.
Therefore, parents in those areas have a real need to discriminate in their choice of schools. Many of them understand very well the differences in the quality of schools made available. It is very important for parents living in socially deprived areas to have the maximum opportunity for choice because they are the ones who are trapped in the system. They cannot afford to buy their way out; they cannot afford to move house; they cannot afford to go to the independent sector; and they are the people to whom accountability of schools to parents is of primary importance.
Earl Russell: I should like to answer a few of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, about professional arrogance. I am aware of the danger. It is a real one. Perhaps the noble Lord underrates the determination of professionals to protect one another against this arrogance. I should like to know from the noble Lord whether the temptations of professional arrogance are ones from which the Secretary of State is immune.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: No one surely could wish to preserve bad schools. I am sure that the object of us all is to ensure that all schools are as good as they can be in the circumstances. I am worried about children whose parents are not concerned. They matter just as much as children whose parents are concerned.
Baroness Blackstone: I wish to query several of the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. Like the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, I speak as an ex-education officer. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, has been rather unfair to local education authority administrators, many of whom are dedicated people working very hard and trying to do the best for children and young people in the areas they serve. The noble Lord was particularly unfair, I think, to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, who seemed to me quite the opposite of arrogant in the manner in which he put his arguments; he put them clearly, rationally and in a convincing way.
The point is whether the Bill as presently structured increases parental choice. I think that we all agree that we want to increase parental choice. The problem is how best to do it.
Lord Trafford: Perhaps I may say that I was pointing out the arrogance of professions; I certainly was not criticising the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, for arrogance in the way be spoke. I stand by that. I believe that professionals often put forward the suggestion that they, and only they, know, be it in medicine, the law or in educational establishments.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to except myself from inclusion in that accusation. I do not think that I always know; I never did think that I always knew. When operating in local education authority administration, I tried not to take that view. Many of us speak as parents who have had children in the maintained system and who have been involved in exercising difficult choices about where to send our children.
The decision between one secondary school and another or indeed between one primary school and another is not clear cut. There has been a suggestion in arguments put forward from the Conservative Benches that this is a black and white matter in which it is perfectly obvious what is a good school and what is a bad school. Some schools are good in some respects and bad in others; others may be very strong in one area and weak in another. We cannot come to clear-cut conclusions about what constitutes a good school.
The amendment is designed to provide local education authorities and governing bodies with the opportunity to run a flexible admissions procedure that takes into account particular local needs and circumstances. I am afraid to say that the Bill's proposals do not achieve that. They build in rigidities that will make sensible management impossible and will have the effect in the end of reducing rather than increasing parental choice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, talked about discriminating in favour of unpopular schools. I think that to some extent we have to discriminate in favour of unpopular schools. Perhaps I may explain why. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester put his finger on it: it is because a substantial number of children will be left in those schools. Are we just to ignore them and their needs?
1000
Moreover, they will often be the children who are the most disadvantaged in many other respects. We have heard much commitment in Committee to what has been called the bottom 20 per cent. It has been said that this is the group that the legislation is designed particularly to help. If that is so, we have to accept that sometimes we must set about doing things that will improve those unpopular schools.
Some unfair things have been said, not just today, but on other occasions, by the Government Front Bench on the question of admission limits. It is suggested that they are used by local authorities for administrative convenience. They are not used for administrative convenience; they are used for educational reasons. They are used to ensure that a reasonable curriculum range can be maintained in all schools, not a minority; that undue overcrowding can be avoided in others; and that staff can be sensibly distributed between a range of schools. Local authorities must do all that they possibly can to respect the wishes of parents and their choice of schools. As some noble Lords have already said, they have been successful. In spite of the anecdotes that we have heard about guidance, it is the case—I concede that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, accepted this—that the great majority of parents at present get their first choice of school. Those who do not can appeal. After appeals have been heard, a further substantial number get their first choice. Only a very small number of appeals remain unsuccessful. As has already been said, a little over 1 per cent. of secondary transfers fall into this category.
I want to emphasise that I do not believe that this legislation will help such parents. Their appeals are turned down simply because the schools to which they wish to send their children do not have the physical capacity to take them: there is just no more room. Given that parental preferences are largely met, would it not be much better to allow local education authorities to vary the standard number in the interests of all children? I concede that slightly increasing admissions to popular schools will make a small number of parents more satisfied. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, it could ultimately make a greater number of parents more dissatisfied. I should like to spend a short time explaining why this is so and why choice will not be increased, despite what the noble Baroness said.
If numbers run down too much in some schools while others remain full to capacity, the quality of education in the under-subscribed schools will suffer. Incidentally, that was recognised by the Government in Better Schools and in the circular on providing for quality. I do not think that any good reasons have been put forward why the Government and the Secretary of State should change their minds. The decline in quality will lead to more prospective parents deciding against the under-subscribed schools. As their numbers grow, the likelihood of their getting into the so-called popular schools in turn will lessen so that too many parents will be competing for far too few additional places.
Therefore, there will be more disappointment and more dissatisfaction. In the remaining schools, the decline in quality will leave yet more parents dissatisfied. Thus we shall get into a vicious spiral of

1001
decline with no way out for the large numbers who are left in the so-called unpopular schools. We shall end up by being much worse off in terms of the overall quality of education and still more parents will have their hopes and expectations dashed. So the imbalance will lead to more and stronger preferences for the full schools and fewer for the unsubscribed schools. Because there is no more space at the full schools the children will have to be allocated to the others in spite of their parents' preferences.
I am sorry to take a little while to explain this point, but surely in those circumstances it is better to spread out the numbers more evenly and try to secure the greatest happiness of the greatest number. That is in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said.
The Government have rightly exhorted LEAs to make the best possible use of resources and obtain value for money. Current use of admission limits prevents the existence of a number of uneconomical schools which of course are impossible to close because it would mean either pupils travelling far too far or some pupils being left out altogether. It avoids some schools becoming packed to the seams and having to go on relying on temporary accommodation, which incidentally is usually both expensive and difficult to maintain.
Finally, we are now faced in this Bill with a quite arbitrary standard number which is related to 1979 figures. In many parts of the country there have been quite substantial changes which make this a totally inappropriate figure. A system of exceptions and exclusions will lead to more bureaucracy, as the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has already said, especially in the DES. There will be inevitable delays because overpressed civil servants in the department will not be able to respond quickly and will have some difficulty, I suspect, in reaching the right decision because they will know far too little about local circumstances. This is a classic example of where those closer to the local situation should be left to get on with it within a broad framework laid down by the centre.
The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is that I do not think schools are like items that you buy in a shop. They are a very long-term commitment for parents, as I am sure she agrees. Those parents who are left with the unpopular schools cannot simply get out, throw the item away or move to another school because there will not be space in the other school.
What are we going to do for those parents? That is the question that I should like to ask the Minister. What we all ought to be doing, as the right reverend Prelate said, is finding ways of improving those schools rather than leaving them to go on struggling and ways of turning those very unpopular schools into much more popular schools.
This clause needs amendation because it will not achieve its aims with respect to parents; it will damage many children's education and undermine local authorities' ability to plan their provisions sensibly in their own areas. I support the amendment.
Baroness Young: Let me say in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone,
1002
that I spoke as I did because we need to encourage parents to take great responsibility about the education of their children. I think that giving them this choice will do it.
I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, is right in the statistic he gave and only a third of parents visit schools. I must look at that piece of evidence. I have not seen it. I hope that schools will encourage parents to come and visit. Of course we do not know but nevertheless it is a tragedy and not something about which any of us can feel pleased.
I am sure that my noble friend will answer the very important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about what is going to happen to schools which are less popular. A great many of the proposals in this Bill are designed exactly to help those least advantaged by the national curriculum and all the other proposals, attainments and assessments. At a very early age—seven years old—if it is a poor school we should begin to find out why it is poor and what to do to put it right.
Lord Annan: I wonder whether I could ask the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to clear up two points for me. Was she arguing that when there is a really bad school in a deprived area, parents must be compelled to use it in order to make it better? I did not follow that point.
The second point, which I also did not quite understand, was the argument about the spiral; namely that as a school loses its pupils because it is bad, it will go further and further down hill. If a school is shown to be a bad school, lacking parental support, that surely is the point at which the local education authority will have to step in to do something about the school. It is that which is going to force bad schools perhaps to get out of the vicious spiral. The first step is to get a new headmaster. Headmasters hold the clue to whether schools are good or bad, though I totally take the point made by the noble Earl that there are lots of other factors as well.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may briefly have the opportunity of answering that. I should like as an aside to begin by correcting the sexist terminology used by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Many schools have headmistresses and I think it is appropriate to use the neutral term "head teachers" rather than simply assuming that all schools are run by men, which is something that many educationists have been trying to change.
I come back to the point that the noble Lord raised. Allowing a school's numbers to run down raises problems about maintaining the curriculum across the board, because one has also to run down the numbers of teachers in the school. Increasingly you will be unable to provide children with a choice and a range of specialist help in a variety of areas—in particular for children who may need such specialist help. That is the reason I think we have to be concerned about simply allowing market forces to operate and these schools to collapse with large numbers of children still in them. I hope that that answers the question which the noble Lord posed.
Lord Annan: I entirely accept the point about headmasters. It is only headmasters who are bad, no headmistress could be.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I shall be quite brief. It upsets me intensely to hear somebody talking about "very bad schools" as though we have some very, very bad schools and we have some very, very good schools. I think HMI reports quite clearly show that the majority of schools in the country are good schools. Some are battling under worse conditions than others, but that does not make them bad schools. The premises in which they operate might be bad; lack of facilities such as not having playing fields might make a school one that is not readily accepted, but it is quite wrong for us to designate schools as "bad schools" because many of the schools that are under extreme difficulties have staff that are very, very dedicated to try to help in those areas.
I know of examples in the Handsworth area of Birmingham, where HMI has just reported on two schools and given absolutely first-class reports on them showing quite conclusively that in the conditions under which they operate, they are operating as the best schools. They have ethnic minorities with which they have to contend. They are bad schools because the buildings are inadequate and do not have all the modern conveniences or ability to handle sciences, but they are not "bad schools". I think it is important for us to understand that they are not "bad" because of what is given to them.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether this legislation conflicts with the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, Section 33 of which requires authorities to strengthen the position of parents very firmly by the requirement that governors of schools should be consulted annually about admission arrangements, including the number of pupils to be admitted. That Act passed through both Houses of Parliament and is now on the statute book. Does this new legislation conflict with what is already on the statute book; namely, that parents have this firm right and it is represented to the governing bodies of the particular schools?
5 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: We make no claims that the policy embodied in Clauses 19 to 24 of the Bill represents a radical departure from the status quo. The purpose is to build on the provisions of the 1980 Act, now widely recognised to have been successful despite all the doubts cast upon its philosophy and practicality at the time, as my noble friend Lady Young has reminded us. Before 1980 local authorities and governors had considerable freedom to set whatever admission limits they saw fit for their schools, irrespective of the wishes of parents. Now parents have the right to obtain a place at the school of their choice provided only that this does not prejudice efficient education, or the efficient use of resources, or the criteria for admissions agreed for selective or aided schools.
The Government believe that the time is now right to introduce an even greater element of parental choice by removing the remaining artificial barriers to parents getting the school that they want for their
1004
children subject only again to preserving the particular character of voluntary or selective schools.
The Government's aim is thus a reasonable and modest one: that where demand exists, schools should be required to admit pupils up to their existing physical capacity. I stress the word "existing". Schools will not be required to expand in order to meet demand, but simply to admit as many pupils as they can reasonably accommodate. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that the article in the Independent to which she referred is quite wrong. The yardstick for measuring a school's physical capacity will be its standard number. But provision has been made in the Bill for the standard number to be varied where this is necessary to reflect the existing physical capacity of the school—a point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Guidance now in preparation in the department will set out a recommended method of assessing the capacity of secondary schools and the formula proposed will take account of particular accommodation uses and needs such as the greater space requirements of craft and technical courses and of children with special educational needs.
Under the provisions of Chapter II arrangements whereby parents express their preferences for a school for their child will continue just as before. Some may take more interest, as the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has suggested, and others less. But it will no longer be possible for the local authority or school governors to refuse admission to a school with spare capacity on the ground that it would be a more efficient use of the resources to divert that pupil to a less popular school.
There are already some authorities which allow physical capacity to be the only factor determining admission limits. They appear to manage perfectly well. We see no reason why others should not now be expected to follow suit. If almost all parents are already getting their first choice of school, as has been suggested, the introduction of more open enrolment should in practice lead to only marginal shifts in the distribution of pupils. In that case, why is there the fuss? A few more parents will be satisfied who were not satisfied before; and those who were satisfied before should not feel in any way threatened by these provisions.
Informal trawls of local education authorities undertaken by the department in recent years have indicated—as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said—about 10,000 appeals each year to local independent appeal committees by parents who were not satisfied by the decisions taken in respect of the schools that their children should attend. The majority of appeals are in respect of transfer to secondary school. When these figures are deducted from the total age cohort, it would appear that about 90 per cent. of parents are satisfied with the school place offered to their child. This figure varies from local education authority to local education authority. Some already operate a more open form of enrolment while others make maximum use of the discretion allowed them to fix intakes or have had proposals approved under Section 15 of the 1980 Act to limit intakes in order to balance provision across the areas of the authorities.

1005
However, a Harris poll carried out in the autumn indicated that 24 per cent. of parents in the South-East and 30 per cent. of parents in inner London would have liked their children to attend another school. We believe that the change will affect only those authorities which currently give too little emphasis to consumer preference.
The evidence of the Harris poll to which I referred suggests that a significant percentage probably accept the school to which their child is assigned, not as a positive act of choice but in a spirit of stoical resignation. When one reads some of the information booklets published by local authorities one can perhaps understand why. Some are frankly discouraging, tending to emphasise the role of the authority or governors in deciding school admissions and mentioning the right of parental preference only as a kind of unfortunate legal necessity. Of course that may make life easier for the planners. People exercising choice can get in the way of simple solutions. But local authorities and schools are there to serve the local community. It is simply not good enough to ignore popular demands because concessions may make planning that much more difficult.
I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, that the provisions of this Bill do not affect or conflict with Article 33 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred to certain low standard schools, as did the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. I believe that the system should not continue to protect a school which cannot cope with competition. It is a counsel of despair to say that more open enrolment will inevitably lead to sink schools. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone: the local authority should be prepared to work with the school that is having difficulty in recruiting in order to improve its attractiveness to pupils, and perhaps to teachers, because it is teachers about whom we are talking when we refer to bad schools—and to help it to overcome any disadvantages it may have as a result of its geographical situation.
There may be a case for providing some temporary additional resources for the school if it makes sense to keep it open; or the authority may need to consider mothballing the premises against future needs, or closure, with sale proceeds being used to contribute to any later capital spending which may become necessary. I am not pretending that any of these are easy answers, nor that the local authority would prefer not to have to face them. But local and central government are there to tackle problems in the interests of the populations they serve.
On Amendment No. 153A, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady David, the intention of more open enrolment is to give parents more opportunity of having their preferences met by requiring schools to admit up to their physical capacity where the demand exists. This will be achieved by requiring schools to admit at least up to their standard number. Every school already has a standard number, usually the number of pupils admitted in the 1979–80 school year. The standard number relates to physical capacity and is thus a convenient starting point. However—I emphasise this because many critics of
1006
the more open enrolment policy simply fail to acknowledge it—there are comprehensive provisions in the Bill which enable the existing standard number to be revised in order to ensure that admission limits reflect the school's correct current capacity.
If the level of admissions in the year immediately preceding implementation of more open enrolment is higher than a school's existing standard number, the figure will automatically become the new standard number. Where a local education authority and governors can agree between themselves that a school can admit pupils in excess of the standard number, they can do so without further ado. In the event of disagreement, the matter can be referred to the Secretary of State for determination. Where an admissions authority wishes to have an admissions limit lower than the standard number, a public procedure is laid down in the Bill. It is right that there should be a more formal procedure in such cases, allowing opportunities for objections and determination by the Secretary of State. Reduction in the standard number will have the effect of limiting parental choice, so all applications for reduction should be subject to careful scrutiny and only permitted where absolutely necessary.
Amendment No. 153A seeks to sweep all this away. In its place there would be an arrangement under which local education authorities and governors would be able to set the admissions limit which suited them—up to, and presumably not in excess of, the standard numbers currently defined—with provision to refer the matter to the Secretary of State only in the case of a dispute. That system is unsatisfactory because it does not provide sufficient guarantee that the level of admissions to the school concerned permitted by the local education authority and governors would reflect the school's actual physical capacity. It is far preferable to have the objective standard number system, we believe, with provision and appropriate procedures to vary it where necessary.
I believe that the Bill already achieves this and I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness David: I am just slightly surprised about the rejection, which has been so outright. As I said in my opening speech, by Amendment No. 178 the Government are doing exactly what we want for Church schools. I cannot think that the idea can be that bad if it is accepted in that situation.
The noble Baroness made much about standard numbers. The standard number is set at the 1979 figure. We object to the year chosen. We do not mind there being a standard number. We are quite happy for there to be a standard number. But 1979–80 was the year when the schools were full and before the numbers started to fall. That is why we object to the choice of that year.
Admittedly there is the possibility of changing the standard number. It is very much easier to increase it than to decrease it. There are then problems, and one has to go to the Secretary of State. I should like the Government to trust local education authorities a little more. It seems to me that they are being treated quite badly. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord

1007
Annan, that an LEA does not wait until a school becomes really bad before it takes action. From having served on a local education authority for some time, I know that as soon as there is any sign of trouble the LEA will try to find out what is happening and why and will try to make changes. It may be the head; it may be one or two members of staff in some subject. But LEAs try to improve schools when things are going badly.
I should like to remind the Committee of what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said at Second Reading:
"I would say to the Minister that choice at the end of the day can never, sadly, be absolute in a state-provided service. …
"In 1980 I had to accept that, faced with a substantial drop in the number of children of school age, local authorities must be able to have a degree of control over admission policy so as to ensure that the policy of any individual school did not prejudice the provision of efficient education for children throughout … the area of the local education authority".—[Official Report, 19/4/1988; col. 1401.]
"Throughout the area" is the phrase that we have to remember, and also what the right reverend Prelate mentioned.
May I also remind the Committee of something I said in my Second Reading speech. That was:
"giving parents greater choice [of school] will not help those children whose parents are unable or unwilling to exercise that choice in the full interests of their children".—[Official Report, 18/4/1988; col. 1200.]
Those are just the children towards whom we have been so sympathetic. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, expressed his hope for care for the non-academic. This factor has been mentioned so often. These are the children we may be treating badly if we leave the Bill as it stands. I was very impressed by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and I noticed his particularly apt phrase "one's unrestricted freedom can be another's disadvantage". I hope that members of the Committee will think of that and pause again before they reject the amendment, which I shall press to a Division.
5.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 153A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 117; Not-Contents, 160.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Chitnis, L.

Amherst, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Attlee, E.

David, B.

Aylestone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Banks, L.

Diamond, L.

Basnett, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Birk, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Blease, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bottomley, L.

Falkender, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Falkland, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Flowers, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Foot, L.

1008

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grimond, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hayter, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Scanlon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, B.

Hunt, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jacques, L.

Stallard, L.

Jay, L.

Stedman, B.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kennet, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Swann, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Leatherland, L.

Thurlow, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

London, Bp.

Walston, L.

Longford, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McCarthy, L.

Whaddon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNair, L.

Willis, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Milford, L.

Molloy, L.

Winstanley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Nicol, B.

Wrenbury, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Cottesloe, L.

Abinger, L.

Cowley, E.

Adrian, L.

Cox, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Craigavon, V.

Aldington, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Croft, L.

Allerton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Ampthill, L.

De Freyne, L.

Annan, L.

Deedes, L.

Auckland, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Beaverbrook, L.

Derwent, L.

Bellwin, L.

Donegall, M.

Beloff, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Belstead, L.

Elibank, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Blatch, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrier, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Caithness, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gainford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gisborough, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gridley, L.

Carnock, L.

Haig, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Chelwood, L.

Halsbury, E.

Clinton, L.

Hanson, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Colwyn, L.

Harvington, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Havers, L.

1009

Henley, L.

Pym, L.

Hesketh, L.

Quinton, L.

Hives, L.

Radnor, E.

Hood, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Hooper, B.

Reay, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Rees, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Reigate, L.

Ilchester, E.

Renwick, L.

Ingrow, L.

Ridley, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rochdale, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Rodney, L.

Killearn, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lauderdale, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Layton, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Leathers, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Long, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Seebohm, L.

Lyell, L.

Sempill, Ly.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Sharpies, B.

McFadzean, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Stockton, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Margadale, L.

Strange, B.

Marley, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Strathspey, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sudeley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinton, E.

Mersey, V.

Terrington, L.

Milverton, L.

Teynham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monson, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mottistone, L.

Todd, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trafford, L.

Moyne, L.

Tranmire, L.

Nelson, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Newall, L.

Trumpington, B.

Norfolk, D.

Ullswater, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Vinson, L.

Orkney, E.

Watkinson, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Windlesham, L.

Pender, L.

Wolfson, L.

Pennock, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Young, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Somers Lord Somers had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 154:
Page 14, line 12, leave out ("less") and insert ("greater").
The noble Lord said: In view of the argument about the question of numbers I do not believe that there is any point in moving the amendment and shall not do so.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 14, line 13, at end insert ("except in accordance with the provisions of section Rights of governing body to fix a maximum number for admissions below.").
The noble Lord said: This is a paving amendment to Amendment No. 171. In speaking to it I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 159A, 168, 169 and 170A.
The subject of choice has been thoroughly debated this afternoon. Amendment No. 171 proposes that the governing body, which knows the school well, should have the right to set a maximum number of
1010
pupils in order to ensure that the national curriculum is efficiently delivered, and thereby fulfil its obligations under Clause 1. It must publish its reasons if it wishes to reduce the standard number of pupils to what it considers appropriate. If the local education authority disagrees, it may object to the Secretary of State who will become the final arbiter. In other words, the object of the amendment is to allow the school to have a choice, represented by the governing body, as regards the numbers which it believes to be appropriate for the school to function efficiently and deliver the national curriculum.
I should like to refer to Amendment No. 169 in particular. It refers to subsection (9) on page 15 and this matter has already been mentioned by the Minister. Under Section 6(3)(a) of the 1980 Act the local education authority is allowed to turn down a parent's preference if compliance with that preference would prejudice the efficient education or the efficient use of resources in any school. The provision in Clause 19(9) of the Bill overrides that. It states:
"For the purposes of section 6(3)(a) of the 1980 Act…no such prejudice shall be taken to arise from the admission to a school in any school year of a number of pupils in any relevant age group which does not exceed—
(a) the relevant standard number;".
The number may be more than it is appropriate for the school to have because the standard number is the number of pupils who attended the school in 1979. Since then many changes may have taken place in the school whereby space has been taken up and is no longer available for accommodation. The space may have been used advantageously by the school for science and computers in particular. Many schools have given over rooms to computer studies and for recreational, artistic or creative purposes. It may well be disadvantageous for the schools to revert to the standard number. We are back to the question of quality. It may be that the quality of the school will suffer if it must take the numbers which it took in 1979. In the field of education eight years is a long time.
I should like the Committee to consider the proposal of handing over the admissions decision to the governing body which should consult with the local education authority. The governing body knows the school best and it knows its needs and requirements. I should like the Committee to consider the matter carefully. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: Amendment No. 168 is grouped with this amendment and I should now like to speak to it. We are talking about a situation in which either the LEA or the governing body wishes to admit more than the relevant standard number or even more than some other number greater than that proposed. The authority to which such a proposal is made has two months in which to reject it. If it does so the proponent body, if unwilling to take that rejection lying down, can apply within 28 days to the Secretary of State for an order under Clause 20(5) of the Bill.
Under Clause 20 (5), (6) and (7) the Secretary of State can refuse to make such an order, or he can agree to make it, or he can impose a compromise. The amendment seeks to confer on the proponents or

1011
applicants a duty to have some regard to the dictates of common sense. It directs that they should:
"have regard to the availability of accommodation, equipment, materials and qualified teachers suitable and sufficient to implement the National Curriculum and the overall curriculum of the school".
Only the people on the spot can judge the availability of those obviously necessary things and people. It is clearly absurd to expect the Secretary of State or his officials to have such detailed knowledge about every school in the country. Therefore, the argument that we can safely leave that to his good judgment will not stand up. We should write these local obligations into the Bill. In doing so, as my noble friend said, we are trying to protect the quality of education. We know that equipment, materials and qualified teachers are in short supply. There are many thousands of school governors and to expect them to combine the wisdom of Solomon with the objectivity of a High Court judge is verging on the optimistic. There may be governing bodies dominated by one or two forceful personalities who will see the enlargement and aggrandisement of their school as some sort of status symbol. This amendment seeks to prevent that happening at the expense of the quality of education.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: I have explained in response to the previous amendment why the Government do not consider it proper to allow local education authorities and governors to fix a maximum admissions limit below a schools standard number. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has explained, Amendments Nos. 155 and 171 would enable governors to fix a maximum limit to take account of curricular factors. If a school admits more pupils as a result of the implementation of more open enrolment the local authority will have to take account of those increased numbers in allocating resources to the schools and the schools' budgets will have to be deployed so as best to support the delivery of the curriculum.
We should not forget that more open enrolment will be implemented in the context of financial delegation. In future, local authorities will have to have open and rational arrangements for allocating resources between schools and a key determinant of an individual school's budget entitlement will be the number of pupils it recruits. In all but the smallest primary schools it will then be for the school governors to decide how the resources can best be used to the benefit of their pupils. They will be free to decide to vary the size of the teaching staff accordingly. The Government therefore believe that there are adequate safeguards for the school curriculum in the Bill and that these do not conflict with the greater degree of parental choice provided by more open enrolment. Therefore, I urge the Committee to reject Amendments Nos. 155 and 171 as well as the associated Amendment No. 169.
On Amendments Nos. 159A and 170A the Government fully accept that a school's capacity to accommodate pupils can be changed as a result of changes in the use of accommodation at the school. We have said as much in Clause 24(1) of the Bill as drafted. Furthermore, in guidance that the department is currently preparing on school
1012
admissions in the light of more open enrolment, a method will be recommended for calculating the capacity of secondary schools. This method, based on the department's so-called "workplace method", which will already be familiar to many authorities, takes account of the differing space requirements of different elements in the curriculum: the fact, for example, that practical subjects require more space than general academic subjects. The intention is that this guidance will be issued, as part of a new departmental circular on admissions, soon after Royal Assent.
I trust that what I have said will convince your Lordships that the Government are taking sensible and practical steps to ensure that full and timely account can be taken of changes in the use of a school's accommodation arising from curricular changes since its standard number was set. I hope therefore that the proposers of these amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
Turning to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, Amendment No. 168, the Government believe, as I hope I have explained in response to Amendments Nos. 155 and 171, that the more open enrolment provisions in the Bill do not prejudice delivery of the school curriculum. Where numbers increase in a school the maintaining local authority will have to take account of those increased numbers in allocating resources. If the authority responsible for admissions proposes a higher admissions limit under the provisions of Clause 19(4) then the availability of accommodation will obviously be a crucial factor in consideration of that proposal. However, the policy objective remains to ensure that the number of pupils whom the school is prepared to admit reflects the actual physical capacity of that school. Amendment No. 168 would compromise that objective, and I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I have listened as carefully as I could to the reply of the Minister but there are several amendments under discussion and I shall want to have a look at Hansard tomorrow to remind myself of what has been said.
The Minister referred to the Government's plan to issue guidelines for assessing the capacity of secondary schools. That puts one in mind, yet again, of possible unnecessary intervention on the part of central government. Why are the local authorities who have education within their charge not capable of assessing the capacity of the schools within their area? As I said, there are a number of issues here and they have all been discussed, debated and rehearsed rather thoroughly this afternoon. Therefore, I wish to read the Minister's reply and reconsider the matter before coming back to it. However, at present I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 14, line 13, at end insert ("except where the authority considers that the effect of any such determination would be to restrict opportunities for the use of the school premises by members of the local community or would otherwise affect the use of the school by other bodies or for adult education").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 156 I should say that Amendment No. 163 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is also to be considered. The purpose of this amendment is to allow local authorities flexibility in setting admissions limits in order to ensure that the provisions for community education is preserved. Community education receives all too little notice in this Bill and we are extremely keen that it should not be worse off when this Bill is passed than it is now, because it is something which is increasing all over the country and we should like to encourage that.
In recent years falling rolls, especially in the secondary sector, have meant a reduction in school population and consequent spare capacity. In many cases LEAs have used that opportunity to improve facilities for community education and that has had a very important impact on adult education. It has opened up a far wider range of possibilities for educational and recreational activities for adults. At the same time it has opened schools to their local communities, which can be nothing but good. Not only parents but other adults have been welcomed into the schools. That has benefited not only the adults but also the children. It is generally accepted that there is a considerable educational value for children in mixing in the school environment with adults other than their teachers and the other school staff. In June 1987 Coopers & Lybrand produced for the DES a report on The Dual Use of School Support Facilities. One of its conclusions was:
"The findings highlighted in this section show that dual use has general support, can be introduced into a wide range of schools, need not be expensive, can attract non-education finance, has benefits in a wider context and could be further expanded. In view of these positive statements it may be found surprising that dual use has not been more widely introduced".
Ministers should certainly be concerned about the dangers of impairing the community use of schools as a result of the introduction of open enrolment. Yet unless an amendment is introduced to ensure flexibility for the community use of schools, the rigid admissions limit set out in the Bill will have a major impact on community use. Spare capacity will no longer be available for community use since schools will be required to fill space available up to the standard number. We very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment and in doing so show that the Government have a real commitment to the community and to adult education. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support this amendment and also Amendment No. 163, which is tabled in my name. There is no question but that the need for adult education provision increases, not decreases, and any change in the availability of accommodation in schools which has an adverse effect on the availability of adult education would be extremely unwise at present. We are constantly pressing the need for making provision for the less well educated and the less successful. As we understand it, that is what lies behind this Bill.
However, there are many people in our population who have been failed—let us not put too fine a point upon it—by the education system in the past. They
1014
are urgently in need of adult education. It does not figure very large in this Bill and we want to take the opportunity to stress the importance of maintaining and indeed increasing the provision through the availability of such accommodation in schools. It is also true that the availability of such accommodation in schools is a great help to voluntary bodies of one kind or another. I know that the Government are keen to encourage them and that they increasingly rely upon them with the idea of partnership between voluntary and statutory bodies and the private sector.
This is a very down-to-earth matter and there must be rooms in which to meet. These rooms in schools are at no cost or are extremely cheap. If they had to pay the full cost, many of these organisations would simply go out of business. It is an extremely practical point and I believe that it is very much in line with the Government's objectives. We wish to draw their attention to it so that the availability of this accommodation is preserved for those who so badly need it.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I wish to add a few words in support of the amendment. I feel very strongly that adult education is of the greatest possible importance to the health and happiness of so many people. Basically, I am thinking of the right that we have almost established, or which we are on the way to establishing, of an adult to be able to educate himself and to continue to educate himself from the cradle to the grave. That is the principle of community education. I am thinking of the number of adults who, as my noble friend Lady Seear said, feel that they failed at school and want a second chance. The fact that one has failed at school may not be entirely one's fault. One needs a second chance and adult education provides that.
Many adults need the therapy that is provided by adult education, possibly in getting away from their families for one precious morning or evening in the week. Even more movingly, it may be in order to combat loneliness. I have had personal letters—no doubt other Members of the Committee have too—from people who say: "Do not take away our adult education in London because I depend upon it. I live alone and it is the only time that I get out and see anybody, quite apart from what I actually do".
I also feel that it is terribly important in schools that children should have adults around. The old days are over of the monastic type of school where one saw no one but one's school mates. More adults should appear in schools and be around the place. Best of all, they should share learning facilities with the children and perhaps sit side by side with them in class, studying the same subject; for example, in a French class where an adult wants to learn the language. I cannot help feeling that his influence, sitting in a class with the children, must have a beneficial effect upon them.
The mixture is very important. One hopes for at least some assurance from the Minister that the interests of community learning will not be adversely affected by this Bill, that the Government have it in mind and that they will make provision.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The issue of community and adult education use of a school's facilities is important. We are aware of the concerns and I feel sure that local authorities will keep this very much in mind.
It is certainly not the Government's intention that the introduction of more open enrolment should prevent such use, but the primary purpose of school buildings during school hours must be the education of the full-time pupils enrolled at that school. However, having said that, we recognise that some schools have community or adult provision which serves a valuable educational purpose and we would not wish this to be lost.
We have not ignored the point. The guidance to which I previously referred that the department intends to issue to local education authorities and others will demonstrate how such use should be taken into account when calculating the physical capacity of secondary schools. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have listened carefully to what my noble friend said. I hope she realises that this amendment is not just about what is traditionally called adult education, as I believe it seemed when the noble Baroness was speaking, although I may be mistaken. It is also about the use of schools by all kinds of groups; for example, youth groups, the Girl Guides Association, the Scouts, the Women's Institute and other such groups.
We need to consider this in the context not so much of the capacity of schools but the effect of financial delegation upon them. In this Bill we are altering the way in which schools will relate to community education. I believe that the way it will change could be very healthy, but the Government need to look very carefully at what the effect is likely to be.
I take the point as regards these amendments and I dare say that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord do as well. As we go through the Bill we need to keep this matter very much in mind because it is a very important point indeed.
Baroness Seear: I believe the noble Baroness said the draft notes being drawn up by the department will deal with this matter. We are getting that answer rather often. It would be very much more reassuring if the legislation made it clear that the department was expected to draft something along those lines. We are being asked to take on trust that the department will do the right thing. We should much prefer to have a general indication in the Bill that required it to do so. After all, it is still Parliament and not the Civil Service which decides what should be done in this country.
Baroness Hooper: I recognise the argument of the noble Baroness. Nevertheless, I hope that she will accept my reassurance on this point.
Baroness David: I am disappointed with the answer. I thought that my Amendment No. 156 was
1016
very straightforward and could not possibly do any harm to the Bill. It would give reassurance to all those who are so involved in local communities and community education. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I feel that we want something on the face of the Bill. Reassurances and draft guidance, whatever they may be, are not good enough. We shall read what the noble Baroness said, but I may come back on Report with something similar, if not exactly the same, because I am not satisfied with that response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stewart of Fulham Lord Stewart of Fulham moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 14, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) The authority may fix a number lower than the standard number in respect of any school (the admitting school) where either—

(a) the governing body; or

(b) more than 40 per cent. of the parents of registered pupils, at a neighbouring school (the neighbouring school) where intake is likely to be affected by the fixing of an admission limit at the admitting school equal to the standard number, request it to do so on the grounds that the neighbouring school could otherwise reasonably be expected to experience an undesirable imbalance in its racial composition in relation to the composition of the area as a whole, and this could reasonably be expected to prejudice racial harmony within the school or the local community.").

The noble Lord said: Some years ago, before we were as familiar as we are now with the sight of our black fellow citizens in this country, an anxious mother asked her little girl, "Are there any coloured children at your school?" She was surprised to receive the reply, "No, mummy, there are no coloured; they are all either black or white". That was quite a natural answer for a child to give because children know the words "black", "white" and "coloured" primarily in the context of the picture books from which they learn to read. In those books the illustrations are either black and white or, if one's school afforded a more expensive kind of reading book, coloured. That was the child's answer.
We see there the mother anxious and a little worried about her child mixing at school with people of different race and origin. The child—a child, one hopes, of its generation—regarded it as quite natural that black children and white children should be together in school. We must hope that that is the way the world will go.
I raise this matter now because we have heard so much in recent debates about the right of parental choice. I invite all Members of the Committee who have spoken or thought about parental choice to consider this point. What about the white parents who want their children to go to a school that has, if possible, only white children in it, or, if that is not possible, has as few blacks as can be managed? What about the black parents who take a similarly harsh and narrow view of what their choice will be? Do those who support parental choice regard that kind of choice as desirable or as something to be encouraged? If that is the kind of choice many parents make it will be extremely unfortunate for the public welfare.
I confess that I see no way—at least in simple legislative terms—of preventing people from making that kind of choice if they really want to. To cure people of that kind of view is a longer process to undertake; and not only for politicians. But at least it must be clear that the state apparatus does not do anything to encourage that kind of choice.That is the point of this quite modest amendment.
Perhaps I may give an example. Let us suppose that as a result of this provision the number of children which a particular school can accommodate is increased, and more children are admitted to it. More white children then go to that school, leaving the balance of races in a neighbouring school tilted decidely towards the black section of the population. I should have thought that if in a particular local authority area the total proportion of ethnic minorities to the whole population is 30 per cent. it would be admirable if in each school there was that proportion also. However, one cannot expect that to come about. One merely wants it not to be farther away from that than can be avoided. Above all, we do not want one school being known and thought of as the white school and another being known and thought of as the black school.
My amendment would apply if that danger appeared to be arising. The amendment could not operate rashly or rapidly and could operate only if either the governing body or more than 40 per cent. of the parents of registered pupils felt that there was going to be an imbalance of ethnic communities in their school. They could then request the local authority to fix a number lower than the standard number, so that the imbalance would not occur.
This is a modest attempt to deal with what could be a serious problem. I think that the noble Baroness who is to reply will agree with that. The general trend of the Bill is to stimulate what is regarded as the competitive spirit. However, if it produces competition between the black school and the white school, the result will be disastrous. In their concern for parental choice and for variety of schools the Government should be aware of the danger they are in here. I hope they will give the matter some attention. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The Government believe that the provision for more open enrolment will offer to all parents, of whatever ethnic origin, a better chance of having their preferences met, and existing safeguards against illegal discrimination will continue to apply. As now, no schools will be able to refuse admission to a pupil on racial grounds. Nor will they be able to set criteria for admissions priorities, in the event that there are more potential pupils than places available, that discriminate between applicants on racial grounds.
In Amendment No. 157 the noble Lord proposes that some parents should have the opportunity of wider choice denied to them, not because there is no room in the school they want for their children but essentially in order to try to dictate some kind of racial balance in schools. The Government yield to none in their opposition to racial discrimination, but experience has shown that it is probably well-nigh impossible to try to achieve such a balance.
1018
Attempts to do so in the past, through busing, have failed. Demographic patterns vary considerably across the country and naturally schools to a large extent reflect these patterns. Many schools already have a high proportion of ethnic minority pupils and many such schools are very good indeed. The Government's aim is to improve the quality of schools overall, whatever their ethnic composition, and we believe that more open enrolment will help towards that aim by demonstrating which schools parents prefer and meeting those preferences as far as is physically possible.
I should like to make it clear, however, that the Government are in no way complacent about the problems of a multi-ethnic society. We remain committed to promoting mutual respect and understanding among all the citizens of this country. In the current financial year, we are supporting expenditure of £1·4 million under the education support grant programme for pilot projects related to educational needs in a multi-ethnic society. We are also supporting a total of £2 million of expenditure on training in the planning and delivery of the curriculum in a multi-ethnic society. This expenditure will cover costs of training school teachers and further education teachers.
In the light of these observations and assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that if parents make choices on racial grounds there is a case for removing those choices. If the Government are serious about the importance they attach to removing racial prejudice and racial discrimination, they will agree that certain basic principles and moral values must come before mere choice. One of the most dangerous developments that can take place in a multi-racial society is a growth in racial prejudice, intolerance and discrimination. If that happens, the likelihood of racial conflict and violence between racial groups is greatly increased.
Learning to live with people from different racial backgrounds and learning to be aware of differences without assuming that one group is somehow superior to another is part of growing up in a multiracial society. In order to create an environment in which this can be learnt by children and by young people, they need to go to school together and need to do so from the earliest possible age so that they mix with children from different ethnic groups from the beginning. Segregating children according to the colour of their skins must—I am sure the Minister will agree—be avoided wherever possible. Respect for other cultures can be more easily developed when children are made familiar with other cultures, rather than the cultures seeming strange and, as a result, possibly threatening.
The segregation of children from different religious backgrounds in Northern Ireland can hardly have helped to foster better understanding between the two communities which live there. Worse than that, it may even have directly contributed to the hostility and fear that exist in the Province. Therefore would it not be a good idea if we were to try to learn from

1019
those lessons as regards relationships between the black and Asian community and the white community in the rest of Britain? Should we not try to avoid the type of segregation that has existed in Northern Ireland among religious groups as regards school children? It is for that reason that it was sad to hear the Minister remark that if open enrolment provisions led to more all-black, all-Asian or all-white schools in areas where the population is racially mixed, then so be it.
The open enrolment proposals could mean that parents not only expect to be able to choose but that they also have the right to do so. Further, perhaps some of them may start to exercise what they see as their right to choose on racial grounds, and on racial grounds alone. Events which recently took place in Dewsbury demonstrate the potential danger in this respect.
The amendment is designed to introduce a safeguard. It would give a neighbouring school the right to request the LEA to fix a lower number than the standard number on the grounds that otherwise there might be an undesirable imbalance in the racial composition of the neighbouring school. It would allow LEAs to respond by planning admissions in a rational way, employing non-discriminatory approaches. Thus it would be a great pity if the Bill had the unintended effect of undermining existing legislation on race relations, especially Section 1 of the Race Relations Act 1976. For that reason I strongly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stewart.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I should like to say a general word or two. I too support the amendment. I hope that the Government will take seriously the unfortunate events which recently took place. The first was in Dewsbury, and the other was the unfortunate occurrence in Manchester. Such matters must be taken seriously and not treated lightly. Two basic facts should be borne in mind about the whole issue. One is that the handling of the problem within one school depends more than anything else on the quality of the head teacher. If he knows how to handle the difficult question of a multi-ethnic population within his school, everyone will be happy together. However, if he does not, disasters can happen—examples of which we have heard about.
The other matter which must be borne in mind is that children know not the evil of discrimination; it is taught to them by their parents. Normally happy children accept each other completely. For example, not so long ago I visited a primary school in London where I sat down with the children at lunch time. They were all mixing together without thought; that is, black, white, yellow and everything else. However, I was told that there was another school—again a primary school—just down the road where there was a most unhappy atmosphere. I am saying that children only learn from adults about discrimination. Therefore the adults around them must be wise and sensitive, especially the head teacher himself or herself.
Lord Trafford: I think that for once I perhaps agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady
1020
Blackstone, said. I say this especially after our earlier disagreements this afternoon. My anxiety about this type of amendment is not that I disagree with the aims to which she and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, have referred; it is the sheer complication of the application of such matters.
For example, as I mentioned earlier in connection with another amendment—when I spoke about the area of social deprivation, whether it was a good school or not so good a school and its difficulties—such amendments can be used as an excuse by education authorities or parents to manipulate the system, in just the same way as if one introduced many other restrictions. I think one either has a situation of choice and numbers or one has not. There are many other ways in which that concept could be concealed. I say "concealed" because I think the word "manipulation" might be somewhat strong in this context.
The example of Northern Ireland given by the noble Baroness is just one such situation. That is another sphere in which it is extremely difficult to implement this proposal in practical terms. That would be one of my major objections to implementation. If one has decided to have parental choice—for good or for evil—and then one starts qualifying it with many other types of restriction, one might just as well abolish the whole thing in the first place. Therefore I would stick to this concept. It is in the context of the family and the child growing up in its own home environment that a situation such as that to which the noble Baroness referred—which no doubt was the reason for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart—should apply. However, it should not interfere with the central theme of the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like the opportunity to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, has just said. Once again, he has shown his rather attractive suspicion of the motives of local authorities. He suggested that they would use the amendment as an excuse to find other ways around the legislation. I do not believe that they would do so in this case. However, I accept that there are always practical difficulties in trying to qualify a basic principle. Nevertheless, basic principles sometimes need to be qualified in the interest of other perhaps bigger and broader ones. That is what I think the amendment is seeking to do.
Lord Beloff: I am puzzled about whether the amendment, which relates to the most important question of open enrolment, in a way goes too far in this sense. If the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, is right there is a danger that in choosing a school parents will take their ethnic or indeed their religious convictions into account. For example, Moslem parents would prefer their children to attend school where they would be surrounded by other young Moslems, and the same situation would apply to white and black children.
Surely that would be the case even if open enrolment had not been introduced. That would be so even if we had a system in which the intake would be limited by the local authority. As long as one has the option of choice—I understand the principle of

1021
choice is not questioned by the noble Lord—the same type of problem would arise. The situation might be made more difficult if the prospective numbers in the relevant schools were changed by preventing the total in the larger school being increased still further. However, it does not affect the principle.
Therefore, there is a great deal to be said about whether one objective of education policy should be to give priority to good race relations over other aspects of education policy; and whether—this is the other point—one believes that better relations would be assisted most compulsively by the integration of children at the earliest possible age, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, suggested.
That seems to be an important issue but, in a way, too big a one to take on board when we are dealing with possible limits or non-limits—whether the 1979 figure or some later figure be adopted for the size of school. In that sense, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, will give us the benefit of his reflections and proposals on relations between the education system and the betterment of race relations. I totally share the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, but on a less technical point than the one we are at present discussing.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may add another word to what I previously said. I understand that at present there are at least 12 maintained schools in England whose pupils are all from an ethnic minority, and about 50 schools with 90 per cent. or more ethnic minority pupils. A large number have 75 per cent. of ethnic minority pupils. Those developments are dictated largely by patterns of settlement. There will be many reasons for parents' choice of school. Convenience and geography will figure high. Schools will therefore continue to reflect that pattern. Segregation is no part of the Bill, and in not accepting the amendment we are merely underlining the fact that in giving parents choice in this matter we do not wish to circumscribe that choice in any way.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: When we wish to move amendments this side of the Chamber is always told that they are either too big, in which case they are wrecking, or too small, in which case they are not worth proposing. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, aright, he felt that I had not gone far enough and that logically I should go further. The matter of good race relations is a considerable problem. It cannot be solved solely by educational policy. I never supposed that it could. I was not attempting to do that this time.
In the course of the implementation of the policy of open enrolment it may well happen that in a particular locality there will be an imbalance of the ethnic composition in certain schools. That may be injurious to good race relations. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that if that should happen, or should appear to happen, the governors of the school, the parents and the local authority can take steps to prevent it. That is all that the amendment proposes. I am not suggesting that we try to provide a universal panacea or a pattern of how children of different races should be put into different schools. All I am saying is that in the course of the open
1022
enrolment policy which the Government are urging we may make the racial problem worse in a particular authority's area. If that happens there should be a remedy. That, and nothing more than that, is what I am proposing. I should have thought that the Minister could have gone that far.
On Question, amendment disagreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 14, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) In fixing the standard number for any school, the authority shall determine, in accordance with guidelines issued by the Secretary of State, a formula for the accommodation requirements of pupils with different types of special needs, and guidelines shall be issued by the Secretary of State after consultation with the local authority associations, and such organisations representative of parents, staff and professionals and specialists as appear to him to be concerned.").
6.15 p.m.
The noble Baroness said: My moving of the amendment is based on experience and deep feeling. During the years of the thalidomide children, a number were sent to the Nuffield Orthopaedic Hospital in Oxford, Subsequently, a proportion of the parents felt that they could not care for their thalidomide children. Other parents felt that they wanted to care for them. The trouble was that if the schools did not have the facilities parents could not care for the children and they had to go away to residential establishments. It was right that the parents should have the choice of whether or not they cared for those children. That applies to the whole spectrum of handicapped children—to spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, Down's syndrome and so on. Right across the board, there are a number of parents who want to care for their children and a number who feel that they do not have the capacity to do so.
Since the passsing of the 1980 Act, so ably introduced in this place by my noble friend Lady Young, many schools have developed facilities for all types of handicapped children. I know of a number of schools with classes for deaf children. They have all the apparatus to teach them. There are other schools that are so constructed that they may take children suffering from spina bifida, muscular dystrophy and other physical handicaps. But the development of such facilities is uneven throughout the country. Therefore in some areas parents do not have a choice. That is partly because introducing facilities for handicapped children in terms of buildings, equipment and staff is expensive. In schools one needs to have ramps, specialised types of cloakrooms, lavatories, wash basins and baths, visual aids for blind children and, as I said, special equipment for deaf children. Many schools do not have all that equipment. A number of schools do not know what equipment they should have.
Not so very long ago I visited a school to which a mother had asked whether her spina bifida son could be admitted. The school wanted to show compassion and sympathy to the parents and admitted the child. The school had not realised what facilities would be needed to deal with such a child. There was therefore a terrible sadness in that family; the child was admitted and after a while had to leave because of a

1023
lack of facilities. That is a situation in regard to which there needs to be consultation.
The amendment proposes that,
"guidelines shall be issued by the Secretary of State after consultation with the local authority associations, and such organisations representative of parents, staff and professionals and specialists".
As regards professionals, the National Association of Voluntary Organisations for Handicapped Children is a good organisation, There are specialists, such as physiotherapists, who can recommend what sort of apparatus should be used.
In the amendment it is suggested that the Secretary of State should consult all those people and that they together should decide what apparatus, buildings and facilities there should be within a school so that children can be admitted if the parents so wish and if they can otherwise look after their children at home. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in this amendment. In deciding how many pupils a school should take, account should be taken of children with special needs in the school. Special provision made for children with physical disabilities may affect the capacity of a school. Admitting more pupils to a school could prejudice the education which the school can provide for children with different types of special need. The amendment is seeking guidelines from the Secretary of State which local authorities must follow before they decide how many children a school should take.
Baroness Hooper: I understand the concern that has prompted this amendment to safeguard the position of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools. The Government share this concern. I have already mentioned in a different context the guidance which the department will be issuing to local education authorities and others, after Royal Assent, which will recommend a formula for calculating the physical capacity of secondary schools and which will make allowance for the space requirements of pupils with special educational needs.
Local authority associations and others with special knowledge and interests will be consulted on the circular prior to its publication, and I think they will then be able to make any comments they think are applicable. But I also believe that they will be reasssured by what we suggest in those guidelines. I hope that in the light of this assurance the amendment may be withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull: I am very grateful to the Minister for her encouraging words. I am bound to say two things. First, it is eight years since the Education Act 1980 was passed. It is very sad that we have progressed so little over those eight years in helping children with special educational needs in our schools, that being the intention of the Act.
It is reassuring to hear that the department will issue guidelines, but I think the situation calls for more than guidelines. It needs encouragement, help and very deep consultation with, I suppose, the
1024
HMIs. I think that it needs a much more concerted effort than we have made hitherto. However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 14, line 13, at end insert—
("1A) No school shall have its admissions total increased by more than 10 per cent. in the age group of admission in any one year, and where the operation of this section would otherwise be likely to produce an increase in the total of admissions greater than that number in respect of any school (or a decrease greater than that number in respect of any other school in the area of the local education authority), the authority shall make an interim standard number or numbers for such number of years as would enable the school to reach its standard number over the shortest practical period consistent with the need to retain the orderly provision of education services across the area of the authority").
The noble Baroness said: This is a fallback amendment in the light of the fact that we were unable to get the restrictions on admissions which we had hoped for in the interests of maintaining standards in schools and to restrict the numbers of certain cases where it seems proper to the local authorities and the governors to do so. Given that that is not permitted, we are now asking that the increases should be of a modest kind, limited to 10 per cent. in each age group each year. The schools will thus find it much easier to accommodate the increase in numbers which they may well be forced to take than would be the case if they had to take an unlimited number.
Of course, this conflicts with the sacred doctrine of free choice of parents under all circumstances whatsoever. But what we are asking in this amendment, as we have asked in other amendments, is this: while fully recognising the importance of parental choice, we feel the question is much more complicated than merely the rights of parents to choose, and that should not be the unlimited rule. In the interests of maintaining the standards in the schools so that they are not overwhelmed by an increase in numbers, we ask that this amendment be accepted. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I should like briefly to support the amendment, although quite obviously the same arguments which we had earlier on in the afternoon could also be introduced on this amendment. The point seems to me to be that it will make it easier for educational planning. I plead that there should be some consideration given to the task which faces those who have to implement educational policies locally. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will give some encouragement here so that the process of increased parental choice does not go to extremes in any given area.
Baroness Hooper: This amendment seeks to retain what it terms the orderly provision of education services across the area of an authority. But it amounts to a rejection of the whole principle of more open enrolment, that where parents want to send their children to a school they should be able to do so if the school has room. If a school is popular with parents, then in the Government's view it should be allowed to admit pupils up to its real capacity. There

1025
is no reason to hold it back by means of the kind of expedient set out in Amendment No. 159. Some local authorities already offer maximum choice to parents without upsetting their overall provision, as I have already mentioned. We see no reason why others should not be able to follow suit. Authorities have a fairly accurate idea of total numbers coming into their schools and should be able to predict at an early stage what the distribution among schools is likely to be, taking account of the preferences expressed by parents. If admissions processes are set in train in good time it should be possible to plan the distribution of resources in advance and without too much difficulty. I therefore urge noble Lords to reject the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: May I ask the Minister whether she has the figures of how many local authorities do not comply with this policy?
Baroness Hooper: I am sorry that I do not have the precise figures at this moment but I shall let the noble Lord know.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Can the noble Baroness tell us how this affects schools with falling numbers? In them the local authorities are having to use their best knowledge, considering the finance of keeping certain schools open and of closing others for a variety of reasons. What happens under this legislation if the school which the local authority is going to close is considered to be one of those to which all the parents want to send their children but there are not enough children to keep the school filled? What happens then if the parents appeal to the Secretary of State on closure grounds? Does the local authority consider the cost effectiveness of closing the school, or do the parents have priority rights in keeping a school open?
Baroness Hooper: I believe that this policy will help local authorities by giving parents the choice. It will underline which schools are the popular schools and those which, because of falling school rolls, have to be closed and which are the most suitable for closure.
Lord Glenamara: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness one question. She said in her reply that local authorities are planning this in advance. How on earth can they do that? If I were a parent I might wish my child to be enrolled in a certain school. I discuss this with my wife overnight and go along the next morning to the school. This could happen within a few hours. Supposing the numbers wishing to go into the school were, say, 15 or 17 per cent., increasing the numbers by that percentage would make nonsense of the planning of the school. How can the local authority or the schools plan for this in advance?
I also entirely reject the statement of the noble Baroness that this is attacking the whole principle of open enrolment. It is no such thing. It is helping it; it is making an orderly changeover to the system which the Government want. I ask the noble Baroness to think about this and about her reply.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: While my noble friend is contemplating her reply on this, she might consider what I have seen as the way in which this might well work out. After all, let us take the moment of transfer from primary to secondary school where this is most likely to occur. Most parents will be contemplating where their children are going in the last year of primary school. It will not be absolutely the case, but I think for most parents this would be the big decision. I have no doubt that under the 1980 arrangements they will be invited to express a preference. They will have the appeals procedure and this opportunity to apply for entry to a school up to what would have been its 1979 limit. In the course of all that there will be exactly the cases that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, has identified.
Some parents will make up their mind in November and others no doubt in March, but clearly there will be a time in which all these pieces of information are collected together and the local authority will have to make its decision in the light of the information it receives, as it has to make its decision in the light of the information which it receives under the 1980 Act.
What we are actually talking about is not the bulk of the decisions; it is the ones which are in a sense at the margin but which matter a very great deal. I should have thought that the way that this provision will work out will enable local authorities to make their decisions. They will know the upper limits on the most popular schools because they are defined under the Act, and they will have a very clear indication as a result of all of this as to which schools are more popular than others.
I think it is very important—this point has not really come out—that the provisions under the 1980 Act on providing information about schools so that parents can make a sensible choice really do need to be looked at. That is a task both for schools and for local education authorities. Parents deserve sensible information about schools' intentions. That is something which needs to be weighed in the balance in order to answer some of the anxieties of those who feel that parents are unlikely to be able to make a sensible choice. If parents can have the chance to compare information and visit different schools they are in a better position to make a choice.
Baroness Hooper: I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving us the benefit of her knowledge in this matter. I of course fully agree with her explanations. If admission processes are set in train in good time it should be possible to plan the situation, even taking into account the odd last minute arrival. Quite possibly the introduction of open enrolment will cause local authorities and indeed schools to revise their admission policies and to further promote them, which should help.
Again I think that we can turn to the experience of those authorities which have a more open enrolment policy. I am now in a better position to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, as regards his question and I can say that Kent is the local education authority best known for having a form of open enrolment. However, I understand that

1027
Bradford, Wiltshire, Oxfordshire, Solihull and possibly even Birmingham would also be likely to claim that they offer a degree of parental choice where admissions are restricted only by school capacities. Those are some examples of authorities which already carry out that policy. They are examples of experience from which other authorities which may feel that they have problems can benefit.
Lord Glenamara: I shall reply to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am very much in favour of open enrolment and not against it at all. I am not sure whether as the law stands now we do not already have open enrolment, if only parents realised it. My noble friend Lord Dormand is nodding, and he was a chief education officer. The law as it stands gives parents the right to send their children to any school.
The changeover from primary school to secondary school is fairly simple and of course parents would plan in advance for that. But this provision, as I understand it, would apply to parents who wished to change the primary school or the secondary school of their child. I imagine that in a typical local area with four or five primary schools word gets round quite suddenly, for instance, that one school is doing very well in the tests that the Government are going to initiate. I imagine that word would be passed round at the local women's institute, at the towns women's guilds or after church on a Sunday morning, and a large number of parents would wish to change the primary school of their child. That is what I mean when I say that choice is unpredictable. I am quite sure that no one can plan for that. So a school could conceivably get an influx of a very large number of pupils in a very short time. That would make a nonsense of this Bill. I think that the Minister should look at the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, because I think it is eminently sensible.
Lord Dormand of Easington: As my noble friend referred to me nodding my head, perhaps I had better say that the open enrolment to which he refers is of course governed by such things as staffing and by physical facilities. But having said that, what my noble friend has said is correct.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down I wish to say that there is a significant difference between the system as it is at the moment and the system proposed in the Bill. The difference is that local authorities at the moment do have the power to restrict admissions to schools. They have the power to agree admission limits to schools. I can give the Committee a very real example of a school in Cambridgeshire which has had up to two forms of entry restricted in order to prop up another school which is failing to attract pupils.
Baroness Seear: The Committee will not be surprised to hear that I find the Minister's answer very unsatisfactory. She is committed to this total support of parental choice regardless, as if there were only one consideration to take into account. She repeats that with every amendment that is put
1028
forward. The matter is much more complicated than that. The Minister supports those assertions by stating again and again that the Government's decisions are right. She does not tell us why they are right; there is no argument behind that. It is a constant assertion of a faith that she holds. We really are wasting our time in most of the amendments that we are putting forward because we are up against a brick wall. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 159A not moved.]
Lord Somers Lord Somers had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 160 and 161.
Page 14, line 20, at end insert ("unless the school can furnish evidence that it has made alterations (to buildings or otherwise) to cater for a larger number"). Page 14, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The number admitted to any school shall not be larger than will enable the average class size to be not greater than 30.").
The noble Lord said: We have talked enough about numbers this evening and I have no intention of moving either of these two amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 14. line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the permanent buildings at the school cannot in the view of the authority responsible for the school provide adequate accommodation for the total number of pupils.").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 162 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 166 and 178A. The aim of this group of amendments standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, is to ensure that only permanent buildings are taken account of when the standard number for a school is being decided. Temporary buildings would be disregarded.
The proposal that admissions can be based on the standard number defined by reference to 1979 intakes assumes that the relationship between pupil numbers and accommodation as it was in 1979 is still appropriate for 1989. That is very far from being the case. A range of curricular developments in this period have important implications for class sizes and therefore for accommodation. The introduction of the General Certificate of Secondary Education, the GCSE, the Certificate of Prevocational Education, the CPVE, and the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative, the TVEI, are just some of the more significant changes. There are many schools which have been able to cope with these developments within their 1979 accommodation by taking advantage of having smaller pupil numbers. If they were obliged to return to the same numbers as 1979 there would be either overcrowding or a need for considerable capital investment in additional accommodation.
Many schools accepted a higher than normal intake in 1979 by virtue of using temporary accommodation which has since been removed with a consequent improvement to the overall standard of accommodation. A return to 1979 numbers would put the clock back by reversing this process. There

1029
are other schools which as part of a LEA's drive to reduce surplus places abandoned the use of unsatisfactory temporary accommodation and adjusted numbers accordingly.
It may possibly be argued that it is the Government's intention in such cases that the effect of temporary accommodation should indeed be disregarded. However, statements made so far have not been fully reassuring, and it would put the matter beyond doubt and reduce the potential for bureaucratic and timewasting wrangling if a simple statement such as is set out in one or other of the suggested amendments above could be included in the Bill. I would suggest the wording in Amendment No. 178A.
There are other cases, moreover, involving temporary accommodation where a statement such as the one suggested would be even more necessary. For example, at some schools temporary accommodation is still in use but is nearing the end of of its useful life, and since there are sufficient places in the area in permanent accommodation it would be sensible to abandon the temporary accommodation and to adjust the numbers accordingly.
LEAs are striving to arrive at a position where all pupils all the time are educated in accommodation of a good standard, and that objective will be frustrated if LEAs are obliged to continue to maintain temporary accommodation when it would be possible and helpful to remove it. Temporary accommodation is very expensive to maintain. A DES study published in 1977, A Study of School Buildings, stated that the cost of maintaining temporary accommodation could be up to nine times greater than the cost of maintaining permanent accommodation. It does not represent value for money and effective use of resources if LEAs are obliged to maintain temporary accommodation unnecessarily, at the same time as they have spare places available in permanent accommodation.
It is no answer to suggest that schools with spare places should be closed. That may be the right and feasible answer in some cases, but in many others it is not because the number of spare places is marginal and it would not be possible to take a whole school out of commission without leaving hundreds of children with no school place to go to.
The proposal in Clause 20 that admissions are to be determined by reference to numbers admitted in the year prior to implementation of the new Act if higher than the 1979 numbers is also relevant. There will be any number of reasons why the admissions of that year are abnormally high. But a typical example—I take Hertfordshire—would relate to the use of temporary accommodation to cater for a temporary bulge in numbers as a result of another school closing. That is a real possibility. The fact that such exceptional measures are taken for a short period to assist the rationalisation provision certainly does not mean that it is sensible, feasible or efficient for the school to be expected to retain the temporary accommodation and admit on a continuing basis higher numbers than are justified by the permanent accommodation.
Altogether it would be sensible if the Bill could enshrine the principle that calculations of school
1030
capacity should have regard only to permanent accommodation and that temporary accommodation should be disregarded. This would promote efficiency, effectiveness and quality education, better standards of accommodation for all, the removal of surplus places, a reduction in unnecessary and wasteful public expenditure, the concentration of available resources where they could be used most effectively and for the benefit of all pupils and the avoidance of lengthy, costly and unproductive wrangles between the partners in the education service. I hope that the Minister will see the point of these amendments and, if the wording of none of them is totally acceptable, that she will take them away and perhaps come back with her own suggestion at Report stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: The Government believe that existing temporary accommodation should count towards a school's physical capacity. To disregard it would be to underestimate that capacity. So Amendment No. 162 would make matters worse. It would not only appear to disregard temporary accommodation, but would also allow admission authorities if they saw fit to set an admissions limit lower than the capacity of the school's permanent buildings.
Amendments Nos. 165 and 166, which are, as I understand it, alternatives would also appear to mean that temporary accommodation would be disregarded where an admission authority wishes to set an admissions limit higher than the existing standard number. Restrictive provisions of this kind are, we believe, an unnecessary limitation on the greater parental choice that the Government aim to achieve through their policy of more open enrolment. The Bill already lays down procedures enabling admission authorities to apply for lower standard numbers where the accommodation available can be demonstrated to be inadequate in the light of the existing numbers. The standard number represents admissions over a whole school year and so is a good guide to total capacity.
Since the aim of more open enrolment is that schools should admit pupils up to their existing physical capacity if the demand is there, where temporary accommodation forms part of that existing capacity it is only right that it should be taken into account. Parents will presumably be aware of the type of accommodation available at the school and they should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want their child to go there notwithstanding.
If an authority or governors consider that temporary accommodation is unsatisfactory and should be removed, they would be free to do this under the new arrangements provided that the school can still admit up to its minimum admissions limit—the standard number. If such removal would mean reducing the school's physical capacity to below its standard number and there is demand for all the available places, the school will have to retain or replace the temporary accommodation. If there appears to be no demand requiring the use of such accommodation, then of course the local authority or governors could risk removing it on the

1031
understanding that they could replace it should demand revive.
I am aware that many schools have taken the opportunity provided by falling pupil numbers in recent years to remove temporary accommodation and may therefore no longer be able physically to accommodate the number of pupils that they could in 1979–80. This would be one set of circumstances on which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would have to reflect in considering an application by the local education authority or governors for the standard numbers to be reduced.
I believe I have emphasised that the 1979 standard number provides a starting point for the assessment of capacity. If that number no longer reflects true capacity, perhaps because the temporary buildings have been removed or because of curriculum developments, then there are, as I have said, procedures for applying to have that standard number adjusted. For those reasons we do not believe that the amendments can be accepted.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness David: I forgot to make one point in relation to Amendment No. 165. In fact, I think it is a mistake that Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 are both down. I suspect that one was put down in my name and one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, but the names have been amalgamated. There is a point about the numbers in each group over the five-year period, and we are presumably thinking of an 11 to 16 school. Are the Government really going to take into account the numbers in each age group when they are thinking of the standard number and the accommodation provided for each age group, because it can very often be that the numbers vary considerably?
Baroness Hooper: I understand that it is the overall capacity of the school and, therefore, all age groups which are involved in terms of establishing the standard number.
Earl Russell: I should like to speak to what I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for describing as the prefabricated amendment. I speak to it with some feeling as coming from a college where many of the teachers are still in the temporary accommodation where they were placed for a few short months in 1945! I found the Minister's reply wholly unsatisfactory and it seems to me to raise big questions which are central to a good many of the debates that we have had on this Bill.
What is being said on this side of the Committee—and I should like to think that the point has been taken on board opposite—is that there is some connection between freedom of choice and provision of resources. You may in theory provide freedom of choice for all sorts of things, but if those things are not sufficiently there, what you are providing is something very like free elections without opposition candidates.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I thought my noble friend had dealt with that in her answer. The parents would
1032
know that the temporary accommodation was there, and in making their choice would take that into account. It is not as though they were asked to buy a pig in a poke. If they recognise that the quality that will come out of the school justifies what is now called temporary accommodation, they will make their choice. If they do not, they do not. But I thought my noble friend dealt with that point in advance.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Will the noble Baroness clarify a point? I may not have correctly understood her. Let us suppose that a school has got rid of its temporary buildings and therefore its figures now are not the figures that it would have been admitting in 1979. The local authority has decided that there is provision in other schools and the temporary buildings have been pulled down. Am I correct in thinking that the noble Baroness said that if a school wished to go back to the 1979 figure, it could ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter so that provision could be made?
Baroness Hooper: There are procedures in the Bill to enable schools and local authorities to revise standard numbers. If that revision is agreed to and if it is reasonable to remove the temporary accommodation, that will be taken into consideration. If it proves unreasonable in the circumstances to remove the temporary accommodation, it may be that the school will have to reinstate it.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Is that cost effective? If there are already places for pupils in a school and that school has got rid of its temporary buildings, surely it is a waste of public money to rebuild when there are places available in other schools simply because the arbitrary figure of 1979 is used.
Lord Trafford: Perhaps I may take up a remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady David. Surely that matter is largely covered in Clause 24(1)(a) which states:
"as a result of changes in availability or use of accommodation at the school, there is any change in the amount".
Apart from the use of "temporary"—a word that is open to interpretation because, as has been pointed out, "temporary" can be of very long duration—that surely covers 95 per cent. of the pointers of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady David.
Baroness Hooper: I hope that I have explained that there are procedures to revise the standard number. It is not a case of sticking to the standard number through thick or thin. The standard number equates to the number of pupils which a school can admit in the year or years when pupils are normally admitted. However, the department's guidance on the assessment of capacity will advise schools to look at their total capacity. In the case of an 11 to 16 year-old school, there would be a capacity for five age groups. The admissions limit would then be calculated by dividing that total by five.
Baroness David: To answer the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, one of my amendments, Amendment No. 178A, is to Clause 24. I know that local authorities

1033
are very worried about that matter and wanted the amendment to be put down.
Educationally speaking, surely it is better not to have temporary accommodation. If that has been counted for 1979, it seems to me a great pity that it should be counted now. It is much better not to have it. It is not perfect for educational purposes. I am sorry that there has been no better response to the series of amendments than to all the others concerned with open enrolment. I shall withdraw the amendment. However, like the noble Baroness. Lady Seear, I am profoundly disappointed and dismayed by the answers we are getting to this series of amendments. 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 163 to 169A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 170 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 170A and 171 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Standard numbers for admissions]:
Lord Stewart of Fulham Lord Stewart of Fulham moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 15, line 37, after ("and") insert ("subject to paragraph (22A) of Schedule 10").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 282, which refers to Schedule 10 of the Bill. The effect of the two amendments is to make the relevant year the year before the arrangement comes into force rather than 1979, because 1979 was a year when accommodation was at its height. If we are to require schools to provide up to the standard number that was available in 1979, that will have a number of effects which have been described in discussing other amendments. It will mean that temporary accommodation which has been abandoned or put to other uses will have to be brought back into use for ordinary educational purposes. It will mean that accommodation which has been made available for community uses and which may now be very much treasured for such uses by the community will be taken away.
It will also mean that although the actual places will be available, they will not come up to the standards of educational accommodation which will be required in 1991. We ought to look at the number of places that would be available if the standards were to be enforced now. I believe that those reasons suggest that a date later than 1979 would be preferable. I suggest that the date should be the year before the provisions come into force.
Perhaps I may add one other point which is not completely relevant to the amendment but which underlies a great part of our debates. We have been told over and over that we should not interfere with parents' choice of school and that a choice should be made available if it is physically possible to do so. Perhaps Members of the Committee who have advocated such a course have noticed that that makes a complete nonsense of all the arguments advanced in favour of 11-plus exams and selective education. If it
1034
is true that it is the parents' choice that matters, that means that whether a child goes to one school or another should be determined by parents and not by the hocus-pocus of the 11-plus examination. I leave that point for the consideration of noble Lords opposite who sometimes try to defend parents' choice and selective education at the same time. That cannot be done.
Baroness Hooper: I was somewhat mystified as to the purpose of the amendments. If I have understood the noble Lord correctly, his general aim is to replace the standard number of schools as defined in Clause 20 by reference to Section 15 of the 1980 Act with a later admission figure.
There are no grounds for doing that. All schools have standard numbers which are related to the physical capacity of schools more closely than the later admissions figure in most cases would be. In recent years falling school rolls have affected first primary and then secondary schools, while since the 1980 Act came into effect, school admission limits have in many cases been set at a level lower than the relevant standard number. The existing standard number is thus a reasonable yardstick if, as is the intention, schools are to be enabled to admit pupils up to their actual physical capacity rather than to some later figure which does not reflect capacity. If, for whatever reason, the existing standard number no longer does that, the Bill as drafted deals with the matter.
Where the level of admissions in the school year immediately preceding commencement of more open enrolment is higher than the existing standard number, that higher level of admissions will automatically become the new standard number. Provision is made for admissions in excess of the existing standard number and for this to be increased or reduced by means of the prescribed procedures. In short, the Bill's existing provisions provide a solid basis on which to assess a school's real physical capacity. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It is my instinct that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, let the cat out of the bag about what was behind all the amendments that have been withdrawn and with which we have not had to proceed. He was wanting to suggest some kind of inconsistency in regard to our wish to enlarge parents' choice and how it would fit in with the testing period. How he presented the argument showed the real feeling behind all the amendments. As I detected it from Opposition speeches, they want to whittle down parents' choice.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: That is the impression that the arguments gave. Noble Lords on the Opposition Benches must present their arguments differently if they want to present a different impression. I hope that my noble friend will not allow them to whittle down the tendency to give parents a real say in where their children should be educated.
Baroness David: What we want to do is to give more parents real choice, not some parents.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): Before calling Amendment No. 173, I advise the Committee that, if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 173A to 174.
[Amendments Nos. 173, 173A, 173B, 173C, 173D and 173E not moved.]
7 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 16, line 38, after ("pupils") insert ("(including nursery pupils) and the resources and curricular use to which space is allocated in the school and its present capacity").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to require the admissions authority for a school when reviewing a school standard number, to have regard not only to any change in the school's capacity to accommodate pupils but also to the resources and curricular use to which space is allocated in the school—I emphasise "curricular use".
As the Bill stands at present, when the admissions authority—the local education authority for a county school and the governing body for a primary school—reviews a school's standard number, the only factor that it can take into account is the change in the school's capacity to accommodate pupils. The Notes on Clauses indicate that a change in capacity can occur in two ways: first, a change in the availability or use of accommodation of a school, and, secondly, a change in the school premises regulations. It is not clear whether the change in availability or use of accommodation at a school can be caused through a deliberate decision of the local education authority or governing body to develop a new curricular use such as a requirement for more use of space for special educational needs or TVEI, or through an unexpected circumstance like a building being destroyed by fire.
The general effect of the clauses relating to standard number is that governors will have the power to increase the standard number of admissions level to what they see fit, and to go to the Secretary of State to seek to raise it as he sees fit. We wish to ensure that due account is taken by the governing body in reviewing the standard number of admission levels of, first, the capacity of the school, bearing in mind that nursery classes may now be using classes formerly used for other primary classes, and pupils' particular requirements; and secondly, the capacity of the school, bearing in mind the use of space for new curriculum developments, for example, microtechnology, craft and design, primary science, home economics, drama and physical education and the admission of pupils with special educational needs.
As a general point, this chapter of the legislation ignores the growing practice of having nursery classes incorporated in or attached to primary schools. We fear that unless there is some reference to this in the Bill the provision could disappear as a result of nursery pupils under the age of four years and six months not being counted in the standard number because their education is non-statutory. We fear also that conditions could be worsened for those children admitted to reception classes if due account is not taken of their particular needs in terms of space, equipment, resources and staffing.
I hope that the Minister will accept that there is an important point here and that clarification is needed. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Clause 24(1) already establishes that for the purposes of this chapter a school's capacity to accommodate pupils is changed if the premises regulations change or if there are changes in the availability or use of accommodation at the school.
I am not entirely sure why the noble Baroness thinks that the amendment is necessary. I assume that her concern is to allow for the possibility that space will be required to house new curriculum initiatives—indeed, she mentioned some. We share that concern and are providing for it. The guidance to be issued by the department will suggest a formula for calculating physical capacity that enables account to be taken of different space requirements arising from the differing needs of particular subjects, as I have already mentioned once or twice.
The reference in the amendment to nursery pupils is inappropriate. Nursery pupils do not at present count in the determination of standard numbers. The Bill does not propose that they should do so in future. Pupils in primary schools will count for the purpose of standard numbers when they are first admitted to a reception class at whatever age that may occur.
A school that has a nursery class or unit on the premises makes appropriate accommodation available for that provision in accordance with the different space standards for such pupils. The existence of that provision will be taken into account in determining the capacity of the school to accommodate other pupils.
If the noble Baroness is concerned that the more open enrolment requirements might squeeze nursery provision out of primary schools, I can assure her that the provision is safeguarded by the Education Act 1980. If a local education authority or governors wish to discontinue or add a nursery class, they must publish proposals under Section 12 or Section 13 of the Act, to which parents and others may object. I therefore think that the amendment is not necessary.
Baroness David: If a nursery class has been put into a primary school because numbers have fallen and the classroom is not needed for the purpose for which it was previously used for primary school children, would that classroom be counted in the standard number? Would the nursery class be disregarded and the standard number bolstered when, so to speak, there was no nursery class there?
Baroness Hooper: I regret at this stage of the proceedings it is a little difficult to be clear about that. I said that a school that has a nursery class or unit on the premises makes appropriate accommodation available for that provision in accordance with the different space standards for such pupils. The existence of that provision will be taken into account in determining the capacity of the school to accommodate other pupils. It seems to me that accommodation is part of a standard number.
Baroness Seear: We want to be told, in quite plain English—because that is what we are concerned with—that the nursery classes will not get pushed out. Let us not use the language of the Bill. We want to be sure that nursery classes will remain whatever is done with standard numbers, and in particular that they will be there when the primary numbers start rising again, which they will.
There is a danger that if there is a popular primary school with a new influx of little chaps coming along to be educated and the parents want them at that school, they will be brought in and the nursery children will be pushed out. We want to keep our nursery classes and long, long ago, I would remind the Committee, so did the Prime Minister.
Baroness Hooper: I recognise the importance of nursery education and I believe that the guidance to be issued, which will be helpful in so many areas, will also be helpful in this area. It is not the intention to push out existing nursery provision in schools where it has proved successful.
Baroness Young: I suggest to my noble friend that this is a very important point which crosses all sides of the Committee. I hear myself arguing very much in favour of nursery education and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has asked for an answer in plain terms and we should all like to know. I fully appreciate the complexity of all the arguments about space, standards, numbers, classes, those who are pupils and those who are below age and so on. If it is not possible to get an answer at the Committee stage, which may well be the case, perhaps my noble friend will be good enough to write to me and to the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Seear, before the next stage of the Bill. To have it set out would be very helpful. In fact no one wants the nursery classes squeezed out where they are now playing a very important role.
Baroness Seear: I thank the noble Baroness for putting the matter in a much more conciliatory way than I did. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper: please do not tell us that it will all be in the regulations. In this particular matter we need something on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: There is nothing on the face of the Bill to push out nursery classes, and so nursery provision will remain.
Baroness Blackstone: Will it be possible for the Minister to give a clear answer to my noble friend Lady David's question? We are still left a little confused as to the answer.
Baroness Hooper: The question put by the noble Baroness is similar in terms to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which I have just answered by saying that there is nothing in the Bill to push out nursery classes and therefore nursery classes will remain.
Baroness David: After all this discussion, in the morning I shall certainly have to read with the greatest possible care everything that has been said. Having done that, I shall know whether to come back at Report stage, because I must confess I am not absolutely clear about this matter even now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Procedure for reduction of standard number]:
[Amendments Nos. 175 to 177 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 178:
After Clause 22 insert the following new clause:
("Special arrangements in respect of admissions to aided or special agreement schools
.—(1) Section 6 of the 1980 Act shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (3)(b) (which excludes the duty to comply with a parent's preference for an aided or special agreement school if compliance with the preference would be incompatible with arrangements between the governors and the local education authority), for the words "in respect of the admission of pupils to the school" there shall be substituted the words "made under subsection (6) below".
(3) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6) A local education authority shall, if so requested by the governors of an aided or special agreement school maintained by the authority, make arrangements with the governors in respect of the admission of pupils to the school for preserving the character of the school; and the terms of any such arrangements shall, in default of agreement between the authority and the governors, be determined by the Secretary of State." ").
The noble Baroness said: The new clause introduced by this amendment fulfils an undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place on 23rd March and reiterated by me during the course of the Second Reading debate on 18th April. Its purpose is to meet concerns expressed by the Churches about the effect that more open enrolment might have on the particular ethos of voluntary aided and special agreement schools.
There is of course already provision, in Section 6(3)(b) of the 1980 Act, for governors of such schools to refuse to admit a child if admission would be incompatible with arrangements they have with the maintaining local education authority, even if there are places available in the school. However, concern has been expressed that some local authorities might not always be willing to agree to such arrangements. I should just say here that the Government are not aware of any widespread problem in this regard, but the amendment we propose will strengthen the existing provision, by requiring local education

1039
authorities to make arrangements with the governors of these schools in order to preserve their particular character, where they are requested to do so by the governors. In the event of the two sides being unable to reach agreement, the Secretary of State will be able to determine what would be reasonable arrangements in the circumstances.
It has been suggested that arrangements of the kind provided for in this new clause should remove the need for governors to consult local education authorities annually about the suitability of their admissions arrangements, as required by Section 33 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. I would certainly hope that arrangements designed to protect the character of these schools would be long-term, and certainly, once the Secretary of State has laid down reasonable terms for arrangements, he would not expect to have those same arrangements referred to him subsequently. Appropriate reference to this will be made in the new circular of guidance on admission arrangements now in preparation. However, the new provision cannot replace the annual consultation requirement laid down in the 1986 Act, since this relates to all aspects of the admissions arrangements, and not just to the question of the school's character.
The Government believe that this new clause, building as it does on existing safeguards, is a sensible and balanced way of meeting the Churches' concerns to preserve the particular character of their aided schools. I therefore commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London: I should like to welcome this amendment on behalf of the Churches, and also to welcome the eagerness with which the noble Baroness sought to put it forward. It seems to me that this amendment is not only right in the letter, but also reflects the spirit of the dual system which we wish to see continued and which we have been at such pains to maintain. I hope this amendment will be accepted. It has the support of the Churches with whom we have discussed it.
The Duke of Norfolk: I too would like to welcome this amendment. It stengthens the willingness of the Government to make quite certain that voluntary schools are not changed by open enrolment. There is one slight point that might be the cause of some worry, which is that even if there is only a small number coming into a voluntary school—say, a Church of England school or a Catholic school—the financial consequences might be considerable. I understand, however, that they are unlikely to be very considerable and that the Minister is going to watch this point and make certain the voluntary school does not suffer by suddenly having to find a lot of extra money. I think the Government have underlined this amendment very well and I am most grateful for it.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I do not intend to oppose this amendment, but I am interested in the situation that occurs in certain parts of Lancashire and of the Blackburn diocese where some schools now have 75 per cent. ethnic minority children. What is the situation there? Does this change the ethos of the school or not?
The Lord Bishop of London: I speak only as one who has been occupied in working the dual system that we have had over the years in the Church of England. The Church of England has always sought to maintain the principle that we are not there purely for our own denomination but as part of the overall provision of education by the community. We have therefore never sought to restrict our admissions in any narrow way. Certainly we have experienced in recent years the pressure to admit those of other faiths—as was mentioned—very often on the ground that a Church of England school provides certain religious characteristics which cannot always be found in county schools.
In operating this policy we have clearly had to take account of the local situation. We seek to solve each case in question. I believe that as a result we are shown to care for our own ethos and characteristics while at the same time taking our part in the life of the community as a whole.
One can always argue where the balance is to be struck, and so on. That sometimes presents problems. However, by and large the system works very well. One of the characteristics of the school—that it is explicitly committed to a religious standpoint—is maintained. The teaching that is given takes account of that. Possibly parents will seek to withdraw their children, as they are entitled to do, from specifically Christian teaching. But I do not believe that our policy of trying to keep the balance between a school that is specifically for one Church and a school which is there for the community is a bad policy. I believe that it has worked out. I believe that such a policy can be carried out without losing the characteristic of a school. If that is to be done, we need exactly the kind of amendment that we have here which gives us the flexibility to work out satisfactory arrangements with the local authority.
Baroness David: I am very glad that the Churches have what they want. As I said when I moved Amendment No. 153A earlier, the Churches have precisely what we wanted for every school. That is somehow ironic. I do not wish to be a spoilsport. I am glad that somebody has what they want.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Interpretation of Chapter II]:
[Amendment No. 178A not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Viscount Long: It is time for some light refreshment for those speaking on the Education Reform Bill. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before we take the next business, will the noble Viscount say that we shall not resume our consideration of the Education Reform Bill until half-past eight?
Viscount Long: My Lords, yes. I agree with the noble Lord. I apologise.

Dartford—Thurrock Crossing Bill
7.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[THE LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Acquisition of land for the scheduled works and other authorised works]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Hood: Perhaps I may comment briefly on the work of the Select Committee. There were only six petitions, all of which dealt with matters of disturbance, either in the river or on the approach roads. Of those, five commercial petitions were withdrawn before the committee concluded its proceedings, leaving one petition related to residential disturbance.
The committee was governed by existing law. The requisition will take place under Clause 2 of the Bill and the compensation will be payable in accordance with the land compensation code. The supplementary home loss payment is governed by the Land Compensation Act 1973. Therefore in neither case had the committee any opportunity to do other than express sympathy.
That is all I have to say except to wish god speed to the legislation as the bridge is very necessary.
Lord Underhill: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to follow the speech of the noble Viscount. I agree with him. I have read the report of the Select Committee, and various other documents. I agree that the committee has done an exceptionally good job. Most of the amendments before us in the Bill are technical but we have had some explanation about them. However, I was very pleased to note the attitude of the committee towards the two individual applicants, and the attitude taken by the committee on the question of compulsory acquisition and the home loss payments.
I readily recognise the Government's response to those two points. I thought that the attitude of the committee was very praiseworthy. I hope that there will be some quick action regarding the home loss position. I do not know whether it can be made retrospective in this case. But one must also recognise that the compulsory acquisition leaves these two individuals in a sorry situation because no one will want their house once the new bridge is being built.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am sure that the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Hood and to the other members of the Select Committee for hearing petitions and presenting this report to the House. The committee had what I believe my noble friend termed a chequered history, with petitioners frequently asking for adjournments. I am sorry that that was so. The department took pains from the outset to consult a series of interested parties, including some who did not find it necessary to petition. I hope that the Committee will accept that the negotiations with petitioners did not drag on through stubbornness on the part of the department.
On the petition which was pressed, the department found itself in the same difficulty as the Select Committee in that it is bound by the present land compensation legislation, including that dealing with home loss payments, and has no discretion in the matter. As our response says, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is looking at the whole question of the home loss payments system, which has to change in accordance with the Local Government Finance Bill, which we debated yesterday.
I hope Mr. Michie and Mr. Waddington will enter into informal discussions with the district valuer, who has the duty to take account of house prices in the area up to the date of entry into the property, which will take place in the autumn. The department will treat Mr. Michie and Mr. Waddington as sympathetically as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised the point of whether any changes could be made retrospective. That is unlikely. We tend not on the whole to have retrospective legislation. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall not move before the date upon which we have to move. If changes have been made by that time they will be to the advantage of petitioners.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 47 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Protective provisions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved the amendment:
Page 51, line 17, at end insert ("within the part of the river width between a line 130 metres from the line of the existing level of mean high-water springs on the southern bank of the river and a line 355 metres northward of that first-mentioned line or, outside that part, below the dredging line shown on a line mid-way between the two tunnels on the sheet signed by Geoffrey Ennals, Secretary to the Port Authority, and Philip Wood, an Under-Secretary in the Department of Transport, and marked "Diagram referred to in Part I of Schedule 7", copies of which have been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons.").
The noble Lord said: Part I of the schedule is included for the protection of the Port of London Authority. Paragraph 13 ensures that the authority will not be liable, in the absence of negligence, for damage to the Dartford tunnels arising from dredging or other operations carried out by the authority unless they go below the depth defined in the paragraph. As paragraph 13 is at present drafted that depth is 15·7 metres below ordnance datum (Newlyn) across the whole width of the river.

1043
However, towards each embankment the tunnels begin to rise to the surface portals. It is therefore necessary to define a dredging line outside the central portion of the river which recognises this fact. That is what the amendment does. The amendment has been agreed with the Port of London Authority. I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Licensing Bill
7.35 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—[Earl Ferrers.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT
[References are to HL Bill 46 as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Amendment is printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Disqualified premises—garages.
. After section 9(4) of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(4A) Premises shall be disqualified for receiving a justices' licence if they are primarily used as a garage or form part of premises which are primarily so used.
(4B) In subsection (4A) of this section, the reference to use as a garage is a reference to use for any one or more of the following purposes, namely, the retailing of petrol or derv or the sale or maintenance of motor vehicles." ").
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
2 At end insert—
(2) Where, apart from this subsection, a justices' licence (within the meaning of the principal Act) would become void on the coming into force of subsection (1) above, the premises to which the licence is attached shall he treated as premises which are not disqualified for receiving such a licence by section 9(4A) of that Act for so long as they continue to be premises for which such a licence is in force.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to Lords Amendment No. 1.
At Report stage in this House your Lordships accepted—against, I may say, government advice, as on another amendment—the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Brentford prohibiting garages from holding a justices' licence. The amendment was intended to underline the principle that drinking and driving should be kept separate. At Third Reading in your Lordships' House, minor amendments were accepted which were designed to clarify the drafting, but not to alter the intention.
When the matter was considered in another place, it was decided that the principle of your Lordships' amendment should be retained but that it should not apply to those premises which were quite lawfully in possession of a licence. It was considered that they should not be deprived of their business and that the community should not be deprived of their service.
1044
Everyone is aware of the alarming numbers of deaths as a direct result of drinking and driving. I am bound to say, however, that there is no evidence, even of an anecdotal nature, that licensed garages contribute to the problem of drinking and driving. The new clause is not, therefore, designed to counter an immediate problem. It is a more subtle matter of attitudes and beliefs. By prohibiting garages from selling alcohol, we shall be seeking to reduce the association in motorists' minds of alcohol and driving.
But we must remember the reality of licensed garages. Most of them are in rural areas. The business is often run as a combined garage and grocery store providing a comprehensive service to customers. The off-licence is just part of that service but in contributing to the variety of goods on offer it also contributes to the viability of the business. From the letters we have received, it is clear that the grocery store aspect of many of these businesses serves a local clientele while the petrol pumps provide a service to those who are passing through. The loss of the off-licence might well go unnoticed by the motoring customers but it would be substantially missed by local residents.
It was for those reasons that, when the new clause was considered in another place, the Government supported an amendment to protect those premises which already hold a licence. That is the purpose of Commons Amendment No. 2.
The amendment does not diminish the present powers of the licensing justices in any way. Although they would not be able to refuse the renewal of a licence on the sole grounds that the premises are basically a garage primarily selling petrol, they would be required to consider any objections to the licence on any other grounds. The police, for example, would continue to have the opportunity to oppose a licence renewal. And, when the Bill becomes law, there will be an added power for the justices to revoke a licence at any time during its currency.
Commons Amendment No. 2 allows the licence to run with the premises, subject to its renewal by the licensing justices. If the existing proprietor or manager sells the business or moves his post, his successor may apply to take over the licence. It will not, however, be possible for the proprietor of a garage, which is at present licensed, to take the licence with him if he takes over an unlicensed garage business. Once a licence has lapsed for any reason, it will not be possible to resurrect it.
I believe that this represents a sensible compromise. It protects the livelihood of the proprietors of licensed garages who would otherwise have suffered a loss of earnings with little notice and no clear justification. But it upholds the principle on which the new clause, which was accepted by your Lordships, is based. I hope that in adopting this amendment we shall have underlined the message but not at the expense of the rural businessman. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having explained exactly what the Commons amendment to the Lords amendment is.

1045
We are very pleased that the Commons accepted our amendment. It was, I believe, the right decision. Had the Commons rejected our amendment, the message that we were trying to send would have been counteracted and come out wrongly.
I should like to make a single point on the Commons amendment. I was quite happy with the clause in the shape it left your Lordships' House. The point of our amendment, as the noble Earl has said, was that there should be a clear signal that we wished to separate and dissociate drink from driving. We believed at the time that we had taken the necessary steps to protect the small rural village shop trading in a wide range of goods and also selling petrol while disqualifying premises primarily used as garages from holding an off or an on-licence. However, as a Minister has pointed out, the 180 garages with existing licences will have a problem if they immediately lose their licence because they will have adjusted their businesses on the assumption of possessing the licence. Therefore they may suffer hardship as a consequence of the basis of that assumption being altered retrospectively.
I believe that the clause in its final form is probably the best compromise. It prevents small businesses from suffering as a result while putting up a definite marker showing that the problem of drinking and driving is taken seriously by Parliament. There is little doubt that the current figures are still frightening. They show that each year 1,500 people are killed and that each month more than 8,000 people are found guilty of driving while over the limit. Our only hope is that the figures will be reduced.
I am glad that our proposal was accepted by another place. I accept that the amendment was necessary in the name of justice and fairness to small enterprises which entered into business on the assumption that they would have a licence.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his usual courtesy in explaining the matter and for having explained it to me beforehand. I should like to point out that this issue does not relate solely to rural garages. The justices have granted a licence to a third garage in a West Wales town which indicates that it is also a town problem.
Since that time I have received letters from existing licence holders and I am content for them to be able to continue. I had assumed that they would continue until the expiry of their licence, but I am content that renewal should be permitted provided that it is in the name of the same licence holder. That appears to be fair. I believe that your Lordships have achieved the original purpose of stopping the further spread of garages selling alcohol. I am happy to accept the amendment from another place.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it would be churlish not to appreciate the Government's acceptance of the motivation behind the amendment which I moved unsuccessfully at the Committee stage and which was so ably moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, on Report. Although I accept it, I am disappointed that we did not accept the fact that nowadays more people believe that the principle of drinking and driving applies to those who are stupid,
1046
callous or ill. More people are now aware of the many dangers involved. I look forward to the time when drinking alcohol and driving is forbidden in this country. I am happy that the spirit of the amendments has been accepted.
I believe that there are approximately 180 licence holders of whom only 50 or 60 will be affected by the clause. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that only 50 or 60 licences will continue when the Bill becomes law. When the licence is due for renewal application will be made in the normal way. I understand the previous situation to have been that unless the police object to the granting of a licence it will be renewed in the normal way. Therefore there will be 50 or 60 licence holders who will continue to be able to sell alcohol, petrol and Derv so long as they remain in business. However, those outlets will become extremely valuable sites. Presumably anyone wishing to purchase a garage with such a facility must pay a premium. That appears to me to be curious and to go against the spirit of the clause, but perhaps the Minister will comment on that situation.
I am seeking guidance for justices' clerks. When in future they decide how the provision will be applied on application for a licence, or when licences are transferred to another owner, what criteria will be brought to bear? Will an application be subject only to police complaints that the law has been infringed, or will other criteria be brought into play? I believe that unless the matter is clarified confusion will arise in the courts. However, I am thankful that the principle has been accepted by the Government.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I was absent when the clause was put into the Bill otherwise I would have voted against it, with respect to my noble friend Lord Brentford. I am glad that another place has seen fit to amend the clause and make it acceptable. I believe that RoSPA is of the same view.
Unlike my noble friend, I do not believe that there was a "cock up"—the phrase used in another place in respect of another clause— although I know that noble Lords do not use such language. I believe that this House acted correctly on that occasion and I am glad that the Government have included the new provision in the clause.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have accepted the amendment which another place moved to our amendment. Had my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux not left so quickly for his Easter holiday he may have been present to have voted for the amendment. However, he took the precaution of having an earlier holiday, so maybe that is his own fault.
I am glad that my noble friend used that most peculiar of parliamentary expressions to say that such a thing did not happen in respect of another amendment. I do not believe that it did, but we are not discussing that amendment today.
I believe that the position is clear even though the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, found a certain amount of difficulty. The figures which I have show

1047
that in the petty sessional divisions 186 petrol stations are licensed. The noble Viscount asked about the procedure and whether the police may object. The procedure is the same in respect of these licensed premises as in respect of any other licensed premises. The police and anyone else may object if they believe that such premises are a hindrance to the locality. Of course it is up to the licensing justices to determine whether the licence shall be continued or revoked. Therefore, I do not believe that there will be any problem there.
The noble Viscount was somewhat ingenuous in saying that having passed this amendment the number of licensed premises would be curtailed; therefore those garages would be at a premium and would shoot up in value. That is possibly a slightly extreme concept. I do not believe that it would make a great deal of difference, but I am not the one to judge what the value of garages with a licence would be. It will be a question of waiting to see what market forces do.
The amendment strikes a balance between what your Lordships wanted, which was to make the distinction that drinking and driving should not go together, and at the same time not denuding either the businesses of their rightful work for which they have a licence or the community of the benefit of the services which those licensed premises offer. I am grateful to your Lordships for accepting it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he can clarify one point. The noble Viscount was implying that when the premises were sold they would be of greater value because they carried with them a licence. However, I understood that the new owner would not have the licence. The owner of the premises licensed would continue to have the licence while he remained in those premises, but when he moved he would lose it, as would a new owner of the premises. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for asking about an area in which she is in some confusion. Her interpretation is not correct. The licence goes with the premises. If the owner wishes to continue his licence and apply for a new licence he can do so. If he wishes to sell the premises, the new properietor takes them over with a licence and can apply for the renewal of that licence; it goes with the premises. However, should the licence drop—in other words, should one proprietor sell a business with a licence and another purchase the business but decide not to continue the licence, and should he then sell those premises to somebody else, that person may not apply for the renewal of the original licence because it would then have lapsed. I hope that that clarifies the position.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, perhaps I may take up the matter I raised about the demand and the premium.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount would be good enough to say, "Before the noble Earl sits down".
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may clarify why I raised the point about the scarcity which will arise as a result of this legislation. No additional licences will be granted so the few which remain will make the properties desirable and these may well be purchased by people who have more efficient and commercially successful marketing experience. The likelihood is that more alcohol will be sold. That was the point I was making. Bearing that in mind, I am slightly concerned about the criteria which justices will have in mind when they either renew licences or consider the transfer of licences. I believe that because those premises will be rare and because unhappily there is a desire in people to drink in areas which seem to be dangerous, there will be some demand for these premises.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may make another intervention, with the leave of the House, but we are getting rather out of order. We may still be on the same speech but there have been many interruptions. The noble Viscount's premise is that because there are now so few garages which have licences attached to them they are likely to become a dwindling asset and will therefore become more valuable. If that is so, that is the fault of your Lordships' amendment. If he did not want that to happen he should not have voted for it. He voted for the amendment because he wished to curtail the use of alcohol. I cannot tell the noble Viscount whether it is likely to happen in five or 10 years' time or what the value of those properties will be. Under this amendment there will not be other garages which are allowed to apply for licences.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.6 to 8.30 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 25 [Schemes for financing county and voluntary schools]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 178B:
Page 21, line 32, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3)(b) below,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 178B I shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 179B. We are now moving to a different stage of the Bill. I wish to make quite clear, in talking about local finance management or local management of schools—LFM or LMS—we are not opposing the principle; in fact, we are very sympathetic towards it. However, we are worried about it being brought in compulsorily and too quickly. The aim of the amendment is to make it voluntary, starting when schools and the governing bodies are ready. As the Bill stands it is to be compulsory from a certain date. That is what we do not like.
The generally accepted principle is that schools should be given greater flexibility as to the most effective use of resources; that we agree with. The proposals of the Government in the Bill, at Part I Chapter III, go much further than introducing local financial management. One of the first books to be written about local financial management, entitled Local Financial Management in School and edited by Peter Downes, was published in April this year. It states that the Government's proposals go considerably beyond LFM, for example in connection with the appointment of teaching staff. The staffing aspects of this chapter were not contained within the Conservative Party manifesto and are not necessary for financial delegation. This point was picked up by many of those who responded to the Government's consultation papers. For example, the division for education and youth of the Methodist Church asked for withdrawal of the staffing aspects which,
"are not a consequence of financial delegation and will limit the powers of LEAs".
This aspect of the Bill seems to be designed to weaken the strength of national and local agreements on pay and conditions for non-teaching staff. We feel very strongly about this matter. It is not acceptable.
To go back a little in history, the principle of local financial management has been developed over a period of 30 years. There are complex schemes in existence today, though some are still limited in scope. In my own county of Cambridgeshire, and in Cheshire, Solihull and ILEA, it is thought that over 20 LEAs have pilot schemes in operation though no LEA has a scheme that covers schools throughout its area that can match the scheme that the Government are proposing in the Education Reform Bill.
It took Cambridgeshire 10 years, from 1977 to 1987, for all its secondary schools to be included in the scheme of LFM. I checked this by telephoning our chief education officer at the weekend: he told me that this is so. It was 1977 when the first pilot scheme was suggested. I have been involved with a governing body of a sixth-form college where the whole process was going through. It is a process that takes time.
Only 10 primary schools out of 300 operate the scheme. Part of the success of Cambridgeshire was that the original schools had volunteered for local financial management and the LEA officers had time to devote to the schools, the training of the heads and other staff. It should be borne in mind that present schemes only go as far as financial decision-making. The Government propose to include staffing matters and at the same time responsibility for delivering the national curriculum. It is a very big leap for all those involved to go from the present to a position where the governors, heads and school staffs have to take a view on the relationship between the finance available and the overall curriculum offer.
Even with the present schemes, the LEAs retain control over the level of staffing to ensure that schools provide a broad and balanced curriculum. This will not be the case in the future. The only power an LEA has to ensure that a curriculum will be provided is to suspend in its entirety the scheme for local financial management for that school. Later
1050
there will be amendments in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which seek to make it possible to withdraw partially but not wholly. This concern was repeated many times in the responses received. For example, the National Union of Teachers said that,
"the Union supports the principle of a degree of financial delegation to schools but believes the current proposals go too far too quickly with as yet insufficient knowledge derived from existing experimental schemes. The Union is deeply concerned that financial delegation on this scale will lead to a diversion of the heads professional skills and a change in the whole nature of leadership in schools".
There are advantages, and we do not for one moment wish to lessen them. There is greater flexibility in schools; there is greater confidence and understanding. Knowing the financial cost of activities undertaken in the school can lead to a greater awareness and understanding of what is going on, especially when decisions have to be made on priorities. There is greater participation and governors are brought more into management by LFM. Providing more information to staff can enhance teamwork. As regards greater economy, there is an incentive to make possible savings on items such as postage, telephone calls, fuel and so on, especially when it is known that any savings could be used by the school.
There are also disadvantages. Some most certainly occur when the scheme of LFM is adopted. They are principally of a structural nature and cannot be limited if a scheme of LFM is introduced. The LEAs will have a decreased role because they will lose their day-to-day involvement with individual school administration. They will also lose responsibility for overall curriculum development and management resources. It has been suggested that this could be an advantage as it will enable the LEAs to concentrate upon strategic issues.
Judging from the letters I have received I believe a great worry is the changing role of the head teacher. A great many head teachers simply do not want to have this responsibility. It seems a little hard that if they do not want responsibility it should be foisted upon them. They are afraid that they will be distracted from teaching and from staff development and that they will have to develop skills in management and accountancy.
The teaching staff may be pressurised to find economies and they may have an increased workload, which is different from what they expected. There may be a disincentive for schools to employ staff near the top of the main professional grade because of the greater cost. The LEAs might be tempted to employ cheaper teachers so that they have more money for other projects. Again, some of the staff do not want that.
As regards non-teaching staff, there will be more work for them within the school because, even if there is a full-time person appointed—possibly a bursar—there are still many additional tasks to be done in connection with pupil welfare, correspondence and so on. There is also the need for training; as there will be for heads and for governors.
Much greater commitment will be required. I have had a vast number of letters from governors, as I am sure other members of the Committee have. They do

1051
not want this responsibility. They became governors to deal with education matters and now find that they may be involved in management finance. Some feel that they are not qualified to do that, but still have an interest in the school and want to maintain that same interest.
Our amendments do not seek to get rid of the local financial management scheme. However, we do not want it to be forced on to schools. We want them to have plenty of time to think about it. Let them apply when they themselves feel that they are ready for it. If they do not want it, why should they have to have it? I beg to move.
Lord Trafford: I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Baroness and I sympathise with a good deal of it. She outlined some of the problems with which anybody taking over the management of what is a significant financial and administrative undertaking will be confronted. In addition the directly educational teaching duties of such a person will be quite a burden. However, I feel stongly that financial delegation in most public sector areas, including education, is beneficial. I say that for a number of reasons. First and foremost, for those who have worked at the other end of the telescope, so to speak, in this field, it is extremely welcome to see those acting directly at the point of what might be called delivery—in this case, it is schools—having a control over their own budgets.
The noble Baroness very fairly mentioned some of the advantages, but there will also be some disadvantages. Overall the delegation to the most local level where education is delivered is extremely advantageous, especially in terms of creating the team spirit of that school. It has been beneficial in the health service where cost centres have been introduced in some areas. It has been beneficial in some universities, as the noble Baroness and others on the Benches opposite will be aware. It has also been introduced in part following the Jarratt Report. There have been definite pluses. However, no system is perfect, and there have been a few minuses.
The noble Baroness pointed out that some headmasters might not wish to undertake this responsibility or might find that alongside education and finance the burden was too great. I would be sorry if most headmasters did not take the opportunity. They would have support and the ability to acquire support within the environment, an essential factor in the delegation of financial responsibility.
The noble Baroness also said that staff might be employed at the lower scale as a cost saving exercise. The finance officer of an undertaking will always be looking for savings and will always be suggesting that people could be employed at a lower cost. However, if a headmaster is any good at all, he will be significantly concerned with the quality of his school. If he employs people for financial reasons only, his school will not show up very well as a education institution. This aspect depends on the type of headmaster. One may find headmasters who are brilliant educationalists and teachers, and they are much to be encouraged. Through this system they
1052
would need specific support in terms of financial delegation. Equally, if headmasters are brilliant financiers and administrators they might look for even more qualified deputy headmasters for teaching or in whatever area they felt themselves deficient. Above all, it would give them freedom to act at this level. For this reason more than any other, I feel strongly in favour of the form of financial delegation outlined in the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like once again to refer to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, used the term "headmasters". Perhaps I shall offer to put on a short course in non-sexist terminology. I shall make a very small charge for noble Lords to come on that course. Perhaps we will then avoid my having to make this speech every time I rise to speak.
The difference between us in relation to this amendment is not that those on this side of the Committee oppose local financial management. I very much agree with what has just been said about many of its advantages. What is important is how we implement it.
As members of the Committee will be aware, at present at least—and it is proposed that this should continue—governing bodies are made up of unpaid volunteers. Governors give valuable public service to education and do so in their own time. A great many of them are themselves parents. Anyone who has brought up a family and at the same time has had a job will recognise that increasing numbers of families have both parents working. To insist that these volunteers take on major financial responsibilities when they do not want to do so will lead to some of them resigning and to others not putting forward their names. There is a danger that we shall lose a great many talented and able people who want to give service to our education system but consider that they do not have enough time or expertise to take on these very much more onerous unpaid responsibilities. If that is the case, as I believe it is, they will be lost to the system, which would be sad.
It is not the principle of financial delegation that is at issue. That is to be welcomed, and I do not want to go through the advantages. Those have already been discussed. Indeed, in the longer term one hopes that nearly all schools will be willing to take on a number of additional delegated powers or functions, although, as my noble friend Lady David pointed out, later amendments will seek to qualify the extent of delegation in some areas. In starting a new scheme of this kind we should all benefit from a rather more gradualist approach. Headmasters and governors without training—they cannot all be trained at once; and it is unrealistic to imagine that that can happen—and without much experience of financial management may wish to have time to observe the schemes working elsewhere.
Cambridgeshire, which has led the way recently with a local financial management scheme, did not try to impose it on all of its schools but introduced it on a rather more limited basis, using a voluntary system and leaving it to schools to decide whether or not to opt in. In trying to impose it universally—with talk about September 1989 as the starting date,

1053
although perhaps the noble Baroness will reveal exactly when it will be implemented—and in trying to apply it right across the country the Government appear to be moving with unseemly haste.
Like many other parts of the Bill, this is a new and untried system. I wonder whether a little Fabian gradualism would not go a long way in this respect. Let us start by encouraging as many schools as possible to participate but allow governing bodies to volunteer, rather than frogmarching them into the new arrangements. As in some other parts of the Bill there are considerable costs involved, as the Coopers & Lybrand report clearly set out. It has been suggested that for the scheme to work properly most secondary schools will need bursars in addition to their existing secretaries and clerks. I think that the report is right about that. They will be needed for two reasons. First, they will have to undertake a great deal of additional administrative work; they will need to ensure that proper accounts of expenditure are kept and they will be responsible, with the head teachers, for allocating resources between different parts of the school. In addition to those duties, they will have to provide local education authorities—which are, after all, still going to be responsbile for what happens in the schools—with much extra information on just how they have spent the money that they will have the freedom to allocate.
Secondly, bursars will be needed so as to make it possible for head teachers to continue to undertake their professional educational duties in implementing the new national curriculum and the new assessment scheme; in sorting out in-service training for the teachers on their staff; in dealing with the recruitment and promotion of teachers, and so on.
A voluntary system would allow the introduction of the new category of staff, the school bursar, over a longer period of time and would allow some time in which to build up the numbers of people who would be required to take on such work—people who were able to do the job properly. Can we really expect the scheme to be a success if we force it on the schools, instead of allowing volunteers while the new system is developed? I believe the amendment should help local financial management to work better.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I did not intend to speak on the matter but nevertheless I feel that I should. As the originator of the idea of the scheme in the 1970s, and as one of the people who persuaded Cambridgeshire in the early days to carry out the pilot study on the scheme, I am delighted that it should be included in the Bill. I support it completely.
However, one of the things we realised when we were looking at the proposal to bring governors into local finance and give them more responsibility—that is one of the reasons why we suggested it in the report which was published in my name—was that we wanted to implement it gradually and not rush into it. I have spoken to the people in Cambridgeshire—some time ago I attended a meeting at which the Cambridgeshire officers were present—and they again urged us to be most cautious in this and to undertake it gradually.
I know that many teachers are frightened of the unknown and therefore they must be led forward
1054
somewhat on this matter. Bearing in mind all the other proposals that are being introduced at the same time, I do not think that it will get off to a fine start. I think this will be one of the most important jobs that governing bodies and teachers can do in controlling their own finances, because I can see the schools deriving a great deal of benefit from it. However, I urge the Government to be most cautious in the implementation of the scheme.
Baroness Blatch: Much has been said about Cambridgeshire, which I found quite interesting as one who was there when the full-blooded pilot scheme was sent on its way. I should like to make some reference back to the fact that it has taken since 1977 for the Cambridgeshire scheme to be refined. I must say to the Committee that those of us who in 1981 had tried a very limited scheme for local financial management became most frustrated. That was not out of our own sense of frustration, but from picking up the sense of frustration of those schools which were operating a very limited scheme. They were asking, "Why is it that we can't have more delegated powers and responsibility for our budgets?"
I must also say that for year after year as a member of an education authority, I was tired of listening to head teachers and teachers who said, "If only we were allowed to make some of the decisions about the allocation of resources and not you at shire hall." Inevitably, at shire hall, at local education authority level, much of what was determined was determined across the board and the sensitivities of each individual school were not always taken into account.
It was from that type of frustration that we took the decision—which I think we are probably on the brink of taking now—which was: you can wait forever, in advance of trying a scheme, for it to be perfect before you try it. It seemed to us that we needed to jump into the deep waters, along with the head teachers, their schools and their staff, and learn how to swim together. Indeed, that is what actually happened.
No one is suggesting that everyone should start from a position of total ignorance. A great deal of expertise has been developed within the country as a whole, not just in Cambridgeshire. Solihull and many other education authorities have tried the scheme and are now operating varying degrees of financial management. So there is a great deal of expertise within local government now. I am sufficiently cynical to believe that, if we do not take the plunge and say that all schools should have the responsibility for their own budgets, a large number of schools simply will not do so. That will come about from a perfectly understandable human trait: the fear of the unknown.
I should like first to recommend to the Committee a very good and readable book about local financial management edited by Peter Downes, the headmaster of a school where I am a governor and where my children were educated. I think the book will throw a great deal of practical light upon the subject. I should like to talk about one person in particular—Robert James, who was the then leader

1055
of the council. Despite all one reads about this being a Liberal innovation in Cambridgeshire, it was in fact Robert James and a few of his colleagues who started it.
We started from a recognition that whenever we interviewed someone for a head teacher post in Cambridgeshire one of our standard questions was: "How much does it cost to run your school?" Time and time again—I think I shall probably have to give the Committee a particular example in order to make the point—a teacher applying as a candidate for a head teacher post would say on being asked that question and after having given some thought to it, "Well, I think about £100,000". So I would ask the candidate to think again. In this particular case she became rather embarrassed and said, "Perhaps I have overestimated". I reminded her that there were 750 children in the school and suggested that perhaps she would like to think again. She came up with a figure of just over £100,000. The figure was in fact nearer to a million pounds. The truth of the matter was that she was not thinking about teacher costs and all the costs involved: she was actually thinking about capitation and a few fringe costs of education. It became very clear that there was an enormous lack of real understanding of the cost of education. It was as a result of such experiences that we felt the need to bring teachers to an understanding of the cost of education
However, that is not the only aspect of the matter. I want to talk about the positive side of local financial management. I especially want to mention those people who are now in the scheme and to suggest that perhaps we should return to what some would call the good old days but what I believe they would call the bad old days. They are people who had to be plunged into the deep end before they could come up with this kind of statement. I have here a paper written by David Hill, who was the headmaster of a school which I referred to in my speech on Second Reading. It reads:
"The scheme has led to greater cost awareness for heads and governors with greater efficiency leading to an improvement in the education of pupils. Schools have transferred funds from premises costs to create additional staffing (both teaching and teacher support) and to spend more on books and equipment. The realisation that a school can spend over £300 a day on heating its building naturally made governors look towards energy conservation schemes".
9 p.m.
Baroness David: Is the noble Baroness speaking to the amendment or talking generally about the whole subject?
Baroness Blatch: I am arguing that we need to get all our schools into the scheme, because people will never get over the fear of the unknown. It is only when schools are in the scheme and are responsible for their budgets that they will realise the positive advantages of the scheme. I am referring to some of those consequences:
"The governing bodies took on a sense of purpose that had been lacking previously. Governors began to take decisions on improving the curriculum and were able to provide the financial resources required by the changes".
As a governor of a school with its own budget I can say genuinely that we talk more about education
1056
matters and development and curricular changes now that we have our budget and the power to move resources around than we ever did when shire hall controlled the budget.
The scheme must go ahead. The Government will only allow schools to go ahead when they have submitted schemes that have been approved by the Secretary of State; in other words, when they have demonstrated to the Secretary of State that they have a scheme for allocating resources that is acceptable to the department.
I wish to finish with a statement written by the headmaster of a school in Huntingdon:
"Lest the message appear to be a confused one, let me conclude by saying that, in spite of the reservations which have surfaced from time to time, I remain totally convinced that Local Financial Management is a most worthwhile development for schools and that, in the not-too-distant future, students of educational history will wonder why we took such a long time to adopt it!".
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: May I mention one matter to the noble Baroness before she sits down? When the scheme was introduced in Cambridgeshire they did not have all the other schemes. There are now about 70 new items for the head teachers and governors to look at. Cambridgeshire was an experimental one-off area. One scheme only was going on at that time. All the other new proposals are an aggravation. That is why we are asking for the scheme to be introduced gradually.
Baroness Blatch: My only reply to that point is that I believe that the freedom to adapt individual schools to the national curriculum will be greatly enhanced by their having power over their own budgets.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): Rising to reply to the amendment, I should explain that I am here in place of my noble friend Lord Arran who, unfortunately, like a number of Members of the Committee, has been laid low, as I was over the weekend.
I shall start by describing the broad aims underlying financial delegation. I am confident that if I do that the Committee will feel able to support them, These aims are, first, to reduce—
Baroness Seear: We do not quarrel with the idea of financial management but with the speed of introduction. I am only trying to save time.
Lord Trefgarne: I too am trying to save time. I assure the noble Baroness that I shall not detain her for a moment longer than is necessary. There are four broad aims underlying financial delegation. The first is to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy; secondly, to give governors and heads the powers to match their responsibilities; thirdly, to enable schools to target the available resources to meet the needs and priorities of the pupils in the schools; in other words, to make schools more responsive to local needs; and, finally and most important of all, to encourage the efficient and effective management and deployment of resources since better management means better education.
As has already been said, the idea of financial delegation is not new. It has been in place in a number

1057
of ways and in a number of places for some time. The Bill sets out the broad framework for financial delegation to schools. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently issued a consultation document which takes the form of a draft circular which sets out in greater detail how those broad principles might be put into practice. Copies of the draft circular are available in the Library of this Chamber and in the Printed Paper Office. I hope that Members of the Committee have found time to read that useful document. I believe they will have found that the document offered reassurance on some of the aspects of delegation which have caused concern and which have been referred to tonight, as well as offering a wealth of helpful guidance.
I shall now turn to the amendments that we are considering. They are essentially intended to allow schools to opt in or out of managing their own budgets under delegation. We shall reach similar amendments later. I am sure that everyone is in favour of local choice, and the keynotes of financial delegation are flexibility and local accountability. We are therefore looking to local education authorities to devise their own schemes of delegation, in consultation with their schools, for approval by the Secretary of State.
If the delegation requirement were optional, LEAs would not be able to develop a coherent scheme; they would not be able effectively to plan such vital matters as training programmes and the installation of information systems. If some schools were subject to delegation and others of the same size were not, the LEA would have to run a complex system of dual administration. That could prejudice the success of delegation in the schools which had delegated budgets, and could undermine the stable regime which both LEAs and schools will need, especially in the initial period of the scheme.
I recognise that at first sight it may appear reasonable to look to the governing body in the individual school to decide whether it wishes to manage its own budget. In practice, however, the governors are likely to be faced, first, with the new responsibilities which delegation will involve, and which may appear daunting, and only subsequently will they experience the benefits of delegation as they exercise their new-found freedom to direct resources to meet the school's actual needs. Those considerations apply just as much to proposals that schools should be able to opt out of delegation in Amendment No. 182B, which comes later, as to those presently under consideration.
To give governing bodies the right to opt out of delegation would run the risk of depriving those schools of the opportunity to discover for themselves the benefits which it brings. It would also open up the possibility of an LEA that was resistant to the principle of delegation putting pressure on governors to opt out. That cannot be right. It could seriously jeopardise the aims of this section of the Bill.
As the draft guidance on financial delegation makes clear, LEAs will be expected to monitor their schemes and provide advice and support to schools. That should provide the best guarantee that delegation will be introduced coherently and effectively in a way sensitive to local needs. The
1058
amendment is a recipe for confusion, and I hope it will not be pressed.
Baroness Lockwood: The Minister has given us a very fine treatise on what undertaking financial delegation could imply. But I do not think he has his feet on the ground; he is not aware of some of the problems that are likely to occur in cities like Bradford, for instance, a city which has difficulty in recruiting enough people to act as governors of schools in the first place. If there is difficulty in recruiting an adequate number of governors, the responsibilities that the Minister has outlined which will be imposed upon governors in a short period of time are not likely to encourage people to come forward.
It is not a question of governors wanting to undertake these responsibilities but of finding governors who have the time to carry out the obligations of their position under the present system. I do not think that the noble Lord is aware of some of the problems which a city like Bradford would have to face. The governors would have to be trained not only to deal with the financial obligations of delegation but they would also have to be trained to deal with some of the very difficult problems that arise in a multi-racial community. To expect schools and local authorities to be able to move into such a situation in a short period of time is unrealistic.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Baroness in two ways. First, some of the specific problems to which she refers are addressed by amendments which we shall be considering later during the course of the Bill. I understand that some governors will face the future under these new arrangements with trepidation but I believe that the great majority will think that the future will be better and that their job will be much more satisfying given the new proposals contained in the Bill. I believe also that those who may be facing the future with trepidation will find that when the new system is in place their job is altogether more worth while.
Baroness Seear: I do not know whether the noble Lord is right. Will he tell us what his belief is based on? It is good to know that he has such faith, but it would be nice to have it backed up by facts.
Lord Trefgarne: The answer to that question is simple, if I may so to the noble Baroness. It is surely beyond peradventure the case that people given much greater freedom, flexibility and responsibility in doing their job will find that job more satisfying.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: I support the Minister on this. More people will volunteer to be governors if they find that they have more responsibility and a better job to do than in the past. I support the Government all the way on that. It will encourage people to come forward. There is nothing worse than being a governor at present when at a governors' meeting the only matters for discussion are the minutes of the last meeting, the headmaster's report and the date of the next meeting. It is difficult to get people to be that sort of governor. That is what has

1059
been happening in certain schools up and down the country over the past 20 or 30 years.
Things are changing. By giving governors responsibility for finance we are encouraging people to come forward and to feel that they are doing a worthwhile job. However that does not mean that authorities which have problems, like Bradford and others up and down the country, should not be looked at with special care and consideration. That is what we are asking for—for the changes to be deferred or phased in in certain authorities. In the long run I believe that the majority of people will accept the responsibilities of being governors because they have a more worthwhile job to do.
Baroness Blackstone: The Minister referred to governors doing a job. Does he not accept that many governors, as I said before, will be parents? They have other jobs to do besides being governors and as well as bringing up their children. To ask them to take on all these extra responsibilities if they do not wish to take them on and if they feel trepidation about them, and even to insist that they take them on, will be likely to destroy the Government's proposals.
In putting forward this amendment we are trying to be helpful. We think that local financial management has many advantages, but if it is implemented in this way, by asking people who have many other duties in their lives to take on this over and above all the other matters when they do not want to do it means that the entire scheme will be jeopardised.
Baroness Young: What the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, said about governors was important. We shall come to his amendment, with which I have very considerable sympathy. However what is important about the change in the Bill concerns the work of school governors. Like the noble Lord, I have served on a good many maintained school governing bodies and I must confess that it was not the most exciting of tasks. Suddenly there is an opportunity for real responsibility.
I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, because I think this provision could cause difficulties for some parents, although I am bound to say from my experience of life that if one wants something done there is no point in asking anyone other than a very busy person to do it, because he is usually the most effective person.
I think that the subsequent amendments concerning the training of governors are extremely important because I do think that there is a very great measure of a fear of the unknown, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne has quite properly said. But he did in fact in his remarks draw our attention to this most helpful draft consultative document which indicates in quite considerable detail how the schemes will be prepared and set out. It really is worth studying that. I have no doubt that local authorities will be doing just that, to make quite sure that when they introduce their schemes schools understand these very new proposals.
It is immensely encouraging that there is such a large measure of agreement on the importance of the
1060
proposals themselves. I believe that the proposals, taken with some of the other measures that we shall be discussing later, will make the schemes acceptable and certainly better for the schools.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness David: I should like to ask the Minister about the Government's reaction to the Coopers and Lybrand report. This was commissioned by the Secretary of State in May 1987 and it certainly suggested that it would take quite a long time to get LFM schemes in operation. It stated that a good deal of money would be needed and 12 to 18 months to undertake the consultation leading to the development of the schemes let alone the actual implementation.
The report further states that:
"It will in fact be extremely difficult for many authorities to clear the necessary ground if they are to have schemes ready for the Secretary of State's approval by September 1989."
I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government have taken any notice at all of the report which they themselves commissioned. As I said earlier, the Government always seem to be asking for committees and reports, but the moment that they announce their decisions the Government decide that perhaps they do not like them altogether and start off again with another committee. I should like to have the Minister's comments on what the Coopers and Lybrand report said.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I rise briefly to mention a factor which does not seem to have been mentioned so far in the debate. It concerns the amount of money which is to be delegated. I have experience of one authority which was very generous indeed and where there was no problem in getting all the textbooks and the exercise books and other things that were wanted. In my experience of governing bodies the governors on the whole were very happy because their schools were getting all of the equipment that they wanted. If they wanted an extra classroom built they would have to make recommendations, but they would get a very sympathetic hearing
However, if the amount of money which is to be delegated is very small, and if the governors had the power to, for instance, buy half a dozen new spades for gardening lessons, a new vaulting horse for physical education and a couple of new Bunsen burners or such things—I am not sure whether my noble friend would agree that that is likely to inspire a governing body—
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: Definitely not.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My noble friend says, "Definitely not". Surely that is the crucial point. This Government, both in this Chamber and in another place, tell us that the country has not been more prosperous for many, many years. Let me say at once that I have no objection in principle to delegation, but it seems to me that if there is an adequate amount of money to be delegated so that governors can make worthwhile decisions that is a different matter, but I suspect that that will not be the case.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to add to that particular point by saying that whatever the level of resources may be one can be sure that they will be better used at school level than they will be at local authority level.
Lord Trefgarne: I shall not follow my noble friend down that particular path, but in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, I would explain that the idea is that the governing bodies have the responsibility to manage their schools within the kind of budgets that the schools have been used to having recently. This is not a measure that provides more or less money for the educational system; it simply ensures that the money that is available is employed more efficiently. I was glad that the noble Lord acknowledged and, as I understood it, accepted the proposed improvement in the arrangements.
May I say a few words about the timing, about which the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me. The Bill does not set a timetable for the introduction of this system to schools.The draft guidance envisages that LEAs will be required to submit schemes to my right honourable friend by 30th September 1989. The intention is that most approved schemes will come into force from 1st April 1990. There will then be a phasing-in period of up to three years as authorities and schools develop and learn from experience. Inner London apart where some delay may be necessary, full implementation of delegation in all the qualifying schools will be required by April 1993. The Government believe that this is a realistic timetable given the resources which we propose to make available and the progress which has already been made. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: Before the Minister sits down, can he tell us why it is that there is the necessary delay for inner London which does not apply to some other parts of the country? One of the matters which is of very deep concern is getting sufficient people who are prepared to serve and give the time on school boards of governors, and also giving them the resources to back the financial administration.
Lord Trefgarne: So far as inner London is concerned, of course this Bill contains proposals about the arrangements for inner London, and the Government apprehend that in the light of the proposals contained in the Bill with regard to inner London it is likely that a further short time will be required.
Baroness David: I thought that we could get quite close on this amendment because, as I said, we are agreed on the aims. We want to go along with local financial management. We do not want to have pistols put at the heads of governors. I think that the Government could have given way on this amendment. They have not given way on anything so far. I thought that was something on which we might have sympathy, so I shall divide the Committee.
9.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 178B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Basnett, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Meston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Blatch, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsay, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

London, Bp.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clinton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cowley, E.

Norrie, L.

Cox, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Portsmouth, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Radnor, E.

Derwent, L.

Rochdale, V.

Donegall, M.

Rodney, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ellenborough, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Faithfull, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saint Levan, L.

Flowers, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Forester, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Stedman, B.

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Grantchester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E.

Gridley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Haig, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Torrington, V.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Trafford, L.

Harvington, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hereford, Bp.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hooper, B.

Windlesham, L.

Huntly, M.

Wise, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Young, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 178C:
Page 21, line 35, at end insert ("after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State in respect of that authority under subsection (2A) below").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 178C, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 179A.This is to some extent an elaboration of the amendment on which we have voted.
We on these Benches agree with the idea of local financial management but we are keen that it should work. To an extent not shared on the Government Benches, we believe that there will be difficulties in some areas in getting this going. We accept that it makes the Government's job a great deal more worth while. It is highly desirable that it should take place. We want to see it successful, as I believe the Government do. Therefore, in Amendment No. 179A we ask that before making an order the Secretary of State should be satisfied that the resources are there for the governing body and that there are training arrangements to enable the schools to be run in a cost-effective manner.
In non-parliamentary language, we ask the Government to put their money where their mouth is. If this is to be successful it must have money behind it. We do not believe that it will be successful if it is not accompanied by adequate financial resources.
In so far as I have heard anything from the Government about money behind the scheme—I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong—the money available to the local authority will be handed over to the governing bodies for them to deal with. This does not allow additional money for the governors taking on the job. We ask for the assurance that the additional money will be available to make a success of these worthwhile proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: These amendments relate to the implementation of schemes of financial delegation and in particular to the training of governors. The Government recognise the vital importance of school governors being able to carry out their functions effectively both through training and through a coherent scheme of delegation with active local education authority support. The provisions of this chapter, together with the specific grant proposals for 1989–90 recently announced by my right honourable friend, are designed to achieve precisely that.
Let me turn first to the question of resources, which is the concern of paragraph (a) in Amendment No. 179A. We recognise that there will be start-up costs in introducing financial delegation. They will fall mainly into three categories: preparing schemes, which some authorities are already doing; supporting schools, including the provision of training; and installing management information systems. These are the three areas which my right honourable friend now proposes to support through specific grant.
Expenditure of £30 million would be supported in 1989–90, including around £5 million for the training of governors. The extension of that support for subsequent years will be considered in the normal way. The experience of the authorities that have
1064
made most progress in this area indicates that the level of support envisaged should meet the bulk of the initial costs to LEAs of introducing delegation. As for ongoing costs, we believe that over time increased costs to individual LEAs should be offset by the more effective use of resources at the school level and by economies centrally as decision-making is delegated to those directly responsible.
Amendment No. 178C, however, implies that all this support should be in place before delegation schemes are actually prepared by the LEA. That is a recipe for confusion. Local education authority support, training arrangements and information systems will need to be planned as part of a coherent scheme of delegation. The LEAs cannot be expected to decide on what information will be needed until they have determined how their scheme will work—in particular, what will be delegated and how it will be allocated to schools. Nor can governors be trained without knowing what responsibilities they are being trained for.
The implementation of delegation is a major undertaking, and it would be far more practicable to carry it out as schemes are phased in. Paragraphs 67 to 70 of the draft guidance on financial delegation issued by my right honourable friend make it cleaer that LEAs will be expected to include arrangements for implementation and training in their schemes. It is they who will be responsible for preparing schemes and who are best placed to judge their own local needs and circumstances. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness and that she will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seear: From what the noble Lord has told the Committee, I hope that this will be additional money from the centre and not a reallocation of already allocated resources, because that is a trick with which we have become all too familiar. I am glad to have the noble Lord's assurance that this is new money. It is quite impossible to know whether that amount of new money will be just about right, too much or too little. One suspects that it will be too little but at least it is good to have an assurance that there will positively be new money, which in itself is a recognition of the need to provide these services. That seems to me to be at least a step in the right direction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 178D:
Page 21, line 44, leave out ("; and").
The noble Lord said: I take it that the remarks made earlier by the Minister apply equally to this amendment and therefore that money will be made available. If that is so, surely the Government will accept this amendment without any difficulty at all and this will become part and parcel of the Bill. I hope that the Government recognise their responsibility toward local authorities to reimburse them for any training and that therefore the department will be glad to help them in that way.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, intends to move two amendments later this

1065
evening, and no doubt they will be similarly affected. I am delighted that the Government intend to provide money for training and I am sure that this amendment will be carried I beg to move.
Baroness Lockwood: Following the remarks of my noble friend, if the Government accept responsibility for training and agree to the amendment of my noble friend so that they will be accepting complete responsibility for the training of governors, will they also bear in mind the kind of problems that I mentioned in my previous intervention; namely, that in some LEA districts there will be a greater need for training than in others? In other words, in areas in which there is a substantial proportion of professional people on a board of governors the same amount of training will not be required as would be required by a group of people on a board of governors who come from different ethnic communities. Will the Minister take that point on board?
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the Minister replies, perhaps he will clear up a doubt in my mind. He referred to £35 million of new expenditure and also to an additional £5 million for the training of governors of schools and colleges. On 19th April his noble friend Lady Hooper referred to,
"the establishment of central implementation teams to plan and oversee the introduction of financial delegation".—[Official Report, 19/4/88; col. 1471.]
I wonder whether the Minister can put a gloss on that. I am not quite sure what that statement means, what the work consists of or indeed what it might cost.
Lord Trefgarne: The sum of money to which I have just referred (which was £30 million and included the £5 million specifically for the training of governors) was announced by my right honourable friend quite recently. It is money that will be made available to the local education authorities in order to enable them to implement the schemes that they will be bringing forward for his approval.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, I agree that the kind and extent of training that may be required in some areas no doubt will be different from, or even greater than, that required in others. The noble Baroness rightly said that there will be some governors who have less experience of these matters than others and who will require rather more training. That is just the kind of thing that the local education authorities will need to address in preparing their schemes, which will need to include provision for the training of governors and which my right honourable friend is prepared to fund to the extent that I have indicated.
Turning to Amendment No. 178D, I think I am right in saying that in addition to the amendment that specifically has been moved we are at this moment discussing Amendments Nos. 178E, 202A and 202B. The Government share the objective of these amendments and new clauses in ensuring that governors, head teachers and deputy heads receive appropriate training and support to enable them to fulfil their new responsibility under schemes of delegation. My right honourable friend has made it
1066
clear that he fully accepts the need for training in order to secure the successful implementation of schemes of financial delegation and that he will expect LEAs to set out their proposed training arrangements in their schemes.
That training will need to cover each of the key groups who will be responsible for making delegation work, including heads, school adminstrative staff and LEA officers, as well as governors. The implication of the amendment and new clauses that school staff and LEA officers do not have a vital role and training needs is unfortunate, and one which I would not accept.
The 1986 Act already required LEAs to offer governors appropriate training. For their part, the Government are already funding a series of pilot studies on governor training; are supporting the work of the National Association of Governors and Managers, and the production of training materials nationally by what is known as the LMS Initiative; and have proposed specific grant support of around £5 million in 1989–90 for the training of governors to which I have already referred. Significant resources are already available under the LEA training grants scheme for the management training of heads and senior teachers, and proposals for 1989–90 will be announced in due course.
While we sympathise with the general intention behind the amendments, it would not be appropriate to include on the face of the Bill unspecified duties in relation to training that could unduly delay the start of schemes. Nor is the implication of new Clause 202B that all additional resources should be provided by central government acceptable. My right honourable friend will provide pump-priming but the main and ongoing responsibility must be for the LEAs. Training must form part of a phased introduction of delegation and is only one element—though I agree it is a vital one—needed for the success of that process. To single out training of governors to the exclusion of school adminstrative staff or information systems is not right or helpful.
The amendments therefore do not add to what is already provided for in the draft guidance and existing statute. However, I hope nonetheless that the noble Lord will be reassured by what I have said and will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Baroness Young: It may be helpful to the Committee that my noble friend responded to two amendments down in my name—Amendments Nos. 202A and 202B—but which I have not moved. I am happy to speak to them. It was not my intention to press these two amendments. I was very glad to hear what he had to say about the training of governors and that there will be £5 million available for that. I have read the relevant paragraphs, 69 and 70, in this helpful advice which set it out in some detail.
There are two points of concern. First, I am glad that considerable amounts of training have been going on since the 1986 Act. It is now almost two years since we debated that Act. My impression—I agree that it is only an impression—is that there are still considerable worries. Those have been reflected in the debates this evening about inadequate training.

1067
We need a thoroughgoing, consistent approach to the training of head teachers and governors if this is to work. Secondly, I am concerned about something my noble friend said when he drew a distinction between the training of governors and of administrators. I should have thought that qua administrators had had some experience of this kind. What we shall find is that many parents, teachers and head teachers will be confronted with new situations, and they will need guidance.
I have heard it said before, and it is a view that I support, that a school governor of the future will have a responsibility that in many ways is similar to that of a magistrate and where training is an accepted part of the course for everybody. I should like to understand—and I believe that it is the wish of the Committee—that the Government had a scheme whereby anybody who was made a governor would automatically go on a training course to understand this. It is that kind of thing that we understand.
I do not expect my noble friend to give an answer to all these questions tonight. It would be immensely helpful if we could have some more information before the Report stage, perhaps in the form of guidance. I am pleased at how far we have gone. But this is an extremely important matter. It would be very useful to hear more and to hear of a consistency of practice throughout the country.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness David: I should very much like to support what the noble Baroness has said. Governors will play an important role when the Bill becomes an Act. I hope, perhaps by Report stage, to hear something more definite from the Government.
Lord Kilmarnock: I agree very much with most of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. Whether the busy, energetic people who are likely to become governors of schools will be able to afford the time for these training courses raises some doubts in my mind. I suggest to the noble Lord that the Government might consider some other method of disseminating the necessary guidelines and information for potential governors in written form.
Lord Trefgarne: I shall see what I can do to find some additional information for my noble friend between now and the next stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, rightly pointed out that the requirements of governors for training will vary very much from place to place and from school to school. No doubt some governors and others will have much experience in these sorts of affairs; they may have experience in business as well. They will be more than willing and more than able to discharge their new duties, perhaps with the minimum of additional training. There will be others, however, who do not have that range of experience and for whom the training would clearly have to be in greater depth and more comprehensive.
Therefore, there would be a risk in imposing on all local education authorities some stereotyped form of training which all new governors would be required
1068
to undergo willy-nilly when perhaps in some cases such training might be excessive and unnecessary. However, I shall reflect upon what my noble friend has said to see what additional information can be provided between now and the next stage.
Baroness Blackstone: Will the Minister accept that having a business background does not necessarily qualify someone in understanding about the needs of schools in contemporary society? That person may know quite a lot about finance but may not know how to apply that financial knowledge to the education system.
Lord Trefgarne: Of course I accept that. I believe that a business background might be useful for the financial aspects of managing a school. But the educational and social aspects would call for a different range of experience.
Lord Glenamara: As many thousands of governors will have to be trained throughout the country, have the Government talked to the Vice-Chancellor of the Open University to try to interest him in running a course? That would probably be the most efficent and most economical way of doing it.
Lord Trefgarne: I understand that the vice-chancellor's interest in this matter has already been engaged. Indeed a video has been prepared for this purpose.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: Obviously I shall not press this amendment after what the Minister has said. I ask the Minister most sincerely to press on his right honourable friend the fact that we who have been engaged in this field for many years and who have looked at authorities throughout the length and breadth of the country realise how important training is. We also realise how difficult it is for local authorities to find their own finance. If the Secretary of State wants the job to be done well, then I am sure he must be prepared to pay for it. Will the Minister again give us the assurances that he will reconsider the amendment and come back in some way at Report stage? On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 178E not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear Amendment No. 178F:
Page 21, line 48. at end insert ("and
(c) the determination under any formula drawn up within guidelines specified by the Secretary of State of amounts separately identified within the school's budget share in respect of pupils with special needs.").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend who has succumbed to the travailing bug I beg to move Amendment No. 178F. In the hope of having the provision added to the Bill the amendment is tabled in order to emphasise the additional costs required for pupils with special needs. We fear that unless the provision is written into the Bill, then because of the need to make the money stretch as far as possible, the expenses incurred for providing for pupils with special needs may be overlooked. I am

1069
sure that that will not be anyone's intention, especially as so much emphasis has been put on the importance of educating pupils with special needs in the general schools system. However, if that intention is to be carried out properly additional money will be required.
Baroness Faithfull: Amendment No. 178F, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is a paving amendment to Amendments Nos. 183, 184, 185 and 186. Therefore I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 183, 184 and 186.
I was grateful for the Minister's sympathetic response to Amendment No. 158 concerning facilities in schools for children with special educational needs. However, as has been stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, there exists a certain amount of nervousness as regards resources. There is a scepticism as regards the circumstances of such children. We are apprehensive on two counts. First, so little has been done by the Department of Education in the last eight years since the passing of the Act and the services in the local authorities are uneven throughout the country. Secondly, until the amendments were moved, nowhere does the Bill make any statement in connection with children with special educational needs. That has been of concern and worry to all Members.
It is well known that the facilities for children with special educational needs are expensive but they are cost-effective. If such children are able to earn their living and live alone throughout life then their education is cost-effective, however much may be spent on it.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 is to ensure that special educational needs receive a weighting under the allocation formula in delegated financial budgets. That was recommended in the Coopers and Lybrand report. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the point that if that is not specified in the Bill local education authorities may not adequately cater for pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools. We believe that we must state that because it has not been provided in the past. We should like to know whether it will be provided in the future unless resources are available.
Provision for children with special needs will include extra staffing, teachers and ancillary helpers, modifications to buildings, special equipment, adapted curriculum materials and lower pupil-teacher ratios. Teachers will then have time to give attention to children with special needs and to other children in their class. I made that point in connection with Amendment No. 158, and I repeat it.
As regards Amendment No. 186, the provision of education for such children is expensive. I would ask the Minister: what will happen if the local authority is unable to make provision for children with special educational needs? Will it be possible to use the rate support grant to help them? Let us suppose that the local authority finds that it cannot meet the resources required for these cases which are so important; what will happen and what recommendations will the Government make to the local authorities?
Lord Kilmarnock: Perhaps it would help the Committee if the Minister could tell us whether it is the view of the Government that the provisions of the Education Act 1981 concerning children with special educational needs will be preserved in their entirety under the Bill at present before the Committee. If that is so, does the Minister not agree that in certain circumstances that could impose very difficult decisions on the governors who will decide on the deployment of the devolved finance? If the obligations on the educational system with regard to children with special educational needs are the same as in the 1981 Act, then there may be some very tough decisions arising as to whether they are to be implemented at the expense of other things in certain determined schools. Perhaps the noble Lord could clarify that matter.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As my name is included on Amendment No. 185, as is that of my noble friend Lady Kinloss, perhaps I could support this group of amendments. Much of what I was going to say has already been said, and said very well. However, when a school is controlling its own money it is true that there will be pressures to provide the best facilities in schools for the largest number of pupils. Therefore, schools could be reluctant to take on children with special educational needs, and the move towards integration could slow down or even cease unless they are given some assurance about the provisions which will be made available. These amendments encourage the policy of integrated education which is enshrined in the 1981 Act and, indeed, was the policy of various governments before that time.
As I have said, Amendment No. 185 is in my name but, on reflection, I prefer Amendment No. 186 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lords, Lord Seebohm, Lord Ritchie and Lord Carter, because it provides better safeguards for the 18 per cent. of children who do not have statements. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness will be able to say something positive about this group of amendments; and it may be that she would prefer Amendment No. 186.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to say a few words in support of these amendments, especially Amendments Nos. 185 and 186. I too agree with much that has been said in regard to this group of amendments. The Bill does not state specifically that special needs provision is a criteria within the delegation formulae, and it appears that the need still exists for an explicit statement. The argument against too much prescription in the legislation has been made repeatedly and yet the Government have retained many powers by not allocating duties and responsibilities to others. There will be need for some prescription. It is better to know the areas which require it and ensure that the necessary information is made available to the Secretary of State now and in the future through the appropriate legislation.
10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that there is nothing in this Bill to affect the provisions of the 1981 Act to which

1071
he referred. However, the Government recognise the necessity of ensuring appropriate provision for pupils with special educational needs under schemes of financial delegation. My right honourable friend has recently issued draft guidance about the preparation and implementation of schemes. That guidance makes clear the Secretary of State's view that LEAs should take account of special needs in their formula for allocating resources between schools.
If the Committee will allow me, I shall quote from paragraph 54 of that guidance, which states:
"in the Secretary of State's view, the formula should include at least two other specific factors"—
as well as the numbers and ages of pupils—
"namely, (i) the additional costs of children with special educational needs, including the needs of statemented children under the Education Act 1981 … and
(ii) the additional costs in small schools of providing a standard of teaching and learning comparable to that available in larger schools".
Under Clause 26(2) the LEA will be required to take account of this guidance in preparing its scheme. However, it would not be appropriate to embody this guidance on the face of the Bill. Where a provision such as Clause 30(3)(b) allows a general freedom to include any relevant factors, it is unnecessary to specify what individual factors it might include. To do so may imply that factors which are not listed are irrelevant, which would be confusing and unhelpful. There could also be significant problems in deciding locally exactly which pupils were covered by the definition of special needs and how their needs should be taken into account.
LEAs would be open to challenge that they had not taken special needs into account, leading to disputes and delay in implementing schemes. Schemes will be expected to reflect the relevant requirements of the 1981 Act. But it should be for LEAs themselves to determine through their schemes what particular needs they will take into account and how, after consulting the governing bodies of their schools and subject to approval by the Secretary of State for their schemes as a whole.
Amendment No. 186 specifically would adopt the definition of special needs in Section 1 of the Education Act 1981 as the bench-mark for additional provision. But although Section 1 of the 1981 Act
1072
contains a clear definition of a pupil with special educational needs, that definition would not help those locally who would have to decide what particular weightings should be taken into account in respect of individual children with special needs. Such weightings will depend upon a range of indicators and local interpretation of them and are not suitable for inclusion on the face of the Bill.
The Committee will also wish to know that paragraphs 38 to 41 of the draft guidance provide for certain specialist support services for pupils with special needs to be excluded from delegation at the LEAs' discretion where that will ensure that the needs of individual pupils are targeted more accurately. This will ensure further protection for pupils with special needs where LEAs consider that that is required.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friends and others who have spoken and that it will not be thought necessary to press these amendments. I can perhaps give one crumb of comfort to my noble friend Lady Faithfull. As regards her Amendment No. 183, to which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, put his name, besides two other noble Lords, I may be persuaded to look again at the possibilty of including on the face of the Bill the words contained in that amendment. I do not think it is necessary for the reasons I have described. However, if my noble friend will be further reassured by such an offer I shall be happy to consider it.
Baroness Seear: I am disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to incorporate the words into the Bill. We said earlier in this Session when he was not with us that we would be very much more reassured by finding these essential items on the face of the Bill and not merely in circulars and recommendations. Once they are on the face of the Bill people who feel that they are not properly dealt with are in a much stronger position to raise an issue.
The noble Lord said that he was casting a crumb of comfort towards his noble friend Lady Faithfull, but he did not cast a crumb to me. Nevertheless, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 179 to 179B not moved.]
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 179C:
Page 22, line 30, after ("expenditure)") insert—
("( ) the amount of any expenditure of the authority for or in connection with the provision of teaching and non-teaching staff at the school; and").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to the associated amendment, Amendment No. 189AB. The Bill places increased responsibilities on governors of schools in relation to the appointment and dismissal of staff. Although the local education authority remains the employer except in the case of aided schools, it will have a greatly diminished influence in dealing with the numbers and the deployment of teaching and non-teaching staff.
The Committee will be fully aware that staff salaries form a significant proportion of the education budget. I intervened briefly a short while ago on the issue of financial delegation. It seemed to me that not to mention teachers' salaries—the issue was not mentioned in any of the contributions—was completely unrealistic.
The allocation of responsibility for teachers' salaries to governing bodies would have three important effects. First, the level of staffing establishments might differ seriously not only between one school and another but from year to year in the same school as governors changed their spending priorities. That in turn would also make curriculum planning difficult and introduce even greater stress for staff. Anyone who has had the slightest connection with curriculum planning will know what a problem that can be. A small number of local education authorities have introduced computer planning but that is in its infancy and has brought its own difficulties.
Secondly, the planning of staffing levels overall by the local education authority would become extremely difficult. Indeed, as one who for a number of years dealt with overall staffing, I am tempted to say that it might sometimes prove impossible. Thirdly, there could be losses due to, if I may use the economists' jargon, diseconomies of scale.
I assure the Minister that this is not a destructive amendment. It would not detract from the governors' participation in the choice of staff, which most people would feel is the most important aspect of the matter anyway. It would allow the LEA to carry out rational planning of its general staffing requirements and to relate them to national agreements on salaries and additional allowances—some Members of the Committee will know how complicated that can be at times. It will also enable the LEA to deal with difficulties thrown up by the Bill's provisions on such important matters as redundancy, as mentioned in Clause 36(4), and the lack of provision for deployment arrangements. On that latter point I predict trouble ahead.
In my speech at Second Reading I said that my main general criticism was the sheer lack of reality in the Bill's provisions. The provision in this part of the Bill is a perfect example of that lack of reality. I go further and say that there is no great desire on the part of governors to be involved in this kind of financial management. Their role should be as it is now—to deal with teaching and non-teaching staffs
1074
within a general framework laid down by the local education authority. That is not a forfeiting of responsibility or a sacrificing of accountability. In any case there would always be the freedom to discuss special difficulties with the LEA, again as occurs at the present time.
If we are to obtain governors of the right calibre—and I support my noble friend in this matter—and with a genuine interest in education, it is proper that they should be given the correct degree of responsibility. However, if this part of the Bill is enacted as it stands, I can foresee governors' meetings being taken up with wrangling and disputes on financial matters and not tackling education issues. It will lead to discouragement, dissatisfaction and disillusionment, and schools will be much the worse for it. I commend the amendment to the Committee and turn to the associated amendment, Amendment No. 189AB.
This amendment is a necessary follow-up to the amendment which I have just proposed. Local authorities will continue to have financial responsibility for staff, whether or not they are directly the employers, yet they will have little direct control of the numbers employed. Clause 36(2)(a) refers to Sections 34 and 35 of the 1986 Act. Section 34 gave LEAs responsibility for determining the complement of teaching and non-teaching staff at all except aided schools. The overall policy which each LEA developed as a result gave rationality to the planning of its general staffing requirements as well as guidance to aided school governing bodies within its area. That planning could of course be related to the total salary budget, to various national agreements, and so on.
Chapter III of the Bill takes that responsibility away and frankly lands it in the unknown. The LEA continues to meet the salary bill but the expenditure is channelled through governing bodies. Idiosyncratic decisions may now be taken by governing bodies which make for inequalities and uncertainties in staffing levels. That is the main point which I make in this connection. Teacher supply becomes a matter for speculation rather than calculation. It is to protect schools endeavouring to plan a viable curriculum, indeed to protect the national curriculum—which I am sure has the assent of Ministers—that the amendment is proposed.
Section 35 of the 1986 Act deals with the appointment and dismissal of staff and the relative responsibilities of the LEA, the chief education officer and the governing bodies. The Bill also removes that section of the 1986 Act relating to schools within a scheme of financial delegation. My concern about that removal will be voiced in connection with other amendments.
However, if LEAs are, through their overall budgeting, to have influence over staffing levels and offer expert and professional guidance to governing bodies on that complex subject—I fail to see how it could be otherwise—it is necessary to restore the position, so recently granted to them in the 1986 Act, by removing the reference in Clause 36(2)(a) to Section 34 of that Act.
For the sake of emphasis I repeat that any substantial variation in staffing levels would cause great dissatisfaction in schools. I hope that the Government will recognise these amendments as an important improvement. I commend both amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: In my view this amendment applies mainly to secondary schools in terms of the type of flexibility which a secondary school will have. I believe that the amendment if passed would put an unnecessary restriction upon secondary schools. Most decisions about allocation of resources in schools that have their own budgets are taken by a finance committee, either a sub-committee of the main governing body or possibly the whole governing body. On the committee sit representatives of the staff, the head teacher, the parent governors and the governors of the school.
It seems to me that it would be wrong to deny a school at least the opportunity, if a teacher left for whatever reason around Easter—a time when the main teaching requirement is over and one is moving towards revision and perhaps invigilation—to take the decision that a permanent replacement for that member of staff at that time is probably not appropriate. Therefore the school could opt to replace the teacher permanently in September. By taking that action about seven-twelfths of a teacher's salary is saved. It could be redeployed in many ways. One possibility would be buying in temporary part-time teaching to cover part of the teaching load in what is the fallow time of the school year before making the permanent appointment in September. That is one good reason why flexibility should remain in the hands of the school.
Another reason is reflected in some of the problems of the present system. If the bill for all salaries is picked up centrally, we go back to the old system. Why should a school think along those lines? Why should it think about redeploying precious resources? It will leave to the county council the decision about filling a vacancy. The flexibility should be left to the school governing body and teachers. As for professional guidance, it does not go away with the scheme; it remains. Schools that require it can demand it.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: The main thrust of financial delegation is to make individual schools responsible for their budgets since spending decisions are surely best made by those most closely involved with the school.
Amendment No. 179C removes expenditure on teaching and non-teaching staff from the general school budget before the remainder of the budget is delegated to the schools within the authority. The amendment is, I am afraid, contrary to the fundamental principle of financial delegation that governors should be responsible for the great majority of expenditure connected with their school.
1076
Staffing costs account for between 75 per cent. and 85 per cent. of a typical school's budget. The governing body must be given full responsibility for decisions about expenditure on staffing if it is to have genuine responsibility for the management of the school's budget. The transfer of responsibility for staffing expenditure from the LEAs to the governing bodies of individual schools is at the very heart of financial delegation.
As Coopers & Lybrand emphasised in its report:
"Delegation of responsibility for teaching staff is fundamental to the success of any scheme of local management schools".
The report also emphasised that the numbers of non-teaching staff should be within the competence of the school.
Leaving staffing costs out of the budget would remove the opportunity for governing bodies to balance expenditure between staffing and non-staffing costs and would mean that in many schools the extension of powers of financial responsibility was little more than they presently have. I hope that the noble Lord will see the force of that argument and not wish to press the amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 189AB. Its effect would be to keep in being Section 34 of the 1986 Act. That section provides that each county, controlled, special agreement and maintained special school shall have a complement of teaching and non-teaching posts determined by the local education authority. We believe that for schools with financial delegation it would be inappropriate for the authority to be able to specify a precise complement of teaching and non-teaching posts.
An essential part of financial delegation are decisions about staff numbers. Staff costs can, as I said, account for up to 85 per cent. of a school's budget. Financial delegation is meaningless if it does not include control over staff and their costs.
I have already quoted from the Coopers and Lybrand report. It also emphasised that numbers of non-teaching staff should be within the competence of the school.
Resources will be deployed most efficiently and effectively if they are under the control of the school itself. Schools will be more confident and more responsive to local needs, and all the staff of the school should feel a greater sense of involvement.
I hope that from what I have said the noble Lord will accept that we do not think that his amendments are an improvement to the Bill.
Lord Dormand of Easington: It may be asking a great deal of the Minister, but I wonder whether he is prepared to say how a school's overall budget is determined. For example, would the Minister say that if, according to the numbers on the roll, there ought to be six teachers on the basis of 30 pupils per class or something of that order, the governors could say, "No, we should only have five or four teachers and spend the rest of the money improving the school playing field or getting another couple of acres on to the school playing field", or something of that nature? If that is the kind of flexibility which will be given to governors, I think many people, including parents, will have grave doubts about it.

1077
I am pleased that the noble Lord stressed that salaries were of the order of 75 per cent. or 85 per cent. I thought that 85 per cent. was nearer the actual amount. Would he be prepared to say what are the general points to be borne in mind for setting the budget for any school?
Lord Trefgarne: If the noble Lord is asking how the system will deal, for example, with a maverick board of governors who might, as the noble Lord suggests, want to invest all the school funds on the 3.30 at Kempton rather than running the school in a proper way, that would be wholly irresponsible.
More sensibly, if governors were perhaps in some genuine dilemma as to what priorities to apply to a modest improvement to the playing fields or an additional teacher or two, they would want to turn to the chief education officer of the LEA concerned for advice as to the right way forward. So I do not think that the awful difficulties which the noble Lord had in mind will come to pass. The overall budget of the school will be set by the local education authority. The important feature of this arrangement is that the board of governors would have the responsibility of managing the budget allocated to them in the way which they think best meets local needs.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Perhaps I may call attention to one point. My noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington has moved Amendment No. 179C in conjunction with Amendment No. 189AB. However, the latter amendment is in a separate grouping which includes Amendments Nos. 189B and 190A. I propose to speak to these two amendments at the appropriate time.
Baroness Lockwood: Before my noble friend responds, I wonder whether the Minister could comment on another situation. In some districts the LEAs are under a TVEI scheme, for instance, and they have teachers who would not necessarily cover just one school. The resource is shared by a number of schools. How does the noble Lord see that kind of appointment being handled under financial delegation?
Lord Trefgarne: Presumably the local education authority, which will be overseeing the management of all the schools within its area, will have a view on that. But where a school employs only the part-time services of a certain teacher it would only be responsible for part of the costs of that teacher.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I do not think that the Minister has covered the essential points which are made in the amendments. While not pressing the amendment now, I shall certainly return to it at a later stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 23, line 6, at end insert—
("(7) A scheme drawn up under this section shall provide for any governor of a school to which the scheme applies to have the right to receive special leave with pay for up to six days in any academic year for the purpose of carrying out duties at the school, or in relation thereto, during the period of the school day or for attending any training course and the Secretary of State shall make regulations within three months of the passing of this Act as to the definition of duties or any course in respect of which special leave shall be granted,").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 180, standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and myself. Before speaking to it I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who is in the Chair, on his very alert handling of the Committee at this time of the evening. It is becoming very confusing to know which amendment we have come to, and about five minutes ago I was horrified to think that I had missed my amendments. I should like to propose the award of an A-level in committeeship to the noble Lord who is in the Chair.
My noble friend will be glad to hear that this is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to make certain that in the future under this important Bill schools do not lose out or are not denied the services of potentially excellent governors because no allowance has been made under their terms of employment for leave of absence with pay to attend to their duties as governors. I recognise that this is an important and difficult issue because the governors of the future, as we have heard many times in this Committee, will have a very real front line responsibility to run the financial affairs of the school and will of course be responsible for hiring and firing staff as well as the many other duties of discipline, dealing with grievances and the not unimportant points of getting to know their pupils, their staff and indeed attending functions with parents.
I do not think that it is good enough to argue that good governors will now come forward because there is a real job to do which is a prestigious honour. Of course it is and of course many governors may be encouraged to come forward simply for that reason, but in many less prosperous areas that will not apply. It would be a very sad state of affairs if we found that potentially good governors could not attend to their duties for financial reasons.
The amendment seeks to introduce an onus on employers to give up to six days leave of absence with pay for employees to attend their governors' meetings. I would remind my noble friend that this is not inconsistent with or indeed a precedent for other public duties such as serving on a jury or serving in the territorial army. Those are two specific occasions where there is a precedent for employers. It is not inconsistent with the Protection of Employment Act where there is a requirement for three days leave of absence to be given, although not with pay. It is not inconsistent with the Civil Service or the trade union employment contracts, both of which give pay and leave of absence for attending public duties. As the Committee will see, the amendment suggests six days leave of absence.
The draft guidance to local education authorities is a very important document, although I stress that it

1079
is a draft guidance. I turned to it with some hope to see whether there was a reference to governors as regards leave of absence. But I could find no reference to that. All I could find was reference to the training of governors so that they could excel in their duties or for them to be trained for their duties. But I could find nothing about special leave. I may be wrong about that and my noble friend will correct me if that is the case. But the issue is very important.
The Government have brought into this Bill a very important duty for governors. Obviously one cannot assist those who are self-employed who seek to be governors, but surely we can make certain that those who are employed should be able to attend to their school duties. No potentially good governors should be lost to our education system at a time when they are needed to meet the responsibilities and challenges which have been set by Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: In supporting this amendment I hope that it brings us to face in reality the situation concerning the supply of governors. We have heard a great deal this evening about the additional powers which will be laid upon governors both in financial delegation and in other respects in running schools. I welcome those without reservation. But I have doubts as to whether sufficient attention has been paid to the supply of governors.
I accept, as has been said, that the new powers and responsibilities may well attract people. That is absolutely right, but it is not a question of whether people are just willing but whether they are actually able to serve. That is the crucial point. I know that my concern is shared by many of the directors of education for our Church of England dioceses who have raised this point with me. We have found this to be the case in the efforts which we have made in many dioceses, including my own here in London, in our attempts to train governors. It is a question of finding people who are able and willing to devote themselves to what will in the future be a much more physical task.
When I say that I am speaking from experience, not so much in the educational field but in the Church of England as a whole. In recent years we in synodical government have been giving considerable powers to lay people; and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will note that I said "lay people" and not "laymen". But there is a very real difficulty in my own diocese of London in finding a truly representative and broadly based supply of people who are prepared to serve on the various bodies which we now have for administering my very large diocese.
The work of administration which has to be exercised with a pastoral understanding simply cannot be done at weekends or in the evenings; it is just physically not possible. A body like our property sub-committee of the board of finance has to meet for a long period during the day—it is unavoidable—and the same kind of situation will obtain with the additional powers of governors.
As a result of this situation we find that those who would be admirable to serve and who would, as it
1080
were, represent every type of community within the diocese are simply not in a position to do so. So what worries me is that, again and again, when I go to one of our diocesan committees, I see the same people. That is not because they are obsessed with committees. It is not because they are people who love spending their time on committees. In many cases, it is because they are the kind of people who are able to give time to this particular work. I worry whether this situation might be repeated when we come to the additional responsibilities laid upon governors. As I said, it is not a question of competence; it is not a question of ability. It is a question of the circumstances in which people live, whether employment or domestic circumstances.
I know that encouragement is being given—I heard this from the Secretary of State himself—to firms to be generous and encouraging in their attitude to those who want to serve as governors, but that will help only a minority. The purpose of this amendment, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, is simply to draw attention to this fact. I expect that the Government have it in mind, but I think we need a greater sense of awareness of, as I believe, a very real problem which will need be faced in working the Bill when it becomes an Act. So I hope that this amendment has the understanding and support of this Committee, though, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, we shall not be pressing it to a Division.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the Government give their view on this amendment moved by the noble Earl, I wonder whether I might ask him why he has not thought fit, or why he finds it difficult, to include the self-employed in his scheme. It seems to me that there are many self-employed small businessmen who might be ideally suited to be school governors, and it should not be impossible to devise some system which would take account of their particular position, whether on a standard flat rate or in relation to earnings. Would the noble Earl agree, if the Government smile on this amendment, that some such measure might be taken for the self-employed?
The Earl of Stockton: Interestingly enough, I have just come from a meeting with the Westminster Chamber of Commerce at which representatives of 11 major employers in the central area of London, who employ 18,700 people, were present. One of the questions that I asked them—knowing that this matter was coming up—was whether any of them were school governors. None of the 11 representatives of those companies was, but they all felt that they could and should be. The concern they expressed was that, while they felt certain that their firms would allow them time off, they would not be given time off with pay. The representatives of British Telecom and the Post Office were almost certain that they would not be allowed time off with pay. Therefore, although they were keen to help and were all men and women who are directly responsible for training and job selection, they felt unable to offer their services to the schools of London as governors under the present arrangements.
Baroness Lockwood: I support the amendment. There are two groups of people whom it is difficult to

1081
recruit as school governors. One group is made up of those who feel that they are not confident and competent enough to become governors. Training is very important for that group, and we have already discussed that matter.
The other group is made up of people who are on the promotion ladder in their jobs and professions. I spoke recently with the managing directors of two medium-sized companies in West Yorkshire about giving time off to magistrates, the training of whom was mentioned earlier. Their response was that they would never openly stand in the way of employees who wanted to undertake such responsibilities. However, if it was a question of promotion, availability would be taken into account. Therefore, there is a real cultural problem to be overcome.
A provision on the face of the Bill dealing with the matter would be at least a first step in dealing with some of the practical problems that arise. I welcome the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, and many of the comments made by the CBI and other organisations at a national level. However, the solution to the problem lies in the hands of management of local companies and we have a very important educative job in that area.
The Duke of Norfolk: I should like to support the amendment in every way. It broadens the scope in the choosing of school governors. It is an excellent amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I also support the amendment. My experience has been that of finding members for prison boards. The same problems arise. Recruitment is spreading down to the best type of person in what used to be called the upper working class—the names are quite different now—which is the type that one particularly wants in such positions. It is impossible to get such people unless they can get time off with pay.
Lord Trefgarne: Let me say at once that we fully recognise that appropriate leave arrangements for governors and effective provision for clerking and other administration are central to the success of delegation in both voluntary and county schools. I am answering on Amendment No. 180 and also on Amendment No. 181, unless it is desired that that should be moved separately.
The Earl of Kinnoull: We should like to move Amendment No. 181 separately.
Lord Trefgarne: I agree that that should be so. However, I should remind my noble friend that it was agreed that it would be debated with Amendment No. 180.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Not by me.
Lord Trefgarne: Turning to Amendment No. 180, Section 29 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provides for governors to be entitled to time off in order to perform their duties effectively. We fully support this, and indeed the Bill extends this provision to the governors of grant maintained schools. Amendment No. 180 would, however, go
1082
further by giving extra privileges to governors of all schools covered by schemes of financial delegation. That would include small primaries without delegated budgets, as well as large secondary schools with them. It would entitle governors to time off without regard to the impact on their employer's business. Furthermore, it would entitle them to paid leave, whereas the 1978 Act left that to the discretion of the employer.
We do not believe that governors will be overwhelmed with extra work as a result of financial delegation, particularly as they get accustomed to their new responsibilities. They will not be expected to get involved in the detailed running of the school but to take major management decisions at periodic meetings. The experience of LEAs with pilot schemes has been that the job has not become excessively demanding of people's time. In order to ensure that it does not, we have provided in the Bill for delegation to sub-committees, which may include non-governors, and are proposing to support expenditure on the establishment of information systems and central advisory teams to ensure that governors are able to carry out their duties promptly and effectively.
I hope that those arguments have reassured my noble friend and that he will not wish to press the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: The Minister may be unduly optimistic in saying that these additional burdens will not be so great as may be supposed. It seems to many of us that what is being delegated, particularly on the financial side, will involve great pressures on the governors. Their support and training, which we have already considered, are vital.
In regard to what has been said about the difficulty of obtaining people to serve as governors, from the Greater Manchester perspective I endorse entirely what the right reverend Prelate has said about finding people able and willing to give the time required. I am not entirely sure about the thrust of the amendment. I take seriously what has been said about the burdens on industry. I am not convinced that this is the right way forward. I think that the Minister should take seriously what was said about the difficulty of getting able people to give time to running this effectively.
Lord Trefgarne: The issue is whether people should have paid time. Time is provided for by other legislation.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: That is why I referred to the burdens of industry: I meant paid time.
Lord Trefgarne: I accept what the right reverend Prelate says. From my experience of the territorial army a year or so ago, I recall that we considered once whether we should require employers to give members of the TA time to attend to their duties. We soon concluded that imposing a duty on employers to provide paid time for personnel to undertake such duties was not generally in the interests of the employees themselves. Therefore, the proposition was not proceeded with. I believe that similar considerations apply in this case.
The Earl of Kinnoull: The debate has been valuable, and a number of points have been aired. It was a probing amendment, and I think that we should probe on. With the Minister's good will, perhaps we shall have a chance to consider the question again at the next stage to see whether we can turn up some acceptable proposal. As we said, it is a difficult area, and one does not necessarily come up with the right answer. It is an important issue in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 23, line 6, at end insert—
("(7) A scheme drawn up under this section for voluntary schools shall include an allocation in respect of—

(a) a reasonable level of remuneration to the clerk at the school together with any associated staff costs; and

(b) any other administrative costs of the governing body, and these costs shall be treated as a maintenance item for the purposes of section 15 of the Education Act 1944.

(8) Section 58 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 shall not apply to any remuneration or other costs falling within subsection (7) above.").
The noble Earl said: I apologise to the Minister if I sounded a little rough when he said it was agreed that the two amendments shall be moved together. I am sure that that was agreed, but I was not present at the time. At this stage of the Bill we should not feel in any way rushed, as I know he would agree. This amendment deals with an entirely different issue from the previous amendment, and I had no wish to muddle the Committee, the Minister or indeed myself as to the issues under discussion.
Two financial aspects are involved that worry the voluntary aided schools. The first is the remuneration costs of school clerks and the associated staff costs involved. As I understand it, these costs are discretionary at present. Sometimes the county councils meet the cost of clerks for voluntary aided schools; sometimes they do not. Sometimes the clerks work for no pay and sometimes, perhaps not surprisingly, there are vacancies. There are no clerks available, as one can understand.
Under this Bill no mention is made of the position in respect of the pay of clerks in voluntary aided schools. To be fair to the Minister, an undertaking was given in another place that provision for the pay of clerks of voluntary aided schools would be included in the delegated budgets, but the fear is that it might still be discretionary. The clerks of schools will have increased responsibilities under this legislation and will be leaned on very heavily by governors; yet there seems to be nothing specific on this point written into the Bill and it is not clear how they will be paid.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to seek a mandatory obligation that such payments will be met. It is hoped that the costs will come out of the county council's budget pari passu with the payment of clerks of the county council's schools.
The Committee will note that paragraph (b) of the amendment seeks to ensure that reasonable administrative costs of the governing bodies will be allowed under the budgets. As I understand it,
1084
governors are at present allowed to claim travelling expenses but not the cost of administration. The duties of the governors clearly will involve an enormous amount of paperwork. There will also be an enormous number of telephone calls. All that is necessary when one is considering employing people, undertaking changes, taking on the financial running of the schools, and so on. I do not think it requires a tremendous degree of questioning of my noble friend, and perhaps I am wrong and this matter is included in the Bill; but, if not, I hope that he will accept the amendment and therefore see clearly the need to amend Section 58 of the 1986 Education Act. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I very much share my noble friend's view of the increasingly important role that clerks will have to play in the future. As governors take on more responsibilities, they will place a premium on good advice about their statutory and other responsibilities and on efficient organisation of their business. Clerks are there to provide just that.
The draft guidance on financial delegation makes it clear that my right honourable friend will expect all maintained schools to be funded on the same basis. A school's allocation will depend mainly on the numbers of its pupils and their ages, so that schools with a similar composition should receive similar budgets. There will be no discrimination between county and voluntary schools. Administrative costs delegated by the LEA as the amount of central decision-taking falls will be passed on to voluntary as well as to county schools. Once provision is delegated it will be up to the schools themselves to decide how to spend it. It would, however, be contrary to the aim of delegation to force schools to pay their clerks. By requiring LEAs to delegate provision to voluntary schools only, the amendment implies that it is open to LEAs not to make such provision for county schools. That is unacceptable both in principle and in practice.
Amendment No. 181 also provides for Section 58 of the 1986 Act—which restricts payments to governors to travelling and subsistence allowances—to be disapplied in relation to the administrative costs of governors. That would enable governors to act as paid clerks or to receive payment from the school for attendance at meetings. But the principle of voluntary public service by governors would be at risk if governors could claim allowances beyond those for travelling and subsistence. We do not consider that such changes would be appropriate.
Bearing in mind the assurances to which I have referred and which are contained in the draft guidance, and in view of the difficulties in my noble friend's amendment, I hope that he will not press this matter.
The Earl of Kinnoull: There seems to be a lack of support in the Committee for this amendment. However, I am grateful for the assurance that my noble friend has given. I should like to ask him to confirm that the clerks of county schools and the clerks of voluntary aided schools will be paid out of the same county council budgets. Can my noble friend confirm that point?
Lord Trefgarne: I believe that I can confirm what my noble friend has mentioned. Both categories of schools to which he has referred will receive a budget in relation to the size of their student roll, the ages of the children, and so forth, and will be at liberty to pay the clerks or not as they think fit.
The Earl of Kinnoull: That I assume is out of the same budget. There was a point put to me previously that it would be a different budget.
Lord Trefgarne: I believe not.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I am grateful for the assurance of my noble friend, and for his reply. I shall read it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Preparation and imposition of schemes]:
Lord Glenamara Lord Glenamara moved Amendment No. 181A:
Page 23, line 19, at end insert—
("(3A) Guidance under subsection (3) above shall include guidance as to the manner in which the school shall meet recognised standards for the health and safety of staff pupils and visitors.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment. Its purpose is to impose a statutory requirement for local authorities to satisfy the Secretary of State that any school being considered for local financial management must meet adequate standards relating to health and safety. A similar amendment was discussed in the other place and the Government replied that there was no need to prescribe regulations because health and safety must be dealt with locally.
There have been surveys of local authority provisions in health and safety which I am happy to send to the Government if they wish. They show that health and safety cannot safely be left to local authorities as a voluntary matter. For example, there are a great many schools without proper first aid facilities, and very few schools throughout the country could meet the standards required for a fire certificate. Most local authorities do what they have to do and nothing more.
Perhaps I may say a few words about each of these two points. The Fire Precautions Act 1971 demands that designated premises have a fire certificate. Section 1(2) of that Act lists the premises that the Secretary of State can designate. This list includes schools. However, at the moment schools do not have to have a fire certificate. The Secretary of State has the power to designate schools; but at the moment these powers have not been implemented. I believe that that is nothing short of disgraceful.
Secondly, with regard to first aid, the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 say that employers must provide such equipment and facilities,
"as are adequate and appropriate in the circumstances for enabling first aid to be rendered to his employees if they are injured or become ill at work".
But we adopt the good old British habit of letting a code of practice determine what is adequate and appropriate. This code deals only with employees. That means that children at school are not counted.
1086
They are not counted in this sense. The code lays down that where there are 150 employees on the site a qualified first aider must be provided. This ratio of 1:150 obviously applies to very few schools and only the bigger colleges, because they need to have 150 employees on site.
I believe that the problem is much greater and much more serious than many Members of the Committee may imagine. A Health and Safety Commission Report on the 12 months ending March 1987 showed that there were 1,227 fatal and major injuries to employees in the education service, but there were 9,267 fatal and major injuries to non-employees—that is, in the main, to children. Just imagine that! Over 9,000 children are fatally or seriously injured in our schools in one year. These figures are very much higher than, for example, for any service industry. Let us take one that one may imagine would have very high figures—the transport industry. Some 861 employees and 86 non-employees were involved in fatal or major accidents.
Schools are very dangerous places, and they always will be. Where young people are involved in vigorous games, such as football and rugby, or carrying out experiments in science laboratories, somebody will always get injured. The purpose of the amendment is to control that injury and as far as possible to mitigate it. I see that the draft circular, to which the noble Lord referred, has a section on health and safety. The opening words of that section are:
"That statutory responsibility for health and safety is substantially unchanged by financial delegation".
That is the point with which I disagree. I want it changed.
Let me summarise. The two points which I believe should apply to schools being considered for local financial management are, first, that they should be required to have a fire certificate, and, secondly, that children as well as employees should be counted in applying the code on first aid.
The Committee may consider it illogical that I am making the proposal only with regard to schools being considered for a local financial management scheme. But this is a category of schools for which we are at the moment in Parliament making statutory regulations. Now is an opportunity to take the first step to make our schools safer places. I very much hope that Parliament will pass this amendment and that eventually it will apply to all schools in our education system. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: As the noble Lord has indicated, the draft guidance to which I have referred on a number of occasions this evening refers to the health and safety arrangements that should apply in these cases. However, I think that the noble Lord has made a powerful case. If, therefore, he will withdraw his amendment now, I will undertake that the matter will be considered further between now and the next stage with a view to considering the possibility of bringing forward an appropriate government amendment.
Lord Glenamara: I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I gladly withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 181AA:
Page 23, line 21, after ("body") insert ("and the Head Teacher".)
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 181AA I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 182ZA, 182AA, 182C, 182D, 182E, 182F and 189AA. If it is convenient to the Committee— because I believe this to be an uncontroversial set of amendments—I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 201C and 201D, which are amendments to Clause 37.
This is a large group of amendments, but they all relate to one single very important issue—the position of the head teacher in the new circumstances of financial delegation by the governors to him or her, and to the need for enhanced clarity in the definition of the head teacher's role in relation to the governors and the local education authority.
They are probing amendments. I do not intend to press them this evening. They are designed to ascertain how the Government see the problem, to ask why in this part of the Bill, in a number of the procedures that are provided for, the head teachers are not mentioned. The local education authorities are mentioned, but not the head teachers. How is it envisaged that the head teachers' role will be safeguarded if things go wrong?
Increasingly during the past few years head teachers have found themselves required to become managers as well as leaders of the teaching team. With financial delegation, as Members of the Committee have been saying, they will have enormously enhanced responsibility, including financial responsibility. In many ways they will be like chief executives with a delicate combination of answerabilities to the governing body, to the authority and to the parents.
It is not easy to understand how that will work out in practice. As I said at Second Reading, I have high hopes of the effect of financial delegation. However, it may be that in the early stages the governors of some schools in some areas will find themselves behaving in a politicised way. For whatever reason, some may attempt to bypass or disregard the head teacher, as has been known to happen.
It appears that in the Bill the role of the head teacher is not adequately safeguarded. The head teacher may not be a member of the governing body. The Bill appears to assume that the governing body and the LEA will always consult the head teacher when it is sensible and right to do so and pay proper attention to his or her views. I have spoken with the National Association of Head Teachers. It agrees that the essential right of head teachers must be set out in certain respects. These amendments attempt to do that.
Amendment No. 181AA proposes that when the local education authority consults the governing body before preparing a scheme for financial delegation it must also consult the head teacher. As Clause 26 stands it requires the governors to consult the head teacher before they respond to the LEA but it does not require the LEA to consult the head teacher in the first place. The amendment rectifies that.
Amendments Nos. 182AA and 182C, 182D, 182E and 182F relate to the procedure for withdrawing financial delegation from the school, the periodic review of that withdrawal and its revocation. As Clause 29 stands it would be possible for all that to happen without the proper involvement of the head teacher. The amendments seek to put that right.
Amendment 182ZA suggests that if members of governing bodies are to have protection for personal liability it should also apply to head teachers. It will if they are members of the governing body, but it will not if they are not members. The amendment rectifies that situation.
Amendment No. 189AA proposes that when the local education authority furnishes the governing body with an annual financial statement it must also send a copy to the head teacher. That appears to be only reasonable but it is not included in the Bill.
Finally I turn to Amendments Nos. 201C and 201D. I realise that it is not cricket to throw in these amendments because they are not anticipated by Members of the Committee. However, I hope that time will be saved. The amendments make the same point and relate to the procedures for the selection of staff of the school. Clause 37 is worded in such a way that the governing body and its selection panel may carry out the whole process and make all the decisions in appointing staff without involving the head teacher in any way. It would be extremely foolish to do so but it might. Again I have consulted the National Association of Head Teachers. These amendments contain what we regard as essential safeguards.
The form of the amendments may not be perfect. As I said initially, I do not intend to press them this evening. However, I hope that my noble friend will agree that each amendment makes an important point. Perhaps she will take them away and look at them carefully. She may even come back with her own amendments at a later stage. The head teachers' role in this part of the Bill is crucial. To leave anything to doubt on the face of the Bill in respect of these aspects appears questionable. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I, too, have attached my name to this series of amendments. I have discussed this with the representatives of the National Association of Head Teachers. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lady Carnegy has said. Indeed, I believe all sides of the Committee agree about the extreme importance of teachers under this Bill and of head teachers in particular—men and women. I hope that there will be more women heads of school.
At this late hour I do not wish to repeat the arguments, but I hope that the Minister will look very carefully at these amendments. Certainly to a non lawyer reading parts of the Bill, it sometimes gives the impression that the only people to be consulted are the governors and not the head of the school. It is very important that the head should be completely involved in the school because at the end of the day he or she will carry a large measure of the responsibility. Therefore, I believe that those points need to be looked at very carefully.
Baroness Seear: I, too, should like briefly to support these amendments.
Lord Kilmarnock: This seems to me to be a very sensible series of amendments. They are of a nuts and bolts nature, but at this stage of the Bill it is very important that the nuts and bolts work. I support the amendments.
Baroness Hooper: The Government fully recognise the vital importance of the head teacher, and indeed other senior staff, being fully involved in the decisions of the governing body under a scheme of financial delegation. That partnership will be the cornerstone of any successful scheme. But the partnership must be based on trust. The 1986 Act already provides for head teachers to be members of the governing body, except where they choose not to be. We expect that increasingly head teachers will exercise their right to be members. Even where they do not, the school government regulations give a head teacher who is not a member of the governing body the right to attend any of its meetings. So heads will be fully involved with the decisions of the governors. This existing framework offers as good a guarantee that the partnership will work as it is possible to provide through legislation.
Turning to the specific point raised in the first amendment, I would point out to my noble friend that Clause 26(4) already requires the governing body to consult with the head teacher, where he has chosen not to be a member of the body, on the LEA's proposals for making a scheme of delegation. The additional consultation requirement imposed by the amendment is redundant, and would simply impose the added burden on the LEA of doubling its number of formal consultees.
The second amendment seeks to ensure that the head teacher will not incur personal liability for anything done in the exercise of his delegated authority under a scheme. That is clearly desirable. But, as an employee, the head teacher is in a different position from lay governors. As now, the employer will be liable for anything a head teacher does in the course of his employment. That will of course include running a delegated budget. The same protection is not available to governors—who are agents, not employees of the LEA under a scheme—and hence Clause 26(5) is needed to make it clear that they are also protected. In either case, acting in bad faith would expose the individual concerned to liability.
The third group of amendments relates to the procedure for withdrawal of delegation. The head teacher will be at the sharp end of any problems, and his views will be of particular relevance. Nonetheless, the framework I have already described should be well capable of taking his views into account. He or she will either be a member of the governing body, or choose only to attend particular meetings. Either way, he or she will have access to notifications given by the LEA and will be in a position to make his or her views known. The amendment would not in practice confer any extra rights on the head.
The last amendment is designed to make sure that the head teacher receives a copy of all financial statements produced by the LEA. That is clearly
1090
desirable. But Clause 34(9) already provides for the statement to be made available in the school free of charge, and the governors must also include a copy or summary of a statement in their annual report. There is therefore no question of the head, teachers, other staff or parents being denied access to financial information. In the light of the protection that already exists I hope that my noble friends will be reassured and will feel able to withdraw this amendment. Indeed, they have already indicated that they will do so. I have noted my noble friends' concerns and I will continue to ensure that they are well covered.
Baroness Lockwood: I am rather surprised by the Minister's response to this series of amendments, which I certainly support. Does the Minister agree that even if a head teacher is a member of the board of governors he or she may have a particular viewpoint based upon his or her professional standing and therefore should be consulted as of right as a head teacher? That is a point that ought to be borne in mind.
Baroness Seear: The Minister made the extraordinary suggestion that, as matters stand, the board of governors could appoint staff without consultation with the head teacher. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am not altogether happy with the reply of my noble friend. I do not believe she has picked up the point I was making, probably because I did not make it very well and it is late in the evening. As regards the first amendment, she said that the governing body has to consult the head teacher before it responds to the scheme for financial delegation. I said that that was so, but my point was that when the LEA originally consults the governing body before it draws up the scheme for financial delegation, it does not have to consult the head teacher. That is the flaw. I hope the Minister will look at that matter.
The point is not that, by implication, these matters are all right but that it would be possible to implement measures without the head teacher being involved in a politicised situation where, for whatever reason, the authority wants to bypass the head teacher who is annoying it or the governors are annoyed with their head teacher and they want to bypass him. I know from experience that this can happen and all the matters that I raise result from my experience and, I believe, from the experiences of other Members of the Committee.
Will the Minister consider not rejecting this out of hand, and will she look very carefully at what has been said? I am sorry that I threw in the other two amendments and that I did not inform the Minister I was going to do so. Perhaps she will look at those too. I thought it might stop us having to go through them this evening, as they are right at the end of the amendments that we hope to cover. Can the Minister give me an assurance that she will look at that before I withdraw the amendment?
Baroness Hooper: Yes. I should have thought that a head teacher who is a member of the board of governors of a school would be aware of all that is going on to the extent that he or she desires. Nevertheless, I agree to look further at these amendments to ensure that all the concerns of my noble friends are covered.
Baroness Seear: The noble Baroness has missed the point. It is not just being or not being a member of the board of governors; the head teacher in her role as head teacher, and not because she is a member of the board of governors, should be consulted and involved in all these decisions.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Can my noble friend interpret a little further what she means in terms of getting the Bill through to its next stage? My noble friend said that she will take into account what was said by her noble friend in moving these amendments. My noble friend said that she will give further thought to them. Does she mean that she hopes that at a later stage the provision can be inserted in the Bill in some way which will perhaps make specific the points that have been made during the course of the debate? Is that the interpretation to be put on what she said?
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may clarify the position. My noble friend's concerns are covered in the Bill as it stands, but I undertake to look at the matter again to ensure that that is so.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It may be that my noble friend will find that this matter should be set out in guidance, but the points have to be covered somewhere. Not all head teachers will decide that they want to be governors. My own view is that they get on very much better if they are not governors. The head teacher who sits back while the governors meet, without a vote but as their principal adviser, and now as chief executive, may well be in a much stronger position to carry out his or her role. This point needs to be considered. It is very late and we still have a long way to go. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 181AB:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
("Access etc. to school facilities.
—(1) Every governing body required to be covered by a scheme shall prepare and adopt a written policy in respect of the use of the facilities of the school by the local community within guidelines established by the local education authority under subsection (2) below.
(2) The local education authority shall publish guidelines for governing bodies for the purposes of securing the effective implementation of this section.
(3) The policy of the governing body shall include a statement of the practice to be followed in respect of allowing access to and charging for the use of school facilities by local voluntary and community organisations.
(4) The governing body shall consult such voluntary and community organisations as appear to it to be concerned before adopting the policy.").
The noble Lord said: I speak only to the first amendment in this grouping, Amendment No. 181AB, in the place of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna who is temporarily laid low.
The amendment concerns the use of schools by local communities. It is well known that school premises are used for a broad range of purposes and by a wide variety of groups. I give a few examples. I think of recreation and leisure, youth groups and clubs, sports clubs, adult education in all its forms, public events—from village fetes to public meetings on all manner of subjects—and many other meetings ranging from regular committee meetings to groups with particular interests or hobbies.
The local school operates as a valuable resource for the whole community. It enables people to come together at times that are most appropriate—evenings and weekends—and, rightly, at little or no cost to themselves. In some cases, particularly in rural areas, the school provides the only available meeting place. It is at the very centre of local activity.
Some schools have carried the process further. Instead of merely allowing access to facilities designed basically for school use, they take community use into account when developing their facilities. I do not see that the Bill takes any account of the need for schools to be accessible to the community. I hope that on consideration the Government will wish to ensure that it does.
A danger to community use comes from increasing pressure on governing bodies to maximise revenue. This could lead to schools taking a strong and inappropriate value-for-money line in charging for the use of school premises, ignoring the less tangible but nonetheless real value to the community of access to facilities. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will feel able to say that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this amendment.
The purpose of the new clause is to ensure, first, that local education authorities provide guidelines on community use of schools to assist governing bodies in the local education authority area in developing appropriate policies on access to, and charging for, the use of school facilities by voluntary and community organisations; and, secondly, that governing bodies should consider the matter of community use of schools in full consultation with representatives of the groups that may be affected, so that they are fully aware of the consequences of any decisions they make on access to, and charging for, use of school premises.
I hope that the Government will find this amendment not only unobjectionable but positively beneficial. I look forward with hope, as well as my usual interest, to what comes from the Front Bench opposite. The procedures envisaged by the amendment should ensure that any decision on the use of school premises taken by governing bodies is taken with the full knowledge both of present use by voluntary and community groups and of the implications of any changes that may be under consideration. The amendment would also ensure

1093
uniformity of practice among schools in a local authority area. It would emphasise the wider role of the schools as a community resource and would ensure that that role is taken into account by school governors when carrying out their responsibilities. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the amendment but nevertheless I have to sound a note of warning. All my working life I have tried to use schools for community purposes—for clubs and for all types of outside activities—but one is always up against the caretakers. Therefore, unless we take into account the fact that more money must be paid out to a deputy caretaker, we shall never have the use of the schools. That factor has always stood in the way.
Baroness Seear: I very much want to support what has been said from these Benches and the caveat from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I hope that the Government fully realise how important community groups are with the variety of work carried out by the voluntary bodies on which we rely increasingly, and how valuable they are to the people who take part in such activities. Without access to free, or nearly free, accommodation a great many of these groups would never be able to start and many of those which have started would fade away. Therefore I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: I support entirely what my noble friend Lady Faithfull said. In my involvement with schools I have tried as a governor and in the local community to get places opened up. It is always the caretaker who does not want his beautifully polished floor ruined by people coming in and playing badminton or something else in the evening. I say caveat caretaker!
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: There is a further point which worries me. One of the things we are doing in the Bill is encouraging governors to have control over their own expenditure. That is only right and proper. Nevertheless, I am afraid that governing bodies might decide that they now have a policy for charging every voluntary organisation an excessive amount of rent for the use of certain premises, which would mean that some voluntary organisations, with no finance at all, would be unable to use those schools. In my view such points have not been properly thought out and I ask the Government to think seriously about them.
Lord McNair: Amendment No. 185A has been grouped by the powers that be with the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has just so ably moved. Therefore I take it that I should speak to it now.
I start with the subject of a school's budget share, which will be expressed as a formula. Clause 30(2) says that the word "formula":
"includes methods, principles and rules of any description, however expressed",
and that gives all concerned a pretty free hand. However, in Clause 30(3)(b) a note of caution can be faintly heard. It provides that the formula,
1094
"may include provision for taking into account any other factors affecting the needs of individual schools which are subject to variation from school to school".
I ask the Committee to please note the word "may"; it means that the formula may or it may not.
Clause 30(3)(a) obliges the local education authority to take into account,
"the number and ages of registered pupils".
Indeed, how could it fail to do so? However, it may consider other factors. The amendment to which I have my name lists some of those other factors.
I understand that the Secretary of State has published a draft circular which lists those services that he intends to describe as mandatory and those that he will allow an LEA to include in its scheme if it wishes to do so. I only heard about that circular this morning, and I apologise to the Committee for not having read it.
I understand that the LEAs must take into account the number of sixth form pupils—that is the first on my list of items that must be taken into account—but the question is the weighting to be given to the different subject choices. All sixth form teaching is expensive, but it is much more expensive to teach science than, for example, English or history.
I am told that the circular suggests that additional costs may be provided for small schools, which is right, but that no account must be taken of the state of repair of the buildings, and that seems extremely unfair. The state of repair varies dramatically from one school to another, chiefly according to the age of the building.
Sub-paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of the amendment refer to staff. Most of the money for the training of staff comes from essential government grants which are excluded from the schemes and formulae. It is surely difficult for an LEA to take full and proper account of all the variable factors. One school may have a higher than average number of probationary teachers; another may have to engage in more redeployment of teachers than the average. Reliance upon averages is invariably unfair.
Sub-paragraph (v) brings up the question of ethnic minority pupils. In some schools, but not all, such pupils will require not only extra help with English but education to literate standards in the mother tongues which they have picked up colloquially at home.
Sub-paragraph (vi) raises the difficult question of what is known as community education. We attach the highest priority to that subject, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, before dinner.
The problem of costing the use of school buildings and facilities by non-school groups, whether youth clubs or adults, is difficult in the extreme. If governing bodies are forced to see such activities as competing with normal education for scarce money, what, we may ask, will their reaction usually be?
I have tried to draw the Committee's attention to some of the problems of imposing centrally a fixed scheme of financial management before there has been time to work out the best way to provide a sufficiently flexible local scheme. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I too should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and speak to Amendment No. 119A which stands in my name and is in the same group of amendments.
There is no doubt that the delegation of certain financial responsibilities to schools and the establishment of grant maintained schools puts at risk current arrangements for the use of school premises by the statutory and voluntary youth service.
Perhaps I may speak as a member of the council of the Scout Association who for many years has been an office holder in the movement in Cheshire. At present thousands of scout groups and members of other youth organisations meet on school premises, the use of which they enjoy at no charge or at preferential rates. Scouts may be rather better at dealing with the problem of caretakers. I do not know. However that may be, if schools are now required to manage and to raise their own additional funds that could jeopardise, and perhaps force the closure of, some scout groups which meet in schools, especially if those schools ignore the arrangements which already exist with the local education authority, increase their own charges or make commercial lettings a priority. To illustrate more precisely what I have in mind, let us suppose that a scout group of about 15 boys meets in a school hall once a week for two and a half hours. Based on figures for some local education authorities, a charge of at least £6 per hour may, I understand, in future be made for the hire of the premises. That would mean that each boy would have to pay an extra £1 per evening for the hire of the hall, compared with an average current weekly subscription of 25p.
I realise that a number of objections may be raised to my amendment—that it is too detailed, its content is already implicit in earlier clauses of the Bill, that once financial responsibility for such matters has been delegated, schools should not have any constraints of this kind placed upon them, or that if anything is to be done to safeguard youth organisations in the way proposed it should be done by order in subsequent regulations.
With all those points in mind, my purpose at this stage is a limited one. It is to establish whether, in the overall national interest, the Government have sympathy with movements like the scouts in the predicament in which they may find themselves if the Bill is passed without an amendment of the kind proposed. Given such sympathy, all that then needs to be decided is how it can best be put into practical effect. I am sure that that is a matter that can easily be resolved in a generally acceptable way.
Baroness Lockwood: I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend. I know that the draft consultative document discusses this matter and leaves it open to local authorities to determine whether or not they will delegate such responsibility. I note that it says nothing in the scheme of financial delegation should restrict LEAs' freedom to issue such directions within the framework of the 1986 Act or to maintain existing community provision on school premises. I think the sentiments there are fine, but they are in a draft consultative document. I prefer
1096
to see them written on the face of the Bill, as my noble friend's amendment would provide.
I have some sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I am not sure whether the wording of his amendment is correct, but I think we want to safeguard the low charges that have been placed on these organisations. That is not just for the Boy Scouts but also for the Girl Guides and right through the whole process to the senior citizens.
Lord Trefgarne: At the outset perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that the draft circular does not rule out an LEA taking account of the repair of schools or, for that matter, any other factor that it considers relevant. What paragraphs 54 and 55 do is to give guidance on factors which the Secretary of State thinks are particularly relevant. But the noble Lord may be assured that providing funds for repairs, for example, is certainly not ruled out.
This group of amendments deals with a number of special factors which the LEAs might take into account in allocating resources to schools and making arrangements for community and youth provision. Amendment No. 185A lists six specific items, including provision for community use of schools which the LEA would be required to take into account in its resource allocation formula, while the new clause and Amendment No. 189A relate specifically to arrangements for community and youth provision.
Perhaps I may turn first to Amendment No. 185A. This seeks to prescribe a list of special factors which LEAs may include in the formulae which they devise as a basis for determining the budget shares of schools covered by a scheme of delegation. The Government would not want to rule out any of these factors being taken into account by LEAs in devising their formulae. But it would be wrong to prescribe them on the face of the Bill.
The Government have made clear that they do not intend to impose a uniform scheme of delegation on authorities and the Bill does not therefore prescribe in detail the content of formulae. The essential aim of delegation is that the available resources should be allocated among schools on the basis of each authority's own formula, derived from an assessment of local needs and circumstances. To include a detailed list of the kind proposed here would unnecessarily constrain the freedom of authorities, in consultation with their schools, to judge for themselves those factors which they wish to reflect in their formulae.
Also to list just these factors would imply that other factors which might account for differences in costs between schools could be ignored. For example, the list does not refer to children with special educational needs; there are likely to be additional costs in catering for these pupils. Our earlier debate made it clear that the Committee would not wish to see the needs of this group in any way devalued.
For their part the Government have made clear that, if delegation is to be successful in enabling parents and the wider community to see how money is being spent, the formula should be simple and clear. If the legislation laid down a large number of

1097
detailed factors for consideration, this would encourage authorities to devise more complicated and less accessible formulae which would not necessarily be any more equitable in their effect.
Clause 30(3)(a) requires that the central determinant in the formula shall be pupil numbers, weighted for differences in age. Sub-paragraph (i) of this amendment will therefore automatically be taken into account.
The draft guidance on financial delegation discusses the basis for the formula in paragraphs 53 to 56. A number of the items listed in Amendment No. 185A are covered. The draft makes clear that the Secretary of State will expect the formula in particular to reflect the additional costs of children with special educational needs and the additional teaching costs of small schools. It also indicates that the formula may provide for different subject weightings within sixth form provision.
The amendment also refers to the use of the schools by community organisations. I should point out that adult provision and youth service provision are not part of the schools budget and cannot therefore be included in an LEA's formula. The draft guidance does however make it clear that LEAs will be able to maintain existing community provision in schools under schemes of financial delegation.
Turning to the new clause and Amendment No. 189A, this last point applies equally to that new clause and to Amendment No. 189A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. The new clause relates to the use of the school premises by voluntary and community organisations, yet requires the governing bodies of all schools covered by a scheme to draw up a policy on the community use of school premises within the guidelines set out by the LEA and after consultation with community interests. Amendment No. 189A provides for conditions imposed by a scheme to include the continuance of current arrangements for free or subsidised provision of facilities for the statutory and voluntary youth services.
The Government entirely agree with the sentiment behind these amendments. Nothing in schemes of financial delegation should restrict LEAs' freedom to maintain existing youth or other community provision on school premises, but this part of the Bill is not the vehicle for that. As I have said, provision for community activity does not form part of the schools budget and cannot therefore be covered by schemes of delegation as defined in this chapter.
Most of the safeguards sought by the amendment are already provided for through existing legislation. Under Section 42 of the 1986 Act the LEA has power to issue directions to the governing body of county and maintained special schools on the use of school premises outside school hours. That may include directions and guidance to schools on charging and letting policies in return for which the LEA will need to compensate the school for the additional costs it incurs.
Section 22 of the 1944 Act provides for the LEA to have power to issue directions in certain circumstances as to the use of voluntary school premises outside school hours for the education or
1098
welfare of young people. Section 30 of the 1986 Act requires the governing body of a maintained school to include in its report a description of the steps taken by the governors to develop or strengthen the school's links with the community. These issues are covered in paragraphs 82 and 83 of the draft guidance on financial delegation to schools. These make it clear that community provision at subsidised rates can continue under schemes of delegation. I hope that I have been able to reassure all the noble Lords who have spoken in connection with this group of amendments and that they will not be pressed.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The response of the noble Lord the Minister will cause great disappointment to voluntary organisations throughout the country. In fairness to the noble Lord, he did not rely upon the caretakers' point. I well remember some years ago when Haringey closed its schools due to a caretakers' strike, and what was said about that by the political friends of the noble Lord. There is, of course, a practical problem about the caretakers but they cannot determine the use that is made of the schools.
I must say that I am disappointed and had hoped for a more positive response and a willingness to require a policy to be adopted on this subject by every governing body in line with uniform guidelines published by local education authorities. The noble Lord asserts that he agrees with the sentiment behind the amendments, but then says that he proposes to do nothing about them. He says that there is some inappropriateness, which we cannot see, in dealing with this matter as it should be expressly in this part of the legislation. However, at this hour of the night I am not minded to test the opinion of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Delegation to governing body of management of school's budget share]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 181B:
Page 25, line 6, at end insert—
("(2A) It shall be the duty of any governing body to which a scheme of financial delegation applies under this chapter to exercise its functions under that scheme having regard to any policy relating to equal opportunities published by the local education authority and within the limits of any existing statutory duty in relation to any curriculum statement issued by that authority.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to move this amendment which, as your Lordships will see, is to ensure that policies relating to equal opportunities which have been promulgated by local authorities shall be carried over as a duty by the governing bodies. The point is that such policies in many cases go beyond the minimum legal requirements; otherwise, there would be no necessity for an additional clause of this kind.
Progress has been made in a number of areas by progressive and rational equal opportunities policies. I am sure that Members on the Government Benches may also be able to think of some local authorities whose policies were not perhaps as rational and practical as they might have been. But that should not blind them to the fact that positive policies of the kind that have been promulgated have had very good

1099
effects in an area in which a great deal of work still needs to be done. I beg to move.
Baroness Lockwood: My name is also appended to this amendment and I should like to support it. There are two aspects of equal opportunities policies in which local education authorities are involved. One is the educational side, and under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 local education authorities have a general duty to ensure that there is provision of educational facilities without discrimination for both boys and girls. It is important that the work that has been done in that sphere should be carried on by schools which have been given financial responsibility. The second aspect is the employment one and, again, many education authorities have drawn up equal employment policies for the staff in their educational institutions.
It is not possible for the Equal Opportunities Commission to deal individually with every school. However, during the last 13 years it has built up relationships with local education authorities. If some of the schools which have been given financial responsibility were to withdraw from the positive approaches which they have undertaken, it could leave a gap in the equal opportunities policy. I therefore hope that the amendment will be accepted.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: The Government support the general intention behind the amendment. However, we believe that its aims are adequately provided for in existing legislation. By seeking to enforce the curriculum through schemes of delegation, the amendment risks upsetting the balance which the existing provisions were intended to create.
The amendment overlaps with the provisions of the 1986 Act, which provides for the local education authority to make a statement of its curricular policy and for governors to have the power to modify the statement for their school. It is not appropriate to seek to use schemes of delegation to constrain the freedom of governors to modify the local education authority's curricular policy. Also, governors will remain subject to the requirements of existing legislation to prevent discrimination on grounds of race or sex both in the curriculum and in other areas.
The governors of all schools, including those without delegated budgets, will have specific duties on the national curriculum under Clauses 1 and 6 of the Bill. In particular, they will have a duty under Clause 6(1)(a) to exercise their functions with a view to securing the implementation of the national curriculum. They will also have a range of other curricular duties under the provisions of the 1986 Act. The draft guidance issued by my right honourable friend makes it clear that schemes of delegation will operate within that framework of statutory duties.
Given the extensive protection already built into the Bill and existing statute, as well as the terms of the draft guidance, I hope that the noble Baronesses will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I do not find that answer satisfactory in the least. The noble Baroness is
1100
confusing the enforcement of a purely—the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is looking at me questioningly. A cat may look at a king? However, the noble Baroness is relying on legislation under the Sex Discrimination Act. The whole point is that many authorities have developed policies in amplification of their legal requirements. It is those policies that we wish to see continued. However, at this time of the night I do not propose to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 182 and 182ZA not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Withdrawal of delegation]:
[Amendments Nos. 182ZB to 182F not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Schemes: determination of budget shares]:
[Amendments Nos. 183 to 185 not moved.]
Lord McNair Lord McNair had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No 185A:
Page 27, line 3, at end insert ("including—

(i) the number of sixth form pupils at the school;

(ii) the state of repair of buildings at the school;

(iii) any training needs of staff;

(iv) any special factors relating to staffing levels;

(v) any special factors related to ethnic minority pupils at the school;

(vi) community education and use of the school by community organisations.").

The noble Lord said: I apologise for any inaccuracies in what I have been told about the circular.
[Amendment No. 185A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 186 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 27, line 15, after ("description") insert—
("( ) expenditure on local education authority support services for special educational needs including a schools psychological service, child guidance services, education welfare service, and peripatetic teaching and advisory services;").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment falls within the group dealing with financial delegation. It is a probing amendment concerning services not directly concerned with the school; that is, outside services. If ILEA is disbanded, can my noble friend the Minister say what will happen in regard to the expenditure on local authority support services—for instance, those covering special education needs, including a school psychological service, and child guidance? Child guidance clinics, about which people know little, are an important part of the children's service. They consist of a psychiatrist, a psychologist and a social worker.
Difficulties arise because of the shortage of social workers in various parts of the country. A number of social workers are being withdrawn from child guidance clinics to work in social services departments which are thus able to carry out their statutory duties. If ILEA is disbanded, I fear that social workers will be withdrawn from child guidance services in London where there is already a shortage. It will be a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Given the number of cases of child abuse and emotionally disturbed children now being treated at

1101
clnics, this would lead to a difficult situation. Where would the expense fall in future?
The education welfare service is comprised of education welfare officers who deal mainly with truancy. These are the peripatetic teaching and advisory services. What will the local authorities do about them? I do not wish to press the matter. The amendment is a probing one. However, it would be useful if my noble friend the Minister could consider the matter. It is my intention to withdraw the amendment after hearing his reply.
Lord Trefgarne: The Government are fully committed to the intention behind the amendment. It is essential that the support services necessary for the effective delivery of education to pupils with special needs should be preserved under schemes of delegation.
The draft guidance issued by my right honourable friend makes it clear that schemes will need to make suitable provisions for pupils with special needs. Paragraphs 38 to 41 provide for local education authorities to have discretion to exclude the costs of specialist support services from delegation where they consider that this will lead to a more effective targeting of the needs of individual pupils.
I recognise that my noble friend raised some specific points. Perhaps she will allow me to write to her between now and the next stage of the Bill. If I am unable to give her a satisfactory response, she can raise the matter again at the next stage.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Schemes: provision for financial delegation:]
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 27, line 31, after ("pupils") insert ("or following a request by its governing body").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak extremely briefly to this amendment. Many people have expressed puzzlement as to why Clause 31 as it stands excludes nearly half of all primary schools, in that those with fewer than 200 pupils are precluded from benefiting from financial delegation even if they wish to do so. The effect of this amendment would be to enable governors of these smaller schools to request that financial delegation be extended to them.
Very briefly, the arguments include first the fact that many small schools, especially village schools but also small schools in urban areas, would welcome the opportunity to manage their own affairs. Secondly, it is simpler to operate financial delegation for small schools because their affairs are less complex than those of larger schools. Thirdly, 200 is an arbitrary number and there will, therefore, be many borderline cases and schools may well move in and out of eligibility for financial delegation as their rolls change from year to year.
Fourthly, all local education authorities are required to set up schemes for financial delegation in any case, so the system is there and can easily be applied for further applicants.
In conclusion, perhaps I may point out that the report entitled Local Management of Schools, commissioned by the Government from Coopers & Lybrand, concluded that:
"if a small school thinks that the balance of advantage would lie with it having delegated powers, we can see no reason why it should not volunteer to have them".
Therefore, many people could not really see any good reasons for not extending this financial delegation to smaller schools. The amendment is entirely within the spirit of the Bill and I and many people outside this Chamber would greatly value some explanation for Clause 31 as it now stands.
Lord Trefgarne: The Government have considerable sympathy with the intention behind my noble friend's amendment, which would allow primary schools with fewer than 200 pupils to opt in to delegation. We believe that the benefits of delegation should be extended to as many schools as possible. Pilot schemes have shown that all schools—including the smallest primaries (for example, in Northumberland)—can benefit from the freedom to target resources on their own educational needs and priorities.
But the Bill already provides scope for extending delegation to these schools. Clause 31(10) allows LEAs to propose to include small primaries in their schemes of delegation if they wish, and we expect that quite a few LEAs will indeed wish to include all primary schools in their schemes from the start.
Clause 33(1) empowers my right honourable friend to make regulations reducing the threshold for delegation to fewer than 200 pupils, or to extend delegation to all primary schools. Once there is more experience of voluntary delegation, my right honourable friend will consider making regulations requiring delegation to some or all small primary schools in all LEAs.
There is therefore ample scope for the inclusion of these schools when the time is right. But premature delegation could be worse than delay. The Government have taken the view, after extensive consultation, that all secondary schools and larger primary schools should be able to manage their own budgets. But smaller primary schools will have fewer management resources to call upon. It would not be desirable to extend delegation to such a school at an early stage if the LEA considered that it was not ready for it. Where the LEA agrees with the governors that delegation is appropriate, the present provision for voluntary extension of delegation will apply; and primary schools without delegated budgets will continue to receive financial information and the more limited delegation provided for in the 1986 Act.
I hope that my noble friend will feel reassured by what I have said and not seek to press her amendment.
Baroness Cox: I thank my noble friend the Minister for that sympathetic and helpful response. I am not

1103
certain that I entirely understand all the reasons for the delay but I am reassured and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 189A not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Publication of schemes and financial statements, etc]:
[Amendment No. 189AA not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Staff employed by local education authority]:
[Amendment No. 189AB not moved.]
12 midnight
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 189B:
Page 31, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: At the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 190A. These amendments go to very important principles in the Bill. Despite the lateness of the hour they merit a detailed discussion in this Committee.
They concern Clause 36, and it is important to be precise about what Clause 36 sets out to achieve. The provisions of the 1986 education Act concerning the determination of the staff complement and the procedures for appointment, suspension and dismissal of staff will cease to apply. The new procedure which will apply is to be found in Schedule 2 to this Bill. Its effect is to leave the local education authorities as the employers but without any of the powers which any other employer in the country has.
Power is to be concentrated in the governors. They will recommend appointments, but the local education authority is obliged to act on their recommendation and appoint unless the individual does not meet certain staff qualification requirements. That is Schedule 2, paragraph 2(10).
Then paragraph 7 of the schedule gives the governing body and or the head teacher power to suspend on notification to the local education authority. On dismissal it is the governing body that will decide, and the authority is again obliged to act accordingly. That is Schedule 2, paragraph 8. Finally discipline too will become a matter for the governors. That is Schedule 2, paragraph 6.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 189B and 190A is to ensure that these powers remain where they properly belong, with the employers, the local education authority. Therefore these amendments involve a major question of principle.
The effect of Clause 36 is that local education authorities are divested in their continuing capacity as employers of the most basic powers associated with the employment relationship. The governors by these provisions are given powers without responsibility, whereas the local education
1104
authorities are saddled with responsibility without powers. In principle that must be wrong. Power and responsibility should go together. So I ask the Minister to tell us when replying what good reason there is for separating power from responsibility in this case. It is a basic question and it should admit of a clear answer. It is difficult to think of any larger insult that could be hurled by government at local authority than the insult that it cannot be trusted with the same powers as every other employer in the country.
The more diverse the bodies to which these powers of suspension and dismissal are given, the greater the disparity in their exercise, the greater the likelihood of inconsistency and the greater the unfairness—not just perceived unfairness but actual unfairness, because like cases should be treated alike. This is not just a point in support of collective bargaining, as it were. I am seeking to make the case for rational, orderly and consistent policies to be fashioned by the one body—the local education authority—with the best overall view of the needs of the particular area.
I now speak a word, not about school governors but about the present governors of our country. Clause 36 is an ill-judged reaction by government to a few isolated cases of alleged misjudgment by local authorities in their role as employers. But surely the most important attribute of government is a sense of proportion. It is a sense of proportion that is so signally lacking in these provisions. The remedy proposed by Clause 36 is to strip every local education authority in the country, the overwhelming majority of which are excellent employers, of the ordinary combination of rights and duties that every employer in this country has. In substance, each body of governors will become a law unto itself and such elementary virtues of government, indeed of employment, as uniformity, consistency and both the reality and the appearance of fairness will be casualties of the Bill.
So the argument in favour of these amendments is the maintenance of consistency of standards where local dislikes or prejudices may run high; and by "local" I mean in the schools or their governing bodies. Teachers should be subject to a body, a local education authority, which is sensitive to and knowledgeable of local issues, but is not dominated by any preconceived view. The local education authority can take a detached objective view based on a uniform policy throughout its area. Where, for example, there are disputes between teachers and governors on issues that could lead to suspension or dismissal then it is better that these issues should be dealt with by a body, a local education authority, which by definition can stand back from local pressure and feeling.
So on these grounds I commend the amendments because the responsibilities of an employer should not be separated from the powers of an employer and because the local education authority is much better suited to resolve in a detached and dispassionate way local disputes on which feelings may run high. I hope that the Minister, when replying to the debate that I hope these amendments will generate, will not simply intone that these two amendments are incompatible with financial delegation on the basis that financial

1105
delegation necessarily entails that everything must be delegated to the governors regardless of the other considerations to which I have called attention and regardless of the obvious appropriateness of certain powers remaining with local education authorities.
I sit down on the basis that these amendments give the Minister—either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness—a first-class opportunity to demonstrate flexibility and not rigidity; a first-class opportunity to demonstrate that the Government of whom each is a member are not opaque to reason on this subject. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: These amendments concern the appointment and dismissal of staff at schools with delegated budgets, and procedures for suspension, discipline and grievance. They would retain various provisions on appointment, dismissal and suspension deriving from the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, and would strike out from the Bill the procedures in Schedule 2 which will regulate such matters when schools have a delegated budget.
It may be said that the 1986 Act was approved by Parliament not so very long ago, and that the procedures established under it have not even been tested. However, there is now a growing acceptance of the value of financial delegation to schools. An essential part of such local management is the management of staff.
It is against that background that one must look at the provision on staffing of the 1986 Act. It is true that that Act involved governing bodies in staffing matters to a greater extent than before. But it still left control with the LEA. The LEA could refuse to appoint a new head teacher chosen by a selection panel, or any other member off staff selected by the governing body. The LEA could appoint to a school, against the wishes of the governing body, any person already in its employment. The LEA could compel governors to end the suspension of a member of staff. And the LEA was responsible for dismissing staff or withdrawing them from the school, subject only to consultation with the governing body and the head teacher.
These arrangements simply would not give enough power to the governing body of a school with financial delegation. They would not have meaningful control over staffing matters. Therefore we have devised the arrangements set out in Schedule 2. They will give governors the power to select staff for appointment, subject only to the LEA checking their status against the teachers' regulations. Governors will establish discipline and grievance procedures and make them known to staff. Governors will have the power to suspend staff and to end suspension. In the rare cases where it will be necessary, governors will have the power to require the dismissal of a member of staff. In this way they will acquire the powers over staffing which we believe to be necessary, indeed essential, for the proper operation of financial delegation.
We strongly believe that governors must have sound professional advice when carrying out their new responsibilities on staffing. Therefore Schedule 2 provides for the head teacher and the chief education officer of the LEA or his representative to give advice
1106
on both appointments and dismissals. They will have the right of presence at all relevant proceedings and the governors will have to consider their advice before acting.
We accept also that there should be safeguards for staff under the procedures in Schedule 2. In response to concerns expressed by the teacher unions we introduced amendments in the other place which gave staff an explicit right to a hearing when their dismissal is being considered, and a right of appeal against a decision to require dismissal before that decision is transmitted to the LEA.
I hope that I have explained to the Committee's satisfaction why the procedures in Schedule 2 are an essential part of financial delegation, and must for that purpose replace the procedures laid down under the 1986 Act. I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press the amendment, but if he does I must ask the Committee to reject it.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: At this hour of the night all that I can find to say about the noble Lord's response is that it was predictable. That is the only respect in which it has not disappointed me. It would not now be appropriate to test the opinion of the Committee, and accordingly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I give notice that emphatically the matter is of such great importance that we shall return to it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 31, line 43, after ("applies") insert ("and the determination of their duties, grading and remuneration").
The noble Baroness said: At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 196 to 201 which relate to the terms and conditions of non-teaching staff in schools with delegated budgets.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 requires LEAs to appoint non-teaching staff to these schools on the recommendation of the governing body. The Government's concern is that governing bodies should have adequate discretion over the terms on which non-teaching staff are appointed. In order for financial delegation to be meaningful, governors need the discretion to decide on the duties and grading of a post, the hours for which a part-timer is employed and some aspects of remuneration.
Therefore, Amendment No. 196 defines governors as having discretion over certain specified aspects of terms and conditions. First, it starts from governors having discretion over the duties staff will be expected to perform, including, where the post is part-time, the hours of work. This is consistent with governors defining the complement of non-teaching staff and the nature of the non-teaching posts. It then requires governors to recommend a grade for the post from one of the scales of grades currently operated by the local authority. For example, this would give the governors discretion about the grade in which, say, a new secretary would be placed. Once they have chosen a grade the governors will be bound to respect the terms and conditions (such as leave and pension entitlement) which are attached by the authority to that grade. The amendment then specifies that where

1107
the authority has discretion over how much the person appointed should be paid, that discretion should be exercised by the governors: this could apply, for example, to the starting position on a salary scale for a new appointee.
We believe that this amendment strikes a proper balance between the need to give governors flexibility over the kind of appointment they make and the need to give reasonable assurance to staff about their terms and conditions. It will give governors a clear framework within which to recommend people for appointment.
The governors are already required to consult the head teacher and, in the case of posts involving more than 16 hours' work a week, the CEO, before selecting someone for appointment as a member of the non-teaching staff. Amendment No. 197 requires that there must also be consultation before the governors take decisions about the matters within their discretion under Amendment No. 196. We believe that this is an important safeguard for the LEA.
Amendments Nos. 198, 199 and 201 are technical and consequential. Amendment No. 200 simply requires LEAs to give effect to the governors' decisions on terms as required by Amendment No. 196. Amendment No. 190 is a paving amendment to Clause 36 which allows for these amendments to Schedule 2.
I commend these amendments to the Committee. They clarify the arrangements for appointing non-teaching staff in schools with delegated budgets and should result in a fair system for employees as well as giving the governing body the discretion it needs. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I must say that sometimes I wonder whether the Government understand what they are doing. By this amendment they are seeking to carry further the process which I criticised when speaking to other amendments of divesting the local education authorities, as employers, of the powers that every other employer in the country enjoys. Powers to determine the duties, grading and remuneration of staff are to become subject to Schedule 2; namely, the province of the governors. It must be appreciated therefore that this is a far-reaching amendment.
We oppose it. These matters—that is to say the grading, remuneration and so on—should par excellence not be determined according to the subjective notions of each governing body. There must surely be a uniform policy consistently applied throughout the education authority. Nothing could be less desirable than to have grades and remuneration in schools which differ according to each governing body. In a profession where there is already serious dissatisfaction and unrest this amendment adds fuel to the flames. Non-teaching staff at one school will simply not understand or accept that those at a neighbouring school, doing identical work are receiving more pay and enjoying a higher grade. They will not understand or accept why that should be so. This new power which is to be
1108
added to the governors' powers is obviously inimical to ordinary collective bargaining.
The same employer—the local education authority—may well end up paying different pay for work of equal value. I ask the Minister who is to reply this question: Have the Government given any thought to the implications of this amendment under the equal pay legislation or Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome? Are not the governors being given powers which, when exercised, will put local education authorities under equal pay legislation liabilities or liabilities under Article 119? Have the Government thought about that and, if so, what precisely have they to say on this rather serious point?
Baroness Young: Is it not a fact that were these criticisms to be taken as they have been explained by the noble Lord who has just spoken, they would actually cut at the heart of financial delegation? The fact is that, broadly speaking, the cost of teachers is some 80 per cent. of the cost of schools. I may not be absolutely right about that percentage but that must be the approximate figure. What we have had before in financial delegation is financial delegation as far as it goes but excluding the employment of teachers. Therefore, if one excludes the employment of teachers one is not giving financial delegation to schools. I am sure that my noble friend can answer the specific legal points which must be covered, otherwise this amendment would be quite inappropriate. In its way this is a kind of wrecking amendment on financial delegation.
Baroness Seear: May I ask for clarification? Technically, under financial delegation, who will be the employer of the teacher or non-teaching staff? With whom will the contract of employment be made? Will it be the local authority which does the actual paying, or with the school? This is of extreme relevance to the point made by the noble Lord.
Baroness Hooper: We believe that these amendments flow naturally from the principle of financial delegation, as my noble friend Lady Young said. In making these appointments governors must have regard to a number of factors in deciding on the appointment and what grade to give to the post. Like everyone else, the governors will be obliged to act in accordance with general law, and in particular with the law on sex discrimination. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the contract of employment for non-teaching staff, as for teaching staff, will be with the local authority which is the employer.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 190A not moved.]
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 190B:
Page 32, line 9, after ("costs") insert ("or any part of them").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 191 and 202. I commence with Amendment No. 190B. My first point is a drafting point and one which I hope the Government can accept. Clause 36(4) provides:
"Costs incurred by the local education authority concerned which arise from the dismissal or premature retirement of any member of the staff of any such school shall not be met from the school's budget share for any financial year unless the authority have good reason for deducting those costs from that share".

1109
With the provision as presently drafted, it may well be that the local education authority can deduct the whole of the cost where it has good reason for doing so but cannot make an apportionment, as it were, and deduct only part of the cost if it thinks that that is the appropriate solution. This amendment, which I hope the Government can accept, gives greater flexibility to a local education authority in allowing it to deduct part only of the cost. I hope that the Government will see the merit of the amendment and accept it.
Amendments Nos. 191 and 202 go to a quite separate point. For this reason the grouping is not a particularly happy one, but I shall speak to these amendments as well. The three lines at the end of subsection (4) of Clause 36 mean that, if, in breach of a no-redundancy policy of the local education authority, someone is dismissed because of redundancy, the costs of the redundancy cannot be allocated to the school budget. The school does not have to pay for redundancies even if those are in breach of local education authority policy.
Amendment No. 202 is the mirror image of Amendment No. 191. The last three lines of Clause 37(11) provide:
"The fact that the authority have a policy precluding dismissal of their employees by reason of redundancy is not to be regarded as a good reason for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this subsection".
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 191 and 202, therefore, is to reverse this. If a school dismisses in breach of local education authority policy on redundancy, the policy can be enforced by attributing the cost of the redundancy to the school's budget share. The case for the two amendments is that local education authorities, which, as the noble Baroness has been good enough to confirm, are undoubtedly the employers in law, should be allowed to enforce any no-redundancy policy by attributing to the school's budget the cost of the redundancies where they are carried out in breach of the local education authority policy.
I appreciate that Amendments Nos. 191 and 202, to which I have just spoken, are controversial. However, I hope that Amendment No. 190B can be approached on a different basis, because it is designed to create more flexibility in a provision of the Bill that is otherwise not challenged. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: In supporting Amendment No. 190B, I too should like to apeak to Amendments Nos. 191 and 202, which are grouped with it and appear under my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said, if the words contained in lines 10 to 12 of subsection (4) in Clause 36 and the corresponding words in Clause 37 are not omitted from the Bill, they could result in a school's governing body making an employee redundant at the expense of the local authority, even though the authority's policy is that there should be no redundancy, or only redundancies that are voluntarily accepted. Thus agreements that have been freely negotiated between local authorities and their employees that there should be no compulsory redundancies can be undermined.
That is a good example of the way in which power and responsibility are being separated by the Government under Clause 36 in the way so
1110
eloquently described by the noble Lord. I too should like to know what justification the Government have for permitting this to happen.
Lord Trefgarne: Subsection (4) of Clause 36 is concerned with the allocation of costs incurred by a local education authority which arise from the dismissal or premature retirement of any member of staff. The subsection provides that the costs which arise in such cases shall not be met from the school's budget share for any financial year unless the authority has good reason for deducting those costs from that share.
Our assumption has been that there may be cases where the LEA decides that some but not all of the costs should be met from the school's budget share. Amendment No. 190B writes into the Bill itself after "costs" the phrase "or any part of them". There is no need for this amendment as the drafting of the Bill, by referring to costs rather than "the costs", already provides for the possibility that the LEA might decide that only some of the costs would be deducted from the school's budget share.
I now turn to Amendment No. 191. The second part of subsection (4) states that the fact that an authority has a policy precluding dismissal of its employees by reason of redundancy is not to be regarded as a good reason for deducting redundancy costs from a school's budget share. Amendment No. 191 would delete the second part of this subsection.
This part of the subsection puts an important constraint on the good reason that can be used by an authority for requiring costs to be met from within a school's budget share. The deletion of this part of the subsection by Amendment No. 191 would mean that an LEA could refuse to pay the costs of a dismissal resulting from redundancy merely because it had a no-redundancy policy. It could claim that its policy in itself was good reason to refuse to pay costs.
There are cases where LEAs decide on principle that to make people redundant is always wrong. We do not regard that as an acceptable reason for the LEA to refuse to pay costs outside the delegated budget. Under financial delegation the governing body will be responsible for managing the staff of the school. It may on occasion be necessary, for example, to reduce the number of staff working at a school because of falling rolls or to change the mix of teachers because of a change in emphasise in the school curriculum. In those circumstances it must be open to the governing body to decide that someone needs to be made redundant.
Amendment No. 181 would not actually stop governing bodies from being able to determine that someone should be made redundant. However, having to meet the costs of redundancy from within the school's delegated budget could in turn create further redundancies.
We believe that the second part of the subsection as it stands is necessary for the good management of schools. It must be for LEAs to consider each case on its merits. We do not accept that they should be able to decide on the attribution of costs purely on the basis of a blanket no-redundancy policy.

1111
Amendment No. 202 is identical to Amendment No. 191 in suggesting the deletion of the same sentence from Clause 37, which deals with aided schools. We oppose this amendment for the same reasons that I have already referred to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: As I expected, Amendments Nos. 191 and 202 are controversial. The Government disagree with them, and it would not be appropriate to test the Committee's opinion on those subjects tonight. Therefore I shall not move those two amendments. However, I am distressed at the inflexibility and rigidity that the noble Lord has shown in relation to Amendment No. 190B. I spend my life construing documents, and I believe that my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna does likewise. I do not agree with the advice that the noble Lord has received. I am reinforced in my view by the knowledge that my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna agrees with me that there is every likelihood that the courts would construe the word "costs" as meaning the whole sum incurred by the local authority in that way.
If there is any doubt about the matter, and if it is intended by the Government, as the noble Lord says, that part of the costs can be deducted, I see no reason why we cannot just write into the Bill the words in the amendment to which the name of my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna appears so as to put the matter beyond doubt. It will do no harm, and if it were right it would do good in the sense that what the Government say they want to achieve will undoubtedly be achieved. I press the noble Lord to say that he will at least further consider the advice that he has apparently received on this point.
Lord Trefgarne: If it would help the noble Lord, I shall consider whether the wording can be clarified. I believe that it means what I said it means, but if the noble Lord would like me to consider it further I am happy to do that.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am most grateful. I have no doubt that the noble Lord believes that the wording means what he says. I hope that having heard what I have said he will at least have some doubt and question those who are advising him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Appointment and dismissal of school staff, etc., during financial delegation]:
[Amendments Nos. 191A to 193 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 193A:
Page 178, line 47, after ("three") insert ("but not more than five").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 193B, 194A, 194B and 194C. This is an important group of amendments which addresses directly the process whereby head and deputy head teachers are appointed under the Bill. The Committee knows that
1112
the Bill, as currently drafted, gives the power to control the appointment of head teachers to the governing body while retaining the employer role for the local education authority, which is what we have just been talking about.
Schedule 2 sets out the process whereby the governing body appoints a selection panel, consisting of at least three of its members, to interview and to make a recommendation to the governing body. If that recommendation is approved by the governing body the applicant is recommended to the local education authority for appointment. The local education authority is obliged to appoint that person as head teacher or deputy head teacher unless, under the terms of paragraph 11 he does not meet a staff qualification requirement applicable in relation to his appointment.
The provisions illustrate the absurdity of divorcing the role of the employer from that of appointment. The amendments set out to produce a fair balance between the interests of the local education authority and those of the governing body, while accepting the broad intention of the Bill to increase its role in this area.
The amendments propose that the selection panel should contain an equal number of representatives of the governing body and the local education authority, numbering between three and five in each case. The panel should meet to interview applicants and make a recommendation to the local education authority as to the applicant whom it considers should be appointed. The education authority would then be bound to consider the appointment of that person. It is important to stress, however, that the amendment would remove the obligation of the local education authority to appoint the person recommended by the panel. This is surely essential if the education authority is to remain the employer.
It is difficult to think of another instance of an employer who is disbarred from the right to appoint and dismiss staff. It would be useful if the Minister could supply examples and point to the benefits which the Government believe could accrue in this area.
The logical position for the Government to adopt in giving control of staffing under local financial management to governing bodies would be to make the governing body the employer in all cases. The fact that this is impractical for financial as well as organisational reasons is testament to the poorly thought out nature of the proposals. Such a significant devolvement of employment opportunities would also substantially prejudice the job prospects of teachers seeking to move from one area to another or between schools.
The Government have attempted, however, a compromise to which it will be very difficult to give effect in practice. The amendments seek to produce a fairer system for interviewing head and deputy head applicants in the interests of the effective implementation of the legislation. These of course are very closely linked to what my noble friend Lord Irvine has been talking about. This is an effort to make the situation slightly better and slightly fairer to the LEA as the employing body, and I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 sets out the arrangements which apply when a head teacher or deputy head teacher is to be appointed. These arrangements require that the governing body shall notify the LEA of the vacancy in writing before taking any steps, and that before recommending any person for appointment the governing body must advertise the vacancy in publications circulating throughout England and Wales.
The governing body is required to appoint a selection panel consisting of at least three of its members. The selection panel is required to interview such applicants for the post as it thinks fit; where it considers that it is appropriate to do so recommend to the governing body for appointment one of the applicants interviewed by it; and if its recommendation is approved by the governing body, recommend the applicant in question to the authority for appointment.
Throughout this procedure the governing body will have expert professional advice. Under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 the chief education officer is entitled to attend, for the purpose of giving advice, all proceedings of the governing body and of any selection panel which relate to decisions about the appointment of a head or deputy head.
We do not regard the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, as consistent with the necessary consequence of financial delegation that governing bodies should have the responsibility for selecting their staff. Amendments Nos. 193A and 193B would mean that the selection panel would have to consist of equal numbers of LEA nominees and governors with an overall size of between six and 10. Amendments Nos. 194A and 194B would remove any role for the governing body itself in deciding whether to accept the recommendation of the selection panel.
Under the existing wording of paragraph 1 the authority is required to appoint the person recommended by the selection panel unless that person fails to meet specific staff qualification requirements set out in regulations made under Section 27 of the 1980 Act. The effect of this provision is that the LEA is under a duty to appoint the governing body's recommended candidate other than in very specific circumstances. For example, the LEA could refuse to appoint someone if he or she was not a qualified teacher. Amendment No. 194C would mean that the LEA would not be required to appoint the governor's recommendation but would only have to consider the appointment of the recommended teacher.
We believe that these amendments should be rejected as they water down in an unacceptable way the responsibility upon a governing body for selecting the person for appointment to a head or deputy post.
Baroness Seear: The last thing I want to do is argue this matter at this time of night, but the Minister has said that the amendment is not compatible with the authority necessary for the governing body under local financial management. What she has not answered, because it has not been thought out, is how
1114
the Government's proposals are compatible with the fact that the LEA remains the legal contractual employer. This is a real difficulty. We ask the Government to take this matter back and think about it again.
Those of us who are keen on local financial management—that certainly includes those on these Benches—are not trying to catch the Government out. But we are saying very seriously that this is an unresolved problem which at a more suitable moment in the 24 hours of the day we should like to hear discussed in much greater detail. We hope it can be resolved.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: It was notable in replying to the debate on earlier amendments which were moved that the Minister did not reply to the point that I raised in relation to the Equal Pay Act and Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome.
She did not reply adequately for the good reason that one governing body will not have the least idea of the pay, the conditions and other terms of service being fixed by another governing body of another school in another part of the local education authority. Because of this detachment of power from responsibility in a really unsought way governors, through no fault of their own, are very likely to run into breaches of the Equal Pay Act and/or Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome.
It is simply not good enough to say blandly that the governors will comply with the sex discrimination laws. They will not have the information or the means at their disposal to do so unless every time they fix someone's terms and conditions of appointment they then conduct a survey of what is happening in all other schools.
Baroness Hooper: I can only say to that that any employer who runs a small business and has to employ someone must be in the most dreadful difficulties.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: With respect, the noble Baroness has totally missed the point. The problem arises because the local education authority remains the employer in law of all these persons, who may end up doing identical jobs at different rates in various schools with different governing bodies. It is the local education authority as employer which will be liable under the Equal Pay Act and Article 119, not the governing body.
Baroness Hooper: I have already explained that the chief education officer of the local education authority is entitled to attend for the purpose of giving advice as regards the proceedings of the governing body.
The Bill sets out a balance of responsibility between the governors and the local education authority. Financial responsibility requires a transfer of responsibilities to the governing body but the advice of the chief education officer will always remain very important. The pay and conditions of teachers will of course be governed by the teachers pay and conditions Act.
Baroness David: But will the advice be taken? There is absolutely no reason to believe that it will. The noble Baroness has read out from Schedule 2 a great deal which I knew. We find that very unsatisfactory for the reasons I have given. The reason for these amendments is to try to improve the situation.
I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a very important matter, but this time of night is not really the time to discuss it. We shall most certainly come back to these matters on Report. We shall then no doubt press them to a Division if we do not receive more satisfactory answers than we have received. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): Is it the Committee's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Denham: No.
Lord Grantchester: The Question is that Amendment No. 193A be agreed to?
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 193B to 195 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 196 to 201:
Page 181, line 32, at end insert—
("(1A) Such a recommendation shall be in writing and shall specify—

(a) the duties to be performed by the person appointed (including, where the post is part-time, his hours of work);

(b) the grade (on the scale of grades currently applicable in relation to employment with the authority) which the governing body consider appropriate for the post; and

(c) where the authority have any discretion with respect to the remuneration to be paid to a person appointed to the post, the determination of any matter to which that discretion applies which the governing body consider appropriate in the case of the person recommended for appointment.").

Page 181, line 33, after ("post") insert ("and determining in relation to any such recommendation any matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (1A) above").
Page 181, line 36, leave out ("selection") and insert ("decision").
Page 181, line 37, after ("involves") insert ("or, in the case of a new post, it is proposed that it should involve,").
Page 181, line 40, after ("body") insert ("on such terms as to give effect, so far as relates to any matter mentioned in sub-paragraph (1A) above, to the governing body's recommendation with respect to that matter").
Page 181, line 42, at end insert—
("(3A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A)(c) above, the authority are to be regarded as having a discretion with respect to the remuneration to be paid to a person appointed to any such post if any provisions regulating the rates of remuneration or allowances payable to persons in the authority's employment either—

(a) do not apply in relation to that appointment; or

(b) leave to the authority any degree of discretion with respect to rate of remuneration or allowances in the case of that appointment.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 201A and 201B not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Staff at aided schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 201C to 202 not moved]:
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 41 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 202A and 202B not moved.]
Lord Denham: I think that this is the time when we can conveniently adjourn the business for tonight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Brighton and Preston Cemetary Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at six minutes before one o'clock.